Talk:Glossary of professional wrestling terms

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


Can anyone PLEASE use the real definition of the word. A Mark is ANY wrestling fan. I've worked in the wrestling industry and wrestlers refer to THEMSELVES as marks. It's NOT a fan that thinks it's staged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, we can't just take Wikipedians' word for it, but fortunately, we can take Cody Rhodes' word. 6 years later, I was able to update the definition based on an article about a tweet of his, so unless someone undoes it, this is fixed. "Yes...It's Raining" 18:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The example for this term is the "Vince McMahon is dead" story, but since it's been... resurrected (sorry, bad pun)... it should be changed. Anyone know what it had as an example before? And for the record I definitly think that term needs an example, instead of simply removing it. Mujarimojo 03:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm trying to fix issues addressed on this page, so, just for the future, neither abort nor scrapped (which isn't even an included term in the glossary) reference the McMahon death storyline. "Yes...It's Raining" 18:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Moved from the article:r

These need fleshing out, not sure of deep meaning of all of these terms --Vodex 22:28, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

by Gwalla 02:56, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think we'd be better off integrating all the terms into one article. As it is, with one article per term, it's somewhat dictionary-like and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Furrykef 03:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some of them are reasonably encyclopedic in style (like heel (professional wrestling), which talks about how heels traditionally operate) but yeah, for a lot of them a combined article would probably be better. Gwalla | Talk 03:35, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since we now have the Professional wrestling slang category, is this article even necessary anymore? Gwalla | Talk 19:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good question. On one hand, this article's content is largely redundant. Maintaining two lists instead of one may turn out to be a headache. On the other hand, I can think of three good reasons for this article to exist:
  1. It may be a redundant list, but a list of one-line definitions may be precisely what some may be looking for. If they want a more detailed definition, complete with notable examples, they can read the full article.
  1. As noted in earlier comments on this talk page, some of these slang terms probably do not deserve their own article because they'd never grow out of stubhood. This list is the logical place for them to exist.
  2. The article starts out with an overview of professional wrestling slang. I honestly don't know what else to say about wrestling slang in general (I'm not a huge wrestling fan), but maybe someone else will. It would make for an interesting read.
Benc (talk)[[]] 03:19, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You make some good points there. I agree. Gwalla | Talk 04:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Separate article for Rib?[edit]

The definition for Rib is becoming rather lengthy and unweildy, and is beginning to contain information that, for other terms, is in a separate article. Personally, I feel it'd be best to trim the definition down to, "a joke played on a wrestler by another wrestler," and move the clarifying information and examples to a separate article. Anybody agree? --HBK 00:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I say go ahead and write the article. --Chrysaor 01:27, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's been 15 years, but I say that if terms like heel and face warrant their own article, there is more than enough information on and documented stories of ribs to warrant and be able to fill an article. So I wrote it. There went my afternoon. I hope it's accepted and I hope it is well-written enough to satisfy everyone (but hey, isn't that the joy of Wikipedia? You don't like it, fix it). I tried my best to keep some cohesive themes instead of just making it a list of ribs (or a biography of Owen Hart, but he did necessitate his own section). So, I'm going to submit it tonight, and by the time anyone reads this, Rib (professional wrestling) will be a link to an article. Damn. There may be a problem, though. I just looked at what's there now, and it's a redirect to Glossary of professional wrestling terms. Apparently there was a page in 2007 that was merged (don't see how since ribbing only gets like 7 words in that glossary article. I'm going to post a new section to this talk page and ask what I should do. I spent a lot of time on that article and I believe it's up to snuff quality-wise. If anyone reading this knows whose approval I would need to replace the redirect, please let me know - I'm not super Wiki-savvy. "Yes...It's Raining" 23:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jargon vs. Slang[edit]

I think it might be a good idea to differentiate between jargon used in the business and slang used by fans. They cross over, but they're not the same thing. Gwalla | Talk 23:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree -- most of this is(was?) inside jargon, not slang.--tranquileye (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list has been trimmed substantially since this was posted three years ago. Nikki311 17:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Match of the Year[edit]

I had put up "Match of the Year," and it was deleted as the contributor believed the definition to be obvious and used in places other than PWI. While I agree that the term is used in other publications, I thought "Match of the Year" to be reasonably encyclopeidic and thus should be included somewhere in Wikipedia -- if not on this page, then as a separate link. I guess a good question would be – is there already a "Match of the Year entry on Wikipedia? User:Briguy52748 10:08 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why my definition of cetard is being erased again. Its been here for a month or so, after I revised the definition, but since Cena won his title back somebody keeps deleting it again. I think the explanation I provided is completely neutral.--Gusiman 01:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't speak for the person who's erasing it, but personally, the only place I've ever seen the term used is on this list. --HBK|Talk 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] 03:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commentary Is Not Encyclopedic[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Commentary, be it from Scott Keith, someone who read his books, or anyone else is not encyclopedic. - Chadbryant 04:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The remarks are relevant due to Keith's involvement with the professional wrestling business; also, they serve as a perfectly good example of usage for other wrestling terms while building on the entry itself. You are trolling. Please stop. --Eat At Joes 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scott Keith has no involvement with the wrestling business. He's authored a few books on the subject. His commentary is by no means encyclopedic. Please read Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, lurk, and learn. - Chadbryant 04:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What the hell? Because he has written books on the subject he has no involvement with the business? That's like saying George Orwell has no involvement with government, he's just written a few books on the subject. Or Bill Clinton doesn't know anything about being President, he's just written a few books on the subject. Keith's commentary is valid because -- as you have just stated -- he is a published author on the subject and thus a viable source of information. I submit it is YOU who must "lurk, and learn." --Eat At Joes 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chill out, people. Follow WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:3RR and WP:NPA or I'll block you both and lock the page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was defending the article from intentional vandalism, and in the face of misbehaviour by someone who has registered over 135 accounts (most of which have been blocked for abuse), I was doing so as nicely as humanly possible. Note that you essentially made the same judgement call that I did, in that the content this user was insisting on re-inserting was not encyclopedic. I realize that 'assume good faith' is a Wikicommandment, but the 'duck test' hasn't failed us yet, either. - Chadbryant 06:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You were largely correct as far as content was concerned, but when you violate any of the things I cited, your actions warrant blocking. Period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it, 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism (which is what someone insisting on re-adding unencyclopedic content is guilty of). Please correct me if I am wrong . - Chadbryant 07:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was not vandalism reversion, it was a content dispute. You ignored the main issue with my warning: WP:CIVIL. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So someone re-adding unencyclopedic content simply to be disruptive is not vandalism? - Chadbryant 20:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apparantly not, Chad. Guess you'll have to find another reason to manipulate Wikipedia administrators while running with your own bias in articles. --Eat At Joes 03:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angles and Storylines are not the same thing![edit]


"Q: In one of your last commentaries you said that WWE should start doing angles instead of storylines, what does that mean?Also, does TNA, ECW, or WCW do angles or storylines? A: I explained this in my last Q and A you should look back for it. In a nut shell: Angles are the drama created between 2 or more people which leads to a match. The Rey – Orton stuff using Eddie, would be an angle in my opinion. It created tension between them, which made you want to see them fight. The Shelton Benjamin stuff with his Momma is what I would call a storyline. There is a lot of drama and stuff going on but it doesn’t build to anything. There is no match for us to see. It really only involves the one performer."

There you have it, an actual seasoned Professional Wrestler showing us the difference between the two. SilentRage 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lance Storm is wrong and just arguing semantics. -- Bdve 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I always understood storylines to be the complete picture of a feud, while an angle is the motivating factor for being a feud. Also, having read Shawn Michaels book, storyline and program could be the interchangeable terms as opposed to angle and storyline.Smobro68 01:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcement concerning slang glossary policy discussion[edit]

As you are probably aware, there are many slang glossaries on Wikipedia with widespread acceptance, yet virutally all of them violate the following policy:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
  2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
  3. A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

This has created a situation where editors trying to enforce policy frequently nominate such glossaries for deletion, with most of the glossaries surviving the process with a consensus of Keep or No concensus. This ongoing battle has been raging on with respect to slang glossaries for at least the past two years. Yet the glossaries have survived, and more continue to be created. Based on the results of the majority of the Article for Deletion (AfD) discussions, the general concensus seems to be that slang glossaries should have a place on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is no longer consistent with general consensus, and this schism has resulted in a large number of pointless AfD discussions which serve only to waste the time and effort of those involved. When the majority of Wikipedians defy a policy, it is time to reevaluate the policy.

Therefore, I have started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to discuss the fate of slang glossaries (such as this one) and to discuss whether or not the policy should be ammended to reflect the defacto acceptance of slang glossaries on Wikipedia. They are here, and based on the results of AfD discussions, they seem to be here to stay. So shouldn't the policy be updated? If the policy was changed to allow slang glossaries or changed to provide for their speedy deletion, either of these solutions would save a lot of time and effort wasted on fruitless AfDs. You are welcome to join the discussion. --List Expert 10:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that they seem to violate Wikipedia policies, but lists such as this IMO are far more 'encyclopaedic' than descriptions of every Pokemon character/card ever created, or every episode of a TV series. This is a really good list in an area where Wikipedia is pretty good overall, pro wrestling (and could be great if some of the fans quit 'updating' every single kafaybe event in a promotion or a career). Having said that, I'm about to change bum from saying anything about an "unknown superstar", an oxymoron if there ever was one. Rlquall 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a suggestion on a new term should be on the list.[edit]

Cena Finish or Cena'd Match/Cena Match. I think it should mean that Cena [or another wrestler we can refer to as "The Cena"] starts off the match blowing up, by doing 1 move after the other, and pinning the opponent after each move, then the opponent pummels him badly for most of the match, then The Cena gains an ultra second wind (a la Popeye[without the spinach] and Hulk Hogan[without the hulking up]), and does a few moves[The Moves of Doom], then wins the match. Well its up to a consensus to decide I guess. --TJ Sparks 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never heard of it.«»bd(talk stalk) 15:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, thats because I just made it. --TJ Sparks 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] shouldn't go.«»bd(talk stalk) 18:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the term "Brocking" can be used to note someone botching the biggest spot in the match--such as Brock Lesnar nearly breaking his neck executing a Shooting Star Press on Kurt Angle at Wrestlemania 19--then why not this term? When Triple H executes a spinebuster on someone, it refered to as the "Double A Spinebuster" for Arn Anderson. I like Cena, but this term is unfortunately fitting. Smobro68 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term "heat-vacuum" reminded me of a related term that I saw elsewhere on here: Haas/Conway Pop, a complete or near-complete lack of reaction from the crowd. Thoughts on including it here? --Duneflower, resident weirdo 04:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have found a term that may be of some interest here. In more than a few articles, I have seen the term "Ortonlock", in reference to Randy Orton by the IWC. By context it means a resthold--in Randy Orton's case it is either a head lock or chin lock--that is held for an unusually long time causing a match to lose much of the momentum it had before this hold. Randy Orton has taken a lot of flak for this as many people believe he would be a much better wrestler if he wouldn't resort to these long holds. Smobro68 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going back to the original discussion, the term is "Four Moves of Doom" or "X Moves of Doom" depending on the amount of moves in the sequence. I think Bret Hart's and John Cena's articles made mention of this at one point before they were removed. --Raderick 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think they were removed from those articles because that term is more of a fan creation than an actual term used in the business. I could be wrong about that, though. Anyway, my thinking is...if you have a reliable source for a term...add away. Nikki311 16:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Superman Booking[edit]

How comes "Superman Booking" isn't on the list? It is commonly used nowadays amongst smarks, especially with the ways John Cena and Bobby Lashley have been booked as being unstoppable. I'd add it myself but I wanted to make sure with you lot first.

Silver Fang 10:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh well, I've added it anyway.

Silver Fang 08:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I've recently come across quite a few pages that should be cut down and redirected to this page. A list of the proposed redirects and a discussion can be found here. Feel free to add any thoughts. Nikki311 19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is a glossary of sorts, so those terms that can be easily explained in a line or (like "bury", which is being considered for a merge) two should be just here. Terms like "heel" and "screwjob" (another one being debated for merge), which may need examples to more fully explain the terms, could use an article to allow further detail. Smobro68 10:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flying Burrito[edit]

I'm needing to bring this up: "Flying Burrito is a wrestling move that was given to Shawn Michaels on RAW in 2004 with a different name, the move is a flying forearm to the opponent, followed by a crash to the mat on their backs, and followed by a kip-up before, or almost the same time the wrestler(s) gets up, the kip-up is known as Shawn Michaels trademark finishers in WWE, and also crowd tease as well."

This term dates back to Tito Santana as a slighty backhanded term by Jesse Ventura for Tito's (or as he would say Chico's) flying forearm. I can't remember right off which one, but the term is heard in an early Wrestlemania. I'm a Shawn Michaels fan, but let's give credit where credit is due. And I've never known a kip-up to be a finisher; a cool signature move, but not a finisher. Smobro68 02:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slang From WWE Magazine[edit]

every issue, wwe magazine gives definitions of wrestling slang. the slang words are not real by any means, but im wondering if they would be worth adding. Xchickenx 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think they should be added to the article, the WWE Magazine, in my opinion, is as good a source as any. Lemon Demon (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about[edit]

an Upset?

Anything can be added if it is actual pro wrestling slang and is sourced. Nikki311 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible elaborations[edit]

i have spotted 2 possible elaborations. the first one is to do with Kayfabe, and the alternate origin (workers ringing collect and saying it was from Kay Fabian to let their family know they arrived safe without costing a call) found on the kayfabe entry. the other is the term carny. though I dont have a source, this is probably a shortening of Carnival, since originally a lot of pro wrestling was done in carnivals back when it first started out. Lynx Raven Raide 14:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X-pac Heat[edit]

Whatever happend to the term here? It used to be listed, and should as it is still used today.Furioku 21:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It probably got removed because it was unsourced. Unless a source can be provided, a term is considered original research and deleted per Wikipedia policy. Nikki311 21:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will [1] and [2] do? Emurphy42 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Anyone can edit either of those websites, so they aren't considered reliable. A published book source would be your best bet. Nikki311 02:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add X-Pac heat. Anyone with half a brain knows that it is wrestling slang. It is constantly used. And even though anyone can edit those sites does it now show that it is used? (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead links[edit]

There is a dead link to "comeback spot" in the definition of "Hope spot" and another dead link to "X-Pac heat" in the definition of "heat". 12:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed. Nikki311 16:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to nonexistant slang[edit]

Under 'S' and in the word 'Spot' it has a link to 'Take Home Spot' (which links to 'T' in this page) but it is not there, any reason why? (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point well made. Some numpty probably forgot to add it. Added it now. Lemon Demon (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Goozle & Plunder[edit]

Can these be added to the list? Goozle (sp?) is to ring someone by the neck a la the chokeslam. Pluder is weapons like the table, chair, or ladder.

Depends. What is your source? Nikki311 19:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Gimmick is a common term for either growth hormone or steroids. I heard it in use quite a bit actually by professional wrestlers in "On the Road with Iron Sheik 2007" They used the term casually too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klichka (talkcontribs) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What exactly are the rules on sourcing? Suggestion seems to be EVERYTHING must be referenced, but of course not all of them are, eg. Angle, Cheap Shot etc. --Kiltman67 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:V. Nikki311 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lunch Wagon[edit]

Was this term wrong or unsourced or simply nonexistent? It seems much more common to use "Hoss" in its place, so I've added Hoss, but Lunch Wagon always had that sort of "fat-shit loser" feel to it. Was it ever a real slang word? AndarielHalo (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Tweener" definition[edit]

The "Tweener" section is completely wrong.

Stone Cold Steve Austin was a face. He only fought heels and teamed with faces. He hit faces with the Stunner, but that was Stone Cold's rattlesnake gimmick, being in it alone. When it came to feuds, Austin fought only heels, and The Undertaker as a face, which lead to them teaming up to go against two heels. Austin was a face, not a tweener.

Eddie Guerrero was also not a tweener. He was a face who used heel tactics and got cheered for them. That's a gimmick, not a heel/face allegiance. And I've never heard of ANYONE who used that definition for a tweener.

A more accurate example of tweener is Samoa Joe in TNA 2005-2006. He evenly fought both faces and heels and showed no real alliance to either the face or heel side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move request[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was

The result was to move. -- iMatthew T.C. 11:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who supports a move to "List of professional wrestling terms"? I support it, as I see it as the more appropriate name. -- iMatthew T.C. 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


I think for some of the main ones, we can use examples just like we have done for enforcer etc. it can make it easier for some people to understand the terms better! --Ruthless-paki (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some terms could have examples, but usually it just invites edit warring. I could want Victoria listed as an enforcer, you could want someone else, and someone else could want a third person. For words like an enforcer, the definition is clear, and we can't just keeping changing or adding millions of examples from the history of professional wrestling. If there is an obvious example (like the Montreal Screwjob under Screwjob), then that is fine. Another thing to keep in mind is that examples need to be sourced using a reliable source, or it is original research. The source needs to specifically state the example and use said term. Nikki311 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verifiability of "Mark out"[edit]

When I put the term "mark out" in this article, I did so because I considered it common knowledge. However, as I read the article on Verifiability, it clearly states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

Since my source for this information is my own experience on wrestling Internet message boards, wouldn't that make it Wikipedia:Original Research? I mean, I'm not the one who COINED that term, but it did say that "self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable."

What is your consensus, everyone, for whether or not this term belongs in this category? If you guys want it gone, don't bother removing it: I'll delete it myself (sort of like an "I caused this problem; I'll get us out of it" thing).Wikieditor1988 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would consider it original research. The term can always be added back if you can find a legitimate reliable source. Nikki311 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just thought of something: Shouldn't an exception be made for my edit, per the terms of Wikipedia:Ignore All Rules? I mean, we are talking about an article that revolves around slang, and what better way to learn slang than by hanging out in the community that uses it?
So, the new question is, should "mark out" apply to the Ignore All Rules rule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditor1988 (talkcontribs) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a list of slang terms. Having a printed source shouldn't be necessary. Did Eric Partidge have written sources for every term he had in his slang dictionaries?

I've seen "mark out" attested since 1995, and it's still in currency.

An any case, the term can be found in:

Between the Ropes: Wrestling's Greatest Triumphs and Failures, Page 131

Superstar Billy Graham: Tangled Ropes, Page 131. Dan20001 (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable sources are always necessary, no matter what the article's subject matter is. That is WIkipedia policy. See also WP:CITE and WP:V. Nikki311 23:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compare vs Contrast[edit]

Almost every parenthetical comparison in this article should contain the word "contrast," rather than "compare." Comparing things is telling how they are the same. Contrasting them is telling how they are different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wangatrocious (talkcontribs) 16:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defining a Rat[edit]

I couldnt find a source on the web currently for the correct usage of them term Rat, but look at any shoot interview ever, I know off the top of my head ones by Raven and 1 Cornette/Heenan use the the term i had up, also im thinking my edit is less controversial than saying all female fans are rats, if you take your mother or sister to a show she's a rat? Rats are generally women who hang out at shows to hook up with a wrestler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • a Ring Rat is a Groupie. it has nothing to do with gender, I think it was Rhaka Khan who was report to have ring rats go in and out her hotel room Prince Bee (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Trachoma isn't wrestling slang; it's not even slang. It's a real medical term. And it's relationship with modern wrestling is slight. Are we going to list every disease or illness wrestlers are prone to (70 years ago no less)? If there was a slang word that wrestlers called trachoma, add that. Dan20001 (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attitude Era[edit]

The Attitude Era began at WrestleMania XIV, not 13, so I have updated accordingly.John546 (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orphaned references in Burial (professional wrestling)[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Burial (professional wrestling)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "OWOW":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 22:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article states that the term is unrecognized by workers and in the past, this was the case. However, today, many workers use the term, including veterans. For verifying purposes, Lance Storm frequently uses the term when appearing weekly on Bryan Alverez's Figure Four Daily radio show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chain Wrestling?[edit]

Weird that term isnt anywhere in the list. DonJerome316 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tape trading[edit]

I thought I would post this here first, in case it needs any work.

Tape trading
Before it was possible to stream or otherwise transmit video over the Internet, and particularly in the days of territorial promotions, wrestling fans would tape record wrestling programs off of television, dub copies of the tapes, and seek out other fans with copies of programs from other promotions. More obsessive fans would maintain libraries of tapes going back many years, in some cases selling copies in addition to trading. Others would seek out tapes from Japan, which utilizes the same NTSC signal format as North America. The availability of tapes, and the condition of the video image therein, from a particular era was largely dependent on the availability of affordable enough technology. When fans first began recording wrestling programs in earnest, ca. 1979-1980, a VCR could cost $1,000 to $1,500 (US), and blank video tapes could cost $20 to $25 (US) apiece. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter traces its beginnings to a tape trading list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioKAOS (talkcontribs)

It needs some reliable sources before it can be added. Nikki311 01:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Where is potato, or accidentally hitting another wrestler? I hear them use this term all the time, and I think it was once on this page but I'm not sure. It definitely needs to be added. dj_ansi (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I stumbled across an article on the NY Post of Steve Austin talking about 'potatoes' and 'receipts'. I am linking to the article and adding the terms. Wooo! dj_ansi (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The term mark has changed. It's not that they necessarily believe everything is real. It's the fact that mark means you are a fan. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Mark" has its origins in carny talk. Both from its carny origins and usage in wrestling, I've seen it used to mean "sucker" and as a reference to one paying admission to the event.
The entry on "smark" also caught my attention. I remember reading the term "smart mark" specifically, and perhaps also "smark," in the sheets a year or two before the creation of, which was several years before the Web came along.
Another term not on the list, referred to repeatedly by Bill Watts in his autobiography, is "guzzle." This is where a shooter manhandles someone who is not a shooter, though usually no more than physically preventing the non-shooter from moving or doing anything. A good example of this would be what Roddy Piper and Paul Orndorff did with Mr. T in Wrestlemania I just about any time he stepped into the ring.RadioKAOS (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I feel that the smark definition is contradictory to itself. It is stated that a smark is a person 'enjoying' pro wrestling while knowing that it is staged. A little later, a smark is depicted to be "looked down on" by wrestlers and "other fans". So 'marks', in the traditional sense (if they still actually exist), look down on smarks (which I believe can be called what is your average wrestling fan these days) because they "play along", enjoying PW, but knowing it's fake? Weird. Strike Da Mic, 05 May 2011, 16:51 GST+01

Huh? A mark is someone who thinks wrestling is real and usually goes along with what the booker wants such as cheering faces and booing heels. A smark is someone who knows for the most part how wrestling works and knows it's fake but watches the show as it's entertaining. I most cases it seems smarks will cheer heel characters more often than faces and are more worried about things such as workrate that the average fan doesn't care much about. TheGary (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flair Flip/Flop[edit]

It should be pointed out that Flair stole the Flair Flip from Ray Stevens, and the Flair Flop from Harley Race, and he has acknowledged both as such.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Following this page, it appears as if person or persons are attempting to edit it so as to maintain the primacy of that Torch web page as a source, even though its inadequacy as a source has been pointed out repeatedly. I started a revision of this page offline some weeks back. Here's the problem as I see it. While moving recently, I noticed that all of my wrestling books must be in storage, because I could only find two lying around, namely The Cowboy and the Cross by Bill Watts and Scott Williams, and Ring of Hell by Matthew Randazzo V. Using just these two books alone for additions and references, based upon my working copy, I increased the size of the page by about 20 percent. Now, I would think that just about any wrestling book out there is going to contain abundant usage of and/or references to jargon. I take it the problem must be the usual bias against non-web-based sources, which is more obvious the more its denied by people. If you don't want to debate that point, then at least recognize that there is bias, mostly rampant recentism and gratuitous references to the WWE. For example, the lack of obvious terms such as "hardway," "ring general" or "territory" makes this list suspect. "Supershow" and "Wrestler's Court" are NOT WWE-specific as the article would attest.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This PWTorch thing is ref spam. Blatant example of abusing WP for advertising a commercial website. I'd recommend its use be removed from this page, but would likely be body slam reverted. Cookiehead (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selling Origins and Usage[edit]

Why is it not noted anywhere that the term "selling" or any of it's variations are used constantly in other sports. When someone "flops" during a foul for example they will often say that he's "selling" the foul. I would be interested to know where the actual origins of the slang term comes from and if it originated it wrestling. TheGary (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smark and Smart Mark are not the Same[edit]

Smark and smart mark are different. Smarks think they know they don't like a difference of opinion, they hate on certain things in wrestling, they have what I call "a flavour of the week" when it comes to liking wrestlers as they will like a wrestler one week, than they will like a wrestler another week, they believe everything they read on wrestling websites, they think they know stuff about wrestling when they are constantly proven wrong, they consider the term "mark" as something negative.

Smart marks know stuff about wrestling, they are always learning and wanting to improve their knowledge, they can handle a difference of opinion, they don't consider the term "mark" as something negative.

There should be this distinction. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds like a matter of opinion. There appears to be a certain amount of Kool-Aid drinking regardless of what label is applied. BTW, I think it's safe to say that the terms predate wrestling websites, so they're just incidental to rather than part of the culture.RadioKAOS (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hip hop connections to slang[edit]

I've previously mentioned the direct influence that professional wrestling has had on hip hop, most of which has either been ignored or deleted from articles. I'm not so sure that the following belongs in this article, but perhaps should warrant mention somewhere. As it relates to wrestling slang, here are a couple of relevant examples from songs:

I'm pretty certain that there must be other examples out there.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Definition of "What"[edit]

The definition of the term "what" is written with a lot of personal opinion, and I question whether it should even be considered a wrestling term as it's just a fan chant and not typically used by members of the business. Someone please revise or remove. Or give me the ok to do it myself. (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

quiet please[edit]

In my browser, at least, the whole list appears in boldface and I can't tell what causes it. —Tamfang (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fake links[edit]

All the links here are directed towards a website that says the Jews were behind 9/11. Someone needs to fix ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Em, no they're not. I just checked all the web references and they're going to where they're supposed to be. Can you point out a link in this article that goes to such a website? NiciVampireHeart 15:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"The appropriate term for female lumberjacks." HA HA HA!!! This reminds me of a recent comment I read: "Wikipedia does not subscribe to political correctness." Rather than "appropriate term", I'm pretty certain that this was a clever play on "lumberjack" invented by Michael Cole. I could be wrong; feel free to correct me.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Appropriate term" is inappropriately wordy here, but it is basically true. It may have started as a quip, but now whenever a Lumberjack match features puppies (the appropriate term for female tits), it's "officially" called a Lumberjill Match. I'll reword it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sit up[edit]

Ok, in the term "superhuman comeback", it says the undertaker uses the sit up move. Then the term sit-up links to the kip-up page. A kip up is when you jump up onto your feet, like Shawn Michaels does. Undertaker does not do this. Why does sit up link to kip up? The only thing similar is that they start on the back. Im removing this link, it has no relevance to sit up.

It's bad enough that the article has become even more of an example farm since it was tagged as such. Why are we so stuck on using Shawn Michaels as an example for a kip up? Dynamite Kid was appearing in main events and regularly doing kip ups when Michaels was still taking bumps in his bedroom.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be cleaning out the examples once I'm done cleaning the unnecessary or inappropriate terms. I don't think the editors responsible understood what a glossary is. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be deleting a bunch soon. Don't panic.[edit]

This article has plenty which isn't suitable for a glossary. Stuff like The Curtain Call, The Montreal screwjob and The Attitude Era aren't terms as much as they are events, like SummerSlam or Showdown at Shea. Any time they need to be explained in an article, a Wikilink to their article would be the correct thing to do. This article is for unfamiliar terms which are commonly used in various professional wrestling contexts, such as "blade", "angle" and "run-in", not for listing specific, one-time occurences relating to specific wrestlers. Daniel Bryan's "Yes" and "No", Punk's "Pipe bomb" and the Flair flip and flop certainly do not belong.

Stuff like "play-by-play", "colour commentator", "roids", "trachoma", "school" or anything else that means the same thing anywhere else as it does in wrestling isn't needed. Terms that are basically used by just one person ("clubberin'" or "vanilla midget" or "total package") don't add any value here.

Remember, this glossary is mainly to be used for explaining things to outsiders. Any term with a standalone article really has no purpose here, since a Wikilink to that article will do a better job of explaining than a Wikilink to this page. The examples given (in tweener, no-sell or botch, for instance) don't add anything to a non-fans understanding of a term, since they've probably never seen the example) and should be eliminated as cruft.

If anyone objects, speak up. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glossary of professional wrestling terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Japan Dojo[edit]

Under the " School " category , Why is New Japan Dojo highlighted in blue , but clicking on it only sends you to the New Japan page , which has NO information on it at all ?

Absolutely should NOT be highlighted in blue and be clickable if there is ZERO info on it on New Japan's page . ≈≈≈≈

It's a redirect. You can A) unlink it, B) add info about the dojo in the article. Pretty simple. Hardly something that needs a talkpage discussion on an unrelated article.★Trekker (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need a definition for " Goozle "[edit]

The chokeslam nickname

2601:189:C381:5A60:C529:E00E:D306:8E2E (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Frankly, I’m far too lazy to go and fix this myself, but why are all of the terms in the article not capitalised and bolded? Makes the page needlessly difficult to read. (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not entirely convinced that this even needs to be on here, as it is used in many other situations than just pro-wrestling. But the bit about Stone Cold and "greener than goose shit" really doesn't belong. That's just an old, old, OLD folksy saying using the word in the same sense. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 01:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]