Talk:Mark (professional wrestling)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 Jan 2007. The result of the discussion was redirect to List of professional wrestling slang.

[edit] Terribly inaccurate

THe term Mark refers to ANY wrestling fan. Although it is usually use negativly, it can refer to anyone who is a fan, regardless of whether they think it's real or not.--Unopeneddoor 20:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are totally wrong. See smark. Also, see [1]. Hybrid 09:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A smark is still a mark. The term means "smart mark". THe term is not used in the wrestling industry and is seen as idiotic. I used to work in wrestling, I've never met anyone in the industry who used the term smark with anything but disdain or refered to any fan as anything but a mark.--Unopeneddoor 21:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The IWC uses the word smark. Anyway, mark used to refere to any wrestling fan, but eventually the term smark grew to equal the term mark, and that is where we are today. Plus, try calling a smark a mark to their face and see what happens ;). The Hybrid 05:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I do. If they are insulted by it they're an idiot 99/100

Well, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Eother way, I think that we should comprimise. Say that some people see smarks as a type of mark, and others see them a completely separate section of the fans. Lets not argue for either side in the article, because this isn't an article about the differences between (s)marks. If you think this is a good idea, go for it; otherwise, say what you don't like about it and we can continue the discussion. Cheers The Hybrid 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE

Far from playing to the marks, it is more arugable that the WWE ignores them and is aimed solely at smarks and smarts, especially since the name change (even though it grew out of a lawsuit from the World Wildlife Federation) to "Entertainment" and McMahon's known desire not to have to have real ambulances, etc., on site at all matches as would be required by state athletic commissions and insurers if matches were "real", and his overall desire not to be regulated or bothered by state athletic commissions at all. All of the current WWE peformers now readily admit that there are theatical elements to the storyline, that there are differences between their real persona and their gimmicks, and generally break kayfabe, and argue that the entertainment experience is better as a result, as selling moves and suspension of disbelief required represents a higher level of talent than previously required when kayfabe was not publicly broken. To be a "mark" in the traditional with regard to the WWE would require one to be extremely young and naive or just willingly to blind oneself to how the WWE now openly operates. Perhaps traditional marks may exist in the followings of some indy promotions or some non-U.S. promotions, but to say that WWE is currently (2006) aimed at marks seems to be, well, off the mark. Rlquall 15:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That is very true. Hybrid 06:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a "devoted fan" can be a mark. I mean, can't fans be fans anymore? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Rain (talk • contribs) .

I see where you are coming from, and how you could have missed this. Everyone who enjoys wrestling is called a wrestling fan. Marks and Smarks are the two types of wrestling fan. We tend to identify ourselves as one or the other because we typically hate the other kind of fan. I am a smark, I hate marks, and they hate me; its a hate-hate relationship. Also, being a devoted fan doesn't make you a mark, thinking wrestling is real makes you a mark. The main point you were supossed to get from that sentence in the article was that marks tend to be young and naïve. That is basically what the (s)mark thing is about. P.S. Please sign your comments. Hybrid 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I'm removing unverified/unreferenced stuff from this article. Too bad that's nearly all of it. Try to reference all of this original research. 65.118.187.102 18:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It is easier to get things referenced by leaving a tag on the page as opposed to almost blanking it. I'm going to restore it with a verifiability tag. -- THLR 22:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone want to explain to me how a professional wrestling slang term needs an "original research" tag? This whole event is ridiculous. It's like what happened to the Vic Grimes article where someone kept tagging every line in the article with "citation needed." This article has been around for 2 years, so why is it that NOW, because one person, who's not only on a school IP address, but is also acting completely childish by blanking the page (which is clearly blatant vandalism) has the right to suddenly say "this article needs original research." It's so foolish I can't even believe it. You may as well just tag EVERY article about professional wrestling slang with "original research" tags, cause God forbid someone makes something up, we HAVE to make sure it's verifiable. --Antoshi~! ^{T | C} 01:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep the PAish comments to ourselves. It doesn't hurt to have the tags on this article. Who knows, maybe someone will find a source. -- THLR 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with just tagging the article instead of deleting the unsourced stuff (even Jimbo has said that tags are overused and that in most cases unsourced information should just be removed), I'll deal with it since it's obvious that people have put work into this article. Antoshi, please don't call me a vandal. Yes, this is a school IP address. That shouldn't matter. Should I make a new account? It takes about two seconds. It's useless because it's so easy. I find it disgusting that you're accusing me of vandalism instead of assuming that I'm trying to help.

As you said, it would be better if many of the articles were given OR and unreferenced tags. They shouldn't be exceptions to the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources policies. Nothing should. If there were a wiki god, yes, I hope that he/she/it would forbid people just making stuff up and enforce verifiability. 65.118.187.102 18:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this isn't just made up stuff. I've read all of this in other places; however, I don't know what those places are to be able to source this article. I hope that you will assume good faith and believe me, as I am with you now. I agree that you are making a reasonable request, but it is one I am not able to fulfill myself. I will say that all of this stuff is written down somewhere, and hopefully someone who knows where will stumble upon this article and source it after seeing the tags. Cheers, -- THLR 22:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)