A staff member not changing their position because quite a lot of other people (most of whom have shown themselves to not understand what is even being argued) would rather they did can be as disappointing as you please. I do not really care. Nobody here has given any viable reason to change, except perhaps that they think I should.
That is not the point. For one, "most of whom have shown themselves to not understand what is even being argued", this is objectively a subjective take on your part, and thus irrelevant to this discussion. It is simply a matter that moment anyone appear's to propose anything against your argument, you firmly deny it swiftly and to a point where it seems you fail to even consider what the other side is saying. Apologies if you do not really care about the arguments brought up against you, as if that will continue to be the case, I honestly, and no offense meant, pity your inability to be just a bit more open minded.
Oh, and yes, I know. You don't care.
WWE is a stage play. What we index are actors. This should not be so. It is no different than the examples provided- rather than counter that point, people have just been offering more and more flawed comparisons.
Actor's are people who perform on the stage as well as on screen and digitally. By the definition, those who are on stage play's would be actor's, and ergo, this site would index them. The only difference between WWE and other forms of Live Action Media we record is that WWE allow's people to pay money to see it in person. No matter how you slice it, it sounds like it would be
beneficial to sit down and properly outline the rules on this matter- Or alternatively, abolish them entirely.
Your dissent is noted and disregarded.
Your disregard of my dissent is noted and disappointing. The predicted response of you not caring is noted and disregarded.
In any case, I have yet to actually see any real reason that makes sense for not having a franchise like WWE on here. On our welcome page, the purpose of the site is well shown: "The purpose of this wiki is to index the statistics of characters from a wide variety of different fictional franchises."
WWE Is, of course, a Fictional Franchise. The definition of Fictional is "relating to fiction; invented for the purposes of fiction." And the definition of fiction, according to Merriam Webster.com, is "
something told or written that is not fact. : a made-up story.", which WWE assuredly is (Just because Chris Jericho and Triple H are feuding does not mean the Actor's who play the Character's in question are, as a example.). I don't think I need to explain how WWE is a Franchise. Sure, we may have some
redundant rules that may alter or change that to a degree, but at it's core, WWE easily fits in with the base criteria of being a Fictional Franchise. Comparisons to skits like the AVGN to my knowledge are not nearly as apt as one may think, because unlike WWE, AVGN is not a franchise.
Take note of this rule here in the editing rules, under the section for what is allowed as a character/verse, specifically under the section for stage persona's:
"Characters that originate from fictional canons or franchises, and share the same names as their real world counterparts are allowed, on the condition that they fulfill the requirements mentioned above."
I don't believe we need to further prove that WWE is a Fictional Franchise with it's own Fictional Canon, so as a result, so long as they fulfill proper requirements, there is no need to disallow them.
Something else to note is that the section deliberately states that Stage Persona's are essentially just people acting as a variation of themself. However, for a large number of WWE Star's, their character's are either fully constructed by, or had a large hand in being constructed by, the Company itself, and can vary drastically from the real life person (Mark Henry may be a rude and cruel person in The Ring, but supposedly, he's one of the Nicest People around.), sure, there are occasion's where a Superstar may play a role similar to their real life personality, but they are seldom ever the exact same, and numerous character's share next to no differences to their actor's (The Former Lead star of Two and A Half Men coming to mind, who was literally playing himself in all but last name), so it would serve as a double standard to consider these sort's of barely constructed roles as character's, while say, The Role of The Undertaker, which may be very much different from the IRL Person, is considered as a mere "Variant of the Original Person".
