Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

WikiProject Professional Wrestling
Professional wrestling as a whole is under general sanctions
Welcome to the WikiProject Professional wrestling discussion page. Please use this page to discuss issues regarding professional wrestling related articles, project guidelines, ideas, suggestions and questions. Thank you for visiting!

Requested move at Talk:AEW x NJPW: Forbidden Door#Requested move 17 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:AEW x NJPW: Forbidden Door#Requested move 17 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 1isall (talk | contribs) 15:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Copyright images by Sarah Bellia

The user uploaded several copyright images of wrestlers as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sarah Bellia - Wikimedia Commons. Many of those images still exist cropped, like File:Tiffy Time 042025 (cropped).jpg. Is there a way to delete them all? BinaryBrainBug (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

There are far more. Please nominate them for deletion whenever you fin them. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Use of 411Mania retrospective reviews as "Reception" for PPV articles

I've noticed a troubling trend that basically every classic pay-per-view article uses 411Mania retrospective reviews, generally from 15+ years after the event, as the primary or sole content in the "Reception" section. A major one is Over the Edge (1999) where a 2013 411Mania review is used as the encyclopedic "reception" entry to a major 1999 event.

I don't want to say that 411Mania can never be used for criticism, but I don't think this meets the weight and framing tests. A single retrospective review from a random person who temporarily wrote a blog for one site does not seem sufficient to represent "Reception" across the board for event after event, especially in examples where contemporaneous coverage, wrestling press, newspaper coverage, etc, exists.

My opinion, and seeing if there is support, would be to treat these type of entries as, at most, secondary "retrospective" reviews, adding contemporaneous reception, and either trimming or fully removing it from articles where a single retrospective fan opinion is the only reception source. I feel fairly strongly about this but want to confirm project consensus before going in and editing multiple PPV articles. Hsox05 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

To play Devil's advocate; how is noting the viewpoint of 411mania to a specific PPV different from, say, Pitchfork's viewpoint on a specific album? Pitchfork and other music review websites are frequently cited on music articles.

If 411mania has a credible editorial oversight of its articles, it wouldn't be all that problematic. CeltBrowne (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Are there examples of albums from major artists where the entirety of the "Reception" section is a single Pitchfork review, generated 15 years later? I just pulled a couple 20ish year albums randomly out of the ether - Hybrid Theory, Kelly Clarkson's debut album and those have pretty thorough reception sections.

Did a little more research on the writer of the article in question. I'm not going to get into details because I don't mean to disparage any one person, but the entirety of the "Reception" of Over The Edge 1999 - one of the most talked about shows in wrestling history, being credited to basically a random kid's opinion, isn't encyclopedic. Hsox05 (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hit submit too quick. It's not even just that one article, none of the reception entries in that era should solely be based on a random opinion from over a decade later. Hsox05 (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem with retrospective 411mania reviews. Many films use retrocpective reviews too. If the problem is lack of contemporary reception, add it.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess my point is, I think it's problematic to have that as the sole "reception" entry. I agree the reception sections should be expanded, and that that type of review can be included once it is. But until it's expanded, if the choice is to have 1. Just A decades-later opinion piece by someone who wrote for a blog for 6 months as the encyclopedia entry, or 2. No Reception section at all, I would pick option 2 100% of the time. Hsox05 (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:PW/RS lists 411Mania in the "Limited reliable sources" category. If the source is going to be used, this is the kind of stuff it should actually be used for (as opposed to sourcing contentious claims in BLPs). WP:WEIGHT applies when using the source; if it's the only source used in the section, that's more of a problem with the way the article is written than an issue with the source.LM2000 (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The weight conversation is where I think the issue lies. See my comment above replying to another user. Whether it's an issue with the way it's written is irrelevant, in the sense that leaving it as the only measure of reception is indeed giving a shaky source undue weight. IMO it should be stricken or expanded, but not left as is. Hsox05 (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I also don't see any issue with using 411Mania for this.★Trekker (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The definition of a "home base"

Hi there, I wanted to bring this up because of some issues in regards to Template:All Elite Wrestling. Just wanted to ask about the definition of what qualifies as a "home base". Considering that many promotions have had or are at the time of this post, using a venue as a "home base" from independent promotions to major promotions such as the National Wrestling Alliance, Ring of Honor, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, All Elite Wrestling, and WWE. What do you think the definition should be as there hasn't been a set definition on what constitutes as a "home base"? Unknownuser45266 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2026 (UTC)