Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 113

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Hi all, a few thoughts spurred on by recent edit back-and-forths on Seth Rollins’ page, though this is predominately based on observations I’ve had for a while and a few topics I’ve seen raised in the archives previously. I wanted to raise some thoughts and suggested improvements I had to handling introductions for a wrestler’s page.

I appreciate this is provocative, but I believe many of the opening summaries for articles on wrestlers on this website are far too long and aren’t particularly useful for readers who aren’t familiar with the person already. Very often they go over the 400-500 suggested word length, list the belts/accomplishments have, and ultimately don't give the reader much insight to the person or their career outside of the scripted victories they've had. This can be enough in some cases, but I think there is more than be done here. Some of the below has been discussed previously, likewise the Style guide, but others I don't think have been. The below is also not aimed at one page or other in particular, with some pages having some of this issues while others not, just general trends I've observed.

* X (born ZZZZ), commonly known as Y, is a [nationality] professional wrestler currently signed to A. They are the current B champion in their nth reign.

Standardised across most wrestler pages, and is good! Quickly introduces the reader to the person, lets them know where they work, and if they’re a title holder.

* They also known by the nicknames A, B and C.

This can be more mixed. Nicknames are a different beast to stage names. I’ve found a few times on pages where these have been included but are relatively out of date - A was used under a previous gimmick but isn’t referenced anymore. Especially in WWE’s case, these are sometimes listed because they were used on TV but are very rarely used by anyone outside of the show. You’d never want to include “also known as The Icon” on Sting’s page for example. Unless you can prove a wrestler was widely called by this nickname at a given time, I don’t think they should be included.

* Is widely regarded as the greatest of their generation/all time

This gets added (or attempted to based on some pages’ edit history) to nearly any wrestler who's been a main eventer for 5+ years, especially in WWE. As was brought up on this talk page in summer, this often gets linked to a dodgy source like a Top 10 list, where WP:OR or WP:SYNTH applies (also it's just a WP:NPOV violation usually). For example, Asuka’s page right now. I would absolutely agree she’s one of the greatest wrestlers around, but is the best proof for this really a link to a list WWE made and a top ten list of WWE women wrestlers? I’ve also seen a few instances where PWI’s 500 list gets used as the justification, which is arguably worse; those lists are grounded heavily on kayfabe performance in the year, so all this says is that in the promotion’s stories X wrestler was very/not very important. Unless we want to state Tyrus was a top 60 wrestler in the world in 2023, this doesn’t say anything.

To be honest, I don't think the majority of wrestler pages can make an assessment of a wrestlers reception, since they're usually just a long recap of the events in their career and rarely go into detail of how they were received at the time or after. Someone like Roman Reigns, with his whole article dedicated to his reception, would be fair to include a few lines in their opening. So would Hulk Hogan, whose bio discusses both Hulkamania and his several scandals. Wrestlers like Rollins and Moxley, who have detailed pages but touch very little on how they’ve been received by the public, shouldn’t. I imagine most sources on this topic would involve interviews with other wrestlers close to the wrestler, so ideally for such a claim you could only include this line if it comes from a series of sources not affiliated with the current wrestler’s promotion.

(MOS:CITELEAD also says you shouldn’t have any cites in your lead because everything there should be justified by the main body of text, but that’s a lost battle until there’s a serious effort to add reception and/or legacy sections to more wrestler bios)

* Wrestler is also a X champion, Y champion, Z champion, A champion, totalling N championships.

This is probably the biggest lead bloater I’ve noticed, though I suspect this might be my most controversial point I raise here. If the reader isn’t aware of the status of the belts listed, a giant list of belts is meaningless to them. If the reader is aware, then there’s nothing stopping them from going to the “Championship” section where all of this is listed. I’d argue as well that this goes double when we mention the wrestler is a Triple Crown/Grand Slam champion (which is an accomplishment I think should be mentioned due to relative rarity) - if they’re accomplished this, it’s repeated words to say they’ve won each belt that makes up the components of it.

If the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents, for a good chunk of wrestlers I’d say “has held multiple/X number of titles in their promotion [including X belt]” is enough; it gets the point across the wrestler is accomplished a lot (or not so much) in their time with the promotion without the reader having to read “championship” multiple times. For more prominent wrestlers, I would contend we really should be listing the ‘top’ tier of belts the wrestler has won in their biggest promotion(s - Moxley should absolutely have references to his world titles in WWE and AEW), with exceptions for notable achievements with lower belts. E.g Gunther being the longest reigning intercontinental champion, Miz and Jerico having a very high number of IC reigns). If the promotion has several belts at the wrestler’s top tier (eg, WWE’s many versions of a world championship) just summarise it as something like “has won multiple [tier] championships, most recently the X belt in 20XX”

* Sentences in the summary like: X is the only wrestler to hold the A, B, C, D championships. X is the only wrestler to win X and Y world titles in Z and A promotions. X holds the record for longest match. At Y days, X has the third-longest reign in the belt’s history

9 times out of 10 this is some random trivia and should be removed immediately. Only exceptions would be a record the promotion itself has frequently made a big deal out of, like most Royal Rumble eliminations or total time in the Rumble.

* Lack of anything that's not belt related

Professional wrestling is ultimately, a story based show written by a creative team. The wrestlers are there to put on a show for us all. If we look at the vast majority of wrestler articles, they are 80-90% just a recap of the wrestler's time in said shows. Surely it makes sense to include at least one of their most notable storylines? It literally has to be a sentence or so, but it seems a bit odd to list a wrestler's belt collection in a vacuum and nothing else; especially since wrestlers often don't feud with a belt on the line. This sort of quick 'heads-up' for the reader could be in a few ways, and depends on the wrestler. Maybe they're best known for their time in a stable, maybe some sort of blood-fued, maybe they were just consistently good at making the audience laugh. But if in each article we think it's important enough to list the majority of their career's work on a page, the very least we can do is point out where the more interesting parts are.

* Lack of anything out of wrestling

The opposite issue to much of the above! A relatively minor thing, but often a wrestler has done something outside the wrestling ring, and a summary should reference that if what they’ve done is important enough to mention elsewhere on the page. For most it would only be a line and nothing more, but I think it’s typically fine to include a line like “Outside of wrestling, X has also acted in a few shows/movies, most notably Y”. I would not bother including “appearing as themself” roles or anything related to wrestling video games - it’s a given that wrestlers will appear in a promotion’s game.

---

I think those are all my main thoughts at this time, and would be happy to discuss further to see if some sort of consensus could be built. Below I'd written up a quick example of how I see the summary for someone should ideally read.

---

John Smith, known professionally as Sam Jones, is an American wrestler currently signed to TXT. He is the current TXT US Champion, in his second reign.

Prior to signing with TXT in 20XX, Smith wrestled in several independent promotions under the name John Adams, winning multiple championships, mostly notably the XYC world championship. After joining TXT, Jones has won their premier belt, the TXT World Championship, 2 times, amongst other titles. He is a 3-time TXT Grand Slam champion, as well as a TXT Rumble winner, and has headlined multiple TXT pay per view events, including TXT's annual premier event, TXT Ultra, four times. Known for his aggressive, submission-based workstyle, his most notable feuds were with Tim Daveson and Dave Timson, with both storylines revolving fighting for the TXT World Championship.

[Only if there was a ‘Reception’ section expanding this] During his career, Jones has been regularly praised for his technical in-ring ability. However, his professional conduct since 20XY has been routinely criticized, resulting in a negative reception from audiences and critics.

Outside of wrestling, Jones has also acted in several films, such as Dawn of the Wrestler and Overdrive, the later of which he won the 20XZ Golden Tyre for his portrayal of Cage Williams.

RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Wow, that's a huge statment. I agree on your points. The article is, according to our MoS, the key points of the career. So, the Lead is the summarie of the key points. Several times, we focus too much on promotions and titles, maybe it's not essential to include, IDK, Undertaker's Hardcore title reign or several Trios championships. Also, I feel several articles focus too much on matches and don't talk about context. What the wrestler meant at that time. Of course, this a case-by-case scenario, Hulk Hogan is not Akira Tozawa. Also, I don't like "X is the only wrestler to hold the A, B, C, D championships.", since most of the times are trivia. Include only if it's heavyly sources, enough WP:Weigh, like Ron Simmons being the first African American World Champion or Kenny Omega being the first gaijin to win the G1 Climax. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I love this idea. Ditch the trivia, summarize their importance to the industry. Holding lots of mid-card belts is not really about importance (unless it's some sort of record, and even then it should be an all-time one). Headlining the biggest shows of the year is. There may be something to be said for being the only person to win the top titles across all the major promotions in operation during their career—it speaks to the person being seen as a top draw across the industry and to the breadth of the wrestler's career—but it's not a substitute for an actual overview, and should only be mentioned if it's named as significant in a third-party source. oknazevad (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

For example, Steve Austin. The lead mentions the million dollar title, world tag team and IC titles. Maybe, its better to talk about the World Championships, his feud with McMahon, the trilogy with The Rock... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. oknazevad (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to flag we should not be saying "current". McPhail (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

1) Using terms like "current" and "currently" is MOS violation per WP:MOS, MOS:CURRENT, and MOS:REALTIME. We have already removed "currently" from many articles. 2) I'm against the addition of nicknames. Sorry, but they are all ridiculous; e.g. Goddess and Five Feet of Fury for Alexa Bliss, Piggy James for Mickie James, The Spanish God for Sammy Guevara, The Golden Draw for Jake Crist, and many other nicknames. Mentioning them in the lead section is just WP:FANCRUFT, and they could lead to future problematic edits. --Mann Mann (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

2 Maybe we can include nicknames if there are highly notable. Now, it's a new nickname for every new character, but we had Hitman Bret Hart, Jake Snake Roberts, Rowdy Roddy Piper or Greg The Hammer Valentine. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

What about stuff like The Prodigy? Notable? --Mann Mann (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses all! I wasn't aware of MOS:CURRENT but I'm certainly not against leaving 'current' out of articles.

For nicknames I'm broadly agree with @Mann Mann in terms of gut feeling. Particularly in WWE every new wrestler gets given a new nickname as part of their brand (or even just when they get a new gimmick), and I'm not convinced the majority of fans use most of them causally (though as always, the use of a good source might argue the case for a given wrestler). I would er on the side of caution when including them in the lede unless they've stood the test of time (like the three examples @HHH Pedrigree gave), though we should include them when they become relevant in their career sections. So for Roxanne Perez I definitely wouldn't include 'The Prodigy' in her lede, but something like "Perez made her WWE debut on the April 15 episode of NXT Level Up where she defeated Sloane Jacobs. Commentators began referring to her as 'the Prodigy' in reference to her strong wrestling skills despite her young age." in her "Professional wrestling career" section would work to me.

I think outside of the nicknames, it appears we're in relative agreement for the rest of what I wrote. I'll leave this open until next weekend to allow more discussion, but perhaps if there's still general approval then I can add some of this to the style guide? There's already a good chunk written there, but that way it's a bit more of a formalized idea and we reference it when making summary changes. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't look there's any more movement on this - I'll start typing a draft style guide addition later this week and share when completed RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember a bit late but to note on not using "current", it was also decided that we should be using Template:As of to notate how long a wrestler has been signed to a company. For example, "As of August 2024, Smith is signed to TXT", or conversely, "Smith has been signed to TXT since August 2024". I, as well as some other editors, have tried adding it to various articles and some are still there but some have been removed by random IPs or other editors who just don't know and we've had to add hidden notes to some so that editors stop removing it. JDC808 ♫ 09:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @JDC808, would definitely agree that's the way to go. I think unfortunately "currently" is just a very easy word to use when trying to keep info up to date, so it'll be hard to keep on top of that!

As an aside, a good example of the issues I'm hoping to tackle when I get to finish writing the style guide has reared itself on Cena's page, with a minor edit war going on over how to phrase the bit about him being "widely regarded as the greatest of all time". I've put a note on the talk page to discuss if anyone here is interested in discussing that here. (Courtesy ping to @HHH Pedrigree and @oknazevad) RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Edge (wrestler) 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) 19:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

There's a discussion at the village pump here about whether professional wrestling should remain a contentious topic ("general sanctions" were converted into CTs in Nov 2025), input from people involved with the topic area would be very welcome Kowal2701 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

On January 5 at New Year Dash!!, Yota Tsuji re-unveiled the IWGP Heavyweight Championship belt after beating Konosuke Takeshita at Wrestle Kingdom 20 for the IWGP World Heavyweight Championship. The championship has been active since 2021, since a merger was made between the original Heavyweight title and the IWGP Intercontinental Championship via Kota Ibushi and the IWGP Committee. Of course, this was momentous, but it has caused some confusion that I think needs to be sorted here.

On the January 6 conference post-show(s), Yota Tsuji had his wishes blessed and confirmed by NJPW president Hiroshi Tanahashi regarding the title; notably, it states that the IWGP Heavyweight Championship lineage and the IWGP World Heavyweight Championship lineages are to be merged as one, with the two belts being now intertwined. It means that Yota Tsuji would be recognized as the 87th IWGP Heavyweight Champion, in spite of the 15th IWGP World Heavyweight Champion placement as well. It confirms that Will Ospreay (who has acknowledged and proclaimed himself as such) is the 74th IWGP Heavyweight Champion, Konosuke Takeshita the 86th, Zack Sabre Jr. the 83rd and 85th, so-on and so-forth.

HHH Pedrigree has reverted edits about the new-found changes in the title history and reigns analysis table, stating that it goes with the information displayed on the njpw1972 website; this despite the changes made in the Japanese section of the title, where it shows the combined lineages together (for example, Will Ospreay would be listed as "74 (2)" and Konosuke Takeshita would be listed as "86 (14)" under section in the box detailing the reigns of the title). We have discussed this in the talk section, but we are split.

I want solutions to this, because this has been a confusing mess. I suggest the following:

• the IWGP World Heavyweight and IWGP Heavyweight Championship articles be merged, with their histories combined into one, as per the current standing by NJPW, with specific detail about the merger, the declassification of the World title, and the appropriate changes to the analysis table and the history box.
• a separate page for reigns, as to not crumble down and expand the article(s) too much.

If there is anything else that can be appropriated to be added and suggested, leave them here. Regardless, we need to come to a conclusion about this when we can. Frippinator (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm pointing the following. Agree that both titles merged their lineages. But 1, NJPW (both Japanese and English) includes both titles as separate titles, HW active and World inactive. 2, title history jump from Kota to Yota (Yota being the 87th champ). Of course, the World champions are in between, but are not included in the official website and it's 3 days now from the press conference. 3 We have a similar example. WWE decided to merge the lineage of WCW Light Heavyweight and WCW Cruiserweight titles. However, we include both as separate articles. I'm just pointing that both articles should be separated since both are separate championships and I prefer a note mentioning from 2021 to 2026, the lineage belongs to World Title, not including the World title reigns into the HW history, similar to the official NJPW website. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Everyone, I made my first Wiki page for a promotion in Winnipeg Pro Wrestling. I was wondering what advice y'all may have for helping me make it better. I am also going to their February show and i hope to get some pictures to make it better that way too. Thank you in advance. McCIrishman (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes" article just duplicates the Dynamite-related information on the "List of All Elite Wrestling special events" article, except for the ratings and the match card (which doesn't need to be stated there). It's redundant. Thus, I request that the ratings from the "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes" be transferred to "List of All Elite Wrestling special events" before deleting the "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes". TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@TheVoicelessWriter the special events article covers ALL special events, not just Dynamite (so in addition to the Dynamite specials, it also includes the two specials that happened in summer 2019, the special episodes of the former Rampage, the special episodes of Collision, any specials of Dark or Dark Elevation, the former Battle of the Belts series, and any other special that wasn't a special episode of their regular weekly programs). The Dynamite one only includes the Dynamite specials. JDC808 ♫ 20:24, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I know all of that. I'm saying that the "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes" article is redundant since the "List of All Elite Wrestling special events" article already covers the events in the "List of AEW Dynamite special episodes" article. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Katsuhiko Nakajima 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) 03:30, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Low priority Can we come to a consensus on what colours we are using in tables such as the Royal Rumble?
First, I feel these three colours are too close:

  – Raw

  – TNA

  – Celebrity entrant

Not enough contrast for those who struggle with colours. All three are used in the 2025 Men's RR table. Then we also have inconsistent use for HOF, used across multiple years.

  – Hall of Famer (HOF)

  – Hall of Famer (HOF)

Similarily, Impact/TNA has used

  – TNA

  – Impact Wrestling (Impact)

With some argument for distinguishing the two, the Impact colour is very similar to

  – NXT

And then in 2020 we run into this

  – NXT

  – NXT UK

  – Hall of Famer (HOF)

Where not only do the three colours lack contrast, but NXT is using the same colour that then became Impact (and was also previously used for ECW), and is different from future NXT colours.

I think we get the point! The concern for me is more about contrasting colours, and will admit having two different brands match across pages years apart is hardly a real problem, but I do think some consistency would be nice. This is also not even discussing the inconsistencies in bolding/not bolding, using abbreviations, phrasing, and black/silver borders. I also do recognize that there is not going to be a perfect solution, especially in terms of contrast, no matter what (though we could always use symbols - ◊, ⌑, etc. - too) –uncleben85 (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using colours to show information like this on their own regardless. See WP:ACCDD and MOS:COLOR:

Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information, or for distinguishing elements such as links, templates, or table rows. Always provide an alternative method—such as an accessible symbol and/or text (for example, ✔ Approved), a colored table with an icon and text (for example, see table on the right), or clearly written footnote labels.

As for how we should handle contrasts, see MOS:COLORS for examples. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, the tables do have a column for which brand they are from, when applicable. –uncleben85 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Why have the colours at all then? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As a secondary, quick glance additional formatting. Similar coloring is used alongside a superscript marker at list of Super Bowl champions to denote the teams' conferences, for example. We cannot rely on color solely because of accessibility concerns, but there's nothing saying we can't use it in conjunction with other markers for aesthetic and convenience purposes, just as long as the colors themselves are sufficiently accessible. oknazevad (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Below is every single colour guide that has been used across Rumbles–uncleben85 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

More information Brand, Distinction ...

Brand	Distinction
– Raw   – Raw   – Raw	Raw branding has stayed consistent in colour, but swapped between black and silver borders, and being bolded or not
– SmackDown!   – SmackDown   – SmackDown!   – SmackDown!   – SmackDown	SmackDown has been listed as both SmackDown! and SmackDown due to change in branding, and has swapped between black and silver borders, and being bolded or not
– NXT   – NXT   – NXT	NXT has appeared as pale yellow, and a slightly paler yellow
– NXT UK
– ECW   – ECW   – ECW	ECW has appeared as yellow, beige, and silver, and swapped between black and silver borders, and being bolded or not
– Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide (AAA)   – AAA	AAA has been listed by both its full name Lucha Libre AAA Worldwide and its common name AAA
– 205 Live
– TNA   – Impact Wrestling (Impact)	Total Nonstop Action Wrestling competitors have appeared under the TNA and Impact brands with different colours
– Hall of Famer (HOF)   – Hall of Famer (HOF)   – Hall of Famer (HOF)   – Hall of Famer (HOF)   – Hall of Famer (HOF)   – Hall of Famer (HOF)	The "Hall of Fame" distinction has appeared as yellow, beige, and silver, and swapped between including the abbreviation in the link or not and being bolded or not
– Unaffiliated   – Unbranded   – Legend   – Legend	The terms "Unaffiliated", "Unbranded", and "Legend" have each been used for wrestlers that were not affiliated to a brand at the time, and has swapped between black and silver borders, and being bolded or not
– Celebrity entrant
– Unable to compete due to injury
– Unable to compete due to illness
– Winner   – Winner   – Winner	The "Winner" distinction has stayed consistent in colour, but swapped between black and silver borders, and being bolded or not

Close

This would be my personal suggestion–uncleben85 (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

– Impact / TNA depending on branding at the time of the event

– Raw

– Celebrity

– Winner

– NXT UK

– NXT

– AAA

– ECW

– SmackDown! / SmackDown depending on branding at the time of the event

– 205 Live

– Hall of Famer (HOF)

– Unable to compete

– Free agent

outside of RAW and Smackdown, why do we need to give everything a colour? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Having the colours helps understand the content at a quick glance, imo. But what threw me, and started this process, was that flipping between pages, I could no longer immediately go, "Oh, yellow! That means NXT!" It's a more effective/efficient visual guide than reading the labels, for users like me, though should remain accessible for others.–uncleben85 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

But, 80% or more of the event is going to be the RAW or Smackdown participants. Do we need a colour code for "celebrity" or "Hall of Famer". Surely we can keep everything else white and list them in the column. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts on standardizing:

• Per my formatting proposal further down in this discussion; remove the color legend in articles entirely. We can maintain a list of what colors should be used at WP:PW/SG, for user reference.
• Restrict color usage to one column—the Brand and the Winner's name—rather than the entire row. This will improve readability and WP:COLOR accessibility, and make the colors obvious as to what they refer to without the need of a color legend.
• Bold should only be used on the Winner's name.
• Remove any "Status" indicators and only list Brand. That would remove Celebrity, Legend, HOF and Unable to compete.
• Instead of "Free agent", we would list "Unaffiliated" under Brand, with no color.

As for which actual colors to use, I think we need to test readability before deciding. How easy is the text to read with the color in the background of the column? Prefall 08:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

To follow-up on the colors, here's a quick comparison to show what they look like in the table. I used the colors @Uncleben85: suggested above. (Note: Other editors, feel free to add more colors to this table for comparisons/suggestions.)

#FAB4AF	Raw
#AFB9FF	SmackDown
#FF8	NXT
#DCB57A	NXT UK
plum	205 Live
#DCEEFF	ECW
lightgreen	AAA
#FF6060	Impact / TNA
gold	Winner
#ffe6bd	Winner

Generally, bolder colors feel too harsh on the eyes. I would prefer to tone down Impact (#FF6060), 205 Live (plum) and Winner (gold) into lighter shades. ECW as a light blue feels strange too—it's a good color, but ideally it would be something closer to its brand identity. I also added #ffe6bd as a suggestion to Winner—the same color used to indicate active champion on championship articles—as I think that's a nice-looking color that's easy to read. Prefall 08:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I feel good about all of that. I agree ECW feels wrong, but we had red for Raw and TNA already... –uncleben85 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

My 2 cents. 1, Strong oppose to Free agent. It's kayfabe, some free agents, like Omos, aren't free agents at all since he is signed by WWE. 2, I never understand the HOF part. It's not a brand, it's a distinction. Also, sometimes, a Hall of Famer is part of a brand. 4, I don't get the Celebrity, but wharever. 5, I agree with Lee. Maybe it's too much color. We can include color brands but other stuff, keep it white. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Good point about free agent. "Unaffiliated" might be better. And, I don't understand why we are currently using a silver HOF guide in the 2026 Men's Rumble, only to not use that colour and just list Rey Mysterio as "HOF" next to his Raw designation. I think your idea to keep the colours limited to brands is a good idea. List everything else out with labels. –uncleben85 (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

6 Can you tell me in which Rumble "– Unable to compete due to illness" took place? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Royal Rumble '94. We don't actually even have a colour guide, but orange is used to note Bastion Booger's illness, so I included it. ETA: 1998 used just a plain cell to note Skull being ruled out. –uncleben85 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I've long thought the use of color in our articles is extremely overdone. I don't think we should get rid of it entirely, but instead it should be limited to the "Brand/Status" column, and the winner's name, to improve readability / WP:COLOR accessibility. For example:

More information Draw, Entrant ...

Current example, from Royal Rumble (2026)

Draw	Entrant	Brand/Status	Order	Eliminated by	Time	Elimination(s)
1	Charlotte Flair	SmackDown	23	Lash Legend	59:49	2
2	Alexa Bliss	SmackDown	5	Charlotte Flair	13:29	0
14	Liv Morgan	Raw	—	Winner	43:50	3

Close

More information Draw, Entrant ...

Proposal: How limiting color to one column would look, and other formatting changes to "Winner"

Draw	Entrant	Brand/Status	Order	Eliminated by	Time	Elimination(s)
1	Charlotte Flair	SmackDown	23	Lash Legend	59:49	2
2	Alexa Bliss	SmackDown	5	Charlotte Flair	13:29	0
14	Liv Morgan (Winner)	Raw	—	—	43:50	3

Close

With these changes, the Color Legend would also not be needed anymore, since it'd be clear from reading the columns which color applies to what.

Still, I'm fine with standardizing which colors are tied to which brands. And sidenote, I recall a previous discussion about not using the term "free agent" anymore due to the confusion it could cause. Just list "None" or "Unaffiliated" as the brand. I'm a little more torn on the use of "HOF". Prefall 20:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better in general. I do think it should be SmackDown, RAW and other. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we should have some distinction between other WWE brand extensions (NXT, Evolve, ECW, 205 Live, NXT UK) and non-WWE-exclusive brands (TNA, AAA). It admittedly is a lot of colours, but I listed all options and realistically we usually don't get more than 4 or 5 in a table at a time, including Raw and SmackDown. By biggest interest in the matter though is consistency and readability, so if that means cutting back on colours, then that makes sense too. –uncleben85 (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that's much improved. oknazevad (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:BLPN § Ludwig Kaiser. Left guide (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Sherri Martel 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) 04:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Just a nitpick. Recently, NJPW created a new stable, Unbound Co. The stable has 12 members (14 members two days ago). The infobox is huge due to the billed heights. Do you think it's usefull? I mean, I understand the heights and weight with tag teams, maybe trios. But include the height of 12 wrestlers... i don't know, maybe FANCRUFT. Also, the weight is atronomical, most matches will not include every member of the stable. Do you think we should remove height and weight for larger stables? There are similar stuff with Don Callis Family, The Mighty Don't Kneel... HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree, it does seem to be excessive WP:FANCRUFT. Perhaps we should impose a limit of 3 wrestlers for the billed weights in the infobox - after that point we do away with it. After all, if anyone wants to see those weights they can simply navigate to that wrestler's article. — Czello ^(music) 10:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

At no point in a wrestling match will they bill all 12 people let alone all by height. This is extortionate. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, everyone!

May I ask your help on this article "Man Up", on the composition section? I'm trying to find on what's behind lyrical of Man Up.

Thanks! ROY is WAR Talk! 05:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Dude, we know about armdrags and suplex, no music XD. Well, about the Lyric, Wilson character is against the toxic masculinity, "Tonic for the toxic". and brings a new masculinity "They told me, "Man up", I said, "Which kind?"" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

"What?", Kidding aside, this is my first to create a wrestling song, so I don't know where I will link this. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Kit should have his own article by now.★Trekker (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@StarTrekker:, here's an idea. Go create it. Seems redundant to say he should have one. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:15, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I've looking at the Aliyah and return to the independents section needs some updates. I haven't been able to find any accurate information, results, etc.. What's there is a grammatical mess with a source that's doesn't even relate. Any help with be appreciated. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Which updates? According to Cagematch, she wrestled two independent events, most probably no very notable. Next thing was a Reddit rumor that she was wrestling her wrestling stuff, maybe retiring, but not confirmed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree, I guess winning a her first title post-WWE isn't notable. Seriously though, even though she hasn't wrestled much, a title win is notable. (Not saying you have mention everyone). The section still needs to be updated. A source is needed for the for winning the Destiny World Wrestling Women's Championship. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Notability is given by Reliable Sources focusing on the fact. If the first title won after her WWE work is notable, it would be reliable sources about her title victory, no just WP:ROTUINE reports like Cagematch. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree, I know how things work. I never said anything about Cagematch. I don't know if the following article was linked on Reddit but the article has what you said about her hinting at retirement. She hasn't wrestled since January 2025 and the Destiny World Wrestling Women's Championship was declared vacant in August. It's worth noting. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Was editing One Pro Wrestling to update the titles as deactivated as the promotion has been closed since 2023. Now it says Not be confused with IPW:UK. Unless I'm missing something, what's there to be confused about? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Emmmm. Maybe the IPW its too similar to 1PW?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree, there is nothing related between the two. They are two distinct promotion with different acronyms. It's not like World Championship Wrestling and World Championship Wrestling (Australia) where the distinction would need to be made. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the only common thing I see. I and 1 are similar... I guess we can delete the tag. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

"1" and "I" could very well be mistaken in written correspondance. I don't see any harm in the tag. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski, by logic, it also applies to IWA Mid-South, various International Wrestling Association promotions, International Wrestling Alliance, International Wrestling Syndicate, International Wrestling Federation, International Wrestling League, and others. Doing a quick search and vertical the line for the letter I is seen as sans serif type faces are most common and favoured for readability. But it's still unnecessary to use the tag to specifically differentiate between IPW:UK and One Pro Wrestling. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

In some articles referring to WWE Evolution (such as Ronda Rousey), it is described as an all-women's pay-per view: "She won the Raw Women's Championship at that year's SummerSlam, and headlined Evolution, which was WWE's first all-women's pay-per-view". Is this grammatically correct? I think it could be a "women's pay-per view" or an "all-women pay-per view" but "all-women's" doesn't sound right. As this could affect a few different pages I thought I'd ask here. 1202Alarm (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Gramatically, "women's pay-per-view" would be a pay-per-view belonging to women (or all-women in this case). In a way that would be true, but it's clunky and with "all-women" it doesn't work right. I'd recommend "first female exclusive pay-per-view" or similar. Even with my wording, it suggests that men couldn't watch the pay-per-view, but I think that's a very small way to read that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Randy Orton 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. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Do we treat these as characters, or is it actually supposed to be accurate? This guy is nowhere near 6'7" or 300 lbs, but that's what they "bill" him at. It's ridiculous... --Onorem (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It is meant to be as a character - the key part of it is billed height. That said, I'm not sure any other fictional character article on Wikipedia gives such prominence to in-universe stats like this, but wrestling has always been unique like that. — Czello ^(music) 21:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. Usually, pro wrestling it's just a few inches. But there are times where it's just absurd. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It's addressed at "Professional wrestling style and persona". DrewieStewie (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

"The Ultimate Warrior" > "Ultimate Warrior" McPhail (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The Legacy (professional wrestling) 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. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 09:06, 4 April 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)