Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Intercontinental Title Article

Bone Street Krew. McPhail (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion is here. Let's keep the discussion in one place. oknazevad (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Could all members pop along and comment on the reliability of the Smackdown Hotel website on the Sources talk page? Someone has used it to add a lot of material to the List of WWE personnel. We need a consensus on it ASAP before other users start using it willy nilly. Addicted4517 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Smackdown Hotel is the link for anyone trying to find the discussion CeltBrowne (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I observed that many championship articles prefer to use age in days and years template, rather than the time ago template. The time ago template tracks hours, days, months and years, providing a more precise overview, while days and years is limited in its precision.

Is there a valid reason why we are using age in days and years over a more preciser option? WorldClassChampion (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Um, really? You're saying we know the exact time of every title change? I doubt that sort of statistic has been lovingly maintained much of anywhere. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::WWE themselves maintain it in a S:M:H:D:M:Y: format. This format is echoed by reliable sources and can be cited with an archived timestamp pointing to the approximated time of tracking if needed. Showing <1 day is imprecise and limits the level of detail, when you have short reigns like Bryan Danielson, Yokozuna, which cannot be fully captured in a ‘<1 day’ attribute, especially when the actual timestamp is notable in reliable sources. WorldClassChampion (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Days format works fine for the tables; e.g. readability, consistency, sorting and comparison. "Days < 1" is not a big deal to sacrifice the current format. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

He was at 16 and now he won the WWE and Universal titles. If we continue to go by 17, wouldn't we have to stop counting the Universal title after Reigns "unified" it at WM38? Because if we don't, Cena is an 18-time champ according to the official title histories on wwe.com, who have always been used as our main source for title histories. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:Winning both in the same match makes it one title reign, even if it is technically two titles held in conjunction. Same with Cody having one reign over the past year, and Roman prior to that being one reign even though he added the WWE Championship while already being the Universal Champion—in that case it was one reign that began when he won said Universal title and ended when he dropped the unified title to Cody. oknazevad (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's never how we counted things. Look at Jey & Cody as Tag Champs in 2023 for a recent example. One reign with 2 titles. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is how it's been done outside Wikipedia for decades across boxing and wrestling. In fact, Cody's tag titles are a good example, because while he's held 8 tag team championships in WWE, he's a seven-time champion as two of those titles were held together at the same time. Emphasis added for effect. oknazevad (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think you can just claim things like that on Wikipedia. What supports your claim that how we've been doing it forever is wrong and not based on facts? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't say how we were doing things, I'm saying how it's done in the real world. Go look up off-Wikipedia how many times George Foreman was world heavyweight champion in boxing. Then look up how many of the individual governing bodies' titles he's held.

:::::More importantly, if WWE says 17 times, we are not "correcting" them on Wikipedia by counting ourselves. That's pure WP:OR and is not allowed.

:::::I've told you why they say 17. You can either accept the explanation or you can drop it. Please don't drag this into another month-long discussion driven by your personal hang up. oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::And of course now the Universal title has been quietly retired according to the official title histories.

::::::even funnier is it was retroactively retired, its lineage ending with Roman. Cody has been removed from the title history, meaning he didn't actually hold the title. Must be why they dropped the "Univeraal" from "Undispited WWE Universal Championship" after Cody won at Mania 40. oknazevad (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

FYI, there's a related discussion at Talk: WWE Universal Championship worth everyone's input. I haven't been around for a while but was around when the WikiProject first started and we dealt with similar situations. There's a decent argument that warrants a note about Rhodes' reign being amended and likely should be listed as "unrecognized" for encyclopedic and accurate listing purposes as other similar cases have been in the past. UnqstnableTruth (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::yes, cody rhodes should be considered an official champion as wwe said he was for a year. them retconning it just means he should be listed as an unrecognised one now, like antoni inoki with the wwe title or the nonsense with fabulous moolah for 30 years where wwe pretended she never lost it. cena shouldnt count though. the title was *not* retired in 2024. Muur (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:17x per WWE. It was even mentioned during the main event and when Cena won the title. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:The discrepancy now seems to be clarified by WWE. They've retconned Cody's Universal reign, and the last 'official' Universal champion was Roman. — Czello ^(music) 07:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Czello Is this sourced? I don't doubt it is, but it's a major thing in changing the Universal Championship article and changing it's status to discontinued as well as mentioning Cody's entire reign as Universal champion isn't recognised. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Their current records omit Cody, so ultimately all we can do is report on what WWE recognise. We can of course say they used to, which is what we do, though. The Universal Championship is no longer listed as active on their site, also. — Czello ^(music) 22:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Assessment page statesː

{{Blockquote

|text=What if I don't agree with a ratinɡ?

You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it.

}}

But there is no section for assessment requests. So what's the SOP? Spagooder (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. A quick question. As yoy may know, we include WWE.com profiles on the Extrnal link section. However, the past few months I have seen some IPs/users removing the link once the wrestler is released. What do you think, should we remove the profile once the wrestler leaves or keep it in the section? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dakota_Kai&diff=prev&oldid=1288526252] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aliyah_(wrestler)&diff=prev&oldid=1287219097] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:We usually cite WWE profiles as citation for ring name, billed height, and hometown. So using them as external link is just redundant because WWE profiles are very basic (only good for the mentioned stats), and WWE.com itself does not show all stuff related to a wrestler's career in the company (not a good archive). In my opinion, official website (if available), {{tl|Professional wrestling profiles}}, and IMDb are enough. --Mann Mann (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Or {{tl|WWE superstar}} could become a part of {{tl|Professional wrestling profiles}}. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, I've had a proposal in my drafts to merge all of the wrestling profiles into Module:Professional wrestling profiles for around a year now, but never finished it. Here's a list of all of the profile templates that I wanted to either merge or delete:

:::* {{tl|WWE superstar}}

:::* {{tl|Roh roster}} — Their website no longer supports profiles

:::* {{tl|NJPW profile}}

:::* {{tl|Gfw profile}} — Defunct promotion; their website is now dead

:::* {{tl|Dragongateusa profile}} — Defunct promotion; their website is now dead

:::* {{tl|Chikara profile}} — Defunct promotion; their website no longer supports profiles

:::* {{tl|Wrestlingtitlesperson}}

:::* {{tl|Cagematch}} — Already redundant

:::I'm still down to complete this if others agree. Prefall 02:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::ROH template and those defunct/dead websites should be avoided. NJPW has a big issue. It does not have the alumni section and it does not archive profile of its former wrestlers. Does {{tl|Wrestlingtitlesperson}} work? In my opinion, only WWE is OK. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This seems like the best solution to me. McPhail (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)