Talk:List of professional wrestling promotions/Archive 1

Archive 1

UK Promotion

There is a promotion in the UK called Future Championship Wrestling, i would add it myself but i dont want to mess up the table Don.-.J 14:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

FWA and other promotions

The Frontier Wrestling Alliance has went out of business / promoting on a smaller scale as the XWA.

What is the criteria for being listed in the UK Promotion section, as there as tonnes more UK promotions.

Perhaps two message boards could be mentioned as well. The UKFF - as this is the largest British wrestling forum online and 1 Stop Wrestling, which is frequented by many old school UK wrestlers, such as Tony St. Clair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenespeed (talk • contribs) 10:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Defunct promotions

I think the Defunct sections should be physically separated from the Active ones, because it all seems to run together visually.

Also, I propose that the defunct ones have a listing for the years they were active, and the regions they ran (at least for the North American ones, I'm not sure if territories even exist for other places).

If nobody objects in the next few days, I'll work on this.TravelingCat 19:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

More Promotions

MOre promotions can be found in: http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/promotions/index.php http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/promotions/ thanx FranK 20:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC) PD: Two missing ones are: NWF & 100 % Lucha If you want the info on that second one I got it process quite a bit, the links to the sites are NWF:http://www.nwfwrestling.net/(kids wrestling promotion) 100% Lucha: http://www.cienporcientolucha.com.ar/(in spanish, from Argentina)

Australia

What about IWA (International Wrestling Australia)? It's even televised on Foxtel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilMuppet (talk • contribs) 22:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not notable. Aurora is a community channel - anything can get on it. !! Justa Punk !! 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Organizing the article

It should be setup as active, and inactive (or just defunct). Inactive sometimes implies it could always come back, while defunct means it's not coming back. Also the promotions need to be cleaned up big time. Notable only should be listed. I've done a bit of cleaning, but it needs work.... and alot of it.

Currently the following should be kept (plus more obviously, this is just a starting plan for the list):

• Japan: All Japan, Big Japan, New Japan, Kaientai Dojo, NOAH, Zero1 Max and others. Pancrase and other similar styles probably shouldn't be here, since it's very similar to Ultimate Fighting in my opinion at least.
• Mexico: AAA, CMLL, UWA and a few others.
• North America (USA, Canada, etc)- WWE, TNA, OVW, Deep South, Jersey All-Pro, CZW, UCW, Ring of Honor, ECW (the old promotion: not WWE's version of it), WCW, USWA, AWA, SMW, UWF, Mid South, ECWA, XWF and others that I can't think of right now
• United Kingdom (England, Ireland, etc): 1PW and others (I'm no expert on wrestling in the UK)
• Other countries: ?

Any help is appreciated, and certainly needed. If the promotion is notable (and can be proven by sources) it belongs here. If it's a small promotion that only a few know of, it probably doesn't belong here. No redlinks should be on the list, period. RobJ1981 23:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Australia (current)- PWA Queensland (PWAQ), PWA Elite, PWA Canberra, Total Wrestling Entertainment (TWE), MPW, NAW
• Australia (defunct) - PWA Melbourne

I can provide links for the sites if need be. I'm not sure how to format the article so I figure I'd just put the information here. Cor84 04:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

None of these promotions are notable, Cor. This list is for promotions with WP articles only. To just do a list borders on advertising which is against WP policy - especially if the links are provided. !! Justa Punk !! 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have an Idea

Hello I got an idea to help this article. I want to sepear the Independent wrestling promotions with the non independent ones. I would also like to add independent promotions in a seperate list. Plis send feedback. InfoLove —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoLove (talk • contribs) 17:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for this unless the sheer numbers justify it. Aside from the US - it doesn't IMO. !! Justa Punk !! 07:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of top notes

Neither templates are needed IMO. This list is complete and requires no expansion or clean up. And because each link goes to a WP article, each article (provided that it is sourced itself - in which the article should be sent to AfD and has nothing to do with this article) is in effect sourced. Thank you. !! Justa Punk !! 07:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding Australian section

Due to the brief nature of the List of professional wrestling organisations in Australia adding the Australian promotions in a separate section here amounts to duplication of existing material and should not be added. Mega Z090 (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What makes Australia any different from all the others, which also duplicate some of their main articles? If they're here, this should be, pending some logical explanation. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Wikiproject discussion was started before this one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#No_Australian_section.3FNo Australian section?. Please discuss there. There are more eyes on WT:PW than those watching this page. starship.paint ~ KO 01:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

SOP states that the discussion must take place on the article in question. The difference is that the article List of professional wrestling organisations in Australia is brief, whereas the lists under the others are not brief at all. Therefore, it is duplicating existing information and therefore not encyclopedic. Care to address to policies involved that I am (off the top of my head) invoking? Mega Z090 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Again, I invite you to discuss at WT:PW, or actually link to "SOP" or "policies" starship.paint ~ KO 02:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Discuss it here. This is a content dispute over one article, not one subject, and is covered for in WP:FOC and the policy above it (which has no quick link). Moving the discussion to another platform will generalise discussion away from the content and not assist in the resolution of this matter to obtain a consensus. Mega Z090 (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the Internet, people. Things are always just a click away. We'll find a way. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay I've re-arranged the list article Mega Z090 was referring to. Now maybe he'll agree with the edit here? Addicted4517 (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I'll look at this more thoroughly before making a decision whether or not to pursue this, but I admit it is a positive move in the right direction to prevent duplication of information. Mega Z090 (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

After consideration I have decided to disengage as it would be too stressful to fight against what appears to be a biased majority insisting that duplication of information is okay. Additionally there is the stress being provided by users who are trying to change the debating platform trying to switch the issue from content to subject matter, and pressing it instead of addressing what would amount to making article talk pages useless. The precedent being set if this is allowed is that this could be transferred to the Wikipedia Australia project page because the content is about Australia. It's just as insensible as allowing it to the transferred to the Wikipedia Professional Wrestling project page. This was not about a subject. It was about the content of a single article, and under those circumstances that is what the talk page of said article is for. Disengaging. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

"Disengaging"? More like running like a coward. As was pointed out to you, more eyes are on the projects talk page, not the talk page of a list. It's common sense, of which you would appear to be seriously lacking. Crash Underride 14:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there was any call for that! Addicted4517 (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there was any call for THAT! See, I can play that a month last also. lol Dude, it's over, let it go. Crash Underride 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment

I'm disengaging temporarily, but I maintain that on this list - for consistency - the ful name for WWE should be used. Or World Championship Wrestling, the American Wrestling Alliance, the National Wrestling Alliance, and Total Non-Stop Action should all be abbreviated similarly as should all others who do business under their initials (and there are many). Mega Z090 (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Disengaging is fine. As long as you realize the company's name is WWE NOT World Wrestling Entertainment anymore. CrashUnderride 01:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It is. It's both. See Yahoo Finance. Mega Z090 (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's just WWE. Yahoo Finance is clearly referring to its legal name. When discussing financial and legal matters we should use "World Wrestling Entertainment, inc.", for everything else we just use WWE.LM2000 (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

HA! See? You just admitted that they were doing business as BOTH! I rest my case and the edit on this page should be reverted to the full name for consistency. Mega Z090 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That's obviously not what I said. I don't see much of a point in continuing this discussion, at least not unless the sockpuppet investigation concludes in your favor. Just remember that the consensus is strongly against you, see Talk:WWE/Archive 7.LM2000 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

And consensus can change, especially from 2011. Explain this then. You can't claim they are only known as WWE when there are sources that say both. Legal business makes no difference to this fact. Mega Z090 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That statement proves that you know nothing about the term "legal business". That in the case of WWE would be copyrights, etc. Anything involving attorneys. CrashUnderride 02:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to again support the statement made by LM2000, but knowing Mega, they'll probably remove this statement because it's "uncivil" or not what they want to hear. lol But once again LM2000, is correct Mega. CrashUnderride 21:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

WWE

Why is WWE listed under "defunct promotions"? 74.194.49.155 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Because someone vandalised the page. I have fixed it. Addicted4517 (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)