283:
legitimately competing for better standing in the company, on the card, and with the audience and the primary point of a match is to actually appear as competitors and not as performers. Most wrestlers are closer to athletes than actors. In fact, several of them compete across a number of sports such as weight lifting, MMA, boxing, Olympic and
Amateur wrestling, etc. The issue here is this talk of in universe which if anyone was familiar with the project would know that we went for years working on that exact issue. To the point that we had hundreds and yes I mean hundreds of discussions on the project page, on talk pages, in GA reviews, FA reviews, peer reviews, etc. that included project members, non-members, and administrators across the vast expanse that is Knowledge. I helped write this very article with another editor who was very seasoned and knew exactly what they were doing with trying to not have this article be in universe from the very beginning. So far, I don't see any legitimate grievance other than not liking the word assault and competitor be used exactly as they are designed.--
591:"personas" much like a performance artist or rapper can have several personas that they embody from time to time. Sometimes specific personas in wrestling have be used by more than one performer. If we look at it from a purely non-inuniverse perspective it can be like a comic book character transfering from superhero identity to another, which happens often in DC Comics. Naming should be done based on what the readers would be most likely to search for, in other words the "common name". I don't have a problem with getting a bit more creative with the descriptions of how the titles are transfered. Your proposed alternative is deliberately forced. Pro wrestling is not too special to be exempt from being held within wikipeida guidlines. Just because news articles choose to use wrestling lingo because it's easier or flows quicker in the text doens't mean we should.
516:" and "Mahal will fight a rising star named Shinsuke Nakamura." Everyone who reads this article, even those who never heard of professional wrestling before, can tell Mahal and Nakamura aren't going to "fight" Fraser and Ali style. I don't think, even in the world of wrestling lingo, that there's a word for "choreographed fight" and repeatedly stating that every match is pre-determined is counter productive. The article also gives some background on the process Mahal went through to "win" his championship. In the past I've compared it to winning any other award; bookers ultimately select a champion to represent their company.
662:
their claim. And we repeat and repeat because someone is ignorant to how wrestling articles are even written or to the history of how the articles are written. And this discussion just keeps going and going and going with no good end result. Lets make it simple. A national publication that is designed to be written to garner the largest audience possible is writing their articles in the exact same fashion as we do. The articles thus passes the in universe policy. We have proof we are writing the articles to fit all readers. This thing needs to be closed. I'm going to put in a request at
312:: "After the break, Brie and Nikki are still fighting over Bryan in the back. They enter his locker room only to find him making out with Gail Kim. He tells the twins that Gail is his girl and they have been together for six months. Gail tells the twins Daniel felt sorry for them since they haven't had anything to do since there are no more guest stars. Nikki calls Kim an afterthought, and Kim slaps her. Chaos ensues, and officials quickly run in to restore order." Which actually suggests that they may have verbally assaulted Kim, but this could be re-written to be more accurate.
400:
only reason this was brought up was because of individuals who have no idea what they are talking about and obvious did absolutely zero research. They just don't like that words are being used inline with their actual definition. So far this has went as "A: I don't like it." "B: Well let me show you how that doesn't matter." "A: I still don't like it." "B: That doesn't matter because of facts and evidence." Present an actual issue. It is written in universe. Because we used the word assault to mean exactly what it does? Still waiting on something substantial.--
746:
championship? Yeah, they do. Just like a person wins a scholarship for writing an article. They were chosen for a position by a group of people over other people. They won something. Just
Trekker is upset it wasn't a physical contest, instead it is a popularity contest. No, they didn't just pass good standards. They've passed featured standards. I have 2 that passed featured standards myself. I have several that were featured on the main page of the entire website. I bet that really annoys you Trekker.--
534:
and GA. Also, 90% of the sources writes in-universe. Should we include in every match "the match is scripted"? Turn "Kim held the title for four weeks, successfully defending it once against Molly Holly, before losing it to Holly on the July 28 episode of Raw" into "Gail Kim held the title for four weeks. She had a scripted fight against Molly, but the bookers decided Kim had a sucsefull defende. However, the bookers take her title on July 28 episode of RAW, giving to Holly in a scripted match"? --
278:
or some other physical action. Which falls entirely in line with the definition of the word. Your perceived view regarding the definition isn't the definition. I must remind that the definition doesn't say anything about criminal activity. That is actually moreso criminal and tort law, which has its own list of definitions. I could give you the code for the
552:(which isn't exactly WrestleZone) is writing about wrestling in an entirely out of universe style and still using words like "fight" and "won" then so should we. The examples you gave above are exactly counter productive wording I was talking about. For the record, I don't have any major issue with the way
533:
In that case, we shouldn't even use their ring names as the title. This article includes Jinder Mahal as a character performed by Mr Dhesi. As you said, the article includes words like "won" or "fight", so it's a blur line. To me, is nearly imposible since the huge amount of articles and a lot of FA
399:
Yes, because the lifting of human beings, the flying across rings, the falling onto concrete, etc. is all done with CGI and wires. The people in the audience are from the matrix. Everything is 100% staged. Nothing is real and everything is permitted. This needs to be closed because it is obvious the
327:
For those uneducated as to the inner workings of professional wrestling, there are other ways to describe something as being "real", to it being "staged". The words "legit" and "kayfabe" are used, as are "shoot" and "work". I'm not a fan of the word
Assualt in professional wrestling, but it does get
318:
The source says: "(Bryan) is cut off when the Bellas interrupt and they want to apologize for Monday. After some backhanded compliments toward Bryan and Gail Kim, all heck breaks loose. Officials finally regain some sense of decorum." I'm ok with this being referred to as an assault. The word can be
277:
which is an instance where the planned finish didn't occur but instead something entirely different happened. But overall, the issue with the word assault is hollow. What is happening is a wrestler is coming out an either hitting someone with a chair, slamming someone to the ground, through a table,
180:
I agree with this very much. I've also been seriously annoyed by all the mentions of wrestlers as "competitors" as well, they're not, they're performers. "Won the title for the first time" should be replaced with "held the title for the first time". Wrestlers much like actors can recieve real awards
264:
are more focused on treating the wrestlers as competitors, the victories exactly as a sports victory, etc. Is it pre-planned? Yes. Is it choreographed? Not always. Throughout wrestling history there are countless matches that never had a single spot planned. Sometimes they don't even have a planned
688:
I don't have to provide a single goddamn fucking source because it's blatantly obvious for anyone litterate with eyes and a functioning brain and I'm going by wikipedia own freaking guidelines, which apparently the wrestling project seems to think they're above becuase all wrestling journmalism is
661:
So I'm just going to point out once again. Editor A will show that the article has achieved at passing the guidelines posed by the in universe policy in a reasonable fashion that sources even attest too. Editor B will whine that it is in universe and never provide a single source of reference for
435:
In-Universe is one thing
Knowledge pushes against; however, due to the unique nature of professional wrestling, it's hard to miss. If you were being totally anal; every championship win on every topic should read 'X was awarded this championship', rather than won; however external media also says
125:
The "assaults" mentioned in the article bring up a question: How does
Knowledge distinguish between the (sorry, wrestling fans) obviously scripted events called "assaults" and actual real-world assaults? There's no discussion of police and legal action re these "assaults," which tells me that the
229:
be used when a person has been convicted of assault in a court of law. It is not
Knowledge's role to maintain the illusions of professional wrestling, or to describe wrestlers from an "in universe" perspective. If other articles share the same problems, those articles should be changed as well.
590:
Not really sure what you mean with the naming, considering how often articles have to be moved because a new company decides they want to rename the performer maybe simply using their real names more often would be better, but not always. Their different characters that a wrestler portrays are
282:
in order for you to be more familiar with that area. Now as for the competitor issue, may I remind that professional wrestling started as legitimate contests with actual competitors and that the individuals who are cited as "performers" (despite that being a WWE marketing scheme) sometimes are
745:
So I'm going to point out the obvious here. Trekker just outright stated he doesn't have to prove the article fails a policy because he doesn't like it. We now have proof this whole thing is a farce. Simply put, Trekker doesn't like wrestling being given any respect. Does an individual win a
689:
lazy and behind the times and because it would take to much effort to fix. I'm done with this insessant nowhere disscussion. There's hundreds of IPs and new editors all the time who come by regularly to complain about this shit, they don't get why it says "won" or some shit like that (tip
181:
and acomplishments for their performances, but the titles and tournaments should not be described as some of them. If it was up to me there would be a split in the accomplishment section that diferencitated between so called "kayfabe" wins and genuine victories.
610:'s entry on Dwayne Johnson talks about him "capturing" championships, and even "losing" one to John Cena in a "bout". At the end of the day, we have to report what the sources say, and from what I can tell all of them use terminology like this. As described in
256:. That is a marketing scheme produced by that organization that is in no way the entirety of the wrestling industry. Outside of WWE, companies take more of a physical approach with the song and dance. They promote the individuals exactly as competitors.
731:) are using a certain style then we need to follow their lead. The chief complaint here was use of the word "assault", which could have been misconstrued as a legal issue. "Assault" no longer appears in the article so it is best that we close this now.
420:
I have no idea whatsoever what you just wrote was meant to accomplish or what you even want. Do you agree with any of the points in here or are you just complaining about something? Knowledge rejects the use of "in universe" writing so that shit can't
503:
I've long supported removing in-universe material. There does come a point where we end up overdoing this though and the end result is just as insulting to readers as trying to pass off the fictional material as totally legitimate. Here's a
252:" which goes entirely along with what is actually being described. So far the comments left show a bit of a lack of understanding of what professional wrestling even is. There is this weird idea of what has been promoted entirely by
210:
I don't like it. It seems like some nonsense. These are real people portraying characters or personas, not necessarily the characters themselves. Which by the way generally shouldn't be describe with "in universe" terms
622:), we should include it. Otherwise, saying Kim won the belt in her debut, lost it less than a month later, and was gone from the company a little over a year later tells us everything we need to know about her tenure.
303:
The word "Assault" isn't something you usually see in Pro
Wrestling, unless someone is being charged with Assault, or it's the name of a move, show or gimmick. However, in the context of the article, it says that
195:
I see no problems. A lot of articles are written just like this, like CM Punk or
Shelton Benjamin. Also, every sources includes "she won" not "the bookers gave her the title". About the assaults, we say "legit".
512:'s rise. It's written like our articles should be because it makes it clear where the lines between kayfabe and reality are. But it still uses phrases like " won the championship at a pay-per-view in May called
666:
for closure because the only legitimate grievance is the in universe issue and that was just legitimately fixed and addressed. I may not be an uninvolved editor, but someone else needs to be involved in this
249:
663:
782:. Is there any update on this review? Should this be re-assessed again, failed, passed or similar? GA reviews are not generally arguments as above, and there has been no update in 3 months.
636:
If you say so, it's obvious that I'm being outnumbered by now. I'm giving up on this shitshow. How emberesing that so many supposedly relibale sources indulge in such piss poor writing.
137:
In addition, is it a good idea to describe outcomes of scripted play as winning? "where she won the WWE Women's
Championship in her first match" For me it seems like writing in
323:"On March 10 at Lockdown, Kim unsuccessfully challenged Sky for her Knockouts Championship, after being assaulted by referee Taryn Terrell, who Kim slapped during the match."
149:" (instead of something like "He achieved worldwide fame for his notable film roles, which include Magneto in the X-Men films and Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings")
225:
I agree that the word "assault" should not be used since these pre-planned and choreographed show business stunts are not actual criminal activity. "Assault" should
468:
an exception to the rule that
Knowledge does not allow "in universe" prose writing, and every trace of that should be removed from every pro wrestling article.
574:
may be a reliable source but it's not an encyclopedia. The authors choice to use wrestling terminology because it's simpler shouldn't affect what we do.
385:
Sadly, covering wrestling as if it was an actual sport is all too common, even if it's common knowledge to pretty much everyone that it's 100% staged.
103:
Assault no longer in article and no other instances of in universe examples highlighted. Note I removed a poor sentence from the lead here.
342:
In the end most of this does not change the fact that a lot of wrestlers articles are seemingly written in an "in universe" perspective.
17:
270:
325:- You could say this is also fine, Taryn Terrell did attack Kim (Which would be assault had it not been in character), with a slap.
69:
65:
505:
50:
376:
279:
170:
697:). I'm amazed a single wrestling article has been allowed to pass "good" standard by anone from outside the project.
364:" Also, every sources includes "she won" not "the bookers gave her the title"" - I would expect sources maintaining
611:
328:
used especially by fans and people who write up results, to mean an attack, or one-sided attack. Hope this helps
42:
754:
675:
408:
291:
319:
used to mean a backstage attack; but it's usually referred to as something else (say, attack, or beat down).
614:, we just follow what they say and we don't lead the charge. Inventing new ways to describe things would be
539:
257:
201:
790:
761:
740:
706:
682:
645:
631:
600:
583:
565:
543:
525:
481:
459:
445:
430:
415:
394:
380:
351:
337:
298:
243:
220:
205:
190:
174:
118:
779:
441:
372:
333:
166:
153:
152:
Note, this nomination was triggered by nominating traslation of this article to our equivalent to GA -
712:
770:- I am unsure as to who exactly instigated the good assessment review for this article, so tagging
747:
668:
474:
401:
284:
236:
535:
197:
156:
Unfortunately I have extremely limited knowledge about acting so I am not qualified to fix this.
309:
306:"(The Bellas) caught Bryan kissing Kim backstage, they assaulted Kim, starting a feud with her"
784:
702:
641:
596:
579:
455:
437:
426:
390:
347:
329:
274:
216:
186:
115:
90:
736:
627:
561:
521:
618:. When there's background information on the booking decisions on championship wins (as in
807:
723:
are more important though and when all RS (even those beyond industry specific, including
146:
142:
469:
231:
607:
801:
261:
160:
154:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Propozycje_do_Dobrych_Artyku%C5%82%C3%B3w/Gail_Kim
131:
58:
715:
guideline, and we should follow it to the best of our ability. Actual policies like
273:
outside of the states. With the finish not being the finish planned. Then comes the
773:
720:
716:
698:
637:
619:
615:
592:
575:
509:
451:
436:
that they won, and keeps kayfabe; so we should be going with what the sources say.
422:
386:
343:
212:
182:
138:
107:
732:
623:
557:
517:
316:"On January 30 at the Royal Rumble, the Bella Twins once again assaulted Kim"
369:
266:
553:
35:
365:
127:
370:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources
314:
The next instance of the word is the next sentence, where it says
253:
128:
fiction of wrestling is being discussed as if it were reality
248:
A quick google search returns the definition of assault as "
664:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
104:
85:
77:
46:
368:to be with "an apparent conflict of interest"
8:
450:I would prefer to be totally anal, honestly.
130:. (this is an old comment posted in 2012 to
159:AFAIK the "assault" thing may be also a
570:We should follow rules and guidelines.
7:
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
321:The final use of the word is with
271:NWA World Heavyweight Championship
24:
464:Pro wrestling is most definitely
86:Watch article reassessment page
141:article "was fighting against
1:
620:Verne Gagne's Brittanica page
601:19:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
584:19:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
566:19:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
544:17:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
526:09:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
482:23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
460:23:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
446:15:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
431:00:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
416:06:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
395:23:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
381:20:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
352:18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
338:09:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
299:07:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
254:World Wrestling Entertainment
244:22:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
221:18:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
206:16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
191:09:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
175:09:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
762:08:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
741:01:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
707:22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
683:07:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
646:22:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
632:10:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
824:
791:10:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
119:04:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
250:make a physical attack on
729:Encyclopedia Brittanica
608:Encyclopedia Britannica
258:New Japan Pro Wrestling
506:New York Times article
265:finish. Such cases as
132:Talk:Gail_Kim#Untitled
612:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
572:The New York Times
550:The New York Times
91:Most recent review
780:Mateusz Konieczny
373:Mateusz Konieczny
275:Montreal Screwjob
167:Mateusz Konieczny
134:, without reply)
815:
787:
777:
759:
752:
680:
673:
479:
477:Let's discuss it
413:
406:
296:
289:
280:Decennial Digest
241:
239:Let's discuss it
106:
88:
82:
73:
54:
823:
822:
818:
817:
816:
814:
813:
812:
798:
797:
785:
771:
755:
748:
691:it's becuse it
676:
669:
475:
409:
402:
310:The source says
292:
285:
237:
147:War of the Ring
143:Christopher Lee
95:
84:
63:
40:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
821:
819:
811:
810:
800:
799:
796:
795:
794:
793:
767:
766:
765:
764:
725:New York Times
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
588:
587:
586:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
326:
320:
313:
269:defending the
123:
122:
121:
93:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
820:
809:
806:
805:
803:
792:
789:
788:
781:
775:
769:
768:
763:
760:
758:
753:
751:
744:
743:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:WP:INUNIVERSE
710:
709:
708:
704:
700:
696:
694:
687:
686:
685:
684:
681:
679:
674:
672:
665:
647:
643:
639:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
589:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
568:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
536:HHH Pedrigree
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
483:
480:
478:
473:
472:
467:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
419:
418:
417:
414:
412:
407:
405:
398:
397:
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:
382:
378:
374:
371:
367:
363:
353:
349:
345:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
324:
317:
311:
307:
302:
301:
300:
297:
295:
290:
288:
281:
276:
272:
268:
263:
262:Ring of Honor
259:
255:
251:
247:
246:
245:
242:
240:
235:
234:
228:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
198:HHH Pedrigree
194:
193:
192:
188:
184:
179:
178:
177:
176:
172:
168:
164:
162:
157:
155:
150:
148:
144:
140:
135:
133:
129:
120:
117:
114:
113:
112:
105:
102:
98:
94:
92:
87:
81:
80:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
786:Lee Vilenski
783:
756:
749:
728:
724:
711:There is an
692:
690:
677:
670:
660:
571:
549:
513:
510:Jinder Mahal
502:
476:
470:
465:
438:Lee Vilenski
410:
403:
330:Lee Vilenski
322:
315:
305:
293:
286:
238:
232:
226:
165:
158:
151:
139:Ian McKellen
136:
124:
110:
109:
100:
96:
78:
74:
60:Article talk
59:
55:
36:
27:
556:is written.
47:visual edit
693:shouldn't
267:Ric Flair
802:Category
699:★Trekker
695:say that
667:farce.--
638:★Trekker
593:★Trekker
576:★Trekker
554:Gail Kim
514:Backlash
452:★Trekker
423:★Trekker
387:★Trekker
344:★Trekker
213:★Trekker
183:★Trekker
28:Gail Kim
774:*Treker
366:Kayfabe
211:either.
145:during
70:history
51:history
37:Article
808:GAR/63
778:, and
733:LM2000
624:LM2000
558:LM2000
518:LM2000
471:Cullen
233:Cullen
163:issue
161:WP:BLP
116:(talk)
97:Result
721:WP:OR
717:WP:RS
616:WP:OR
421:stay.
79:Watch
16:<
750:Will
737:talk
727:and
719:and
703:talk
671:Will
642:talk
628:talk
597:talk
580:talk
562:talk
540:talk
522:talk
456:talk
442:talk
427:talk
404:Will
391:talk
377:talk
348:talk
334:talk
287:Will
260:and
227:only
217:talk
202:talk
187:talk
171:talk
111:corn
101:Kept
66:edit
43:edit
548:If
508:on
466:not
108:AIR
804::
739:)
705:)
644:)
630:)
599:)
582:)
564:)
542:)
524:)
458:)
444:)
429:)
393:)
379:)
350:)
336:)
308:.
219:)
204:)
196:--
189:)
173:)
99::
89:•
83:•
68:|
49:|
45:|
776::
772:@
757:C
735:(
701:(
678:C
640:(
626:(
595:(
578:(
560:(
538:(
520:(
454:(
440:(
425:(
411:C
389:(
375:(
346:(
332:(
294:C
215:(
200:(
185:(
169:(
75:·
72:)
64:(
56:·
53:)
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.