TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Horrible.Wrestling and subpages

Go To

Twentington Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Desperate
#1: Feb 5th 2012 at 7:35:16 PM

Horrible.Professional Wrestling and its subpages seem like nothing but Complaining About Wrestling Gimmicks You Don't Like. The pages are huge and full of level 2 and 3 bullets. So much natter and justifying edits.

Should we bomb them outright, or are there enough wrestling savvy people here to clean it up?

edited 5th Feb '12 7:35:28 PM by Twentington

INUH Since: Jul, 2009
#2: Feb 5th 2012 at 7:35:49 PM

-nevermind-

edited 5th Feb '12 7:36:02 PM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story
crazyrabbits Crazyrabbits from Mississauga, ON, Canada Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Crazyrabbits
#3: Feb 9th 2012 at 3:48:35 PM

I can take a chainsaw to the page, as per our recent decision over in the other WT topic.

Catbert Since: Jan, 2012
#4: Feb 10th 2012 at 8:10:26 PM

You do realize this is Darth Wiki, right?

Also, shouldn't this be a question for Trope Talk or TRS, not Wiki Talk?

crazyrabbits Crazyrabbits from Mississauga, ON, Canada Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Crazyrabbits
#5: Feb 11th 2012 at 12:41:33 PM

^ Yes. We've been over this many times. A DW page can get unruly when it's not being held to its own standards - almost all the other pages have strict guidelines as to what can and can't be put on a page (simply saying, "I don't like x because it sucks" doesn't count).

It seems like many of these examples (and wrestling in particular) are prone to justifying edits and natter (along with the Anime pages). I'll go through it when I have some time this weekend.

EDIT: I've done the main page and WWE/WCW subpages. Will get to TNA when I have time.

edited 11th Feb '12 1:24:49 PM by crazyrabbits

Twentington Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Desperate
#6: Feb 11th 2012 at 5:09:59 PM

Moved to TRS now that I finally got an opening.

Cider The Final ECW Champion from Not New York Since: May, 2009 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
#7: Feb 15th 2012 at 10:26:23 PM

Yeah, I'm questioning if this is anymore than Complaining About Complaining. Most of the so called "natter" and "Justifying Edits that were deleted were really just people further elaborating on different angles which gives on a sense on how stupid something was.

Really, you deleted lines about Bart Gunn vs Butterbean, the infamous inane booking decision by Vince Russo that almost got Bart killed and ruined his career? That and the whole brawl for all are bad enough for an entire article, why did you cut down on that? Why was Sable Vs Tori or Big Bossman's Hell in the cell deleted? Yes Tori's drawing ability was gone, the only reason Bossman's wasn't is because he had already lost it(it was called Bossman heat for a reason) How can you be more damaging to a star than to make their final match on the biggest stage of them all a dark match, especially Tito Santana, one of the few men to never turn heel? Why is Russo's entire run gone? It totally deserved to be there.

Granted, it wasn't all Russo's fault, Hogan and Michael's politics are just as much to blame and that should be on the page, because their backstage politics made the product near unwatchable.

The shilling of Wrestle Crap and the comments about Coach unrelated to Katie Vick I'm fine with being deleted, that is just natter. The fact that it was a the top feud on Raw, centered around the most prestigious titles in wrestling, should not have been deleted. That gives insight into how horrible it was. And why is Mae Young giving birth to a hand gone? Sure, there was a comment that "it wasn't as bad as David Arquette" that's not a saving grace as the Arquette angle is it self So bad its horrible and only beat out Mae's pregnancy by a .5% vote.

Chris Masters was just another case or roids, that I agree with deleting but Beaver Cleavage belongs. Mike Adamle's "saving grace" was that fans had something to make fun of. That's not contesting so bad its horrible, its affirming it. The natter can go but the example should stay.

Hirotiro and Heidenreich I'm not sure of since those were canned before reaching television. Personally I found the scene of the latter anally raping Michael Cole then attempting to befriend children in the audience to be really funny but that might just be because Cole was involved. The gooker belongs, even the WWE themselves admitted it was horrible.

Kerwin White definitely belongs. I fail to see why the Benoit double murder suicide was removed considering all the damage that caused American wrestling if not prowrestling as a whole. There was natter to take out there but the relevant events should remain.

Why is Dawn Marie being fired for gaining weight even though it was because she was pregnant gone? How is that anything by horrible? Why are the fake porno pay per views gone? Isn't false advertising inherently so bad its horrible? I haven't even gotten to the other three wrestling pages but I imagine its all more of the same Complaining About Complaining.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
McJeff McJeff from probably sitting at a computer Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
#8: Feb 16th 2012 at 10:03:48 PM

Yeah, I'd go so far as to say Crazyrabbit's "cleanup" was more akin to vandalism than anything else. He seems to have made up his own rules - for example, I see nothing about "not having a large impact" disqualifying something from being SBIH. And frankly I don't see much "natter" or "contested entries". I saw plenty of elaboration for the benefit of people who might not be wrestling fans and not understand why such things were horrible.

And frankly, anybody who doesn't understand why the In Vasion was horrible down to the last detail doesn't have any business asserting themselves as a curator of anything pro wrestling related.

Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
crazyrabbits Crazyrabbits from Mississauga, ON, Canada Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Crazyrabbits
#9: Feb 17th 2012 at 3:44:38 PM

^ Vandalism? The reason why I cut it down so significantly is for several reasons:

1) Several other SBIH pages have been cut in the past for attracting natter and justifying edits. I've had my eye on the wrestling subpages for sometime, but never did anything with them because I assumed others would be willing to cut down when necessary. That never happened. Other subpages (like Web Original) were cut for attracting exactly this type of discussion and whining.

2) The only similar thread I see on the wrestling pages are "because Wrestlecrap said so". Many of the other pages have definable standards that constitute what can be a SBIH entry - film and television examples have ratings and financial data, definable elements that didn't go over with audiences who called in to complain, etc. Advertising has examples that were clearly shown to have failed with the fanbase and completely destroyed brand viability. Video game examples either killed the franchise or careers of those involved with it. Many of the examples I cut were of wrestlers that (after I ran a cursory search on them or went to their page) were still wrestling long after the SBIH entry in question "killed" their career.

3) When I was going through these examples, I noticed that many of them were (as I previously said in the page history), weak angles that ran on a bit too long or a Wall Banger. Also, many of the examples didn't read like something that was truly "horrible" - a bad match that had a couple blown spots. The way the page was written, you'd think wrestling fans complain about every single angle, storyline or botched move every week.

4) Why I removed certain examples:

- I cut the one about Russo's run because it was almost entirely behind-the-scenes, with the full facts of the matter being discovered later (and contributing to his perception in current culture).

- The Bart Gunn example was a silly match that resulted in an injury. Unless the fans audibly hated it at the time it aired (I don't have any other information I have to go on), it doesn't sound like it belongs.

- The Invasion PPV (as I clearly stated on the history page) was financially successful. It doesn't matter how much you hate it - from at least one perspective, it was a hit with viewers. In addition, several of the bullet points (that were readded by Mc Jeff) have nothing do with the Invasion - wrestlers who were only hired after the angle ended has nothing to do with it. That's complaining, pure and simple.

- The HHH vs. Steiner match. The audience was cheering for HHH. It certainly doesn't sound like they hated the match.

- The Katie Vick angle was largely comprised on complaining, even years after the fact. If it was audibly booed and critiqued by fans at the time it was on, it would be this. I don't have any more information other than references to it years after the fact.

- Chaz Warrington had many angles he tried, but the example doesn't explain how he was different from anyone else who tried the same thing, and assumes "he quit, therefore it was because he sucked" is the reason why he should be listed.

- People complained about Mike Adamle's mic skills - it had nothing to do with audience reaction, and had more to do with complaining about Did Not Do The Research.

- The Mae Young angle was a gimmick, with the fans who "hated" it only doing so years after the fact (and from a segment of the fanbase predisposed to bad angles). It doesn't seem like it was that bad when it aired.

- The Dawn Marie example has nothing related to a match or angle - it's a company decision related to something the wrestler did. Also pretty sure the example mentioned that she kept wrestling afterwards. Seemed like whining to me. Likewise, I'm fairly sure the "fake porno PPV" example mentioned that there was enough of an audience for the first one to justify a second one being produced.

- The ones about the offending stereotype wrestlers being canned before they were on tv. If they didn't have any fan reaction, it's more What Could Have Been. The Booker T as Kane example has definable evidence - it was met with extremely negative fan reaction when it was tried out.

- The Benoit example, by itself, had nothing to do with the sport - it was familial homicide outside of a wrestling event. Most of the natter related to it referred to outside pundits or media sources not doing research. I get that it was a tragic event, but there's no real definable evidence that the ratings went down (in fact, a cursory scan seems to indicate that their critical and commercial reception is very good) after the Benoit incident.

As an aside, I removed an example similar to the Benoit incident on the Live Action TV subpage (about a reality show contestant who murdered his girlfriend a couple weeks after a show he was starring in finished, due to going off the deep end). Someone tried to justify it by explaining that it destroyed VH 1's credibility. That example had nothing to do with either the show he starred on or the network the show aired on - in the end, it was a personal decision that cost him his life.

5) Mc Jeff, you yourself created the Wall Banger page for wrestling, but I don't think you understand that there's a clear line between WB and SBIH. I've curated several of the SBIH pages, and I'm not afraid to chop it down to save SBIH as a whole (as I've had to do with other pages in the same namespace). A bad angle that grows worse as time goes on isn't really SBIH if it was cheered at the time. A silly angle that runs too long isn't necessarily SBIH (unless it's hated by the fans in the audience at the time it aired). An isolated stupid moment isn't really SBIH. A company decision isn't SBIH (as most of the time, it's discovered after the fact).

You complain that I threw the "baby out with the bathwater". I just did what it took to make sure the SBIH wrestling pages don't get deleted due to whining and complaining. Even worse is that Mc Jeff re-added a number of entries without consulting anyone. I'm going to remove them again (with added justification on each of the subpages). I didn't do this lightly, and I will continue cutting the offending examples until you get the point.

edited 17th Feb '12 6:52:42 PM by crazyrabbits

feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#10: Feb 17th 2012 at 6:52:22 PM

I will continue cutting the offending examples until you get the point.

As a heads-up, if you keep deleting entries from a page, someone else keeps readding them, and neither of you resolve it, odds are that you'll both be banned.

edited 17th Feb '12 6:52:33 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
crazyrabbits Crazyrabbits from Mississauga, ON, Canada Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Crazyrabbits
#11: Feb 17th 2012 at 7:01:08 PM

^ I don't mind when I disagree with someone on an example, or if someone works to make a better example from what was cut (indeed, a couple of examples were more clear as to why it didn't go over at the time, so I left them). I have a problem when people complain about a page that someone else asked to cut because more than half the examples (and in some cases, up to 90% - the TNA page was bitching about how many sides a ring can have, for example) devolved into natter, clarification (to the point that fourth-level bullet points were being used to justify examples), a Wall Banger or something that had no explanation whatsoever. I also don't appreciate being accused of "vandalism" by a user who freely admits to using natter and allowing it to remain on pages.

There's a reason why I deleted every one of those entries - if someone can repair them, great. You don't just start adding them all back en masse with the justification that it's "Complaining About Complaining". That's irrelevant when it comes to SBIH.

This isn't isolated, either - several of the other SBIH pages had mass purgings that others complained about. We made a rule a few months back to cleanup those pages and moderate them, and that's exactly what I'm doing.

edited 17th Feb '12 7:04:14 PM by crazyrabbits

McJeff McJeff from probably sitting at a computer Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
#12: Feb 17th 2012 at 7:26:41 PM

-nevermind-

edited 19th Feb '12 2:03:37 PM by McJeff

Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
McJeff McJeff from probably sitting at a computer Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
#13: Feb 17th 2012 at 8:15:04 PM

- The HHH vs. Steiner match. The audience was cheering for HHH. It certainly doesn't sound like they hated the match.

  • The audience only started cheering HHH towards the end of their match. And HHH was supposed to be the heel. They were just so sick of Steiner's complete ineptness in the ring that they revolted.

- The Katie Vick angle was largely comprised on complaining, even years after the fact. If it was audibly booed and critiqued by fans at the time it was on, it would be this. I don't have any more information other than references to it years after the fact.

  • It is well known that the Katie Vick segment caused a major and immediate dropoff in WWF viewership, something in the neighborhood of 500,000 fans. According to Wikipedia, the angle "proved very unpopular with fans", although I can't provide a quote because the statement was sourced to a Vince Mc Mahon DVD.

- The Dawn Marie example has nothing related to a match or angle - it's a company decision related to something the wrestler did. Also pretty sure the example mentioned that she kept wrestling afterwards. Seemed like whining to me. Likewise, I'm fairly sure the "fake porno PPV" example mentioned that there was enough of an audience for the first one to justify a second one being produced.

  • The "horrible" part of Dawn Marie's firing was that she was fired for gaining weight while she was pregnant. She filed a lawsuit and it was likely enough she would have won that WWE settled out of court with her. And no, she didn't keep wrestling afterwards. She made occasional indy appearances that were essentially cameos.
  • The Girls Gone Wild thing didn't air until after the Divas Undressed thing, and Divas Undressed was not a PPV. So WWE/Girls Gone Wild and the bait and switch therein did in fact qualify.

- The Benoit example, by itself, had nothing to do with the sport - it was familial homicide outside of a wrestling event. Most of the natter related to it referred to outside pundits or media sources not doing research. I get that it was a tragic event, but there's no real definable evidence that the ratings went down (in fact, a cursory scan seems to indicate that their critical and commercial reception is very good) after the Benoit incident.

  • I fail to see how malicious misinformation spread by professionals who are supposed to know better fails to qualify as SBIH.

Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
Nocturna Since: May, 2011
#14: Feb 17th 2012 at 8:16:21 PM

Wouldn't this be more appropriate for Special Efforts rather than Wiki Talk?

McJeff McJeff from probably sitting at a computer Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
#15: Feb 17th 2012 at 8:43:20 PM

I wouldn't know, I try not to use the forums unless forced to.

Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
Cider The Final ECW Champion from Not New York Since: May, 2009 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
#16: Feb 18th 2012 at 10:08:36 AM

Full facts on Russo's run did taint public perception of him years later. At the time fans just thought of his lousy booking as generic crap from the WWE, they didn't know who was directly responsible but Beaver Cleavage and the Brawl For All were still very unpopular angles.

Fans started booing the divasearch by the time it was in it fourth iteration, forcing number five not to be shown to live audiences, we only learned John Lauranitus was responsible years later but focusing our rage on one man or being in the dark about the cause doesn't change the fact the divasearch was something fans got sick of and now look back on in rage.

Bart gun's match with Butter Bean is the highlight of the failure that was the Brawl for all. Fans are hyped up to see this "clash of giants on the grandest stage of them all" and it doesn't even last a minute. Russo took a promising talent, made him do something he wasn't trained for, nearly got him killed and all the fans got out of it were underwhelming programs. How is that anything but horrible booking?

As for fans hating the Mae Young hand "years later", the angle was in 2000, Wrestlecrap was launched in the year 2000. The reason it and the Arquette angle are still so hated to this very day is because they were two of the first crap wrestling story lines to cause internet buzz.

What is with this "must be damaging to the business" thing anyway? No other page has that qualification, it doesn't need to kill the product advertised, it doesn't need to sink anime studios but the wrestling page, for some reason, has restrictions no other page does. The truth is, we as wrestling fans are a lot more willing to point out the flaws in our product and unfortunately have a little better knowledge of how it works than most other media fans. That means our page is going to longer than most, why should we get special rules, why can't we just follow the same ones as everyone else, that page was being curated.

Being financially successful doesn't shield from being Horrible. 2 out of 5 Diva Searches were decent ratings draws. That doesn't mean fans liked them, it just means they were promised something exciting and tuned in. Doesn't change that 2004 winner Christie got booed at the Vengeance Pay Per View or that Ashley got crapped on for her entire career.

You can sell someone crack and make a lot of money, doesn't mean the customer is going to be enjoying the experience. And as long as the on going elaboration isn't false then what's the problem? That's not natter, that's education. The crack head might simply feel physically awful, they'll really hate the stuff if you explain it can also permanently disfigure them and the man selling it used the money to branch out into human trafficking.

No, Beaver Cleavage is not that serious, but its horribleness comes into new light when you learn not only was it bad, but it's the bad angle that indirectly lead to the demise of WCW and cemented Russo as a bad booker. Further explaining the subject is not the same thing as Conversation On The Main Page, those bullet points belonged. Beyond that, the wrestling pages should be held to the same standard as the rest of so bad its horrible. Everyone has ups and downs and The WWE has been around for 60 years! That page should have been longer.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
hartbreak Since: Nov, 2010
#17: Feb 26th 2012 at 9:01:27 AM

I tried to cut examples from it years ago by pointing out how they did not fit, all it accomplished for me was being band because I cut a large portion despite giving reasons for all of them even giving proof in the form of ratings and fan reaction. A guy named Mcjeff claimed I was vandalizing and instead of reviewing the claim they just took his word. You will notice several of the entries you cut have been readed by the same guy.

You will notice allot of the entries are for the most popular angels and gimmicks. Hell the Russo ear and Invation were considering high points in terms of popularity and mainstream exposure. However people just downplay them because it goes against their belief of what happened. It is the same reason they ignore things like Chris Jericho and Bret Hart becoming champion which actually did cause a large dropoff because they are wrestler which they liked. They also have rather strange logic on what was bad for instance the diva search developing one of the girls as a Heel is sighted as proof it was not popular.

This page needs to be cleaned up again but because some people apparently think damage means bringing in new fans and good is making them leave so smarks can be the only ones who like it.

Cider The Final ECW Champion from Not New York Since: May, 2009 Relationship Status: They can't hide forever. We've got satellites.
The Final ECW Champion
#18: Feb 26th 2012 at 10:19:09 AM

Diva Search isn't on the page, it was fairly popular in the second and third runs, it's other three that people didn't care for initially, but now fans look back at the whole thing with more disdain than they originally did because it was damaging to the business in the long run.

I ask again, what is with this "must be damaging to the business" thing anyway? No other page has that qualification, it doesn't need to kill the product advertised, it doesn't need to sink anime studios but the wrestling page, for some reason, has restrictions no other page does.

If simply being damaging to the business was the only qualification the diva search would be there, but this isn't about cases where companies lost fans or money, it is about horrible angles. But your own argument fails anyway. Brawl for all was not some high point, it got some new viewers but only because it was cashing in on the then "Tough Man" fad going around in the 90s, that fans chanted We Want Wrestling is proof enough buying isn't the same thing as enjoying. I suppose all the ECW fans chanting where's my refund isn't enough proof they enjoyed watching Batista and Big Show because the hammerstein ball room show turned a profit, and neither is the case that the WWE hasn't tried it, or the Brawl For All again since. Not the diva search is something that is reviled but remains off the page, WWE were willing to try that five times, twice after it was clear fans were sick of it.

The Brawl for all killed doctor Death's run, shortened Steve Blackman's career, nearly ended Juan Rivera's and the same for Bart Gun, who took a punch that came close to killing him. It fits the "damaging to the business" argument anyway.

Modified Ura-nage, Torture Rack
hartbreak Since: Nov, 2010
#19: Feb 27th 2012 at 7:12:42 AM

The reason why it must damage the product is because that is how home audience reaction is gagged. Because wrestling is constantly changing and can be considered one big story you have to look at the ratings along with audience and critic reaction to determine if it was actually a failure. Like you said the tournament actually brought in new fans. Also while it might have hurt the career of Dr. Death, it did wonders for others like Bradshaw, Gunn, and Holly. The reason it was not done again was because of all the injuries it caused. Also the Big Show Batista match was not bad however since it was supposed to be an ECW show and neither of them were in the original ECW (it was no longer a WWE farm territories by the time they debut) fans booed them. ECW fans are known for being an unpleasable bunch when it douse not have one of their favorites in the ring.

McJeff McJeff from probably sitting at a computer Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
#20: Mar 4th 2012 at 11:16:02 AM
Thumped: for switching the discussion from the topic to a person. Doesn't take many of this kind of thump to bring a suspension. Stay on the topic, not the people in the discussion.
Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
hartbreak Since: Nov, 2010
#21: Mar 5th 2012 at 4:11:55 PM
Thumped: for switching the discussion from the topic to a person. Doesn't take many of this kind of thump to bring a suspension. Stay on the topic, not the people in the discussion.
Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#22: Mar 5th 2012 at 9:08:51 PM

Knock it off you two, or next time I'll thump your heads together.

AyaReiko (Ancient one) Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
#23: Mar 8th 2012 at 9:58:24 PM

Restoring (most of) the Hardcore Justice 2010 to the TNA page. As it did damage TNA's reputation.

It'll probably still need more editing though.

McJeff McJeff from probably sitting at a computer Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
#24: Mar 9th 2012 at 5:24:40 PM

I don't watch TNA at all, so I can't help with sorting through the stuff that was "chainsawed" from the Horrible TNA page and figuring out where the removals were valid and where they were just overzealous. But when I'm trying to clean something up, I start by looking at the bullets, especially when they go past second, and trying to condense them into a single paragraph. Flip remarks, even if they're funny, can afford to be cut, but I personally think there's a big difference between natter and elaboration, and while natter is bad elaboration is usually good.

Russell... likes to hurt people... for PEACE.
Add Post

Total posts: 24
Top