Talk:List of WWE personnel

Forming a Consensus

A constant problem with this article is people adding wrestlers to the inactive section, and then it gets reverted back, and then reverted again, and it creates constant edit wars. Why don't we solve this by only adding wrestlers to the inactive section if a consensus is able to be formed on the talk page.

If someone wished to add one to the inactive list, they must come here and discuss it before adding it. After a consensus is formed, we have a valid reason to revert and not edit war. In this state, users who go against the consensus may be held with accordingly.

Thoughts? iMatthew (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• agree if --adding to this: agree if there is no source regarding the inactivity. If there's an article that can be sourced and it fits RS then that should be enough.  Hazardous Matt  20:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree if --what Matt said. If there is a valid source, then there needn't be much discussion. That's what sources are for. Dahumorist (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Agree --Seems like a good idea to me. Nobody likes edit wars. --Kaizer13 (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I DO NOT AGREE TO it,it sounds stupid —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.81.245 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Active/Inactive

Unless there's a documented reason, don't put people on the inactive list. It'll save a lot of the back and forth that's going on.

You know the old saying about assuming...

Vjmlhds October 9, 2008 21:49 (UTC)

no what is the old saying —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.192.131 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the old saying. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 15:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Storylines

just put here people who are in a storyline with each other and also use this ection for when superstars will be back and explain in detail why people out in injury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.192.131 (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why a "List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees" should contain anything about storylines.  Hazardous Matt  18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the superstars are coined "superstars" in the article, are divided in different "brands", and the use of "kayfabe" is frequent in this article... I don't think that comment was really logical, dont you think? Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Dos Caras Jr

According to PWInsider.Com Dos Caras Jr. has stated publicly he will be remaining with EMLL for at least the rest of the year and denied he's signed any contract with WWE because they haven't met his demands. I don't want to just remove him before getting a second opinion so what would the general consensus be? I'd think he should be removed. Hot Stuff International (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Inactive Talent criteria

Just kind of curious but what's the general criteria that's used for placing talent in the "Inactive" section of their respective brands so I avoid making edits that are not needed.

For example Paul London hasn't been used on TV, dark matches, or even house shows but he's considered "Active" where as Chuck Palumbo isn't but he too hasn't been used on TV, dark matches or house shows. Doesn't make much sense to me.

Likewise, I know Elijah Burke was contributing on WWE.Com but he hasn't been used since May so how is he considered an active wrestler? To me being an active columnist isn't the same thing. Hot Stuff International (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I gotta agree with Hot Stuff, both London and Burke should be listed as Inactive if you ask me. Dahumorist (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Leave Randy Orton on the active list. If he's healthy enough to be lumberjack and kicking and stomping guys at ringside, and appears every week, he's healthy enough to be considered active, and real close to wrestling. As Jerry Lawler wrestles a good bit on Raw, he should be added to the active list, as he does appear every week and could wrestle at any time.

Vjmlhds October 15, 2008 22:26 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't going to do anything regarding Orton or Lawler because those are obvious situations. I don't mean to keep bringing up a frequently discussed topic but I just didn't want to rock the boat so to speak and inadvertently begin an editing war or silly argument to nowhere. Hot Stuff International (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Burke and London are fine on the inactive list as they haven't been heard from in forever. While I would like to see documented proof as to why guys are inactive (so that way there's no arguement) when it's been months and months, then common sense should take over.

In Orton's case usually Wiki policy has been if a guys comes back from injury and physically gets involved in matches (i.e. slugging/kicking/attacking a guy), then it's good enough to put him back on the active list, so I'm just following established guidelines there.

Lawler has wrestled about a dozen or so matches on Raw this year, plus whatever he does independently, so I think it's fair to put him on the active list.

Vjmlhds October 15, 2008 22:38 (UTC)

I have to disagree as far as Lawler is concerned. He is primarily a commentator, only occasionally wrestling. I suggest we leave him where he's been under "Other On-Air Talent" as such:

• Jerry "The King" Lawler - Color commentator; occasional wrestler Dahumorist (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, I disagree. He's on Raw every week and he wrestles at least once a month or once every 6 weeks on average.

Plus he gets involved in a couple of feuds a year, so he is more than a mere commentator. He's a wrestler who commentates, more than he is a commentator who wrestles.

Vjmlhds October 16, 2008 00:45 (UTC)

P.S.

Next time sign in.

Why are you saying? Jerry Lawler belongs in the OOAT section - he is more of a commentator than wrestler. Seriously? iMatthew (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's just that Other on air talent should be set aside specifically for those who don't wrestle. Micheal Cole, Mike Adamle, and Lillian Garcia aren't wrestlers, they perform other duties. Lawler is a wrestler who, while doing commentary for the most part, does wrestle and gets himself involved in feuds and storylines and such.

Vjmlhds October 16, 2008 00:52 (UTC)

That sounds like bull to me, no offense. But Lawler only gets involved in feuds every so often. iMatthew (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

For the most part? No. He rarely gets involved. This doesn't need to be any more complicated. OOAT is fine.  Hazardous Matt  00:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Lawler in 2008 alone has feuded with Santino Marrella and Rhodes/Dibiase. Also, the term "occasional wrestler" is wishy-washy. He either is a wrestler or he isn't, and since he does his fair share in the ring, I think that qualifies him as a wrestler.

Vjmlhds October 16, 2008 01:05 (UTC)

You're being way to difficult here - there is absolutely no reason not to say "occasional wrestler" so leave it with OOAT. Also, 2008 along - where 10 months into 2008 - and two feuds - come on now! iMatthew (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being difficult, I'm trying to simplify things. The term "occasional wrestler" means he does wrestle. Every single week, no, but enough to make note of.

What I did was acknowledge the fact that Lawler is a wrestler, who also performs another duty.

Other on air talent should be set aside for non-wrestlers. That's why they're considered as "other" talent.

Vjmlhds October 16, 2008 01:13 (UTC)

Other on air Talent

I believe that the term Other on air Talent should be specifically for those who appear on WWE TV in a strictly non-wrestling capacity.

People like JR, Cole, Grisham, Adamle, Vickie Guerrero, Teddy Long, Lillian Garcia et al aren't wrestlers, thus they go into "other on air talent because they do other things.

People like Jerry Lawler, who does wrestle several times per year, should count as active wrestlers because they do wrestle.

The term "occasional wrestler" signifies that they do wrestle enough to make note of, thus why not make it simpler just to include them on the regular roster.

He either is or he isn't a wrestler, and occasional wrestler means he does wrestle.

Guys like Tazz (injuries) and Matt Striker fall into other talent because they haven't wrestled since becoming full time announcers.

Lawler has always wrestled a number of times per year, thus the term "occasional wrestler".

So why not just include him with the wrestlers and let the non-wrestlers have their own category (i.e. "Other on air talent")

Vjmlhds October 16, 2008 01:33 (UTC)

No. Things don't need to be this complicated.  Hazardous Matt  14:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kung-Fu Naki

Funaki's name on WWE.com is Kung-Fu Naki not Funaki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.127.253 (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right! I thought it was just a one-time comedy thing with the R-Truth promo, but maybe it's a gimmick change of some kind? Either way, that should be noted 'ere. --Kaizer13 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Super Crazy

I think Super Crazy should be Inactive because he has not been on SmackDown for awhile. Put:

Super Crazy (Francisco Pantoja Islas) - ''Inactive from WWE TV since September 6th

He works tonight's Smackdown against Ezekiel Jackson so hold off on putting him in the Inactive section. Hot Stuff International (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah...I may have missed it, but do a specific number of weeks/days without activity have to pass before someone is relocated to the inactive section? In that case...what's the number? --Kaizer13 (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish I knew! If it were up to me I'd say if a talent goes a month tops without appearing on TV, popping up in more than two-three Dark Matches, or being utilized on house shows, they would have to be considered inactive. Hot Stuff International (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Inactive talent (FCW)

You should put Inactive for unknown reasons beside all of the superstars there. Put Kevin Thorn there also.

FCW Name Changes

I realize that at FCW shows most of the talent that have undergone name changes are still referred to by their old name at their shows. However given that the main roster talents are listed by the names as seen on WWE.Com, shouldn't we list all of the FCW talent by the names as they appear on their website's roster page? Some are intact but others were edited back to their old names a few days ago which is why I ask. Hot Stuff International (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, because if WWE.com was late on renaming people according to what they actually were referred to on a show, we would change the name here. For example, if on RAW, John Cena changed his name to Herbert Dingleberry, but the people at WWE.com hadnt changed his name on the roster page, we'd change it to Herbert Dingleberry. The people who run the FCW website tend to update even more infrequently than WWE.com. I think going by what they actually wrestle as is best. Dahumorist (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thank you! Hot Stuff International (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good talk. (fist pound) Dahumorist (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Santino and Beth

There seems to be an endless back and forth on whether or not Santino Marella and Beth Phoenix are a tag team or stable so I suggest we just take a vote on it already or something to that extent because there's going to be someone taking it out and then someone winding up putting it back. My two cents is they're not a tag team since they don't team up on a regular basis and I don't consider them to be a stable despite the ultra catchy name they gave themselves. If anything it should be noted next to Beth's listing "also valet of Santino Marella" since she regularly accompanies him to the ring. Hot Stuff International (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep them as a tag team for right now,since they have the name Glamarella,keep them till WWE says they are no longer a tag team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.81.245 (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case shouldn't the Burchill's be considered a tag team then? --James Duggan 08:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually,yes I agree with you on that,I don't know why Glamarella keeps getting removed as well the the Burchill's,maybe its just people who know nothing about wrestling,but thats just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.87.160 (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep them. Santino has accompanied Beth to her matches, as if she's his regular tag team partner and they're in an alliance of sorts. They pretty much function as a tag team but not actively competing in the tag team division, and they've made no secret that Beth can hold her own against the male wrestlers if needed. Not so for Katie Lea...she has been reduced to a valet role for Paul, he hasn't accompanied her to the ring in ages, and neither have they been regularly wrestling together in handicap intergender matches like they used to anymore. Haleth (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

D-Lo Brown

D-Lo has not appeared on Raw in a while so shouldn't he be put under inactive talent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seegers6188 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

While D-Lo hasn't been on Raw, he has been working regular Dark matches and is being used on house shows so he is still active so for now I'd leave him where he is. Hot Stuff International (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Scotty Goldman

I haven't seen Scotty on Smackdown in a while so shouldn't he be INACTIVE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seegers (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No,he is working dark matches and houseshows so leave him on for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.81.245 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Manu

He was asked to lose wheght. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.38.72 (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And your point is what,he is wrestling currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.83.49 (talk) 02:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Braddock And Kenny

They should be a tag team they came as a team on smackdown.--74.79.38.72 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)CICE thats my real last name

I agree with you they SHOULD be added,but knowing these people here,they won't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.48.78 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually watch it but we should wait for them to team up a couple more times before we officially list them as a tag teamBlackFrostFan (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, remain civil and can the whole "Knowing these people" BS. That never gets anyone anywhere and I would know. Second, Dykstra and Braddock teamed together twice with no indication they'd become a regular tag team. As already advised, wait until it becomes apparent whether or not they do become a full time duo before adding them. Hot Stuff International (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

First off Hot Stuff International you do NOT make the rules and say or what tag team go up,you wonder why this stuff gets edit wars because alot of you jerks don't even know what are tag teams or stables like Glamarella. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.86.38 (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wow... Who said I made the rules? And we're the jerks because we won't add Marella and Phoenix as a stable or tag team when they're clearly neither? They don't regularly team together and they aren't a stable since a stable generally consists of more than two people. If that makes us jerks, your definition of the word is pretty odd. Hot Stuff International (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as he does not individually make the rules, neither does any individual. It's common practice in the pro-wrestling project to see if anything notable comes out of a random pairing before listing them as a tag team or stable. Also, again, remain civil.  Hazardous Matt  19:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Knox

I think Knox should remain included on the ECW Brand's roster list until his bio's moved to the Raw section on WWE.Com, if it is at all. Given that Raw&ECW have a talent exchange, it could be a case of they're just hyping that he'll be another ECW guy making appearances on the show. If his bio has already been moved, then obviously disregard this. Hot Stuff International (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable.  Hazardous Matt  03:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Goldust/Honky Tonk?

Why are they listed in the current employees section when both are not under WWE contract? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Info Fan (talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You have no proof of them not haveing a contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.107.105 (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

True, but is there a source that says they do?  Hazardous Matt  03:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.193.162 (talk) 11:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For anybody to wrestle or make appearances for WWE, they have to be under some sort of contract.

It might be a short term deal with only X number of dates, but guys like Honky or Goldust had to have put their signatures on some sort of document, or they wouldn't be seen on WWE airwaves right now.

Gotta use some common sense here, Vince McMahon doesn't put guys on TV without some sort of deal.

Vjmlhds October 31, 2008 4:27 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I should have known that as soon as they appeared people would be trying to put them on the page. I think it's safe to say that they were making a guest appearence or something of that nature..... SteelersFan94 18:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Honky Tonk Man right now is involved in a featured feud with Santino Marella on Raw.

Since he wrestled on the PPV, and continues to appear, he should be considered as active, as the feud is continuing.

He may not be around long, but FOR RIGHT NOW, he's part of the show, so therefore, part of the roster.

Where am I wrong?

He's in a feud for a title, that usually equals active. How is this different?

Well we'll see if they show up again next week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.230.193.162 (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Vjmlhds October 31, 2008 21:33 (UTC)

Chavo Guerrero and Bam Neely

Should they be added back as a tag team due to the fact on the last Smackdown and tonight on ECW,they where announced as one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.107.105 (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait to see if it becomes a regular thing. It will be obvious after a month whether or not this will continue. Being announced during one entrance does not make them a permanent tag team.  Hazardous Matt  03:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does it have to be a month for it,its been now two straight weeks of them being annouced as followed"

Makeing their way to the ring at a combined weight of 484 pounds the tag team of Chavo Guerrero and Bam Neely"

If that does not make them a tag team with the involving of the combined weight,then what else is,like CM Punk and Kofi Kingston,just because they are the tag team champions mean nothing,and they should be together one month like Chavo and Bam to be a tag team since you put it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.107.105 (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Chavo and Bam have been a team for a long time. Just because they had a couple teases at a break-up lately doesn't mean they broke up. If they're still teaming together, then they're still together. I'm adding them back. Dahumorist (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add back the notion next to Neely that he's still Chavo's Enforcer. I shall do so if nobody objects. Hot Stuff International (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead Hot Stuff International,I agree that you should add that.

Layla London

Layla is now called that as it said on Wrestlezone.

WZ isn't a reliable source, but if it's legit it'll turn up on the WWE.com roster page anywayz. Cool, seems like they're gonna pair Layla and Paul London then. --Kaizer13 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

More likely it's to go with the British accent she picked up once aligning with William Regal. Anyway, when a reliable source posts it we can go with it.  Hazardous Matt  21:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Knox

He should be on Raw as it said on wrestlezone that he won a dark match vs Jamie Noble--74.79.38.72 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)JIGGLY

That doesn't mean anything. Besides, Raw and ECW have a talent exchange agreement, remember that? HabsMTL (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Video packages featuring Mike Knox have been aired on the past two episodes of Raw. The one aired on Monday said "Raw" next to Mike Knox's name, so yeah, he's moving to Raw within a short period of time. --Kaizer13 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It just said "Raw". Is that "moving to Raw", "appearing on Raw"? Has the roster page been updated? Where's the rush on this. Let's just wait until we see it happen.  Hazardous Matt  21:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Full-protection

I've requested full-protection on this page. There is too much edit warring going on, and this page may not be unprotected until all edit wars are discussed and sorted out. If you'd like to start a discussion, be civil, and go right ahead. iMatthew 02:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This page has been fully protected. iMatthew (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did the edit war begin in the first place?--S_RX 02:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The main edit war topics were:

• Layla El being changed to Layla London
• What brand Mike Knox is on
• Honky Tonky Man, Goldust, and Piper's status
• Evan Bourne's status.

iMatthew (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's all get on the same page.

As I feel I'm part of the reason for this quagmire, let me apologize first and foremost, I didn't think we'd get stuck in the muck like this.

That being said, let's get to work.

First and foremost, we need to establish some ground rules for this page that are inarguable, and unanimously agreed to.

Too much is subjective, when it needs to be objective.

I submit to you a checklist of guidelines for who goes where and under what heading.

1. You are active if you:

• A. regularly wrestle on the brand (be it on TV, house shows, or dark matches)--If you wrestle, you're active, period.
• B. hold a championship, are wrestling for a title on PPV, or feuding with someone over a belt (i.e. Honky Tonk Man), you're active, as that means you are a championship contender.
• C. come back off the injured list and physically involve yourself with other wrestlers--If you're healthy enough to mix it up, even though you haven't wrestled yourself yet, that's good enough to consider you active.

2. You are inactive if you:

• A. are out with a legitimate documented injury.
• B. if 45 days go by and you don't wrestle (on TV, house shows, or dark matches)--If you appear on TV but don't wrestle, it'll count as still being active, but you at least have to get your face seen, otherwise check for house show/dark match results.
• C. obviously if you're suspended.

3. Other on-air talent is for people who appear on the show in roles other than as a wrestler or referee.

• A. I have to include a Jerry Lawler clause in here because he does wrestle a decent amount (more than just say once a year--more like once every couple of months). As long as he does that, I think it's fair to include him with the other wrestlers.
• B. A guy like Goldust would stay here unless he either wrestles, or is scheduled for a match on PPV.

4. Guys like Duggan, Stone Cold, and Ron Simmons should be included on the Raw page due to being on WWE.com's Raw roster page.

• A. Duggan as part of the main roster (with an occasional note)
• B. Stone Cold and Simmons under Other on air talent (Simmons just drops in to say "DAMN!", and Austin shows up like twice a year max.)

These are the main hang-ups that have been plaguing this page.

If we can get a consensus to these ground rules (which I'm sure will be tweaked), then we can stop the arguing once and for all.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds November 1, 2008 3:10 (UTC)

If the powers that be would allow me, let me set the page up with all of my guidelines in place, and give it a look-see. Then you all could tell me where I'm wrong or where it needs tweaked, and we can work from there.

Vjmlhds November 1, 2008 3:28 (UTC)

I disagree with 1C because the wrestlers' jobs are to wrestle, and they are active if they do that, and inactive if they are unable to do that. For 2B, why 45 days? Also, just seeing their face does not make them active. 3A) Yes Lawler does wrestle on occasions, but that is not his primary job, his primary job is to commentate. 4)Stone Cold should not be placed there because he has no role on TV, doesnt matter if they have him on the Raw roster page, remember how SmackDown had Nacho Libre on the page? --S_RX 03:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with SRX. Austin has a deal with WWE Films anyway and it's been documented that both Duggan and Simmons do not have regular WWE wrestler deals but a "Legends" situation where they can pretty do independent shows, conventions, and so on as long as they make themselves available if given enough notice ahead of time. Lawler's status should remain as noted currently for reasons given already.

Now, as far as guys like Honkytonk Man, Goldust, etc. I think the benchmark should at least be three weeks or more of appearances to see if they're going to be involved in a storyline or if they were just brought in for the short term with no clear long or short term plans. Remember in 2005 they brought in Vader and I wouldn't have added him to this page because he worked a Raw and a Taboo Tuesday PPV and then was gone. The same could happen to HTM, Goldust, Piper but it's not certain yet what will be done with them, if anything further.

Finally regarding the Inactivity criteria, I agree with that guideline except I think if say Gavin Spears works one dark match and then isn't heard from for, again just picking a number I think works, three weeks for either Dark matches or house shows, he and others should be considered inactive. And just for a guy to land on the inactive list in the first place, I'd say a month of not being seen anywhere like Chuck Palumbo would suffice as a reason. I mean if you're not mentioned or haven't been noted in wrestling in any fashion, obviously you're inactive right? Hot Stuff International (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Vjmlhds, rather than re-writing the page? Why not just set it up in your sandbox and let everyone have a look at it?  Hazardous Matt  04:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, how about this:

1C--A guy makes his return from the injured list, and is scheduled for a match on the next PPV, he should then be put back as active (Especially if it's a title match.)

Example--Monday on Raw, Randy Orton gets put in a match at Survivor Series. Even if he doesn't wrestle before then, since he's been back for awhile and has a match scheduled, that makes him active.

2B--Let's reduce it back to 30 days. That's once a month. I think that's fair

3A--We'll drop the Lawler clause, just let it be noted that he does wrestle semi-regularly

4--We'll just drop #4 all together (unless an Austin/Simmons/Duggan/Piper either holds or is wrestling for a title, then they'll be considered active)

Vjmlhds November 1, 2008 14:56 (UTC)

All of that sounds more reasonable and I think that's what we should adopt as the guidelines of sorts. While not perfect, it's better than nothing. Hot Stuff International (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm down with that too. Fact of the matter is the whole Piper/Honky/Goldust thing should be easily resolved by the next Raw. If they wrestle, they're active, if not, they're other on-air talent. If they don't appear, then they disappear. Period. I just really want this page unprotected already. I've done some research on FCW ring names recently and would love to apply it to the page, but have been unable to. :(Dahumorist (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources for the ring names, ask an administrator. They are the only ones that can edit this page. iMatthew 11:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Evan Bourne needs to moved back to active

Its not confirmed that he is taking time off for the injury. He has even stated himself he will try and work through it. JakeDHS07 04:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

They guy has a dislocated ankle, you expect him to come wrestle like that? PW Torch has reported the injury and it's official.--S_RX 15:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

He has torn ligaments not a dislocated ankle. The source you provided says so and even mentions him working through it as I stated. Might want to read your source next time. JakeDHS07 16:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well we can't speak for Bourne ourselves, would you be running and jumping with Torn ligaments? Anyways the list is fully protected for a week.--S_RX 16:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to go into table form

The information in this article needs to become tabular, and into one big list of "WWE wrestlers", and one big list of "Other on-air talent."

• All three brands should be combined in the new tables, because the list isn't called "List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees by brand" - it's just "List of employees"
• The format would look like such:

Ring name	Real name	Brand	Gender	Notes	Reference
Kane	Glen Jacobs	Raw	Male

• With this new format, we will combine active talent and inactive talent. If an employee is inactive, we will write that in the "Notes" section of the table.
• Female wrestlers will be in the same table as the male wrestlers, as there is a gender column (unless others think it's better to have a table for male and a table for female wrestlers both).
• Again, brands will not be separate, but will have a column for their "brand"

This is simply the best way to go, and the best way to keep the article nice and clean. It eliminates the edit warring between active/inactive - and is neat, clean, and organized. iMatthew (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I liked this before, but I think it's a bad idea especially in this type of list. For one, it will be more confusing this way, this is one of those lists that will never become FL because of it's nature. Another thing will be more edit wars over the format and high vandalism on screwing up the table. List form is the best way, there is no policy that every list has to be in table form.S_RX 15:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't halt improving an article because people will mess up the table. If they mess it up, you have to explain to them their mistake, and if they refuse to list and continue to mess it up, ask an admin for help. This will never been FL because of it's edit warring, but I talked to Scorpion on IRC about 2 weeks ago about this, and he agreed that it would be better in table form. iMatthew (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because the FL directors say that does not mean it's best, everyone's opinion counts. Yes we can't halt it because of vandalism, but I remember creating a big list like the one you exemplified above, I regretted doing it because it is is more confusing due to the nature of the list, being current events.--S_RX 15:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

SRX, try to avoid WP:IDONTLIKEIT, also, should Barack Obama be fully-protected due to vandalism? No - people stand by and revert it when it comes up. Should this article be in crappy condition due to vandalism? No - plenty of people revert vandalism when it comes up. iMatthew (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The table format would be fine by me, just with 2 changes

1. Have 3 tables (Raw, SD, ECW) since there are 3 brands. Let's have 3 tables just so it doesn't turn into one big blob.

2. If we do it here, do it on the TNA page as well for consistency's sake.

Vjmlhds November 1, 2008 15:51 (UTC)

Then the article would have to be "List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees by brand." Also, the TNA has been worked on recently by User:Wrestlinglover in one of his sandboxes. iMatthew (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

See this is what I meant, this whole thing would be a mess. If you make one big one, it will be confusing, especially since the company is divided into three brands. Now if you divide this into sections, it would be nicer and no need for the brand column. But then if you name it "by brand" then what are you going to do with corporate? They aren't assigned brands. Remember also that FCW isn't a brand but a territory, what would you do then? --S_RX 16:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess we can sort it by brands. But we need to use tables. iMatthew (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh. I'm in agreement with SRX on this one. The table format for this specific page just would muddle it even more so than it is and we'd never get out of full protection because of the edit wars that would make the ones that caused this now to seem like a walk in the park. I'd leave it as is. Hot Stuff International (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So you'd rather the page stay un-neat, un-organized, and not sorted properly? iMatthew (talk) 18:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It's neat the way it is IMO, I would agree on tables if this were a different type of list, like alumni, but this one since it needs changes weekly, it is better as it is.--S_RX 18:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well have fun reverting vandalism on this un-organized page, because I've almost reached my limit with this page. iMatthew (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would actually prefer the table.

It would eliminate the active/inactive list, so there would be no arguments, just little notes saying so-and-so is injured/suspended etc.

You would still call the page "List of WWE Employees", just divide them up by brand.

Here are your categories:

• Raw
• Smackdown
• ECW
• FCW
• Corporate
• Agents/Producers
• Other Personnel

Each category has it's own table, and it would go all on one page.

It isn't that hard. That would be 7 tables on the one page.

Vjmlhds November 1, 2008 23:16 (UTC)

Correct. iMatthew (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel if we do it the way I suggested, instead of one big gigantic table, it would be neat, efficient, there would be no ambiguity (Esp. active/inactive), and easy to read because of the separate tables for each category. You would know who belongs to what and who goes where.

Vjmlhds November 1, 2008 23:27 (UTC)

I would only agree to tables if they are done by brand, like V suggested.--S_RX 23:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We can sort by tables. iMatthew (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to get an idea of what people think of what I've done with the TNA roster list. Because I don't think the section for References works, plus we would also have to source his/her name. User:Wrestlinglover/List of current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees.--WillC 00:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The width of the table definitely needs to be decreased, plus the table needs to be sortable, that's the point for the table format.--S_RX 00:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you don't mind could you do it to the first table so I know what should be done to the others?--WillC 01:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I'll leave this open for a week. iMatthew (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

1. iMatthew (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
2. For organisational and presentational purposes. Sunderland06 (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
3. Per Sunderland06. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
4. Support If someone b0rks the table, it can't be that hard to fix. Tables are usually much easier on the eyes than tables when you need to present a lot of info like this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
5. Support This article would look better in table form, not list, though some articles are better in list. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
6. Support It'll take away from any ambiguity from who should be put where, but they need to be divided up by brand to avoid being too cluttered. Vjmlhds November 2, 2008 02:57 (UTC)
7. Support Of course. Table forms are advantageous because they are sortable, and allows references to be placed in neat sections with no great difficulty. This is one list that would benefit from this format. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Tables (even dynamic tables) are great for exactly this type of operations. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 14:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
9. I support the table format if it is executed for each Brand which would be a heck of a lot less confusing. But I would keep the Inactive-Active notations that do not fall under the category of being suspended or injured with the 30 day guideline already suggested by V. Only because Palumbo, London, Burke, Estrada, etc. are neither injured or been suspended so not listing them or listing them without the Inactive notation would be incorrect information I believe. All you'd have to do is note "Inactive for unknown reasons" if there's no documented reason from a reliable source. That aside, it sounds reasonable to me on all levels. Hot Stuff International (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

   If you look at the sample table that IMatthew put together, there is a notes section where we could state that guys are inactive for whatever reason (injured/suspended/not heard from for 30 days/etc.), so we don't need a separate section for that. Vjmlhds November 1, 2008 23:57 (UTC)

   Oh I didn't mean a separate section. But having seen what you directed me to, it's perfect. Hot Stuff International (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

   The only change to that sample I would make is removing the brand section due to each brand/category having it's own table Vjmlhds November 3, 2008 21:21 (UTC)

10. I support the table format because I want to take TNA's roster page to FL.—WillC 18:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

    That is really not a reason for this WWE list to be in table format. Some of FL's are also in list form.--S_RX 21:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the only reason I'm supporting. I have more reasons but it would take me a paragraph to write them all and I'm lazy but short I've thought a table would always help this article and the TNA article. Also if I was to place in my expanded verison of the TNA roster without a project consensus it would get reverted. Those are two of many.—WillC 02:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Support The table system looks neat, cool and easily accessible. Definitely an improvement from the current system. Of course, it's gonna be a hell of a fun time reverting all the vandal edits that garble the coding, but that's part of the system. --Kaizer13 (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. S_RX 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

   What is your rationale? iMatthew (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

   This is a straw poll so no need for rationale, but if you need it it's the comments.--S_RX 00:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

   Can you explain though, again - a simple "oppose" seems like "IDONTLIKEIT" which isn't just used in deletion discussions. What makes it confusing? iMatthew (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

   I explained above, but again; if you make one big list, that will make searching for a certain entry more confusing and hard versus just having to click the section heading and searching for the wrestler's name. Now if the tables were to be made for each brand, then I would probably agree to it, one big ol' list is just cluttered.--S_RX 00:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

   This straw poll is for one big list... iMatthew (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

   Which is why I am opposing it.--S_RX 00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

   Please excuse my typo ;) I wasn't paying attention when I was typing. I mean that it's for individual lists as suggested above. Sorry. iMatthew (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

   Don't see how that was a typo but okay. Anyways, can you present an example of how this would work, including the inactive/active/other on air talent in the table. Also, you should state above that this is for individual lists.--S_RX 00:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

   I'd actually rather not spell out the entire article unless we decide to go ahead and switch. It would look like WillC's list for TNA - but a smaller width, and the refs would be in a separate "notes" section. iMatthew (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

   Typo may not be the correct word, but see my comment about supporting V's idea for split tables. I'll work on the tables soon. iMatthew (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

2. The current format of the page has not been a problem. It is in no way misleading. AND it has kept editing simple considering how many people edit this page. Not everyone has extensive experience editing in the wiki format. The current format of the page has allowed people to make edits simply. Switching to a table format will definately complicate even the simplest edits (i.e moving someone from one brand to another). Frankly, I also feel that we should be focusing on the edit wars topic before even thinking about this. This suggestion has been made NUMEROUS times and has been turned down every time. Dahumorist (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

For no reason though. How do you explain the hundreds of articles that are in table format? Why is this article so special? Every article that has information that can be sorted out, should be..so why not this one? If our thought was" not everyone has extensive experience editing in the wiki format" then not lists would ever become tables, but hundreds of them are. iMatthew (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus this is really the only way this article will ever became an FL. Might as well try and after while everyone will get use to it.—WillC 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Oppose Only because I feel the WWE roster is two large for a table format.  Hazardous Matt  13:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I am no contributor, but as a reader of the article, I have to say it looks kind of messy. Sure, it is easier to edit but harder to reader. I think tables should be used instead, using much spacing in the source code so every newbie understands easily how the table is created. The objections to the format raised above can be discussed, whether 1 or 7 tables should be used is not a question now. And so should can the concerns over easy-to-edit-ness be addressed - just keep the tables in a way that makes it clear to everyone what they do. Better yet, include a HTML comment with instructions on how to make changes if too hard. SoWhy 22:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current format is lagging, but the new proposed one will make the content more confusing due to the list's nature.----S_RX 23:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Why are all these random users, who are not members of WP:PW and are not wrestling contributors voting? Only about 2 supporters are wrestling contributors..--S_RX 14:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • SRX, we (WP:PW) do not own this article. Who cares if they hate wrestling - they are respected members of the Wikipedia community. What's so wrong about them having their say? D.M.N. (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I never said that only WP:PW members should vote, never implied WP:OWN. I am just saying that consensus should be built by the people who normally contribute to the article.--S_RX 15:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
      • No. Consensus should be built by as many people of the community as possible. Normal contributors or WikiProject members alone may lead to situations were a minority tries to shut out outsiders, implying OWN issues. The !votes by people who are not regular contributors are most likely as or more important, because they most likely come from readers that are not familiar with the topic and are caring more about readability than easy-to-edit-ness. Regards SoWhy 21:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Oh, alright, sorry.--S_RX 22:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrible idea, i hate the table format on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaylethal2008 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Instead of "hating it," try to read how this and learn about the tables and how to edit them. iMatthew 11:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DH Smith

He is on the smackdown roster page on wwe.com so he should be on the page instead of FCW it should say that he is wrestling in FCW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.38.72 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No he shouldn't - he is wrestling in FCW. iMatthew (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Unassigned Talent

If this page undergoes the table treatment will there be one made up for the Unassigned talent that haven't debuted for any of the three brands or FCW? I only ask because in the discussion above I don't believe it was addressed. Hot Stuff International (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A table would be made for every section, nothing would get left out - except maybe tag teams and stables, because they is not really notable for the article in the first place. iMatthew 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Though I would maybe leave in tag teams? Stables I could see removing if only because it can be noted in individual articles if a wrestler is currently part of a stable but leaving out tag teams would seem to indicate there aren't any in the entire company which would be silly since there are two sets of tag team titles. Ah just my two cents on that matter. Hot Stuff International (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the bios of the tag team members. iMatthew 18:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If we do leave in teams and stables the table I have in User:Wrestlinglover/List of current Total Nonstop Action Wrestling employees could work.—WillC 18:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That could work better. iMatthew 11:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How you would do the TNA Employee page is perfect for what this page should look like. Excellent work. Hot Stuff International (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The members and stable name looks redundant. Repeating that their name is "Abyss and Matt Morgan" and the members are "Abyss and Matt Morgan" is really redundant, I would make that column expand 2 rows.--S_RX 21:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybetter?—WillC 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Goldust

Goldust is listed on both the active roster and on-air talent, he needs to be removed from one. JayLethal2008 16:01, 3 November 2008

Remove him from both, he's been on once, that doesn't mean he's here for good. SteelersFan94 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Layla

Layla should be listed as Layla London as she is advertised for several house shows with the London surname, and will most likely be billed under Layla London tonight on Raw. JayLethal2008 16:01, 3 November 2008

Bring a source.—WillC 04:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a reliable source. Try either WWE.com, WrestleView.com, or PWTorch.com iMatthew 11:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How Do I Edit This Page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 09:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't, it's protected from editing currently. iMatthew 11:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Page

How do i edit this page????????!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.130.187 (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You can't, it's currently protected from editing. iMatthew 11:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How long until...........

How long until we can edit this page, it's a damn shame that because of IP's and the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees owner's. SteelersFan94 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Steelerfan, remain WP:CIVIL and don't secretly attack them. Yes, we can see the "Vjmlhds and other who never learn." Anyways, it's a week until it is unprotected, which is why the above discussion is taking place about the tables.--S_RX 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Primo needs a name change

WWE.com has removed Colon from his bio name, and just goes as "Primo". Can someone edit it, and be sure to place him properly in the P section. Shame that this page is protected, or I would have made the edit.

Mike Knox

Mike Knox should be in alphabetical order and if i recall correctly H goes before K. JayLethal2008 12:43, 4 November 2008

Heath Miller

His ring name is listed as Sebastian Slater on fcwwrestling.com and has been introduced as Sebastian Slater for matches, his name needs to be changed. JayLethal2008 12:44, 4 November 2008

Dos Caras, Jr.

It should not state that Dos Caras, Jr. is debuting at the 2009 Royal Rumble as that is not confirmed. JayLethal2008 08:33, 4 November 2008

Mike Adamle

Last night on Raw Mike Adamle resigned as General Manager of Raw.