Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Hello. I have been thinking about this for a long time. As you may know, we have the article List of professional wrestling matches rated 5 or more stars by Dave Meltzer. I'm not suggesting to delete the article, since it's sourced and his rating has been proved notable. However, I think the article has a huge amount of matches. Until January 4, 2017 (when he gave 6 star to Okada Omega), there was just 113 5 star matches (including one 6 star). Now, there are 322 5 star or above matches. While it was a rare rating in the past, Meltzer now gives 5 star ratings on a weekly basis (Revolution has two 5 star matches and one 5.5 match). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Would you agree to level up the rating? Maybe, including only 6 star matches? For decades, the roof was 6 stars (Flair vs Steamboat). Since the new roof is 7 stars, maybe we may include only 6 star matches. Since the max amount of stars is 7, it's kind of poitless to include 5 star matches. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

No, all of the old historically significant 5-stars shouldn't be removed just because Dave Meltzer has been going overboard in recent years. At the very least, the article can be split up. However, I'd just leave it how it is. The list doesn't look very long to me anyway. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, we can include all five stars before the 7 star match, but after the 7 star, include only 6 stars.

He used to give occasional 5+ star ratings (e.g. 6 out of 5). Has he actually changed the rating system so that every match is rated out of 7 stars, or is he just more prone to hyperbole these days? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, take a look on the article. Only 2026, he gave four 5 stars, three 5.25 stars, one 5.5 stars and 6 stars. From 2020 to 2026 (159 matches listed), there are 29 5.25 stars, 22 5.5 stars, eight 5.75 stars, six 6 stars, one 6.25 stars and one 6.5 stars. 67 matches are above 5 stars. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like the system is still out of 5, even if he's made a mockery of it. I don't think it makes sense for us to say that a 5/5 match is no longer to be viewed as a 5-star match. We should stick to reporting the facts. It seems like the real problem is Meltzer's reports and falling standards rather than Wikipedia's coverage of it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I really disagree with removing 5 star ratings, as they're the thing that made the whole rating system notable. In fact, while the 6 and 7 stars are obviously "bigger", I still think the 5 stars are actually more notable. If we make any change to the article it should be to split it by date. Everything pre, say, 2016 is one article and everything post is a new article (these dates are arbitrary, I'm open to a better range). — Czello ^(music) 06:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how we have such an article in the first place. Meltzer himself agrees he is not a critic but a journalist/historian. We don't even have such pages for actual film critics who are much more mainstream, like List of films rated 4 stars by Roger Ebert. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Strictly by wiki standards, this page is probably failing WP:NOTABILITY to be honest. Currently the only refs are all to the WON, Meltzer himself and one ref to Bret Hart's biography. I'm not keen to get this page removed or sent to AFD, but there's definitely a lot here that could be improved, starting with expanding why Meltzer's reviews are considered important by fans/wrestlers. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The article Shoichi Arai has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly sourced article about a wrestler, only sourced to his club's website. Tagged for needing additional sources for 18 years. Fails the relevant notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

I've mentioned tbis before, but this phrase seems to be popping in more and more WWE wrestler ledes with every passing day. Just recently I've seen it on Cena, Orton, Rollins, Punk and Reigns' pages, and seems to be constantly edit warred over. I would be fine with this but for every single one of these I've seen the sources are terrible, just lists of low-effort top X WWE Wrestlers from 5-8 years ago or someone on the WWE payroll calling them amazing. Can anything be done about this? It really makes the articles look poor in my opinion, especially the ones that add about six low-quality refs after the claim to make it look they've been backed up.RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It's just silly on some pages. Booker T's article says he is "Widely regarded as one of the greatest professional wrestlers of all time". Booker T really? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how Booker T is out here catching strays. I mean Booker T is the first actual African American to win a world championship in WWE, excluding the Rock, who's obviously mixed race and identifies with his Samoan heritage more. He's also the most decorated in WCW history winning 20+ titles overall. He's a trailblazer for black wrestlers. So he is one of the greats.

The thing about wrestling is that its clearly not comparable to other sports, and wrestling is rather a form of art than a real sport. So its very normal and expected for it to have many greats, instead of a select few. There's so many things that come to play here, not only the physicality, the mic skills, the popularity, longevity, and impact/influence, and the POLITICS etc etc. There's GOATs in different categories. The list does stretch a bit long when we actually list out people based on the aforementioned attributes. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 23:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Kane is "one of the greatest professional wrestlers of all time."? LOL ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, with Kane I don't agree. 😂😂😂 His Attitude Era run is iconic though. Swoonfed ^(Ping) 23:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @HHH Pedrigree and @Prefall since they were involved in this earlier.

Swoonfeed, I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make on these pages and edits. All of what you say can be true but as it stands, the words on these articles don't back up such a bold claim to include such phrasing in the lede at the moment.

Booker T's for example, currently uses as its proof that he's one of "the greatest professional wrestlers of all time" as two wrestlers who are friends of his and have worked with him a bunch over the years, and a sports journalist saying 25 years he's one of the best in what (I think?) appears to be a radio segment _with_ Booker T. For someone unfamilar with Booker T, how is this possibly strong enough to make the case that he is one of the best at professional wrestling in the sport worldwide? (And yes, without qualifiers you have to assume a wide a net as possible). If the lede said "greatest wrestlers in America" maybe you could argue it, but certainly the sources don't back the current reason. You mention "He's a trailblazer for black wrestlers." as a justification for why he should be referred to as a GOAT - and I agree, Booker T is incredibly important in that regard. But at the moment his Legacy section just says he was the first "African-American WCW World Television Champion" and "second African-American to win a world championship in WWF/E (after The Rock)". It doesn't say _why_ this was so important, or the impact this had on WWE/wrestling. Are there any wrestlers who have been inspired by him for example? Did his winning of this championships lead to more black wrestlers winning gold, or was he a one-off in that regard? I wouldn't know based on the section, so as it stands the page could make a much stronger case for such an important point in his legacy.

Now specifically for Orton/Punk, the sources again don't match the claim. First, the ref bombs look bad. Six refs in a row for Orton is pure WP:CITEKILL, and the four in Punk's case is also egregious bad as that is meant to be a FA level article (questionable at this point tbh, but that's a story for another time). More importantly, again, none of the sources call Randy/Punk one of the greatest wrestlers of all time. They certainly say they're some of the best in WWE (and the SI's case, best in wrestling shows WWE owns) but WWE isnt the whole of wrestling. How are they viewed outside the WWE bubble? What do European/Japanese reviewers think of them, and how do they compare to wrestlers from there? Putting aside storyline championships, why are they praised so highly? Are a few top X lists really the best analysis we have? At the moment you have a starting case for "one of the greatest WWE professional wrestlers of all time," but nothing in these sources look outside WWE's world.

(Incidentally since it got mentioned in your edits, I don't really mind if the SI ref specifically is kept or not; I was simply trying to get rid of the ref overkill and thought that was one of the weaker rankings. The more important thing is reducing the six-ref count to at least four).

To reiterate, I am not saying these pages can never have this claim in their ledes. What I am saying is that the sources are currently too low quality for the point they're trying to make. Professional wrestling does fit into a weird spot when it comes to analysis, but that doesnt mean Wikipedia should lower its standards.

Also for the record both Orton and Punk are two of my favourite wrestlers, accusations of tribalism in your reverts are not helpful. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Again it's one of those things. Wrestling is scripted unlike actual sports and the Championships should not be treated as accurate metrics. There are better ways to write. You don't have Leonardo DiCaprio lead mentioning him on of the GOATs. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, Leo isn't the GOAT. However, Al Pacino includes the GOAT statement. Scorsesse also includes one of the GOAT directors. Prince, one of the greatest musicians of his generation... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I was going to start a discussion for CM Punk, since there is an issue with the GOAT statement. Maybe, later. The GOAT statement is really hard. I remember the project discussed it months ago (I don't remember which article). The conclusion was that we need a lot of heavy sources for that statement calling them greatest of all time. No "one of the best WWE wrestlers" or appearing on a ranking. Also, while praise from other wrestlers is fine, we have to remember they are not neutral and every now and them, a co-worker makes a "greatest of all time" statement. As Random says, no WP:SYNTH. That means, Booker is a good wrestler, a great tag team wrestler, one of the few Black World champions = GOAT. No, sources calling him GOAT. Maybe @Lee Vilenski: can guide us. Also, while titles are notable, just remember R-Truth won 61 WWE titles, Raven won 39 titles in WWE and Shinobu Sugawara won 216 titles in DDT.

The articles

Booker T: 5 sources for the GOAT statement (not counting stats, since wrestling is scripted). 86, Kurt Angle calls him one of the top 5 wrestlers of all time. 23, a reporter calls him "one of the best alive", no GOAT. 87 JBL calls him the best adquisition WWF had when they defeated WCW, no GOAT. 89, WWE says Harlem Heat is the greatest WCW tag team. Again, no GOAT. 92, Booker was voted as the Greatest WHC. Again, no GOAT.

Kane: 263, Ric Flair calls him the best in the world. 264, Big Show calls him the best big man ever. Undertaker calls him the total package. Again, no GOAT statement, all of this is praise from co-workers, but no GOAT statement.

Punk: 360, SI ranking with the best WWE wrestlers. Only WWE, no GOAT, also Punk is 17. 361 Bleacher report ranking of greatest WWE wrestlers. Only, WWE, no GOAT. Punk is 20. 362 Another Bleacher Report of top 25 wrestlers of the Quarter of the century, only WWE and Punk is listed N 14 362, another ranking, from Complex. Greates WWE wrestlers. Only WWE, Punk is N 25. Also, the article included a source ranking the greatest 101 wrestlers of all time, Punk was 31. So, a list of rankings, Punk is not even top 5 and most of them are only for WWE wrestlers.

Funny thing, I tried to find Booker and Kane. Since they are GOAT, they should appear. SI WWE they aren't mentioned. BR Greatest. Kane 31, Booker 33. BR Century Booker 24, Kane is honorable mention. Complex: Kane 30, Booker 38. 101 GOAT Kane 81, Booker isn't mentioned.

So, all of these articles takes praise from other co-workers and WP:SYNTH into the Greatest of all time. Not every wrestler is the greatest of all time. Booker and Kane are influenital, loved by other wrestlers and remarkable highlights, but no Greatest of All Time. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Per the last discussion we really need robust sourcing for these claims. Top 10 or 100 lists aren't good enough. Other wrestlers saying it isn't good enough, as that is undue weight on one person's opinion. Last time McPhail made the point that the level of sourcing on Ric Flair's article should be the standard, and I agree. — Czello ^(music) 08:06, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree. See also WP:EXTRAORDINARY - "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". I think we should remove sentences of this nature where there isn't proper sourcing. McPhail (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I concur; needs to be supported by reliable secondary sources. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify with This, the lede should be a summary of the article. The article should go into depth about the persons achievements, and for something like this you would need to discuss what sources have said about the person. That could be summarised in the lede with this phrasing, but it needs to be clarified in the body who is saying they are "the best" or "most significant" or otherwise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Peyton Royce#Requested move 2 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Red Shogun412 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Billie Kay#Requested move 2 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)