Talk:Grand Slam (professional wrestling)

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5

Page content and order

Order of contents: per WP:LIST, "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers). When using a more complex form of organization, (by origin, by use, by type, etc.), the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent." Putting WWE first because they created the concept of the Grand Slam only works if all other entries are in chronological order. Otherwise, this is just editors subjectively putting content they consider the most important at the top.

If the page is going to be ordered any way other than alphabetically, the rationale for the order should be clear.

Division between national and regional/independent: no explanation is given for this distinction on the page, it is therefore arbitrary. If the entries are going to be divided, the reasons for this should be clear.

McPhail (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Once you were first reverted you should not revert again but leave the article as it was until discussion is concluded. Please don't edit war.

That said, I think making a distinction between national and regional promotions is important. Some of these regionals are barely even notable enough for articles, let alone appearing before major companies that defined the concept. But that's just my 2¢.

I left a note at the project talk page to hopefully draw some discussion so we can find a broader consensus. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Your edits are contrary to WP:LIST and can therefore validly be reverted.

Sorting the promotions by the date when the Grand Slam accolade was introduced is an acceptable alternative to alphabetical order, if this is supported.

If promotions are not notable, they simply should not appear in the article. Putting them at the bottom of the page is not a sensible compromise. McPhail (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• We should 100% only include notable grand slams. To me that is just national promotions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree non-notable promotions should be excluded. I would avoid the "national" distinction though which is subjective. McPhail (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I prefer chronological order, since WWE was the first and the most notable one. for me, the limit is if the promotion is notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we should only include national promotions. WWE/Impact/ROH and any others that recognize a Grand Slam champion. I support listing WWE at the top, followed by the other promotions in alphabetical order. StaticVapor message me! 18:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It's the same problem with the triple crown. I don't remember who, but somebody complaines about the inclusion of independent promotions. But these are notable promotions, I think it's enough since the article covers the TC and GS in pro wrestling, no just TC and GS for national promotions. Any case, I don't see Explosive notable. Most of the sources are cagematch, wrestling titles and wrestling data. Outside an agreement with GFW, it's hard to see as a notable promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Listing WWE first then other promotions alphabetically is not a consistent or clear ordering, which is required by the policy. The discussion above appears to support the removal of non-notable promotions and the ordering of the remaining promotions chronologically, which I will implement. McPhail (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is "notable" promotion. These promotions (CZW, OVW, Revpro) have articles, so they are notable. I understand promotions with no article, but these promotions are notable to have an article about them --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

We should remove "non-notable" promotions but there seems to be little consensus on what that means. I agree with HHH Pedrigree that any promotion with an article is notable and I think anything notable can be included.LM2000 (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what WP:Notability says. All of these promotions that were deleted are notable. Imagine a list of Disney films with only notable ones and suddenly, the direct to DVD are removed since it wasn't shown on theaters. Yes, these are Direct to DVD movies, but have articles, so they are notable. Also, the independent vs nationals it's a little outdated, since some promotions has On Demand services and internet fanbase around the world. As LM2000 said, we have to agree about notable", since it's a bad word. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see we haven't come to a conclusion yet, but McPhail has already taken down the regional promotions, and ECW and LU. I don't think that they should have been taken down, because the company would have recognised a Triple Crown/Grand Slam format one way or another if they were up there in the first place. For example I'm from the same place where EPW is, and they've recognised that Gavin McGavin is the 'first ever EPW Triple Crown and Grand Slam Champion' after he won the Heavyweight title in August 2018.Drummoe (talk) 0:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

We haven't come to a conclusion yet and any substantial changes should be reverted until we come to one. The ECW removal was particularly sloppy, the rationale was that the source included came from an interview but there was a second source.LM2000 (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright well I've just reverted it back then, and I put the second source for ECW up there. Drummoe (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The source you've added says simply "Though he was a Triple Crown Champion in ECW". It does not say "The Extreme Championship Wrestling (ECW) Triple Crown consisted of the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, the ECW World Television Championship and the ECW World Tag Team Championship." which is what the article claims. This is WP:SYNTHESIS. Material should not be added without a robust source. McPhail (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

That is all there was, so there is no other option, it is not "synthesis" to say that "red, yellow and green" are three colors. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Multiple Grand Slams?

For the WWE (modern) and TNA Grand Slam listings, is there a better way to list the dates of the 2nd Grand Slam? For example, maybe list the dates and reigns that compose of the second reign as Grand Slam? retched (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Bret Hart

Bret Hart is a Grand Slam Champion too. He won the WWE Title, the tag titles, the IC title and the US title. 89.204.130.246 (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

So WWE does not recognize WCW-owned reigns of the championships when counting for the WWE Grand Slam Championship. However, the argument does make sense as the lineages for both titles DO line up. (WWE recognizes the US title as starting back in the NWA era through the end of the WCW/Turner era.) Nonetheless, WWE didn't update their original list (nor the revised list) to include any WCW title reign which is what matters most. retched (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

WCW?

Why isn't there a WCW section? 2600:387:C:6A14:0:0:0:2 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Because WCW never defined a Grand Slam criteria before they went under. Sure, the idea of using their Triple Crown (World, US, and Tag titles) with the addition of the TV title seems plausible, but a) since they never declared it as such, we cannot say it was, and b) the TV title was abandoned well before the company folded, so it's clear they didn't really care much about it themselves. But mostly a). We can't introduce something that didn't actually exist. oknazevad (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

bret won the wwe US title as well

bret hart being a grand slam champions was brought up and the reason for not adding him was that wwe doesn't count wcw US titles but bret won the wwe US title back in 2009 or so

so he's part of the new grand slam format 2607:FEA8:BF1D:7700:FCE1:6CF3:6193:3D0 (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

No. As I stated above, Bret won the WCW United States States Championship. WWE only counts title reigns that were started during the WWE's ownership of WCW and onward as part of the Grand Slam. While the histories are the same, that qualifier makes it not a part of the WWE Grand Slam. retched (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Rhea Ripley Grand Slam note

In addition to Rhea Ripley becoming the 5th female to become a grand slam champion in WWE joining Askua Sasha Banks Charlotte Flair and Bayley and doing it the fastest. Rhea Ripley is also the first wrestler in history to conquer the female titles of RAW, SmackDown, NXT and NXT UK with the exception of the NXT Womens Tag Team Championship. - 2A02:C7C:53C1:E00:6D68:BFEC:AC91:7F55 (talk) 11:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Split proposal

I proposed that the section about WWE Grand Slam winners be split into a separate page called List of WWE Grand Slam winners because the section is too long. -St3095 ^(?) 04:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's too long per se. The question is, I suppose, if you remove the WWE Grand Slam stuff, is the other Grand Slams notable on their own? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Article is about wrestling Grand Slams. If you take out WWE, then it would open up Pandora's Box for people to want the other Slams to have their own page. Let sleeping dogs lie. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Unnecessary content forking. --Mann Mann (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems unfair to not include Dolph Ziggler (Nick Nemeth) as a Grand Slam Champion

I can only assume the rationale here is that Ziggler "only" won the World Heavyweight Title ("the Big Gold Belt") to go along with his various tag-team, IC, and US title reigns. But that title (with a history stretching back over 100 years) was considered co-equal to the WWF/WWE title (now merged with the Universal title and referred to, IMO inelegantly, as the "WWE Undisputed Universal Championship") and it was NOT discontinued in 2013; it was UNIFIED with the WWE title.

Its history should count towards the Grand Slam and Ziggler should be recognized as a Grand Slam Champion. It seems unfair to consider Christian (who likewise won this title but not the WWF/WWE title) a Grand Slam Champion because he qualified under the old rules (winning a tertiary championship), but exclude Ziggler. And it IMO unfairly disadvantages Jack Swagger (Jake Hager), who is only 42 years old and still an active wrester, to say that he can't be considered a Triple Crown Champion (should he return to WWE and win a Tag-Team Championship to go with his World Heavyweight and U.S. Title reigns) or a Grand Slam (should Swagger also win the Intercontinental Championship) winner.

(Mark Hardy would also be subject to such a disadvantage, but he has retired.)

I realize that WWE has their own standards, but IMO general recognition for Ziggler would put pressure on them to remedy this error. Thoughts? 2600:1700:F070:AB10:214C:9205:4018:90B6 (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't make up our own rules and definitions. Is it unfair? Maybe. Do we care? Absolutely not. WWE doesn't list him as a grand slam champion, so we don't either. Period. oknazevad (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)