Talk:Blading (professional wrestling)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kayfabe[edit]

I edited this article to make it clear what was kayfabe and what wasn't. i.e. the previous version read "Steve Austin supposedly passed out from blood loss due to blading..." No--Steve Austin "passed out" because the storyline required him to do so, so that he could lose to Bret Hart without submitting to the Sharpshooter. Saying he passed out due to blading would indicate that this was either something that really happened (Which it didn't) or a storyline which the WWE acknowledged on air (Which they haven't, because blading has never been explicitly outed to the public by any wrestling organisation as far as I know). Please don't revert things that make sense. similarly with The Mass Transit incident, Transit requiring 50 stitches is mentioned in several articles, including the Rise and Fall of ECW book, and was reported in the legit wrestling magazine Power Slam at the time it happened. On the other hand, New Jack saying he did it deliberately on a wrestling DVD can't be considered a statement of fact, since he may have been in character at the time. Daigo 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone insert here the reasoning that wrestlers do this? It seems to be like ego or something, if they hide their blades, they could just hide blood packets that look just as good, or fake (most people think its fake blood anyway)

  • Because fake blood really doesn't look or act the same. RasputinAXP 19:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Very True. By the way, actually getting a picture, while it probably would be considered to be gruesome, might get the idea accoss about blading.
  • As well, in a high-impact wrestling match, there's the very real risk that a blood packet will burst prematurely. --HBK 15:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Another factor could be that a genuine cut on the forehead will continue to produce blood throughout much of the match, as opposed to blood packets, which would eventually smear and reveal that no real cut exists. Jeff Silvers 02:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second the request for a picture: perhaps something from the Muta Scale?

professional wrestling slang:[edit]

  • Muta scale, a scale to measure the amount of blood lost by a wrestler in a match. The scale goes from 0.0 (no blood loss) to 1.0 (corresponds to the amount of blood lost by The Great Muta during a 1992 match against Hiroshi Hase, during which Muta performed what is widely hailed as the most gruesome bladejob of all time).

Keiji Mutoh; muta.

We would be even more likely to watch if ever larger anatomical chunks were amputated. Where does entertainment go next?

That should be mentioned.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 13:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlers "blading" other wrestlers[edit]

Even though the article says that wrestlers blading another wrestler is extremely rare doesn't mean it doesn't happen to this day. Triple H did just that to William Regal on the Jan. 7th episode of Raw. Should this be added as an example? —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable third party reference that states that Triple H did that (which I doubt since it just happened) then you may. Otherwise, it is original research. Nikki311 23:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Resource, Should Be Added[edit]

I'm not a frequent on wikipedia but an article getting some praise about the subject of blading can be found here:

Blading Without Wheels: The History of Blood In Wrestling

It may be a very useful resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.225.71 (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Triple H??? and A Few Other Notes[edit]

Should Triple H be noted as a regular bladder? Especially in High Definition when there are close up shots to his forehead you are really starting to see the scars and wear and tear that's left over from past matches with bladding or being busted open the hard way with barb wire. Shouldn't barbed wire itself be included in this article as it is another way that wrestlers bust them selves open? And I was thinking maybe a picture or two, maybe with to show results of Dusty's, New Jack's or Terry Funk's head? Just to help paint the picture better for the reader? These are just a couple of ideas that I had to improve the article for a confused reader who is does have a whole lot of light on the subject. I figured I'd run the ideas by everyone through here before attempting to edit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.229.206 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested moves[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– (wrestling) is simple and WP:CONCISE. As far as I know, these terms are not used in any other form of wrestling, therefore when disambiguation is needed, (wrestling) will suffice. The first eight are terms, Cutter to Stunner are moves, and All Together onwards are events or company names. This also achieves a consistency with the many articles with Kane (wrestler) disambiguations. This is the first in a series of moves as there are more articles out there with (professional wrestling). --Relisted. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC) starship.paint ~ regal 14:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add on that reliable sources reflect that (wrestling) is a suitable shortening of (professional wrestling). Associated Press: "Once billed as "Hollywood" Hulk Hogan, wrestling's marquee star has a scaled down title at 60." Reuters: "The granddaddy of wrestling pay-per-view events has created..." BBC, titled "Welsh wrestler Mason Ryan is a stateside hit", "... has slammed and bellowed his way through the wrestling ranks in just over three years. He was taken under the wing of the late Welsh wrestling legend and promoter Orig Williams ..." starship.paint ~ regal 08:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging everyone from related discussion at Talk:Bayley (wrestler) who haven't participated yet. RadioKAOS, Red Slash, Necrothesp, McPhail, Trackinfo, GaryColemanFan, Innotata and Andrewa. starship.paint ~ regal 03:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is definitely art involved in the industry self-designated as "Professional wrestling". It does not exist amongst the spheres of competitive sport.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: To consider the articles above to be representative of wrestling is an utter failure of WP:AT, that "The title indicates what the article is about". Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Here we go again. The consensus recently established on Talk:Bayley_(wrestler)#Requested_moves is that the predetermined nature of professional wrestling is largely irrelevant to how we should disambiguate. Nobody will argue that (professional wrestling) isn't more precise, but it adds considerable length, making (wrestling) the more desirable disambigulator per WP:CONCISE.LM2000 (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all Since these things don't apply to other forms of wrestling (as GregKaye detailed), there won't be similarly named articles, so no need to get so precise and mul-ti-syl-lab-ic. In the entire spectrum of wrestling, from freestyle to Mongolian to thumb, there's only one that allows piledrivers or blading. Just like of all the Bob Smiths on Wikipedia, there's only one doctor. We call him Bob Smith (doctor), not Bob Smith (medical doctor). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Bob Smith (doctor) is a specific person specifically qualified for a specific field of work. Cruiserweight (professional wrestling) for example presents a weight. It does not present a wrestling weight category but a category of weight specific to the topic known as professional wrestling. See: Wrestling weight classes. To suggest otherwise is crazy. Similar comments can equally apply throughout. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And professional wrestling is a subtopic of wrestling. Since no other subtopic has a cruiserweight division, no disambiguation is needed, just like Bob. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A DDT is not necessarily a "choreographed marvel". At UFC 178, Cat Zingano hit two of them on Amanda Nunes. She also attempted a Kurt Angle-style ankle lock. Both of these moves are very rare in MMA, however, at least for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment about the necessarily. Pro Wrestling DDT The aim is clearly to simulate maximum violence with minimum actual effect. Its not a facet of any grappling type of combat sport. It is more akin, with respect, to Stage combat. The simulated extremes aren't real. They are not a part of the sport. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you explain Bob Smith (doctor) then, instead of Bob Smith (medical doctor) for the article Doctor of Medicine or Bob Smith (physician) for the article physician? Simplicity in disambiguations are encouraged. starship.paint ~ regal 08:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX; and it should be "medical doctor". Even in popular culture, "doctor" is frequently not a medical doctor. -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 09:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid retort, both (doctor) and (wrestling) fall perfectly under WP:CONCISE. The only way Bob Smith (medical doctor) would a better disambigulator than Bob Smith (doctor) is if a Bob Smith (plastic surgeon) or Bob Smith (dentist) had a higher level of infamy as a doctor than he did. If there was a Blading (amateur wrestling) then I would support that Blading (professional wrestling) would be a better disambigulator, but we made sure no such articles existed before proposing these moves.LM2000 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to " (pro wrestling)" per 65.94.171.225 (without the improper hyphen). It is important to not confuse readers into thinking these are wrestling sport terms vs. "professional wrestling" entertainment terms (a disambiguation that introduces another ambiguity is an abject failure at disambiguation). But "(professional wrestling)" is, arguably, unnecessarily long. Pro wrestler articles can use "(pro wrestler)". This is important on disambig pages, because someone might know they're looking for either an athlete or an entertainer, but not more specifically, and "(wrestler)" will confuse half of them.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SMcCandlish - as I have now pointed up above, reliable sources like AP, Reuters and BBC have seen fit to use (wrestling) as a short form of (professional wrestling). Also, This is important on disambig pages, because someone might know they're looking for either an athlete or an entertainer, but not more specifically, and "(wrestler)" will confuse half of them. - so you're saying someone looking for the article Blading (wrestling) will not be able to find it because it is not called Blading (professional wrestling)? This is not possible unless blading occurs in other forms of wrestling, which I challenge you to provide evidence of. starship.paint ~ regal 08:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
starship.paint - I am saying that WP:AT, requires that "The title indicates what the article is about". Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gregkaye - that's right. But you didn't quote the whole sentence. "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles". Blading (wrestling) is about blading in wrestling. The article title doesn't describe which form of wrestling, but the article text does, while (wrestling) distinguishes enough. Let me remind you that 1) reliable sources (BBC etc) do use "wrestling" as a short form for "professional wrestling" as I have shown above and 2) there is no apparently other blading in any other kind of wrestling, be it sumo wrestling or Greco-Roman wrestling to disambiguate from. starship.paint ~ regal 06:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Starship.paint, "Blanding (wrestling)" and similar fail WP:AT for all the reasons mentioned. Short forms of terms are sometimes, potentially erroneously used by news organisations as shorthand. This may happen within a context in which a general picture of the topic may be established in the context of a programme or in descriptive article and in regard to an analysis of a topic or of an event.
A Wikipedia article title "Blading (professional wrestling)" is admittedly less misleading than "Blading (wrestling)" which is, quite frankly, a ridiculous and astoundingly deceptive title. "Blading", the act of intentional self-cutting, cannot be categorised with the name used for a category of sport.Gregkaye ✍♪
I have to concur with Gregkaye on this; the fact that these aren't wrestling terms but pro wrestling terms means they should be identified as such. What's happening here is (see previous examples used) Starship.paint is misinterpreting WP:AT as suggesting that "Bob Smith (doctor)" is an okay disambiguation when it isn't, making the case that the shortest possible disambiguation is the most preferable. But User:Born2cycle/Concision razor was userspaced at WP:MD for a reason: It doesn't actually represent consensus. "Bob Smith (doctor)" is not a good disambiguation at all, because it simply introduces another ambiguity, and such an article should be at "Bob Smith (medical doctor)", "Bob Smith (physician)", "Bob Smith (oncologist)", "Bob Smith (economist)", or something otherwise more specific than just "(doctor)"; any number of Bob Smiths have a doctorate. It's a case, however, with no bearing here. The extant RM is more like having a performer, with no doctorate of any kind, who calls himself "Doctor Bob Smith" in a sideshow act, and you want to disambiguate him as "Bob Smith (doctor)"! Professional wrestling is not actually wrestling. "Blading (wrestling)" is basically a {{em|user-hateful)) vs. user-friendly article title, as it directly misleads, in the same way that "Bob Smith (doctor)" would if Bob Smith called himself a doctor but wasn't. This is also distinguishable from cases like "Bob Smith (hockey)" being used as shorthand for "Bob Smith (ice hockey)", because ice hockey is an actual sport that is a variant of hockey more generally. This doesn't apply to the unfortunately-named professional wrestling and wrestling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If pro wrestling isn't a variant of wrestling, why is it Section 8 in the wrestling article? And why does that section appear first on the Google result? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Starship.paint Returning to your point "reliable sources like AP, Reuters and BBC have seen fit to use (wrestling) as a short form of (professional wrestling)" Most sources that do that are are doing so in contexts where the reader already knows that professional wrestling, the entertainment, not sport wrestling is meant, and most of these sources do not regularly do it; you're citing odd-ball cases of what amounts to editorial error as if it were a new worldwide rule.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
65.94.171.225, @SMcCandlish: Any thoughts on responses to the following? Raw search data is presented which does not differentiate between direct coverage of the subject and spin off subject in relation to video games etc.
There is a potential discrepency here which raises the question as to how policy should be best applied.
In Wikipedia the sub topic of WP:AT relating to WP:CRITERIA presents: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles" and I am wondering about proposing consistent moves to "Pro wrestling". My reading of WP:CONCISE is that this guideline doesn't call for brevity or abbreviation for their own sake but for the removal of content not actually necessary for the title to meet the requirements of WP:AT. I personally think that the consistency criteria would favour the consistent use of one of the terminologies or the other. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks like WP's articles here are bucking a 12.78 to 1 real-world preferences for the phrase "pro wrestling". I think this is strong evidence all the professional wresting articles disambiguated with "(wrestling)" and "(wrestler)" need to be moved to "(pro wresting)" and "(pro wrestler)", respectively.

Also, WP:CONSISTENCY is the weakest, last-resort item in WP:CRITERIA. It can't be used to advance a title that fails WP:PRECISE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose all, simplifying the disambiguator to just "wrestling" has the potential to confuse a lot of people (most of all in cases like Cruiserweight etc.). Despite the aforementioned examples, to most people, myself (a professional wrestling fan) included, "wrestling" always refers to the sport one and not the non-sport performance art. It's not just about being concise, it's also about not misleading people. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If "wrestling" and "wrestler" always refer to the sport, how do you explain the Google results for each term, verbatim? The sole result I get for the sport with "wrestling" is this one. For "wrestler", I get two news stories about amateurs, but mostly about the well-known film which is not called The Professional Wrestler. Top results for both is WWE.com. Pretty clearly a common term for phony baloney. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Ribbon Salminen, I really think Cruiserweight might be the exception than the rule here, in terms of confusion. Yes, other forms of wrestling have weight classes. However, how are the other terms confusing? They would only be confusing if there are heels, faces, Kingdoms in other forms of wrestling. starship.paint ~ regal 03:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're just not getting it; several other editors are explaining to you in detail that it's confusing because the actual sport of wrestling doesn't have these things, and the article titles you propose misleadingly suggest they do. Repeating the exact opposite like a mantra isn't an argument.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My favourite concise article title is X (Ed Sheeran album) with the "X" being a stylisation for "multiply". Beyond stylisation, honest description helps. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up a good example. The only reason why it's not at X (album) is because many other music albums that are called X exist, including X (Def Leppard album) and X (Chris Brown album). Notice that for music albums which don't share the same name as other albums are at Parachutes (album) or Songs of Innocence (album) instead of the more precise Parachutes (Coldplay music album) and Songs of Innocence (U2 music album). After all, we do know that multiple kinds of albums exist, including stamp albums, comic albums etc. However, there are no other albums of that name to disambiguate from. Same goes for blading. There's no other blading in any other form of wrestling to disambiguate from. starship.paint ~ regal 03:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and quite right.
An album is an album according to the stated definition of "album."
Professional wrestling is not wrestling according to the stated definition of "wrestling".
Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. See above examples re: "Bob Smith (doctor)". A performer (perhaps a pro wrestler!) who went by "Doctor Bob Smith" but did not have a doctorate would never be disambiguated here as "Bob Smith (doctor)".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Feedback:: Bayley (wrestler) seems to need revisiting. The length and heat of the current debate (and the fact that it's based on an actually resolvable difference of opinion on who to interpret WP:AT, not just on subjective opinions about the category of the articles) indicate an unresolved controversy, so the previous RM clearly did not actually establish consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all- with the caveat; Cruiserweight was submitted as having a possible usage in Amateur Wrestling. So as with all disambiguation I want to encourage the most WP:CONCISE phrase. When someone writes an amateur related Cruiserweight article then we will need to have one Cruiserweight (professional wrestling) and one Cruiserweight (amateur wrestling) article with both having a listing on the Cruiserweight (disambiguation), which might also then be the default page. Boxing also has the weight class, MMA uses it and there is even a band by that name. We can still debate (professional wrestling) vs the shorter (pro wrestling) which I am not adverse to, though it deviates from the common specificity used in existing articles, like the ones we are debating now. The definition of disambiguation is to extend specificity in order to identify multiple identically named items. To the example above, there are no less than 17 musical albums named X, plus a christian compilation, listed on wikipedia. It needs the specificity. There are some identically named athletes that play sport, the same position, where we have had to go to the birth year. I wrote an article where there were two identically named athletes were in the same Olympic final race. We disambiguated to the country they represented. So when amateur wrestling starts having people blade, do DDTs or even feud, then we need the longer disambiguator and not until then. Trackinfo (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A separate case can be made for cruiserweight, on the amateur wrestling facts in that particular case, in a later RM after this one fails. It still seems like a weak case; "a possible usage" sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me, and it's unlikley that a possible usage as an amateur wrestling term is notable. If it is, it may need to be a separate article unless the definition is the same in both the performance art and the sport, which seems rather unlikely. This is actually a really good example of why these kinds of articles cannot be disambiguated with "(wrestling)"; after a certain few basic, any remaining similarity between the two fields is coincidental at best, misleading at worst.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary. Cruiserweight might be one lone exception. Andrewa below hit the nail on the head with WP:NCPDAB. We should not take a wholesale approach to a single instance exception. IF Cruiserweight (amateur wrestling) is ever created, or Blading (amateur wrestling) is ever created, then we need the exception. So far, there is no reason to anticipate either. Trackinfo (talk) 17:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for move, or prefer pro wrestling to professional wrestling but let's stop wasting time on this, what we're looking for is the best of a poor lot of alternatives for some articles that aren't going to save the world or even improve it. I think the rules do say that we should use the more concise disambiguator. If this were andrewpedia, I'd say come off it, to call these guys wrestlers is an insult to every genuine athlete in the world, and professional wrestler is even worse. In andrewpedia we'd disambiguate (pretend wrestler) I think. Now that might improve the world! But here we're liberal... MAD magazine once described a liberal as one who tries to see the other guy's point of view while being mugged. Not too far wrong... Andrewa (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, the actual argument that you presented seems to indicate a failure in article description in that you indicate "(pretend wrestler)" as an own website preference. In gregpedia we might disabiguate to something such as (performance wrestling). The "Superstars" and "Divas" (and I have no problem with these titles) of the WWE go far beyond a pretence of wrestling through a wide range of flamboyant departures from an actual sport and I am not sure whether the actual sport has ever been more than a distant parallel. The proposed moves are both dishonest and inaccurate and roundly fail WP:AT. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not that pro wrestling is a genuine attempt to fool people into thinking real wrestling is going on. It's campy theatre. I agree it's unfortunate that the term for it is "professional wrestling" or "pro wrestling" in shorter form, but it is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it once was a genuine attempt to fool people into thinking real wrestling is going on, and I'm embarrassed to say that I think many Australians of my youth were taken in, particularly but not only those of my generation. I can vividly remember my mother's glee (she was never taken in) when one of her closest friends was by special invitation part of the small audience for the rehearsal of a wrestling match! That would have been in the 1960s. This seems consistent with our current [1] article on WWE which reads in part WWE first acknowledged this publicly in 1981, breaking the gentlemen's agreement that previously existed among promoters, I think that the facade was already pretty much demolished by then anyway, and that our coverage is similar elsewhere regarding the dates of the "outing" of sports entertainment worldwide. It would be good to have references as to just what the perception was worldwide and how (and even whether) it changed during the second half of the 20th century. Andrewa (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the proposed moves are dishonest appears to me to fail WP:AGF, and if you wish to pursue it then it should go to user talk pages as a behavioural issue. The claim that they are inaccurate and roundly fail WP:AT is of course very relevant to this discussion, but I'm not convinced it's that simple. English Wikipedia exists for all English speakers, not just native speakers, otherwise we'd probably restrict the activities of many valued contributors. To many readers the phrase professional wrestling must seem quite frankly fraudulent, and would fail WP:AT far worse than the shorter disambiguator wrestling, in my opinion. The function of the disambiguator is purely as a tie-breaker for similarly named articles, and WP:NCPDAB seems to be the relevant convention, and seems to favour the shorter and simpler wrestler. At the very least, and as the above discussion shows, it's not simply a matter of wrestler being inaccurate and professional wrestler escaping this problem, as you seem to be claiming. Andrewa (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, "Professional / Pro wrestling" is a well know spectical as experienced in a variety of media including TV and games. People who have seen pro wrestling videos will be well aware of the kind of parameters involved and people that have seen the games will, at the very least, have been able to see the kind of visual images involved. Anyone that has taken the time to watch events such as the Olympics and these wrestling events will similarly have had the chance to witness the competitive sport that is wrestling. The two activities are not the same.
This does not mean that I can't imagine true pro wrestling fans that are convinced of the validity of their views to the point that they feel justified to forcefully present their claims. This changes nothing. The two activities retain their core differences and the act of claiming that the article content presented above is representative of "wrestling" remains dishonest. Wrestling is one thing and pro wrestling is another.
Even readers with a limited knowledge of English will have the chance to see the difference. For a start they will have been given article titles that contain a phrase such as "(pro wrestling)". On this basis they may be better enabled to recognise the significance of a blue linked professional wrestling text in the article and click. By clicking this link they will find an article with ~52 language options with the result that most of the readership of the world gets covered. Furthermore they will have seen the word wrestling with a qualifying word of prefix. They may have even have understood the meaning of the qualifier as an indicator that the activity involved is performed on a commercial basis and for money. They are helped along the path of gaining a better understanding of the nature of the subject. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with most of this but it misses the point. The proposed moves are not dishonest and inaccurate and roundly fail WP:AT at all, that statement falls foul of several policies and should be retracted.
And there's still confusion as in normal English Sumo wrestlers and several other varieties of genuine sportspeople are both professional sportspeople and wrestlers, and their sport and profession is wrestling, although they may not be Professional wrestlers (and note that the p in our current disambiguators is not capitalised). All kidding aside, there's an unfortunate ambiguity there. Andrewa (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chael Sonnen tried out at the WCW Power Plant and Josh Barnett had a fixed series with Blue Wolf (himself a brother to yokozuna Asashōryū Akinori and Mongolian wrestler Dolgorsürengiin Sumiyaabazar), but that doesn't mean they don't also wrestle professionally. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that I have long regarded to have been a positive is the actual move in name of "WWE" (World Wrestling Entertainment) named in 2002 from "WWF" (World Wrestling Federation) named in 1998. Now I find that the only reason for the name change was that the World Wide Fund for Nature (the "WWF" since 1961) sued the owners of "World Wrestling Federation" for unfair trade practices. I started writing this in an attempt at positive praise, but that was not to be.
The name change was a positive and honest move especially when regarded in context. The natural world, as represented by the World Wide Fund for Nature, has always been far more representative of actual competitive wrestling than performance combat promoters like World Wrestling Entertainment.
I regard the actual use of "wrestling" in reference to "professional wrestling", unless it is very well qualified, to be a form of identity theft. The Professional wrestling industry, as it is described, does not represent wrestling. Definitions are clear and the use of the term in regard to sports entertainment has been far from honest. Its not accurate. Again, there is no dispute that performance combat industries successfully provide a highly desired and valid form of commodity and yet the terminology, "professional wrestling", is a fudge. It is, however, the best that we are left with and, within the guidelines of WP:UCRN, the terms "pro wrestling" or "professional wrestling" provided the best qualification available. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, agree with most of this. Actually I find the term pro wrestling far less objectionable, even a bit funny, owing to other meanings of the term pro. (;-> But then I'm not a wrestler myself. I do have a good friend who has at various times been a champion wrestler and an apprentice chef and is a very competent drummer. It is quite awesome to see him combine the various attainments these involve to dice a potato. Anyway, I'll ask him. Andrewa (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a fearsome face off with a (sorry) underground opponent. But another example of predictable outcomes I fear. Where does your views on "pro wrestling" place you in terms of support/oppose/suggest? I'd also be interested in the views of your friend. I'm just working with memory with regard to the views of my old wrestling buddies. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Love the phrasing! I'll see whether my friend wishes to comment and/or be quoted further.
Where does your views on "pro wrestling" place you in terms of support/oppose/suggest? So far, it's a pick between almost equally bad titles, but I'd prefer pro wrestling, followed by just wrestling, followed by professional wrestling. The current titles are the worst of an all-bad bunch. But not by very much.
See http://unimpedia.pbworks.com/w/page/87095968/pro%20wrestling for a less inhibited expression of this. Andrewa (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an amazing page. The title definitely builds. I still don't doubt that some professionals/pros could wrestle if they needed to or, more to the point, that they could carry off a fight. Professional wrestling is more about hitting and, no doubt, many could hit hard. It has more in common with mixed martial arts as in competitions such as Ultimate fighter. That would be the comparative match to watch.
I wouldn't want to take one on in the ring, except that under the no rules of sports entertainment and in the interests of surviving I'd feel justified in bringing the bren gun that I once learned to fire... that might even things up a little. Not sure even about a real wrestler, despite the bluster on the Unimpedia page... years ago I did some karate training. One of the medium-graded guys (green belt, one below brown, then black) in the dojo got attacked on the way to class with a sharpened screwdriver and almost died. His comment was "if he'd thrown a decent punch I'd have clobbered him, but he didn't know the first thing about fighting and it really threw me off!" Similarly, at least some real wrestlers would not be effective at fighting dirty I suspect, their training would be a liability. Andrewa (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that terms like martial arts and fighting have not been used and that the term "wrestling" is associated with competitive sport I still find that the qualifier "professional" provided distinction from the basic term. In gregpedia "fight entertainment" might have been the term to use though "entertainment wrestling" could have been considered. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that to title articles associated with so-called professional wrestling as wrestling is misrepresenting them..., but IMO to use the term professional wrestling is even worse, hence my weak support for the moves. Is there a better term? As I have said, I would prefer pro wrestling, but it may be that the association of the term pro with other insincere activities is stronger in Australia than among English speakers generally. Pretend wrestling was not really a serious suggestion, just an attempt to stimulate lateral thinking, it is at least accurate! Note that the rules for disambiguators are slightly different to those for article titles, although consistency between article titles and disambiguators is also a factor. Andrewa (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with statement by bd2412 that "Professional wrestling" is about as related to the classical and historical subject of Wrestling as any "professional" version of a sport would be. Also agree with that it is unfortunate that the term "professional wrestling" has been used but we must may need to acknowledge the limitations in Wikipedia of using the names that are brought into common recognition. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We are back to the same argument where a group of people are trying to place the difference between amateur wrestling and professional wrestling (or sumo for that matter) within the common disambiguator. That is inserting a WP:POV, making a WP:POINT into wikipedia's voice. We should not do that. I oppose such a move. Trackinfo (talk) 06:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but the rules for article titles are not quite the same as those for content in general (despite WP:AT being listed as a content policy). There are good reasons for this, one being that we can't put inline references on an article title (that's a software limitation at present) to indicate exactly whose POV it might represent.
If we have a consensus that the current titles are grossly misleading, then that would be a valid reason for a move, and we do seem to have a consensus for that. But we don't have consensus that this matters (which surprises me, but there you are), and far more important, no good suggestions for a better disambiguator. It's a matter of picking the best of a rather pathetic bunch, which (considering the subject matter) has a pythonesque logic and which I find very amusing. And maybe it doesn't matter a lot anyway. Andrewa (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES (no, not that title-change...) which states "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still talking about this? It's simple, we the articles talk about PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING (a entertainment). Wrestling is the sport, amateur wrestling is the sport, pro wrestling is the entertainment. We don't use Tomb Raider (2013 game), because it's a VIDEO game. The word wrestling is incorrect and I think "it's too short" isn't a reason. Even, PWInsider and PWTorch described themselfs as pro wrestling websites. (https://www.facebook.com/PWInsider and http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/Contact_Us_23/article_57658.shtml#.VDqEfvl_s40) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The term "professional wrestling" implies a form of wrestling. So all the objections to the use of "wrestling" as a disambiguator also apply to "professional wrestling." That being the case, the shorter disambiguator is preferable. You can always add information by making a title longer. But information about the subject belongs in the article, not the title. The purpose of disambiguation is to allow the reader to choose among several similarly named articles, not to fully describe the content. Of course this subject can be referred to by the unmodified word "wrestling." When I Bing "wrestling," the top three sites that come up are WrestlingInc.com, WWE, and ProWrestling.com. WWE is "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc." not World Professional Wrestling anything. Claimsworth (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC) (sock)[reply]

Discussion of alternative proposal[edit]

It would IMO be better to address the issue of the naming of the professional wrestling article rather than try to solve this here.

In particular, I wonder whether we could rename that article to wrestling (sports entertainment)?

  • The article at sports entertainment currently [2] states that The World Wrestling Federation coined the term "sports entertainment" during the 1980s as a description for professional wrestling.
  • The article at professional wrestling currently [3] leads off Professional wrestling (often shortened pro wrestling, or simply wrestling)... (my emphasis).

Assuming these two terms (that is, simply wrestling as a name for the topic of the article currently at professional wrestling, and sports entertainment for its genre) are both also attested in reliable sources, the article title wrestling (sports entertainment) seems ideal. It's both accurate and NPOV. Even if a redirect from professional wrestling remained, a hatnote to the DAB currently at Professional wrestling (disambiguation) would deal with any possible confusion.

We could then start the monumental task of renaming the many articles and categories that currently use the term professional wrestling or similar in a misleading fashion.

There doesn't seem to have been any discussion of any possible move at Talk:Professional wrestling, but that's surely the place to start. Wrestling (sports entertainment) currently redirects to professional wrestling and has an interesting edit history that is not significant in terms of our copyleft obligations.

Relisting to allow for discussion of this. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This suggestion is totally disregards objections to the proposed move from "Xx (professional wrestling)" titles. It may have been best treated separately. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it doesn't is totally disregards them at all. These are certainly relevant, but they're not the full story. And yes, if this suggestion were to be adopted, then there would be a strong case for renaming for example The Corporation (professional wrestling) to The Corporation (sports entertainment). What I'm trying to do is deal with the issues in a logical sequence, which doesn't appear to have been attempted before... or if it has, links to the previous discussion would be appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrewa, the idea of professional wrestling as "sports entertainment" is one heavily promoted by the American company WWE, which admittedly has virtually something close to a monopoly both in and out of the USA. Today, no other company can match WWE's penetration into international markets. However, I am skeptical whether the term "sports entertainment" is applied to wrestling from other companies like in Japan or in Mexico. Here an expert on wrestling seems to indicate that a Japanese company (NJPW) airing shows in the USA would deviate from "the Vince Russo/Stephanie McMahon era of presenting wrestling as farcical sports entertainment" currently endemic in the USA. This is a less reliable source, but a good description: The biggest difference is that NJPW is not really in the business of “sports entertainment,” at least as we know it here in America. NJPW calls itself “The King of Sports,” so they still consider themselves to be a professional wrestling organization.
  • Having said all of that, I'd be wary of labelling the entire field of wrestling as sports entertainment just because WWE does it. starship.paint ~ regal 09:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is suggesting labelling the entire field of wrestling as sports entertainment, just those parts of wrestling that organise staged matches rather than genuine competitions, as far as we can determine this from reliable sources. And there's no suggestion as far as I know that WWE have any exclusive rights over the term sports entertainment, that would raise a whole new set of issues. The sources you cite don't say whatever it is they are trying to say very clearly... what do they mean by NJPW is not really in the business of “sports entertainment,”? They seem to just mean that the style of presentation is different... As you would expect in a significantly different culture. There's no suggestion that NJPW matches are genuine contests, so far as I can see, so it is still sports entertainment whether they choose to call it that or not. Andrewa (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be always kept in mind that this topic is the business of promoting a lucrative fantasy... and those making money out of this promotion include the journalists. We can't expect that they'll make it easy for us to sort out the accurate NPOV material. Truth is neither their mindset nor their business. But it should still be ours. Andrewa (talk) 11:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrewa, a current suggestion of article title is Blading (pro wrestling). Would you suggest Blading (sports entertainment) or something else? Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Blading (sports entertainment) is the go. It seems to avoid all the problems. Interested in other suggestions. Even blading (pro wrestling) is in my opinion a little better than the current title, as pro wrestling has more of the feel of a compound noun (rather than a noun phrase) than the current disambiguator professional wrestling, so it's less misleading than the current title. But I think we can do better, and Blading (sports entertainment) seems to tick all the boxes. If it were to be the choice here, then I'd raise an RM to move professional wrestling to wrestling (sports entertainment}, and then I'd expect the discussion to get really heated. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm opposed to any additional move, especially one to (sports entertainment). Professional Wrestling is the genre's common name and it has been for decades. Sports Entertainment is something Vince McMahon labeled his product, though WWE continues to use both terms interchangeably. I think we're looking too far into things, Lugnuts may have a point with WP:TITLECHANGES. (professional wrestling) has been a fine disambigulator for years, if it's not broke we shouldn't be fixing it. I supported (wrestling) because it is more concise, but the majority some apparently prefer the additional precision that the full title offers, that's fine, but (sports entertainment) is a horse of a different color and less precise than either title debated above.LM2000 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the only relevance of WP:TITLECHANGES is that any proposed moves should go through the correct channels... which was always intended anyway. Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose also based on WP:TITLECHANGES, except I think that this small group, compared to the numerous articles that are already disambiguated to the shorter (wrestling) or (wrestler). As I have argued above, the addition of "professional" is unnecessary. Nobody has shown an example where additional specificity is necessary, there are no duplicate usages. So based on WP:CONCISE we should eliminate professional until it becomes necessary. I'd accept status quo as far superior than to honor Vince McMahon's marketing terminology "sports entertainment" as being anything but a made up term. To quote Gordon Solie "The name on the marque is wrestling." Trackinfo (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TITLECHANGES is of course relevant, but only in that the proposed moves should be formally raised at Wikipedia:Requested moves in the normal manner, and discussed in due course, which is what I have always intended, it's commonsense. But I should have made that explicit, and thanks for pointing out this omission.
And that seems to be the only relevance of WP:TITLECHANGES.
To reject the term on the grounds that it's Vince McMahon's marketing terminology "sports entertainment" is POV. The question is, do reliable sources use the term? If they do, then it's no longer a made up term. (But if they don't then agree, we shouldn't use it either.) Andrewa (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
McMahon inventing the term is not POV, its fact. How many competing organizations have adopted "sports entertainment" or even "entertainment" into their names. Then compare that to how many organizations there are that use "wrestling" (most without including the word "professional") in their titles. We've been down this road before. Trackinfo (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that McMahon inventing the term is not POV. That's not what was suggested at all.
The RM to which you link was to move a number of WWE wrestlers from (wrestler} to {professional wrestler}, and the moves did not proceed. Your point escapes me... there were people who objected to one or both disambiguators there, but this third option was not raised (partly because I hadn't then thought of it), so we haven't been down this road before at all.
Agree that what these organisations choose to call themselves is a consideration. But it's not the only consideration, and considering that they are in the business of fantasy, certainly not the last word in this discussion. It's not as if we're discussing the titles of the articles on the organisations themselves... there's no suggestion for example that the article currently at Professional Girl Wrestling Association should be renamed, that's simply the name of the organisation. But just because the organisation is called that doesn't make it an association of female wrestlers... and of course, it's not. So what the actors it employs should be called is a different issue. Andrewa (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For such a move to happen, it would need the "sports entertainment" term to be as popular as "professional wrestling" to be used a substitute. Which means that most articles which mention "professional wrestling" should soon also mention "sports entertainment". I haven't seen reliable sources even describe non-American companies as having "sports entertainment". The term is certainly not as popular. starship.paint ~ regal 13:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good points but disagree. The policies and guidelines on disambiguation are not that simple, and for good reasons. Andrewa (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POVs[edit]

One question that must be asked is, does avoiding the common term professional wrestling in titles for articles on sports entertainment topics reflect a POV?

It seems to me that it doesn't, although at first sight it may appear to. On the other hand, the kayfabe of sports entertainment is very much a POV and worse. We must be very careful not to adopt it or to confuse it with reality, just as we are careful with Star Trek and other fictional universes not to describe fictional events as if they were real.

Describing sports entertainment as wrestling or professional wrestling is quite OK in the context of an article that makes it clear that these terms are being used within the fantasy. But in the title of an article that deals with, for example, a wrestling hold that only exists within this kayfabe universe, or a wrestling team whose exploits are similarly fictional, these terms should be avoided. This isn't POV, it's the reality of the situation.

Where a disambiguator is needed for such articles, the obvious one is sports entertainment. Interested in any better suggestions.

We don't refer to the character described in the Pluto (Disney) article as Pluto (dog), although I don't think there's any doubt that he's the primary meaning of Pluto when it comes to dogs. That would be misleading. Instead, in the article title we use a disambiguator that is sufficiently precise to place Pluto in the appropriate context, and have a redirect from the other obvious disambiguation. We should do the same for sports entertainment wrestlers, and there is absolutely nothing stopping us. Andrewa (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto only appeared in Disney. Can you guarantee the same about any wrestler staying in a particular brand (WWE)? Across the entire genre? Impossible. Wrestling is the common denominator. Trackinfo (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nop. PROFESSIONAL wrestling is the common denominator. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, "wrestling" is an inadequate descriptor in relation to "professional wrestling". Relevant denominators are found in the categories section of Professional wrestling. Such categories include "Performing arts", "Mock combat", "Sports entertainment" and "Theatrical combat". sry for cutting in. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Professional wrestling is professional wrestling. Face is a word used in professional wrestling, so Face (professional wrestling) is the best name. The articles talk about subjets in professional wrestling, not the entire world of sports entertainment nor amateur wrestling. Professional wrestling (even using the word "wrestling") is the correct term. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But professional wrestling is not professional wrestling. It's a spectacle that pretends to be professional wrestling, and is labelled that in order to promote its illusion, and this is an important point but a trickier one than it may seem. Because while our policy is not to promote this illusion, we're not in the business of debunking it just because we know it to be false, that would be original research. So in either case we simply report what reliable sources say on the matter. That's what we're here to do, no less and no more.
The upshot of all this is that while professional wrestling is an acceptable disambiguator (and particularly as we have a relevant article by that name), it may not be the best disambiguator, and that's the point being discussed in this particular RM. Andrewa (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not, you're wrong. Professional wrestling is the sport entertainment, but it doesn't mean (real) Wrestling in a professional level. Professional is the word to separate fake (professional wrestling) from real (amateur wrestling or wrestling). Can you show a source where professional wrestling is a sport? No, because "professional wrestling" is a word used in the sport entertainment. For real sport, we have free-style wrestling, amateur wrestling, greco-roman wrestling... . Also, we never mention pro wrestling in articles like Wrestling at the Summer Olympics or Amateur wrestling. Pro wrestling is SE, Amateur wrestling (and subsections like free style wrestling) is sport, but you'll never find Pro Wrestling as sport. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show a source where professional wrestling is a sport? Yes, very easily. The page heading of http://cauliflowerculture.com/sumo/ is Sumo Professional Wrestling Featured by Cauli Sports (my emphasis). No, because "professional wrestling" is a word used in the sport entertainment. Well, the example I gave was on the first line of the first page of 301,000 ghits [4] so may I ask what searches (if any) you made? Certainly the term professional wrestling is used as you suggest, but the point is, it has other meanings as well. And it's a very important point. Andrewa (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm involved in this discussion, but the site you cite seems to have ripped off our own page on Sumo in order to write that page. Dekimasuよ!
Well spotted and I didn't see that, but so? While Wikipedia does not and must not try to change the English language, inevitably we do have an affect on English usage, particularly on the WWW. Our guidelines are simply based on what people do say and how they say it. Where they learned to say it that way is irrelevant, and it must be so, because while in this case we can guess where they got the phrase, that's not generally true.
It's probably not the best source for other reasons, but it and the other 300,000+ ghits show how wide of the mark the preceding comment was. Andrewa (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd trust Vince McMahon to give me a title shot before I trust Google to give me actual numbers. With the same query you used, I get "about 44,000 results". Of these alleged results, Google shows me 849. Of these 849, I'm not sure how many are duplicates, but I am sure a lot of them are crap. Anyway, here's result 847: The oldest filmed wrestling match. Enjoy. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you'd be crazy to give the figures too much weight. I just retried it and got 729,000 results. But any of these results expose the challenge Can you show a source where professional wrestling is a sport? to be leading with one's chin. It's pure bluster, no possible rationale or justification... a bit like a WWE scenario, actually. Andrewa (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't guarantee the same about any wrestler staying in a particular brand (WWE), nor is there any need to. Sports entertainment is a type of spectacle which presents an ostensibly competitive event using a high level of theatrical flourish and extravagant presentation, with the purpose of entertaining an audience. Unlike typical athletics and games, which are conducted for competition, sportsmanship, exercise or personal recreation, the primary product of sports entertainment is performance for an audience's benefit, thus they are never practiced privately. Commonly, but not in all cases, the outcomes are predetermined; as this is an open secret, it is not considered to be match fixing. Or that's what our article currently [5]] says. No mention of restricting the term to WWE events etc.. Andrewa (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Regular bladers"[edit]

Is this list necessary? And if so, who or what decides who should or should not be on this list? For example, I'd expect to see Bret Hart or Davey Boy Smith (especially from their pre-WWF years) or Kurt Angle (especially in TNA) on this list before Randy Orton, who has spent much of his career in the PG-14 era. 109.149.69.189 (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.230.105.17 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blading_(professional_wrestling)&oldid=1200138361"