Talk:Edge (wrestler)

Move request to Edge (wrestler)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Has been discussed before, but never has been augmented with WP:QUALIFIER, WP:UCN, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NC. Guidelines state that regardless of the need of a qualifier, the most common name should be the name of the article, for we make the article for the reader, not the writer. Obviously, most people will identify this man as "Edge: the Rated R guy from WWE" instead of "Adam Copeland, the guy from Canada!" Raaggio 05:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. His real name is well known too (he released his autobiography as "Adam Copeland" and not as "Edge"). WP:QUALIFIER doesn't apply here, that would only be used in deciding whether the article would be at "Edge" or "Edge (wrestler)". WP:UCN and WP:COMMONNAME are the same page and I have already mentioned one argument against this. WP:NCP seems to support both:

1. The name that is most generally recognizable (which would support Edge)
2. The name that is unambiguous with the name of other articles (which would support Adam Copeland). TJ Spyke 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but WP:STAGENAME immediately disregards Adam Copeland, because Edge is most common and it also states that it doesn't matter if a qualifier is needed. Raaggio 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Come on there is no way he is known by anything more over Edge. He has used Adam rarely but at the moment he has done everything in his career that is major as Edge.--WillC 05:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I agree he is best known as Edge (obviously) but his real name is also well known and has been mentioned on WWE television and I would rather his page be under Adam Copeland because if it's going to be Edge (wrestler) then we might as well change Steve Borden back to Sting (wrestler), Chris Parks to Abyss (wrestler), Terry Gerin to Rhino (wrestler), etc. And it should be noted that neither of those wrestlers are best known by their real names yet have their articles listed under them so I don't see the need to change this page. ^The  Jay  Experience  05:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well seeing as Sting has appeared on TBN and other television stations as well as wrote a book, I believe he wrote it, not sure if he had a ghostwriter or not, under his real name. He has somewhat become popular under both names. He has even appeared under his real name in TNA. I'm okay with moving any of them you said besides Rhino though. Abyss is mainly popular as Abyss. He has other persona's but none as popular as Abyss. Rhino has about 15 different spells. Actually he just has two that I can remember of. Rhyno and Rhino. Used the first in WWE, the other in ECW and TNA.--WillC 08:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose despite the volumes of policy directed at persuading us that the move to the clunkier title is best I will go with WP:IAR, and ignore all of the above to say he will retire at one point and will not be known as Edge, and he has a book under his real name. And all of the wrestlers listed above were moved with consensus to the real names. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • IAR is not supposed to be used only to enforce your opinion. You can't oppose just because "IAR" exists. And, I really don't have my own opinions on the article, but I really concur that you should read WP:STAGENAME and try and understand the point which I am stemming from. Raaggio 15:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I'm not going to get into this. The consensus in archive 1 was to keep it as Adam Copeland, the consensus now is to keep it as Adam Copeland. The arguments over name moves are played out, you clearly have a bee in your bonnet over this because you are replying to every oppose vote. Contrary to your statement above I can just oppose because IAR exists. And I am. Ignore all those links and keep it where it is. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons. from Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means This means that you can't just ignore a rule just to validate your action of opposing. Everyone is entitled to your opinion, but some opinions interfere with guidelines and thus with creating consensus. Raaggio 17:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What rule am I breaking? None. I am saying that twenty links to twenty different wikipedia policies over naming an article are stopping us from improving this page. Instead we are stuck in a perpetual feedback loop of editors suggesting moves then having the whole project oppose them only to have the original editor then harass people over their choice. There is nothing to be gained from moving this article, and that has been the consensus for two years!. And that follows an RM eleven months ago which also concluded that this is the best current name for this article. I am not being point-y nor do I need to read any naming policy for the hundredth time. If you care about consensus then ask for a snowy close to this. For one final time, the article should stay where it is. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose his real name is well known, and I believe it has been referenced a few times on WWE TV... during the Matt/Edge feud a few years back I seem to be recall it being noted. Also, he's released a book under his real name. D.M.N. (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course his name is well-known, but it isn't the most common name. Someone can have various known aliases, but obviously, only one can be the "most common". WP:STAGENAME urges us to use the most common; do you really believe Adam Copeland is the most common? Raaggio 15:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose -- His real name is as known as his ring name, and when there is a WP:Naming conflict. A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. However, multiple synonyms can be used.. Thus, Adam Copeland is the name and many redirects redirect here, that's the purpose of redirects.Truco 14:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You are right, that is the purpose of redirects. Yet, here, we are looking for which names will be the redirects, and which will be the name of the article. Read WP:STAGENAME to see what to do when regarding stagenames. Also, on another point, when I first mentioned the possibility of this move, you had already agreed. Raaggio 15:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I've thought about this for a little while. Whilst I would have no idea of his real name, had I just watched some wrestling on TV and wanted to find out more about Edge, that would be the name I'd search for. But as Truco points out, the redirect would get me to the right article, and I think we should generally be filing people under their 'correct' name where there are two fairly common names used. "Adam Copeland" seems to be used enough to make WP:STAGENAME less relevant. WP:STAGENAME itself uses a wrestler with his ;real' name as an example. --GedUK  16:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, that wrestler's ring name is his name. B.G. James utilizes his own name as his current ring name, so it's a very different case. Also, WWE does not have opening credits that tell you all of the wrestler's names, so apparently, even to them, the wrestlers' real names are irrelevant to the fans. Raaggio 16:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
• The issue here is not the qualifier, its the notability of both his names. Because he uses both, and both are recognizable, we must use a neutral name, which in this case is his real name. --Truco 20:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In absolutely no form has any guideline stated we must use a "neutral name" when there are 2 notable ones. It states we must use the most "common one". And in this case, it's his ring name. I get you see this as an unnecessary discussion, and maybe you're right. But how can you disagree when the guideline states it so clearly? Raaggio 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:NPOV -- A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. --Truco 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
      • WP:NPOV -- Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See Wikipedia:Naming conflict for further guidance. Raaggio 02:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
        • WP:NCON -- However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. In addition, your statement does not cancel out my first statement. A neutral title is needed regardless, which is his real name, not his stage name.--Truco 15:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Ok, let's stop this right here. You're rationalizing is wrong. You're basically making up excuses to ignore the guidelines. All the guidelines basically slap us in our faces and exhort us to move the page. And no, it does not cancel your first statement, but your first statement is irrelevant, because WP:NPOV makes a strict exception regarding Proper nouns and it is to follow WP:COMMONNAME, which I directly quoted above. All you're doing is trying to prove a nonexisting point. But, GCF is right, this isn't a really big issue. But I would think, if it wasn't a big issue, why wouldn't you and others stop trying to find loopholes and just accept the guideline. If your rational is to WP:IAR like Darrenhusted, go ahead. I'm going to heed Darren's advice and just close the discussion.

Remember, if you guys don't STRICTLY respect the guidelines, then it's just hypocritical to tell newbies, IPs and vandals too. Continue preaching this, just tell them to ignore it all. Raaggio 22:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

New move

Edge has a new move that he has starting using since 2008. While the opponent is on the 2nd rope, (the same position to get 619'ed) he does a running crossbody to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.112.185 (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you state the purpose of your comment? What's wrong? Are you upset he's using the new move? Don't worry, his finisher is still the spear; he won't stop doing it. Raaggio 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd imagine he was asking if it could be added to the In wrestling section. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Typo

Under the title - Return and pursuit of World titles (2008–2009) the last line says:-

On the Monday, June 8th, 2009 edition of RAW; Edge announced that he is divorcing Vickie possibly turning face in the process.DO NOT ADD WEEK BY WEEK EVENTS, RUMORS OR SPECULATION. THIS INCLUDES ANNOUNCED MATCHES THAT HAVE NOT YET OCCURRED. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A NEWS SITE BUT AN ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Please see the articles "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" and "Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles" for more information. -->

There's no surety that he has turned face or not we need to wait for a few weeks and the next line DO NOT ADD stuff shouldn't it be on the talk page instead of this article. I am editing it out --ShanRaj 10 (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The DO NOT ADD is the standard warning which is on all wrestler biographies, removing it is vandalism. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag Team Champion

Needs to be updated.

Also, due to Jericho and Edge winning the tag titles, Edge has the record for most titles won in WWE history. (He was previously tied with Raven at 27)Kirby17 (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ankle Injury

A fan at a house show for WWE Friday Night sent along the following: Ivan B. sent along the following:

I am attending a WWE house show here in San Diego, CA. and I just witnessed Edge get injured during his match with Jeff Hardy.

He was running towards Jeff and appeared to have either twisted or even broken his ankle. His foot was in a very awkward position. The match was immediatley stopped.

EMTs came running to attend him and he was helped out of the ring. He even took the time to take the mic and say "sorry" to the fans.

Ivan B.

Sent from my iPhone

This should be added to his article, but put a temp. disclaimer that WWE has neither confirmed or denied this yet. And if they do confirm it, the status of the (NEW)Unified Tag Team Champions is uncertain at best.98.209.67.70 (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also this: We received a report last night from a fan in attendance at the SmackDown/ECW live event in San Diego saying Edge was injured during his match with Jeff Hardy. The fan says Edge was running towards Jeff when it appeared he twisted or broke his ankle and that his foot was in a very awkward position. The match was stopped, EMT's came running to Edge and he was helped to the back but not before he told the fans "sorry" on the mic.

Furthermore, Dave Meltzer says the injury may be a torn Achilles tendon and that they had only been actually wrestling for about a minute. This would be a serious injury for one-half of the WWE Unified Tag Team Champions that would likely require surgery and put him out of action for a while.

Meltzer also reports that WWE are most likely going to try and figure out a way to get the belts on Cody Rhodes and Ted DiBiase and if you haven't read RAW spoilers for next week, we will find out more about that on Monday. Word is that WWE is looking at footage of the Edge vs. The Great Khali match taped on Wednesday night for next Friday's SmackDown to see if there's a spot in the match where they can claim a storyline injury happened.

We'll keep you updated.

^Pretty sure that puts to rest any doubts.

You may want to read this. And we'll wait for confirmation. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a article on Slam Wrestling supporting this, and the article states he may be out until January at the least. Article here: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/news.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.231.25 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It was at a Smackdown! house show in San Diego, not Raw because Raw is over seas doing a tour. Everyone is making a big deal because there is some "San Diego Curse" which started in June of 2008 at Extreme Rules, when Randy Orton broke his collarbone in a Last Man Standing Match with Triple H, then Evan Bourne injured his ankle at the 10/28 Smackdown! taping, that was the Halloween edition of Smackdown!, and then now the Edge injury which makes 3 consecutive trips to San Diego with some sort of injury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmalone13 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC) to repair the torn achilles

That ankle injury is not true. If he did tear his achilles tendon theses no way he could have wrestled never the less stood up against The colons last night on Raw 69.34.111.9 (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Last nights raw wasn't live. It was taped last week after the live raw went off the air. Frehley 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Should it be added to the article that on July 7, he had surgery to repair the torn achilles tendon, and will be out an unknown amount of time? here is the link: http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/10773900?cid=2009EP-00 JereMerr 03:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is locked so I can't change it, but "Achilles" is spelled "archilles" in the opening paragraph of the article. Would an established editor be able to change that? Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Money in the Bank

Mr. Money in the Bank isn't a nickname it is a title like miss wrestlemania --Kingmichi13 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)