Talk:List of WWE personnel

Goldust

What's the story with Goldust?

Are we gonna add him to Raw, or see what happens?

Vjmlhds November 7, 2008 23:46 (UTC)

Can we agree, that if he appears on Raw next week, we'll add him to "Other on air talent"? iMatthew 23:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen Matt, amen. SteelersFan94 19:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus needs to be formed

Tag team names

Users are changing the name of the tag teams from "None" to "Priceless" (for Cody/Ted/Manu) and "None to "The Colons" (Carlito/Primo). Can we agree that neither tag team name is accurate and should be removed on the spot? iMatthew 00:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Priceless is not an a offical tag name for Rhodes,DiBiase&Manu,until they are offical called that comming to the ring,they are not offically Priceless,same goes for Carlito and Primo Colon

When they go into the ring their video says "Priceless" - Dmanskater11 8:08 Nov 7 08

Then are not OFFICALLY called that.Like Carlito and Primo,they are not called The Colons to the ring as they have since removed that for several weeks now.So right now,I'd say don't add it just yet,wait until they are called that to the ring.

I decided to do a little research on the status of the name "Priceless", and in reading through the last month of Raw results on WWE.com, they are never referred to that as their official name, they always say "Ted DiBiase, Cody Rhodes and Manu", so it appears Priceless is not an official name. --James Duggan 02:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we add championships?

Titles are also being added next to champion's names. Should we remove, or is the information notable? iMatthew 00:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Under the old format I always said no because the Champions were listed elsewhere, but with the notes section now, it actually kinda makes sense to mention it in the notes section. --James Duggan 02:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no on the titles,its not needing,the notes section is for injuries or being suspened,nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well now theres a bunch of bland empty Grey boxes under the note. It couldn't possibly hurt to add the Championship the wrestler holds, and it's an offical lisiting and it's notable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Primo Colón

Why is he posted on here as only Primo when he is called Primo Colón by the WWE?

His WWE profile has removed the "Colon" iMatthew 00:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really,on the Power 25 part of the site it is always on there,also Jim Ross and Tazz have announced him as Colon and not only as Primo but the whole thing.

Are there other opinions on this? iMatthew 00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be to names: Primo, Primo ColonD$ <span style="font-size: smaller;" 8:04 Est Nov 7 08

He still is called Primo Colon on WWE tv by Jim Ross and Tazz,even on www.nodq.com a fan at a house show sent in that he was called to the ring as Primo Colon and here is my proof.

http://nodq.com/wwe/227849222.shtml

to Whoever said that; read what i typed again cuz i dont think your brain is on (no Offence) -D$ <span style="font-size: smaller;" 8:04 Est Nov 7 08

No offense taken,but he shouldn't have two names,only the Primo Colon until it is fully removed from WWE.com,that goes along with the Power 25. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.80.202 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the Power 25, and he is only listed as Primo, without the surname. --James Duggan 02:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope,check the Power 25 results for October 25-November 1,they all say Carlito AND Primo Colon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the Power 25 as of November 1st, which is the current ranking on WWE.com, it says Carlito & Primo (NO COLON!). Here's the link: http://www.wwe.com/inside/power25/ (they're listed 13th). Check it again for yourself, because I'm looking at it RIGHT NOW! --James Duggan 12:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Boxes?

Why have the wrestlers and then entire thing have been placed in boxes that is the WORST way you can post anything,just like the ppv results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.80.202 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was reached on this talk page last week. iMatthew 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it makes it more harder to understand and also it makes it so stupid seeing like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.80.202 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the consensus was just established. If you'd like, ask for help on how to read and edit the tables. iMatthew 00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well,personally,I guess it is ok but it just makes no perpose to change it to boxes,I when it wasn't in boxes it was so easy to understand,now its crammed up and hard to even understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.80.202 (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We Should at least have an "inactive talent" box --D$ 00:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanskater11 (talk • contribs)

Where were you guys last week when we has an entire discussion on this? It was decided to combine the active/inactive lists. iMatthew 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

i think its a bad idea, we should have and active list and an inactive list, the thing we have now is confusing D$ 8:04 est Nov 7 08

For one,I agree with you D$] it just makes it to confusing to read it. And for you iMatthew I did vote on keeping it,but my vote was removed two times by someone else.

We Should Do another Vote. D$ 01:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanskater11 (talk • contribs)

If in the "Notes" sections of the tables, you begin with "Inactive; (insert reason here)", then you can click the sort button at the top of the table, and it'll lump all inactive talent together. Sort tables are much easier to navigate than plain lists. Nikki311 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be changed to boxes at all,to me haveing it out of boxes makes it more readable and more easy to understand,with this new system with the boxes,it just makes no sense at all changeing it.And I would also like to say with this new"box system"it will require more work,when the last one under the old list format was so much easer to fix and edit,which is why I have added the WWE roster to MY OWN forum where people edit and make it perfect and its FREE unlike this wikipedia where you need your little donations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Inactive Category

I think we should re add the inactive list category instead of just adding "inactive for ...." next to the name on the main categories. It makes it better imo for viewing and instant info on who is inactive. (Wiki user "NickSparrow")

For God's sake! No more inactive list. Because of that stupid thing, we got into a whole big ruckus about what makes one inactive, and everybody having their own definition.

The table is fine. If somebody is inactive due to injury, suspension, or 30 day inactivity (which I think are fair guidelines, and were discussed before, and everybody seemed fine with), we'll note it in the notes section, instead of making a whole separate section and having it re-edited every 5 minutes.

Trust me, it's better this way. It'll save everybody a whole lot of headaches.

Vjmlhds November 8, 2008 3:41 (UTC)

Its not"better this way" for your information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 03:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with V. Last week he established a very effective guideline for defining Inactive Talent and it's simply noted next to a person's name if they're inactive or not. Having seen the new format for the first time I think it's a heck of a lot easier to read and navigate. The fact that people are complaining about editing it makes me think we won't see as much vandalism as I had originally feared. Hot Stuff International (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I didn't mind it with the old format, but with the table, why are we using the last name first. I understand that with most organizations the last name is used primarily, but this is WWE. It is an Entertainment feature where not everyone has a cannon first and last name. Some only have one word names and others have full names. Never has the WWE organized it's talent by last name, it is always by first word in the name. Now it could be properly organized by the superstar's real last names, but by ringname is just troublesome and hard to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.15.212 (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. (wiki user "NickSparrow")

I agree to with this. (wiki user "Oreius") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this as well and guys don't write wiki user blank sign your posts using 4 of these ~ thanksAdster95 (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you all feel this way, but that won't change anything. iMatthew 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So you only want input that you agree with? Haleth (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It WILL change weither you like it or not,so you guys fighting for it are just makeing sad and lame ways to defend it,and your STILL loseing,more people hate it,you just haven't heard it yet,so HA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Table

This page has got to be the worst looking web page in history, lose the tables and change it back to the neat and simple old format. JayLethal2008 (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this was generally agreed upon last week and was the only way to get the page unprotected. Hot Stuff International (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it looks horrible. Adam Penale (talk)

Sorry to hear that. iMatthew 16:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He is right its IS horrible.

If you wont remove the tables at least get rid of the horrible images that are on the page, there is no need for them. JayLethal2008 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The images really should only be in there if the article gets taken to FLC. I agree with that since the images really should be added to the table instead to make it neater, but the tables will stay and soon be added to both the ROH and TNA rosters when I'm finished with the TNA one in my sandbox.--WillC 09:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The images should stay to keep the article up to most of the FL criteria. iMatthew 11:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If your going to put tables in the TNA and ROH roster pages then logically you should put a table in for EVERY professional wrestling promotion that has a wikipedia page, and frankly unless all of them are in table format then just one or two shouldn't be in a table. if you want to make every roster page a table then knock yourself out but dont just do WWE, TNA and ROH. JayExperience 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Are the pictures really necessary? Adam Penale (talk)

There is nothing wrong with them on the article. There are images on other featured lists, so it should not be removed. iMatthew 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He is right,do you have any pictures on the TNA Roster,no you don't be ohhh you think your the boss and want it YOUR way.

For your information the only reason there is no table or pictures on the TNA roster is because I have yet to place the finished product in the article since I am waiting for everyone to get along with the new format and not to have to get the TNA roster protected too.--WillC 09:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Nope not allowed,its going back to the listing at the end of the month.

We usually leave that up for consensus.  Hazardous Matt  19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just hear us out...

Many of you are complaining about the new format. Many of you are also editing under an IP address, which tells me that you are not as experienced with Wikipedia as some other registered users are - so I understand where you are all coming from. A group of experienced editors on this talk page last week agreed that the table format would work better in this article. The information presented is better organized in tables (or "boxes" as some of you are calling them). I understand that a lot of you enjoyed the list format, but the table format is better for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a playground, and some of you see this article as a playground. Picture a regular playground if you will, and say that playground is intended for kids ages 7-10 to play on, and not 3-5 years. If the town received complaints that the monkey bars are too low to the ground, and the come along and make them higher, the 3-5 year old kids will of course be mad because they can no longer reach the monkey bars.

I can relate that analogy to this article. It's intended for encyclopedic reasons, as a list of employees in World Wrestling Entertainment. It is not intended for random users to play with as a toy article. You cannot all have things the exact way you want it, because remember - we are here for the better of the encyclopedia, not for our own personal enjoyment. I see a lot of you are angry because you "can't reach the monkey bars" anymore, or as it relates to Wikipedia, you can't edit the article as easily as you used to. As you all continue (or not) to edit the article, you will grow used to it, and will find a different way to reach the monkey bars. But until then, read up on how to edit and maintain tables.

Again, I apologize if any of you are inconvenienced by the new format, but as per the consensus from last week - it's here to stay. You are more than welcome to offer suggestions on how to improve them, or the article itself, but please do not continue to complain, because it will not change how this page looks.

Also, concerning the silly edit wars that occur on the page such as "Primo" or "Primo Colon," adding championships next to their names, and/or other edit wars - we need to establish consensus before we continue adding or removing these from the article. Any person who fails to agree with making a consensus and continues to edit war may get blocked from editing, so is it worth making your point made to get blocked? I personally don't think so. Regards, iMatthew 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've again had to request the page be fully-protected, and again it was. If this continues, we'll be seeing a lot more full protection in the future. iMatthew 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is ridiculous, there was a long, extensive conversation on this very talk page not two days ago concerning the table format that had an OVERWHELMING amount of support for this new setup. I, myself, had actually been one of the THREE votes against it and ended up changing my mind. These people should have spoken up earlier. Fact of the matter is, this page DOES look better and it really isn't that hard to edit AT ALL. It's very upsetting that this page has to suffer from being inaccurate for a whole week simply because people insist on arguing of formatting problems that actually IMPROVE the look of the page. Dahumorist (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for another vote or consensus that can overrule one that was just formed. Protection is unnecessary as well, consensus cannot be overruled.--S_RX 19:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody suggested another vote. The consensus(es) that need to be reached are the silly edit wars, which have become:

• Add championhsips or not
• Primo (Colon?)
• Is Glamarella, Natalya and Victoria, or the Bella Twins considered a tag team or stable?
• A few others that I'll look into.

So until these issues have consensus, the article may remain protected. iMatthew 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

THIS WAS TALKED ABOUT MONTHS AGO SEE HERE. IT WAS REJECTED.CMJMEM (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So? That was months ago. This is the present. There is a difference.--WillC 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

YOU SAID THAT IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO VANDALIZE AND LOOK WHAT HAPPEN.WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER VOTE ON PROJECT WRESTLING PAGE.CMJMEM (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about vandalism. The page was already protected because of vandalism, with a table or not it is going to be vandalized and because you don't like the way it looks should not keep it from becoming better. With work this article can reach FL status. The old way was keeping it from that.--WillC 06:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

yea you did see here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMJMEM (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the last discussion for the table, I was here when the idea was given. I'm for the table it makes it look better and makes the article up to standards. A decision come to months ago can be changed months later. People didn't want the table months ago but now there are people who do.--WillC 21:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Championships

Resolved

There seems to be no issue with adding them, so we're good, right? iMatthew 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added some subheaders so we can discuss this (hopefully) in an organized way. If we reach a consensus, I have no problem adding said consensus into the article until the page gets un-protected. For the first issue of championships, I see no harm in adding them to the tables. What was the argument against it? Nikki311 19:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but I don't see a major problem with it. iMatthew 20:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? What was the issue? Adding it into the notes seems no harm.--S_RX 20:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've marked this as resolved - it's really non-controversial. iMatthew 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it makes no sense and is stupid,do you add it on TNA Roster page,nope so its not allowed here,case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How the heck doesn't it make sense? It's a roster, and it's relevant information to there status.

We should also come up with a format so you don't have like "World Heavyweight Champion, Reigning WWE United States Champion, Current Diva's Champion". It should follow like "Current *Insert Title Name* Champion", and for the tag team it could be "One half of the current (WWE or World) Tag Team Championship"--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope,no titles,its aready 5 who doesn't like it and 2 who does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that this is not a vote, and you are not in charge. iMatthew 23:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

YOU are not in change either,so stop NOW! This is your last warning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Or what? We reach things here by discussing and coming to a consensus. If you're only arguement for why we shouldn't add it is because it "is stupid" you aren't going to be taken very seriously.--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Championship info is included in other articles, so it is redundant here. You'll find many discussions about this in the archives. --James Duggan 00:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Under the old format yes. But here there's just a mass of empty boxes that looks completely unprofessional, and half-done. If you add the Championships, it'll fill in some more spaces, and make it look like we did some work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 04:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

THIS WAS TALKED ABOUT MONTHS AGO SEE HERE. IT WAS REJECTED.CMJMEM (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So? That was months ago. This is the present. There is a difference.--WillC 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are fighting a loseing battle dude,the championships will NOT be added,and thats that,understand rookie?

WP:CIVIL. Read it. Know it.  Hazardous Matt  19:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Primo (Colon?)

Resolved

- Again, non-controversial, official WWE.com sources call him "Primo" so it will be "Primo" here. iMatthew 23:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com has him listed as just "Primo", although it is mentioned elsewhere on the website that his full name is "Primo Colon". I'm undecided on this issue. Nikki311 19:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be no issue with listing "Colon" unless further WWE.com results start to just say "Primo" in which case we should change it. iMatthew 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

SRX's sources tell me just Primo is good. iMatthew 23:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing various results from SmackDown, and I see that they only list him as Primo, w/o the Colon. Plus his bio page verifies that, I see no issue here, it's just Primo.--S_RX 20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He is called Primo Colon to the ring for the past week and he should be posted as that,look on several wrestling fourms,as there he IS listed as Primo Colon,here is my proof:

Second Match:One Half of the WWE Tag Team Champions Primo Colón pinned Low Ki.

That is from the fourm http://americandragon.proboards60.com/index.cgi

You're going to use that website as proof over WWE.com? How do you know that he was actually introduced as Primo Colon and not just Primo? The "reporter" could have included Colon out of habit. --James Duggan 00:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Because that person watches WWE Smackdown and says thats what is was called when he came out last Friday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a dark match, it wasn't on TV. --James Duggan 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Dark Match or not,being called to the ring as Primo Colon IS his ring name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 01:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, WWE.com is considered an official reference and those other sites are not, so your fighting a losing battle. --James Duggan 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Tag teams and stables

Glamarella may come to the ring together, but as far as I can remember have only had one official tag team match together (where they won their championships)...so I'm leaning toward no. Natalya and Victoria team regularly, but they are by no means an "official tag team", and they wrestle singles matches just as often...so right now this is also a no. As for the Bellas, they haven't teamed together even once yet, but I imagine they will eventually be a tag team, but we should wait until that time before adding them as one...so no for now. Nikki311 19:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Glamarella - no for the reason you stated.
• Natalya and Victoria - no again for your reasoning.
• Bella's - guess, go ahead! ;) - no for your rationale.

So we agree, ;) iMatthew 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A few more opinions and we shouldn't have a problem. iMatthew 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No your wrong:

Glamarella has teamed twice together,one at SummerSlam and the other the next night against Kofi Kingston and Mickie James in a intergender non-title match.

Natalya&Victoria should be a team until otherwise said not by WWE offically.

The Bella Twins are a tag team as they have been teaming in house shows for the past month and wrestled on the last Smackdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No your wrong. Glamarella wrestling twice means nothing, sorry. Natalya should not be a team until they team every week or way more often (or until a Women's Tag Title is created, which won't happen soon. The Bella Twins just debuted together on live TV, not wrestling together- they are not a tag team. iMatthew 23:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Glamarella IS A tag team and you have NO proof of them not makeing a Women's tag title,are you with wwe,so nope hush your mouth about it,you KNOW I am right so they will stay,case closed.

Case opened ;) -- Please don't attack me, stay civil or you will be blocked. I have no proof of them not making one, and you have no proof of them making one. So it's all good. There are not a tag team - thanks! iMatthew 23:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They are a tag team,enough said and you can try to block me,but with a total of 10 user account to my computer,your"block"will last a mere two hours,nothing more,now they will remain at tag team and that is that,cased CLOSED,You've losted.*closes case as they WILL remain until other wise posted by wwe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thye are not - and what exactly do you mean "a total of 10 user account to my computer" ? Also - you must be what? 11? 12? I didn't "losted" and again I'd like to remind you, you are not in charge. iMatthew 23:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Need I remind you as well you are NOT in charge either,so shut up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oreius, please familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL, and please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). --James Duggan 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If Glamarella are considered a tag team, shouldn't Paul Burchill and Katie Lea Burchill be considered one too? Then again, to be fair Santino and Beth act as each others valet/manager, and I doubt a man and woman pairing can be officially considered a tag team considering the tag team division only consists of two men pairing up, and two people a stable do not make. So yes, Santino and Beth are aligned, no they can't be considered a tag team or stable. --James Duggan 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the Bella Twins, I know there is no woman's tag team division, but you surely can't compare their alliance to that of Victoria and Natalya. I think situations like that of the Bellas should be considered an exception to the rule. To me, common sense dictates inclusion as a "tag team". --James Duggan 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Bellas were always teaming together in FCW, and for a very long time they were always listed under the tag team section of the FCW roster, with no one ever objecting to it. The revelation of Brie Bella having a twin sister is the culmination of a slow-built angle on Smackdown, and according to WWE's kayfabe canon, that would be the first time the Bellas have been seen together in a pro wrestling ring. Again, common sense. Their entire schtick revolve around the fact that they're identical twin sisters.

Alright, as for Santino and Beth, they are probably not a conventional tag team, nor do they have a third associate to form a "stable" as such. So I guess it's unnecessary to class them under "tag teams" then, since a few prominent editors here have fervently rejected to it. But they're definitely in a permanent alliance that is too important to ignore, and she's instrumental to Santino's title reign and how he won it. How about we put "Love interest/Ally of XXX" under their notes instead.

As for The Burchills. They did debut as an intergender tag team of sorts, and they used to accompany each other to their singles matches. But now Katie's just reduced to being his manager on the occasion he does wrestle, but Paul doesn't show up at ringside in her corner anymore, and there are times like Batista vs Paul where Katie didn't show up. Haleth (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Most people seem to agree here. Glamerella and Victoria/Natalya=no. As for the Bellas, I say we wait a week or two and see how it goes. Common sense does dictate that they will be a tag team, but WWE doesn't always follow common sense, as we all are probably aware. :) Nikki311 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Goldust

Is there a reliable source that he signed a legends contract? If not, that part should be removed. Nikki311 19:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. iMatthew 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is speculation he has agreed to some contract/deal with WWE, but it has not been verified by WWE.--S_RX 20:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source for Goldust possibly signing can be found here, which is at WrestleView.com. The article states that "According to a report by PWInsider, Dustin "Goldust" Runnels is believed to have signed a new deal with WWE. Whether the deal is a contract or a Legends deal remains to be seen." A-Dust (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit speculative, isn't it? I think we should wait until it is 100% confirmed. Nikki311 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on this? If not, I am going to remove the sentence for lack of source. Nikki311 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree on removing him since there isn't any official word he's signed a new contract, Legends or otherwise, and will be appearing regularly. If that information comes along, he can be easily moved back onto the page in the appropriate section. Hot Stuff International (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of inactive talent

This was done to get rid of the "inactive vs. active" edit war that got the page protected for the first time. Was anybody opposed to the merge? iMatthew 20:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the inactive and active wrestlers included in the main tables? If so, then it should remain merged.--S_RX 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct. iMatthew 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was opposed to the merge. JayLethal2008> 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you were one that edit warred over inactive/active, so I'm not sure it matters - but thank you for your input. iMatthew 11:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DH Smith and T.J. Wilson

DH Smith and T.J. Wilson tag team name is Next Generation Hart Foundation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.127.253 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to provide a source, we can have an admin stick that right in there. iMatthew 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have fired off an email to Robert Beukema, who regularly attends FCW events and does photography for them. If anyone know by what they are introduced as, he would know. --James Duggan 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hacksaw Jim Duggan

[1] Why is he not listed on the RAW Talent list? The WWE still notes him to be an active wrestler, so there's no reason we shouldn't have him on the list here.

He is under "Unassigned talent" - but you have a point. Next time he appears on Raw - I don't see why we shouldn't re-add him there. iMatthew 18:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it says "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan and then James Duggan, followed by: Makes occasional appearances. James Duggan does not lead to Jim Duggan, it leads to a U.S. bishop. so it needs to be changed to go to Hacksaw's real page. Adam Penale (talk)

I fixed the link...it should go to the correct article now. Nikki311 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearing things up to prevent another page blow up.

Let's get a few things straight so to avoid Holy War II on this page:

• Hacksaw Duggan - WWE still considers him as a regular part of the regular Raw Roster. Yes, he has a legends deal to give him some flexibility in his schedule, but for the last 3-4 years, Duggan has been a semi-consistent part of the show. This is different than a Stone Cold or Roddy Piper, who come in 2-3 times a year max. Thus Hacksaw should be considered part of the Raw Roster here.

• Goldust - If he works a Duggan type schedule, then he should be considered part of the roster, if he works a Piper/Austin schedule, then he goes into "Other Personnel" Goldie and Hacksaw should be held to the 30 day guideline we discussed earlier (like anybody else on the roster). If they wrestle/appear once per 30 days, then they stay on the roster, if 30 days go by and they aren't heard from, then they go bye-bye.

• The Colons - WWE doesn't list them by a team name, they are billed as Carlito and Primo. Look at the tag team title histories on WWE.com, if they use a team name for the champions, then we'll use it here. If they list them as X and Y, then we list them as X and Y here. Example--They use "The Hardys" when listing Matt and Jeff's title reigns, thus we can use it here, but if they don't use "The Colons" for Carlito/Primo, we can't take it upon ourselves to use it here.

• Victoria and Natalya are mainly singles wrestlers who team now and then. Ditto the Bella Twins. If we get some sort of Women's/Diva's Tag Team Title, then we'll re-address this.

• Glamarella is not a tag team. If we give Glamarella tag team status, we have to do the same for Regal/Layla or any other man/woman, boyfriend/girlfriend , or husband/wife tandem, and it starts getting silly after awhile. A tag team is 2 male wrestlers who team fairly consistently and are eligible contenders for either tag team title. Obviously if you hold tag team gold, you're automatically on the team list.

Now to address a few things before they become a problem.

• If Shane or Stephanie McMahon announce themselves as the GM of Raw, they should get moved to the Raw page. Likewise if a McMahon holds a title, they go on the roster of whatever brand they hold a title on.

• I don't see a problem with listing championships in the notes section if so-and-so holds a belt. That's what that section is there for. Listing things about wrestlers that are relevant to the current product

• If Eve Torres starts wrestling regularly, move her to the women's wrestlers section.

Hopefully we can stop the insanity before all hell breaks loose like last time.

Vjmlhds November 8, 2008 21:13 (UTC)

This is why there is an edit war, because 2 people have different consensus: some of the issues pointed in this section are being discussed above in other sections and subsections, this is why there is edit wars.S_RX 21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on Hacksaw Jim Duggan,he IS signed to a raw and legends contract so he SHOULD be on the Raw roster at all times

Same with Goldust

On Carlito and Primo,I agree on the tag name,but its Primo Colon for the last time.

Victoria and Natayla is a tag team until offically shown on WWE.com that they are not.

Glamarella 'is' a tag team weither its male and female it doesn't matter.I was hear years ago and saw Edge and Lita listed here as a tag team and they when through the same thing as Santino Marella and Beth Phoenix so they SHOULD be a tag team

I agree with the McMahon's part

Holding belts are NOT going to be a good idea,it just adds more space that is not needing on the boxes.

And your right on Eve.

Hacksaw should be considered a wrestler. It doesn't matter how occasional, he usually appears in a wrestling role. The notes section should indicate his Legends status and his occasional status as a result, but he's still a wrestler.

As for Goldust, though we all know he's a wrestler, since his "return", he hasn't appeared in a wrestling role yet, so maybe other on air talent for him... at least until he wrestles, or no longer appears. Also put explanation under notes.

I agree with the rest. --James Duggan 00:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To the anonymous poster one above "James Duggan":

First, sign your post.

Second, as far as Edge and Lita being listed as a team, you're thinking of Rated RKO, where it was Edge, Lita, and Randy Orton. Edge and Orton were the tag champs, while Lita was still portrayed as Edge's girlfriend. Edge and Orton were the team, with Lita along for the ride.

We can't do a man/woman team, because then every pairing like that (i.e. Regal/Layla, or say Booker/Sharmell in TNA) would have to be listed, and that would be getting crazy.

A team is 2 male wrestlers who semi-frequently tag together and are contenders for the tag titles. If a woman goes along for the ride, then she'll be listed (X and Y with Z).

The only exception would be if there were a male/female team who were tag champions, since holding the belts automatically puts you on the list.

Also due to the limited amount of women on the roster, you cant really list teams, because you only have 2-3 faces and 2-3 heels per show, so if they team, the options are limited.

Now if there were some women's tag belts, we could do teams because then there would be a tag division.

But since there's not, we won't (or at least shouldn't).

Vjmlhds November 9, 2008 1:21 (UTC)

I disagree on Duggan completely. The way his contract is structured alone states he isn't a regularly contracted wrestler. Thus he makes occasional appearances. He is not featured every single week like the rest of the roster so why should he be considered a full time member? Hot Stuff International (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Locked again? Jesus, This is bull crap! whoever added stuff, or whatever without getting a decision on the talk page should be....! I'm not pointing finger's, Also I have not looked at the "History" so I have zero idea of who did it (I'm to shocked to look and or care. But come on man. SteelersFan94 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a consensus reached on this very page to add the tables. It is your own fault that you did not look. I'm just stating the obvious.--WillC 09:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see on that thread I voted for the tables, what I was saying I can't believe the page IS LOCKED AGAIN!!! So.....Yeah....... SteelersFan94 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dolph Ziggler

His supendstion is over.--74.79.38.72 (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)jkyy

Source?  Hazardous Matt  13:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, a source isn't needed since all you need to do is count 30 days since it was announced, which I believe was on October 10th. However, until he actually does come back, we should leave as is. --James Duggan 14:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dykstra, Burke, and Yada

{{editrequest}} Just want to throw this out there that someone should put in for Kenny Dykstra, Elijah Burke, and Lena Yada to be moved to the Alumni Section as they were all released. Hot Stuff International (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

November 10, 2008 edition of Raw

A couple of notes from tonight's edition of Raw:

• Mike Knox has been moved to Raw, this isn't a "talent exchange" deal with ECW, Knox was announced by Cole and King as leaving ECW for Raw (WWE.com hasn't adjusted the roster yet, but on TV it was explained that Knox did indeed become a Raw guy.)

• Shane and Stephanie have been established as directly running Raw in lieu of a GM. Seeing as they'll be a visible part of the show (at least until they get a GM again), they should be included on the Raw roster (under "Other on air talent", with Shane noted as an occasional wrestler due to him often wrestling during his involvement).

Do I get a thumbs up from the brass?

Vjmlhds November 11, 2008 4:53 (UTC)

Of course. You didn't need to take a not so subtle shot at me since I was the one that asked Knox be kept on the ECW Brand until WWE.Com moved his profile to the Raw Roster. Nobody had an issue with that at the time. Hot Stuff International (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To add to the Mike Knox move, WWE.com's results mention he is on the Raw roster now. --James Duggan 05:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Vjmlhds, You've done good coming here first. SteelersFan94 05:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure to get the proper blessings before the page gets changed.

Vjmlhds November 11, 2008 5:24 (UTC)

Agreed with Dubhagan, it needs to be made official over WWE.com for Knox's move.--S_RX 14:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's officially official--Mike Knox is on the Raw roster page on WWE.com.

Vjmlhds November 12, 2008 2:48 (UTC)

 Done Mike Knox has been moved from ECW to Raw. As for Shane and Stephanie, what exactly should their role be? Temporary Rulers of Raw? King and Queen of match making? Shane shouldn't be listed as an occasional wrestler until he actually does some wrestling, IMO. Nikki311 18:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie and Shane should be listed as "Interim Authority Figures".  Hazardous Matt  22:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Their role would be termed as "Executive VP/de-facto GM", seeing as they are running the show on-screen for the time being. And Shane should be classified as an occasional wrestler due to his past history. Whenever Shane appears on-screen, he usually wrestles as part of an angle. It's the same thing as Jerry Lawler...not a full time wrestler, but enough to have it noted.

Vjmlhds November 12, 2008 22:35 (UTC)

A Few FCW changes that will need to be made when the page is unprotected

Here are the most recent FCW TV results [2] (i.e. with names appearing on screen, etc. They verify that Lupe Martinez/Damien Santiago/Lupe Viscara/Whatever is going by Lupe Santiago. Also Gabe Tuft is referred to as Tyler Reiks. And Chris Logan should be spelled Kris Logan. That's it. These changes can wait for unprotection or maybe someone with power can make them beforehand. Either way, just a note. Dahumorist (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something. Is Kris Logan really Brian Cage (Brian Button), or is he Chris Cage (Kris Pavone)? I'm going to see if I can clarify that, since it makes more sense from a name standpoint that he is actually Chris Cage. --James Duggan 04:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No Kris Logan is Brian Cage (Brian Button), Chris Cage has not yet debuted with FCW. In fact, Cage's signing with WWE didn't occur until after Kris Logan had already appeared in FCW. Dahumorist (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Scotty Goldman

I think enough time has passed since Scotty Goldman was last seen on Smackdown (early September I believe) that it should be noted next to his name that he's currently Inactive; he hasn't popped up in any dark matches or house shows either, at least from what I have read as of late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Stuff International (talk • contribs) 13:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

New

Go To My Talk And See The WWE Employee Page That You Can Edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewWeaver1 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not really sure what the goal is. All someone has to do is request a change here and if it's a valid, verifiable claim, it will be updated.  Hazardous Matt  17:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Go To My Sandbox To Check It Out!!!

Edit request

Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder needs to be wikilinked so it looks like [[Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder]] i.e. like this. D.M.N. (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Nikki311 18:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to move Shane and Stephanie to the Raw roster (under Other on air Talent, with an occasional wrestler note for Shane).

This is due to them becoming on screen characters by becoming the quasi/de-facto GM(s) of Raw following Adamle's resignation.

Vjmlhds November 12, 2008 22:28 (UTC)