Jump to content

Talk:List of WWE personnel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doppy88 (talk | contribs) at 05:32, 15 February 2008 (→Mysterio Injured). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconProfessional wrestling Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconList of WWE personnel is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archive
Archives

Colin Delaney

Does anybody know who this guy is? Right now he is making his 3rd appearence on ECW (the first two were squash losses against Shelton Benjamin and Big Daddy V). He is now in his third match against Mark Henry. TJ Spyke 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be a random jobber. He's garnered quite a fanbase though. He'll probably receive a developmental contract soon last I heard. --Kaizer13 (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He works in CHIKARA as Colin Olsen. That's all I know. Dahumorist (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By now, he has already worked a fourth and fith match. Both were jobs to Kane and The Great Khali. Lex T/C Guest Book 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is on the main roster now. It is obvious he will be starting a tag team with Tommy Dreamer soon. Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.161.152 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Cant We Use This?

Table #1

Superstar Brand Role Status
John Cena RAW Inactive Wrestler Recovering from a severe pectoral injury.

Table #2

Superstar Role Status
John Cena Inactive Wrestler Recovering from a severe pectoral injury.

TrUCo9311 22:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why we can't, only 3 separate tables for each brand, but it would need to be put to a vote so the consensus can agree to it.Skitzo (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truco, why don't you put up a poll at WT:PW iMatthew 22:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or I can put it here. but I will announce it at WT:PW.TrUCo9311 22:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Support, Oppose, or Comment for either table.

  • Support and Comment - I suggest for Inactive superstars, you include it in the "role" column, and the reason in the "status" column:

Thats just my opinion. iMatthew 22:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is ok too..TrUCo9311 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tables are actually made to make it easier to read...TrUCo9311 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about this, it organizes the table:(Sortable WikiTables)

iMatthew 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put your ideas up for approval..TrUCo9311 22:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much text is added to the screen, with very little benefit. Adding a brand name and a role next to everyone is overkill. Mshake3 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but what if we still kept it in sections? Also one more thing, why cant we add citations to the articles? This list could easily be made to a Fl with proper sourcing..TrUCo9311 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. iMatthew 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep it in sections, then what would be the headers? Mshake3 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which would support "Table 2." Also, to be fair, (it's up to Truco), but I think that this poll should close next Sunday, giving everyone a week to choose a side. iMatthew 23:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want, I can remove the tables from the WWE PPV, Since I am the one who added it.TrUCo9311 23:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on what the WP:PW community wants. Cheers, LAX 23:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_____________
Do not respond to the above conversation, I (the proposer) agree that using that many tables is kinda hard to read'''TrUCo9311 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Poll

-I proposed to add sources to the article to make it a FL article. People disagreed before because it would look "ugly" but this article would easily be able to reach FL status with citations. But the citations I added were the superstar's WWE profiles, which proves that they are contracted to WWE, can we be able to do this?--TrUCo9311 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it wouldnt become a FL, unless by some miracle.TrUCo9311 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's time you learn about the phrase "Quality over Quantity." Mshake3 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see the prolem with a lot of tables. Look at the Academy Award Winners articles. They are full of tables, and read fine. Lex T/C Guest Book 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean?TrUCo9311 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • supoort Table 1. It is broken. This page doesn't look nice, tables are nice, and if we had 1 total table, people could sort for all raw people (wrestlers, on air talent) etc., or all inactive wrestlers, etc. sortable tables are the best way to go when their is nothing but lists. LessThanClippers (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's great but alot of people oppose it because it will be 'hard to read', right now the discussion is whether we should source the article with the bios of the wrestlers..But if more people agree that will be fine..TrUCo9311 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a topic split here, so the votes can be counted seperately. The current set-up is rather confusing... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind having a few tables, but one for each section currently up, would be way too much. Cheers, LAX 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table #1

Superstar Brand Role Status
John Cena RAW Inactive Wrestler Recovering from a severe pectoral injury.

Table #2

Superstar Role Status
John Cena Inactive Wrestler Recovering from a severe pectoral injury.

Tables Poll

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the Addition of individual citations. 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.

Undecided:Slight majority of support, but many comments of opposition.TrUCo9311 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the poll if you support the table or not, if you voted about the table above (not for the individual tables but for 1 table), it will be here. The current poll calls for the entire list to be in one table. This discussion will close in 1 week. (2-4-08) TrUCo9311 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Table 1. It is broken. This page doesn't look nice, tables are nice, and if we had 1 total table, people could sort for all raw people (wrestlers, on air talent) etc., or all inactive wrestlers, etc. sortable tables are the best way to go when their is nothing but lists. LessThanClippers (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Table 1. If it is not broken into sections, then it should have the four columns. iMatthew 23:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't believe there is any real reason to make this switch, in my opinion, the page looks neat and organized by itself. Again, if it's not broken, don't fix it. But others may think it is broken, and that's fine. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Table 1. Totally agree with Matthew and Clippers S-PAC54 05:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't feel like there is really any problem here. All the other roster pages seem to follow the same style and, yet there is no debate there either. I think the current setup is neat, tried, and true, and considering the number of casual editors we get on this page, adding more complicated coding to create these unnecessary tables is just going to result in an overabundance of screwups and format problems from editors unfamiliar with the proper coding. The current setup is simple and easy to catch on, without much fuss. Dahumorist (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -Tried and true doesn't mean its the best. IF that were the case, Wikipedia would never exist. also, if it were tougher to edit, maybe vandals would mess with it less :) Eh, I could only dream.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tables are actually fairly easy to edit. What is it that makes it hard to edit for you? iMatthew 00:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's fairly repetitive to have next to each superstar their brand, that they are a wrestler and that they are active. The headers that we have now simply cover that much more easily. It is also important to have them seperated by brand and seperating those active from those inactive just like this list does now. Doppy88 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make a point..TrUCo9311 03:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doppy, you're my hero. Dahumorist (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But still tables would make it look neater.TrUCo9311 20:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: There are currently 4 support and 3 oppose. -- iMatthew 2008 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To decide how many citations to use, not whether or not to use them. I agree with Truco, if it can pass FL with five citations (one for each roster) then go for it. If not, cite everything. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Citations Poll

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the Table addition. 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.

Undecided:There is a slight majority of support, but many comments of opposition.TrUCo9311 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the poll if you support or oppose for adding citations to the article, in hopes of making it a future FL. If you voted above, it will show up here. This discussion will also close in one week. (2-4-08) TrUCo9311 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Well if adding only the roster page ref, could it still be made into an FL?TrUCo9311 01:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would think so as you don't need to cite each players profile page for someone like the New York Yankees just the main roster page of their website so the same should apply here IMO

so with that in mind I Oppose. Skitzo (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One problem, we just said citations "in general" we never said that we would agree to do one thing or the other, I just suggested general citaions. And I agree with Gavyn.TrUCo9311 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no problem with citing roster pages, but I feel individual citations is ridiculously unnecessary and ugly. If this is proposing a vote on individual citations, I must definately have to OPPOSE. Dahumorist (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, just because it will look "ugly" isnt a reason. Citations are a must in Wikipedia articles...TrUCo9311 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are, but when we just cite the roster pages themselves, what the hell is the point? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if it can pass as a FL with just the roster pages as a source on the header then lets go with that, but we are going to need to source that these superstars are "wrestlers/interviewers/inactive/tag team".--TrUCo9311 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So wait a minute. This poll is about whether or not to use references? Mshake3 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well not entirely, just to whether to add citations that proves that they are employed by WWE, and that they are what the header says they are.TrUCo9311 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is my time being wasted with this discussion? Of course you use references. You just need to know what a GOOD one is. Mshake3 (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but people are arguing that it looks "ugly"..but we may as well just go with the roster pages as refs, and other third party sources.TrUCo9311 03:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put 5 citations up for the 3 brands and the 2 developmental territories, I thought this was already established should be done back when we had the original discussion. But no more than those 5 on the respective brand headers. Everything else that we are doing now such as recent signings and injuries having citations is fine. So all I propose we add are those 5 citations and someone who can help add missing citations for the recent signings and injuries both under inactive talent for the brands and developmental terrotories. Doppy88 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update:There are currently 4 support and 3 oppose. iMatthew 2008 23:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a poll on whether or not there should be citations. What a giant waste of time this was. Mshake3 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No but people were against citations for each superstar, that proves they are signed to WWE and that is their role (i.e. wrestler/manager)--TrUCo9311 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To decide how many citations to use, not whether or not to use them. I agree with Truco, if it can pass FL with five citations (one for each roster) then go for it. If not, cite everything. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added 5 citations for the rosters, but they were removed stating that the External Links section already covers it. Should External Links just be removed and the inline citations be added back for the 5 rosters? Doppy88 (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should move them to a reference section similarly used by the Royal Rumble and NFL Draft pages. Like they have a general page, then an in depth page of references. They were removed because they ruin the redirects to the specific roster like from the WWE Raw article, the Raw brand redirect is ruined with the new citation.TrUCo9311 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at one random link, such as JBL's bio page. Why is this considered a better citation of him being on the Raw roster as opposed to the roster page? Mshake3 (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None really, as I see now, but this list needs clean up as it is now tagged to meet Wiki standards.TrUCo9311 21:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

DX and The Hardys

I think someone should put something like

DX-Occasional Tag Team

The Hardys-Occasional Tag Team

That's what I think.--WillC (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No because The Hardys haven't teamed up in awhile, and they are in pursue of individual wrestling careers. D-X reunites on occasions, but they don't always reunite in competition, sometimes they might only reunite for segments/promos/vignettes/etc. The "roster" is for active tag teams (meaning like people who tag team on regular basis)TrUCo9311 03:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well DX reunites regularly(in away),tonight and just a few weeks ago.I understand about the Hardys.--WillC (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DX also come to the ring together and use the same ring gear, plus they appear together on many house shows and like every 3 episodes. I think they can be considered "an active tag team". Lex T/C Guest Book 13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "One Night Only Reunion" are not words that should be echoed twice a month. DX is as frequent a staple on RAW as Mick Foley or Ron Simmons. Dahumorist (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DX is still an active tag team. In fact, where I live, they are running commercials for an episode of raw taping here in l.a. and too draw up ticket sales, they are announcing that DX will face Kennedy and Orton as the main event. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DX are not an active tag team. They've had 1 match in the last 6 months. Neither should be listed since DX only reunites once every few months, and the Hardys haven't teamed together since they lost the tag titles. TJ Spyke 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hardys united on ECW against Kennedy and MVP before Survivor Series. But I agree, they aren't an active tag team. However, DX has matches every three-four weeks, come to the ring together and almost always have a weekly promo together. If your logic were correct TJ, then Carlito and Santino Marella and The Highlanders wouldn't still be tag teams because they haven't had a match on Raw for some time. Lex T/C Guest Book 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actulay The Highlanders were on there just last week I think and Santino and Carlito were in a tag match like 3 weeks ago. --Crash Underride 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Harris

Shall wikipedia put Chris Harris in the wwe roster section but under a headline with like No brand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispowellathome (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there is no reliable source for such a signing. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Gavyn, check out his official website. However, he could be making it up, so I suppose it mightn't count as a reliable source. I'm not sure so I'll let you decide. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He can't make it up because then WWE would precede to doing some legal action against him for that. Plus he is already signed to WWE, so they can't stop him from reporting it. It has been added to the Chris Harris page, and may as well stay in the unassigned talent section.--TrUCo9311 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for correcting me. In that case, I'll go revert my previous edit to Harris' article if it hasn't been already. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undertaker tap out

I was recently watching Kurt Angle vs The Undertaker at No Way Out 2006 and Michael Cole and Tazz were saying that both men had never taped out now i no that Kurt has since he went to tna but i carn't think about any times that taker has should we put it under Championships and accomplishments if he still hasen't taped it would be like being 15-0 at Wrestlemania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.101.245 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an important accomplishment, nor the right place to talk about it.--TrUCo9311 01:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen hear you ass clown wat do you mean not important accomplishment he wrestled for how many years now and not one time has he taped out and if i did this on the udertakers artical i woulnt have got responce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.101.245 (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, no personal attacks, see WP:CIVIL. Second, please sign your posts. Three, it's not notable to an encyclopedia. To a wrestling fan, yeah, it's an interesting bit of trivia. But it's not notable. See WP:NOTE. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

I keep adding [citation needed] tags in the article and someone keeps deleting them. Would it kill anyone to revert someone who is vandalizing the article. This article gets so many edits than i can't just check the history page and find out. This person has deleted the citation needed tags 5 times already and this is already annoying me. It is vandalizing and can be reported at ANI. Lex T/C Guest Book 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree with you more. iMatthew 02:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add them again, but I would like for all the editors involved with this article to please patrol for the vandal. Thanks, Lex T/C Guest Book 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i'll do my best MATT (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sign Guy

I'm not sure, so I'll ask everyone. Is he signed to the WWE for anything. He seems to be at almost every WWE event. Does he travel with them? Does anyone have any information on him. If he is contracted to them, he should appear in the article. iMatthew 2008 21:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No he is not signed by WWE. He just has ties with them, thats why John Cena, Bobby Lashley, Edge and Randy Orton appeared during his episode of Deal or no Deal. For all his support of WWE, WWE let him meet those 4 wrestlers. But other than that he is not contracted by WWE, and he does not travel with them. Going to WWE shows is his hobby, but WWE really doesn't acknowledge him. So he should not be added, EVER. lol--TrUCo9311 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NEVER, EVER, EVER. Thanks Truco! lol. iMatthew 2008 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's also been interviewed on the former Confidental show. He does have some notability in the wrestling world, but that's about it. Mshake3 (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has this guy evan been to a WWE show this year? It used to be that I saw him almost every week but now I don't see him. Steelerfan-94 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC),[reply]

I actually met and took a pic with him at the Rumble last week, so yes. He was however seated in a no sign zone and he was opposite the camera's view. Doppy88 (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was on Raw tonight.He was on camera when Santino and Carlito were making their way to the ring.He had a poster that said something about a meatball sub,with Carlito's head replacing the meatballs.--WillC (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? he is still not an employee of WWE. Skitzo (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he is WWE probably does not want the public to know because of the Kayfabe issue. and besides what's this guy's name any way? Steelerfan-94 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

IIRC, his name is Rick Ackberger. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay

Finlay as well as Hornswoggle should be added to one of the people allowed on SmackDown! and also RAW. He is Hornswoggles protector, and seen quite often on RAW. Any objections? GuffasBorgz7 (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i would think so. S-PAC54 15:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I also agree, it seems any more that Hornswoggle is on RAW just as much as Smackdown!. and Finlay is on RAW all of the time, sometimes just talking to McMahon backstage.Steelerfan-94 (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Seems like a consensus, I will add it. GuffasBorgz7 (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

batista

Is his last name Batista, or Bautista? it keeps changing on the main page. Steelerfan-94 (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

His last name is Bautista (full name=Dave Bautista) but he dropped the "u" for wrestling, hence being known as "Batista". ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Burchail and Katie somthing

How do we know they are returning,. I dont have sports channels so give me info please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispowellathome (talk • contribs) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been wondering the same thing. Steelerfan-94 (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Spoilers for next weeks Raw, which was taped on Monday night, I believe is where that info is coming from. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Khali

If you go to his main page it say's his birth name is Dalip Singh Rana, but we have him listed as just Dalip Singh. who agree's we should put him as Dalip Singh Rana ?. Steelerfan-94 (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

No because he only uses Dalip Singh on his acting credits also, the Rana is similar to the name after Guerrero in Eddie's full name. Skitzo (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE severs ties with OVW

It's been reported that WWE has severed ties with OVW and is moving all their contracted wrestlers to Florida Championship wrestling. Plus, you still have several guys listed who were recently released. (Ace Steel being one of them) Geld, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and the roster has been removed for OVW.--TrUCo9311 20:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OVW is not defunct. WWE just severed ties with them. OVW is still in existance, but all of the WWE contracted guys are leaving. Geld, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe not. The OVW website is gone. Geld, 7 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.161.152 (talk)
Is it really? And indeed, if even DSW carried on when WWE split from it, there's no reason OVW won't. WWE never owned OVW, and there were always a handful of workers for OVW whose contracts were with OVW (or weren't contracted at all) rather than with WWE. A prominent example was ODB. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the page

So according to the tags, this article needs additional sources. It also needs clean up, apparently not meeting Wiki's WP:MOS. So what can we do to fix this? Suggestions? --TrUCo9311 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-open the above polls (on tables and citations) at WT:PW, as not many votes were cast in the other discussions. iMatthew 2008 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I realized that adding tables to every section is sort of cruft. Mayby if we moved the FCW roster somewhere else, then the page would be smaller and mayby one big table could be work. Also citations are just needed for their "job", the stuff written in italics by each superstar. The roster pages cover really who is on what brand. --TrUCo9311 21:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page should either be fully cited, or not cited at all. If you need a citation saying that The Boogeyman is currently injured, why shouldn't you have a citation saying that Batista is on Smackdown. Without citations, anyone can argue that Hornswoggle is on Raw, and that the note should say "Hornswoggle can appear on Smackdown also". With a citation next to his name, it proves that he is on Smackdown, and appears on Raw also. iMatthew 2008 21:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because you don't cite facts. The Boogeyman being injured/his status/his injury, etc. needs citation, no doubt about it. Batista being on SmackDown! is fact, multiple external links can be provided as saying that and one is already provided to the bottom of the article. Main three reasons you cite something is when "adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", "When quoting someone" or "When adding material to the biography of a living person". Batista and Hornswaggles roster arrangments are self-explanatory, as they can be by simply watching WWE or visiting any site with a roster on it. There is such thing as overusing citations. — Save_Us † 21:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...or visiting any site with a roster on it is what I'm talking about. Adding a link to another site with a roster on it. iMatthew 2008 21:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez, {{sofixit}}. Google search WWE roster, ignore Wikipedia results, WWE's results, and out-of-date entires and add it to the external links sections. Don't complain about citations unless your actually talking about citing something like BLP-sensitive material or something that is challengable. External links (like rosters lists) being present doesn't = citations. — Save_Us † 21:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point. But as Truco said, what else can be done to the article? iMatthew 2008 21:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point out the part of MoS you and Truco think the article may conflict with? — Save_Us † 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem, I am just pointing out the tags and trying to find suggestions.TrUCo9311 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike DiBiase Jr.

Before anyone readds him again, someone, anyone, please provide a source that states that he is coming to the WWE because I looked and I couldn't find anything. — Save_Us † 02:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it either, but I remember he and his brother were reported as signed at the same time, though Mike apparently had a number of independent obligations to fulfill. Still, I can't find it anywhere and he has a private myspace, so unless he shows up in FCW, I guess we may as well just leave him off. Dahumorist (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're right, I remember only seeing news of his signing on a few sites while most only mentioned the Ted Dibiase signing. It's possible the reports of him signing were erroronous and he was confused for his brother. Doppy88 (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alphabetical order

dont you think it would be easier for readers if the wwe roster and the TNA roster was in alphabetical order —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispowellathome (talk • contribs) 10:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I cannot figure out what order they have it in now. It would be quite nice to have some sort of order in that makes sence. -GuffasBorgz7- 11:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its in order alphabetically by last name. --TrUCo9311 12:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It should be either last name first, or go by their first name, like

John Cena, and go by their first name or

Cena John, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelerfan-94 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for my earlier comment. I just realised that it is already in alphabetical order by last name, but displaying the first name first. I agree with the current system in place. Please ignore my earlier comments on this topic. Cheers. -GuffasBorgz7- 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divas

Should we put in comers "Divas" like on the tna page and also the superstars of ecw are some times known as "extemists" on the ecw divas part we should be known as "vixans" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.99.252 (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ECW Superstars have not been referred to as "Extremists" and "Vixens" for months now! iMatthew 2008 12:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since WWE released Brooke they have not beenc called that, and Kelly Kelly and Layla are both in another storyline now that makes them hate each other. Steelerfan-94 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC) .[reply]

Balls Mahoney

It mentions he is on maternity leave it should be paternity for he is a male ;) 82.3.126.153 (talk)

actually, it says parental leave. Please read the article properly before posting. Regards, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It said maternity a few days ago, I changed it to paternity a few days ago. — Save_Us † 17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JR

Was it just me or did anyone else hear that when Mark Henry was on raw a week from the rumbel JR said something that on the live feed it was beeped and on the replays it was taken out all together and the last time Mark was on it hapend but this time no beep just taken out does anyone no what he said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.128.25 (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum or the appropriate place to discuss this. Plese take it someplace else. — Save_Us † 17:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rory McAlister

He has a complete pectoral tear this was on his muspace have received countless e-mail asking how I am doing as of late and asking how my injury is. Well I had no clue anyone knew I was hurt as I never told anyone and I don't read the dirt sheets so I have no clue how they know but it's always nice that people show they care.

In a match recently I hurt my chest. Didn't know how, but I knew something was wrong. WWE had me see a surgeon immediately and after an mri I discovered I had torn my right pectoral completely off the bone. I went in for surgery yesterday morning and all went well. The tear was worse than first thought but the Doc assures me it has been anchored securely and he is more than happy with the results. I had an amazing team of surgeons and I have an amazing physical therapy team. Both of whom are the teams the Cincinnati Reds use. I made the joke that I hoped they know medicine better than the Reds know baseball but that joke dropped like a lead fart.

I am totally confident to be back very soon in better shape than I left both physically and mentally. Again thank you for all the e-mails of well being. I will keep you all updated!

Alba O'Ways

Rory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.54.240 (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this IP is coming froma educational facility in Australia, I very much highly doubt that you are who you say you are. This is the same comment that McAlister posted on his MySpace earlier this week after suffering the injury. — Save_Us † 01:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think he's just copying the posting from the myspace. Mshake3 (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

omg save us your a dumb ass who do you think im am i did copy and past it from his myspace to prove to people like you (Pessimists) that it was true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.100.195 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks please. D.M.N. (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Burchail and Katie Lea

shouldnt wikipedia put Paul Burchails and Katie Leas profile on the proper roster not on the inactive because they are on wwe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispowellathome (talk • contribs) 09:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page first! They have been listed as active since last Monday when they debut on Raw. iMatthew 2008 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay - road agent

I could have swore NiciVampireHeart found a citation for this, but no such citation exists in the article. Noble being a producer also needs a cite... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did find one for Finlay, but I never added it to this article. I'll do it now. It's here under the "World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment" heading. As for Noble, I dunno. I'll see if I can find one. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found one for Noble, but I haven't added it to the article because it seems to be a fansite. I'll give you guys the link, here, and let you decide. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right. That was in Finlay's article. Not sure about the source for Noble myself, but it does look like a fansite. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to get a lot of references from the Divas DVDs, as he was a trainer/producer for them for several years. I recall Trish and others talking about him, and Finlay himself being interviewed as well. At the same time, I guess we need to know if he's still in that role. Mshake3 (talk) 05:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterio Injured

See here. However, it says that he still wants to compete at Now Way Out, so I take that means that we can't list him as inactive yet. Thought I'd wait for other people opinions, so, any thoughts/comments? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait. I'm pretty sure it might be "storyline". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why i posted here, instead of making an idiot out of myself and posting it in the article. ;) I suppose time will tell really. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Let's just wait. ;) --

 ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is storyline or not, which it most likely isn't, he would still not wrestle to sell the injury so we should not wait. Doppy88 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's a storyline, since SD!'s been taped since Wednesday of last week, and he had a segment to build his feud with Edge.CrystallixRed (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are we at a point where all injuries "could be storyline", and thus we have to treat them as such? Mshake3 (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_WWE_personnel&oldid=191588747"