Talk:The Bloodline

Jacob Fatu's return date

There is clear disagreement on when this happened. When I updated the article, I used June 15, 2026, but in hindsight, it was on June 1 when he first returned to the fold after he "acknowledged" Roman Reigns. That said, some seem to think it was as late as June 21, so this should probably be discussed before I change anything. Charles Essie (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Tongans

@Charles Essie The Tongans were never a trio in WWE, the said article is simply false. I even checked and they came in the company at complete different times, Toa joined a month after Tama, Talla a year after both, and they never teamed explicitly as a trio either as I checked their Cagematch.net match listings. Again, it's inclusion is superflous and original research

Also I'm not trying to be difficult, but per WP:ONUS the editor who wants the content to be added has to come to the talk page. Lemonademan22 (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

So, what you're basically saying is The Tongans never existed in WWE as a stable? Because if that's true than significant changes need to be made that article as well. Charles Essie (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@Lemonademan22: The events of last night have proven that you're right. The MFTs apparently didn't dissolve after Tama and Talla left Solo, and because they're being called that and not "The Tongans", it proves that no such subgroup existed. In fact, we should probably finally create a separate article for The MFTs by separating information about them from this article and The Tongans which should then be moved to Guerrillas of DestinyGuerrillas of Destiny. What do you think? Charles Essie (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Charles Essie That's fine. I still stand by The Tongans themselves weren't an independent stable, they were apart of The Bloodline until they left and now they are The Tongans. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Except they being called The MFTs last night. Charles Essie (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

MFT still exists

On SmackDown last night, the duo of Tama Tonga and Talla Tonga were referred to as the MFTs, confirming that the group still exists as a duo with Haku as their new manager. As a result, I am now leaning towards splitting the article and The Tongans to reflect that this group is indeed distinct from both The Bloodline and the Guerrillas of Destiny. Charles Essie (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Charles Essie yes, MFT should be split as the current iteration with the Tongans is a separate entity from The Bloodline. JDC808 ♫ 00:21, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree too. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear supermajority with a PaG-based argument. (closed by non-admin page mover) –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:15, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

---

The Bloodline (professional wrestling) → The Bloodline – The Bloodline currently redirects to Bloodline (disambiguation), but this is the only article in Wikipedia of this exact name. Everything else is just Bloodline. Even BloodlineBloodline is a redirect (to Heredity). The only exception is the band Dirge Within which was briefly called The Bloodline and while its article did previously have The Bloodline as its non-disambiguated title, I can't imagine it gets nearly as many hits. Charles Essie (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Thanks! —1isall (talk | contribs) 16:35, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom ShallowC (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. The presence or absence of a definite article is no disambiguator at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  On what do you base this? Because there are also plenty of non-disambiguated articles that exist alongside others of that title, but it wasn't relevant because it's clearly the primary topic. In this case, the absence of other articles titled The Bloodline is an even clearer indication of this being the primary topic. Furthermore, when you Google The Bloodline, the vast majority of results are related to the stable. Charles Essie (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  There is a Steam RPG game titled The Bloodline. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 01:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  Is it noteworthy enough for an article? Because if it isn't, that only furthers my argument about this being the primary topic. Charles Essie (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  At least when you Google The Bloodline, the faction isn't the only thing it returns. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 05:52, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't matter because there's no article. Charles Essie (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  That's not necessarily true. See, WP:PRIMARYRED which states, for example, that On the rare occasions that a red-linked article would be the primary topic, the situation is treated as if there is no primary topic until the red-linked article is written. Guidelines like this indicate, that when it comes to determining the primary topic, whether or not the topic already has an article is irrelevant.

  Also, note that WP:PTOPIC states that if a topic is determined to be the "primary topic" with respect to usage that means it is more likely than all the other topics combined. A "primary topic" is not just the "most popular topic" or "most popular article", it's the topic an absolute majority of readers would be looking for. Together, these guidelines suggest that all prominent topics that readers could plausibly be searching for are relevant when determining primary topics with respect to usage, even if those topics don't have an article yet.

  That said, I also think it matters whether those topics that don't have articles yet would pass the general notability criteria. If those topics are unlikely to ever have articles because they're not notable, then I think it's fair to disregard them as unencyclopedic.

  Likewise vice versa; if they would pass WP:GNG, then they should be considered even if no article exists yet, since readers would still be searching for that topic. It's not appropriate to present a topic as the the primary topic when a majority of readers would not be looking for it (since it's not more likely that all other topics combined). Gaps in Wikipedia's coverage do matter when considering what readers are looking for. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 17:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  That said, I don't know whether the The Bloodline game would pass WP:GNG, and I don't know whether or not the wrestling stable is or is not more likely than all other topics combined, including any notable gaps in coverage. My point is only that gaps in coverage matter in principle, against the point that they [don't] matter because there's no article. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:08, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  The reason I pointed out that the game didn't have an article is because I believed that was a reflection of its lack of notability compared to the stable. But you make a good point, the absence on article does not necessarily demonstrate insufficient notability. However, I still stand by my position, especially since you haven't specified what these "other topics" are. The game alone isn't enough. Charles Essie (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  That's fair. I was just writing in general terms. I came through here for other reasons but thought the common misconception was important to address to ensure the requested move wasn't misguided by a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's guidelines. Taking a closer look:

  External search results on Google and Bing heavily favour wrestling. There some results for the early access game on Steam, though it seems unlikely to be notable. There was some coverage on small gaming news sites/blogs, but those seemed unlikely to count as reliable sources.

  Though WikiNav isn't perfect, the WikiNav data for the disambiguation page in July 2026 shows that the wrestling stable is the most popular outgoing destination, despite it being near the bottom of the page and it being a combined page for all variations including titles without a definite article. The band now called Dirge Within didn't receive even half as many outgoing clicks as the stable. The Tom French poem (which differs in spacing, but may still be relevant if a reader misremembers the title) didn't receive any outgoing clicks.

  In this case, I think you're probably right that the stable is the primary topic, though I welcome others to look more closely. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 23:21, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  Another thing that can be suggestive of what readers might be looking for are the pageviews for the articles. The wrestling stable had 213,574 total hits in the last 90 days. Dirge Within had only 1,563, and that includes an unusual spike in attention in early July. Even if you look at all traffic since 2015, the total is only 28,994. Tom French has 5,338 total views since 2015, and that includes readers who aren't necessarily looking for the relevant poem. For completeness, the total since 2015 for the wrestling stable is 4,431,512, which is especially impressive considering the article had been deleted in 2016 and was only recreated in 2020.

  Of-course, like WikiNav data, pageviews data doesn't consider notable gaps in coverage, but external search results didn't seem to indicate any. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 23:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  That's not the case at all - "The" is used all the time as a WP:SMALLDETAIL. The Knife and Knife are not the same thing. The Cure and Cure, The Knack and Knack, I could go on. 162 etc. (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  What isn't true at all? Charles Essie (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm replying to User:Necrothesp's comment above. The definite article in question here is the word "The"; the comment does not concern a Wikipedia article, I believe you may have misinterpreted that. 162 etc. (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  I got confused because you posted it under me and not him. Charles Essie (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  (I've adjusted the indentation to make the reply chain clearer.– Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 18:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC))

• Support per OP. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support. After looking at external search results and traffic data, it seems the wrestling stable is overwhelmingly the most likely target for this particular variation of the title, ie. with a definite article (The), capitalised ('The Bloodline'), with no space in 'bloodline'. See my comments in the earlier reply chains above for details. – Scyrme (talk/solidarity) 23:51, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.