# Talk:MNM (professional wrestling)

Per this comment, I've restored this article to the title it had as of the last RM, MNM (wrestling). The move was not discussed, and as it's now been challenged, I've put it back pending another discussion. For what it's worth, "(wrestling)" looks like it's much clearer and more recognizable than "(stable)".--Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree, stable should be avoided as the disambiguator in such cases, as it's an esoteric meaning and so unknown to most readers. Andrewa (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Similarly, I've reverted a move to MNM (professional wrestling), which was apparently listed as an uncontroversial move at RM. This has been moved around enough; let's put it to the community as was done in the previous RM.--Cúchullain t/c 16:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Good revert, as this was not a candidate for a technical move... If any of the following apply to the desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:... There has been any past debate about the best title for the page... ... Can't get clearer than that, can we? I'm a bit disappointed that the admin concerned performed it, they are normally more careful than that. But we are all human.
The rationale does raise an interesting point... All other articles on professional wrestling stables use the disambiguator "professional wrestling" instead of just "wrestling" as anyone can see by browsing through the professional wrestling teams and stables categories [1]. I've checked Category:Independent promotions teams and stables and the claim seems to be true there at least, although the first few affected articles were all teams not stables. Now two wrongs don't make a right, and professional here seems overly precise to me. But an RM may be a good idea. Perhaps all of these other articles should be moved instead. Andrewa (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on MNM (professional wrestling). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021131856/http://www.wwe.com/classics/wherearetheynow/where-are-they-now-joey-mercury-26309214/page-2 to http://www.wwe.com/classics/wherearetheynow/where-are-they-now-joey-mercury-26309214/page-2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110405184334/http://www.ovwrestling.com/titles to http://www.ovwrestling.com/titles
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071124052854/http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/2006/exclusives/38575801 to http://www.wwe.com/shows/armageddon/history/2006/exclusives/38575801
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219183910/http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/wwetag/329952 to http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/wwetag/329952
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)