Jump to content

Talk:Dustin Rhodes

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hassan Shah Nawaz (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 4 July 2020 (Hassan Shah Nawaz moved page Talk:Goldust to Talk:Dustin Rhodes over redirect: Now everyone knows him as Dustin Rhodes, AEW fans who didn't watch wrestling back then how would they know who Goldust is?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SERIOUSLY

Stop messing with the finishing moves! They are just fine the way they are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.130.13 (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please separate his RAW/ECW section?

I think that someone should have his RAW time listed as 2008-2009 and then include in the biography all that happened since his return to RAW in 2008 until his departure from RAW in 2009. Then have an ECW section from 2009- where they include all that's happened on his time on ECW until whenever. I think that'd be better to keep things more organized since it looks like he'll be on ECW for a long while and quite possibly the rest of his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.3.5 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much whoever helped to split the sections better than what I did! Great job!

190.59.19.22 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the sections back together. Neither is long enough to stand on it's own, so there's no problem listing it under the "Return to WWE" header. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were perfect standing on their own, plus it was orderly and neat. Now it just looks jumbled and a huge mess. The RAW and ECW run were under the "WWE Return" main header so it did make sense so please fix it or I'll just do it on my own.190.59.14.169 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theme Issue

Someone removed the list of all of his themes completely which was accurate, the ones I remember are from WWE which are: "Gold-Lust" by Jim Johnston "Gold-Lust" Remix using distortion techniques by Jim Johnston (used when he was The Artist Formerly known as Goldust)

190.59.22.85 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PW/SG, only themes with reliable sources can be listed. This is to prevent fan-made and inaccurate names. Nikki♥311 04:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added reliable sources but I'm not sure how to make them references in the article, they're hidden comments so anyone who can make them references will be a big help. Also, his "TAFKA" Goldust theme is basically the same as the "Gold-Lust" theme but with distortion effects, there's no official name for it that I could find, what should be done about that?190.59.14.55 (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I converted them to basic references for now. Don't have time right now to format them all, so I'll get to that another day if no one else beats me to it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I have no idea how to do those things but as long as we get his article better, that's all that matters.190.59.14.55 (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOMEONE STOP THE EDITING

I am feedup having to save his page and re-edit stuff! People keep erasing "The Final Cut" as his finisher and/or changing what the move really is, which is a suplex into whiplash OR they call it "The Director's Cut" which it is NOT.

Also, they keep erasing details of the Sheamus feud which SHOULD be listed or at least be mentioned. I came on here and found that all mention of the feud was erased!

And finally, I keep bolding "The Lonestar" and adding WWE as using it as a nickname because Matt Striker constantly refers to Goldust on a weekly basis as THE LONESTAR!

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE STOP RUINING HIS PAGE AND EDITING IT WHEN ALL THE CHANGES I MADE ARE PERFECT!?

190.59.29.87 (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide a reliable source for the move name "The Final Cut" and what the move is, then that would solve that problem. Was the Sheamus feud week by week or was it notable to his overall career? Just because something happened recently, doesn't mean it is important. Nikki♥311 04:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I added a source for Final Cut awhile back and neglected to reply here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Just saw that (and that this comment was from a month ago!). Nikki♥311 04:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have two sentences on the feud with Sheamus, I don't think that's wrong to at least mention the first feud he's had on ECW especially in such a short form. I think that it is relevant to his career since he feuded with him for like 3 months plus it's the first thing that was note-worthy on ECW. Please don't change it, I think the article is perfect the way that I have it right now.190.59.24.219 (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read WP:OWN. People are allowed to freely edit the article (as long as they follow policy and guidelines). This article is far from perfect. If it were perfect...it would be Featured. Nikki♥311 02:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But some people ruin it and do whatever they want with the article. Please tell me what will make this article perfect, I would like to make this article better.190.59.14.55 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More References Needed

I've cleaned up Goldust's page a bit by adding references for everything from his return to WWE in 2008, his themes and his finishers. Anyone else want to help by getting some more references for other periods of his career like in Japan? We're trying to make his page perfect! Please help me!190.59.9.44 (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment Requested!

I just want to let you guys know that I requested an article reassessment for Goldust's article, hopefully they'll consider it a "B" Level article. Let's try and improve it guys, I've worked very hard on this article!190.59.25.219 (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't quite a B yet for Project Wrestling. To be a B article for that project, the article has to be fully sourced, and there are still entire sections without a single reference. It is much better, so great job. Nikki♥311 23:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to get more references this weekend!190.59.14.194 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider registering an account with Wikipedia. At this point, your edits are scattered around various IP addresses, so it's hard to tell it's the same editor. Just a thought. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldust the Million Doollar Champion, Really?

I went to the Million Dollar Championship discussion page and asked if Goldust should be added to the list of champions and with the talking about it, came to the conclusion that just because Goldust stole the Million Dollar Championship from Ted DiBiase, Jr., it doesn't mean that he won the Million Dollar Championship. With that being said, why is Goldust credited with winning the Million Dollar Championship one time? I will go ahead and delete that entry and if anyone thinks that the entry should be on Goldust's wikipedia page, let's discuss it on this discussion page and if the majority of the people say the entry should be on Goldust's wikipedia page, let's add the entry to Goldust's wikipedia page and then update the Million Dollar Championship page to reflect from when Goldust stole the Million Dollar Championship from Ted DiBiase, Jr. to present. Gibsonj338 (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GTV

I've just removed a paragraph which used Yahoo Answers (?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! see WP:RELIABLE) as a source for claiming GTV was named after Goldust. Now, I have in my possession an audio interview with Vince Russo in which Russo states "GTV" was originally named for Tom Green but the association was dropped when Vince McMahon was reluctant to hire Green and the GTV name was left ambiguous. Unfortunately I cannot find a reliable citation to demonstate the truth (or otherwise) of this, but until such time as a good source is found on the subject of GTV, I suggest mentions of it remain excluded from the article. This is a WP:BLP, after all. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The initial GTV segment was actually called GDTV, which lends credence to it being for GolDust and not Tom Green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.125.188 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RAW Superstar

According to WWE.com, Goldust is still a RAW Superstar (http://www.wwe.com/superstars/raw), therefor I've changed the article has changed to show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.17.65 (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goldust now has Two Twitter accounts

I would Just Like to Inform You all that Dustin Rhodes Aka Goldust Now Haw Two Accounts On Twitter I Made Changes in the Page to Reflect That. He Also Changed His Username in His Older One so I Updated The Link to That one Too. I Hope that this didn't cause any problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.118.180 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 20 May 2012‎

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Move. While the oppose !votes are noted, I'm not seeing strong, policy-based counter to the claim that the proposed title is the common name. Cúchullain t/c 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Rhodes → Goldust – Pardon me if I've overlooked something; I haven't watched any professional wrestling since I was in middle school. But from looking over the article, it looks like Runnels is much better known as Goldust. Comparing "dustin rhodes" -wikipedia and goldust -wikipedia, there's no contest. Alternatively, if he has multiple ring names of comparable prominence, we could go the Mick Foley route and rename to Dustin Runnels. "Goldust" already redirects here, and I've added a hatnote to Gold Dust to allow for typos. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 15:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC) BDD (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... It's like (inside kayfabe) Dustin Rhodes is the man and Goldust a gimmick. Usually, when people talks about Goldust, they also referred him as Rhodes (Cody brother, Dusty son, the man who burned the Goldust character.) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dustin Runnels could work, but like HHH says, it's tricky. Like the Von Erich family situation, "Rhodes" is an established name for all the Runnels, in a wrestling context. He had a fairly long and solid run in WCW as Dustin Rhodes, and shortly after Goldust came about, he was openly acknowledged as Dustin Rhodes, son of Dusty. Same with Black Reign and Se7en. Just Rhodes "going through a phase". It's like Runnels played a character who played characters (Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne as Batman might be comparable). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Batman doesn't work. Bruce Wayne really didn't do anything outside of a Batman context. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, inside wrestling universe, he is Dustin Rhodes and Goldust or Black reign is a split personality. Like Foley and his 3 gimmicks. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several wrestlers have several gimmick names including The Undertaker and Triple H. That does not mean they should have their article name as their real name. Black Reign wasn't even remotely as popular as Goldust. With the Mick Foley argument, Cactus Jack was definitely a popular name for Mick Foley (like Mankind was). srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's undoubtedly his best known name and will allow more direct linking. The current title isn't appropriate since it isn't his real name or his best known name. McPhail (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a tough one. Hulk points out the obvious points here... Dustin Rhodes is his kayfabe real name, and his actual stage name, but not his birth name. Goldust is almost certainly his common name, but he's wrestled under so many different ones that I'm not sure how it balances out. Then again most of those names were gimmick variations of Goldust to begin with... However, even as Goldust, he was frequently referred to as Dustin Rhodes. Seven and Black Reign were pretty much the same. So, although this is a close one, I think it's best to stay at Dustin Rhodes.LM2000 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support. This is a case of common name. Dustin's common name is clearly Goldust. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 15:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But would he have ever been "Goldust" if he hadn't been Dustin? And would his recent angle with his brother and father made any sense without thinking of him as a Rhodes in his Goldust persona?
I finally put my finger on it: He's not Batman, but Dracula. Whether he's a wolf (Black Reign), a flamboyant gentleman (Goldust) or pale, bloated deadweight (Seven), the commonality is in the Dracula name, like the Rhodes name. He's even said on WWF TV, in one of those worked shoots, that the Goldust gimmick came about as a way to escape the shadow of his father's fake name. Black Reign was acknowledged on TNA TV as a personality within Dustin Rhodes, like Goldust, but deeper repressed.
Then there's all the stuff he did as 100% Dustin Rhodes. Big angle Royal Rumble match. Two-time WCW tag champ, US champ for almost a year, that one-of-a-kind truck match. Tours of Japan, his TNA stint, burning his costume on RAW. It's not like it's an obscure name, even if Goldust gets more Google hits (which is usually a poor measuring stick, especially when one gimmick was biggest pre-Internet.) InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that history lesson stills doesn't erase the fact that that is his common name or, to put it in other words, the name people know him by most (by a considerable amount). So, I have to agree with the user who wants this moved because he's correct on his reasoning. It's not a matter of feelings or history of this guy; it's about what he's called most often. And he is most often called Goldust. I still confirm my strongly support vote. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 17:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not about feelings. It's about how Black Reign, Goldust and Seven have all been commonly acknowledged for years as aspects of Dustin Rhodes. It's the one common link between the characters. Like a tree trunk. One branch may be bigger than the others, but it's still just a branch. Anyway, not trying to change your vote. This is for the undecided who read both our views. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

Template:Susbst:pot not moved. Though I proposed the previous move, I haven't taken a position this time around, and it's clear that consensus is against moving back at this time. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goldust → Dustin Rhodes – Dustin Rhodes has had significant success under his real name. "Goldust" is a name he has only used in WWF/E. He has been "Dustin Rhodes" in pretty much every other territory. He was "Dustin Rhodes" for two years while wrestling alongside his father in WWF. In WCW, Dustin has won three tag team titles and two United States titles under his real name. The article should be moved back to Dustin, IMO. --GeicoHen (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME, but mostly because the previous requested move ended less than a month ago. You cannot start a new requested move, just because you disagreed with the result of the first one. STATic message me! 02:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Where exactly does it say that opening a requested move to move a page back to its old location in such a short time after the previous move is not allowed? --GeicoHen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing changed. One month ago the CommonName was Goldust and now, the CommonName is Goldust. We talked and an administrator made the move. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not trying to argue that Dustin Rhodes is the common name. I'm just arguing that Dustin has accomplished enough under his own name for me to have opposed the move a month ago. If his accomplishments as "Dustin Rhodes" did not include a Royal Rumble appearance and reigns with the [[WWE United States Championship}WCW United States]] and Tag Team titles, then I would have supported the move. If Goldust was a former WWF Champion, I would have supported the move. If Dustin didn't have those accomplishments under his own name AND Goldust was a former WWF Champion, then I would have agreed that the page should have been moved a long time ago. But since Dustin did accomplish all these things while Goldust didn't win the WWF title, then I cannot support that "Goldust" is the common name.--GeicoHen (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agaiin. We discussed and an administrator made the move. You wrote your opinion, I wrote my opinion and the administrator thoung that Runnles' Commonname is Goldust, not Dustin. Nothing happened to open another discussion (well, something happened. Runnels wrestle in WWE as Goldust and won the Tag team title as Goldust) No sense to open again the discussion.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Won the tag team championship as the climax to a major storyline centred on the Rhodes family, as well. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still Support Probably a little early to revisit, from an etiquette standpoint. But the facts of the matter haven't changed. Rather than repeat them, I'll just say "see above". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "Dustin Rhodes" is not even the "real name" as GeicoHen claimed, it's Dustin Runnels. "Goldust" is the common name -> Google News "Goldust" 1610 vs "Dustin Rhodes" 70 vs "Dustin Runnels" 6, Google search "Goldust" 1,220,000 vs "Dustin Rhodes" 205,000 vs "Dustin Runnels" 36,000 Starship.paint (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not arguing your conclusion, but Google pretty much invents those numbers. Go to the last page of results, and multiply the page number by results per page. It'll likely be tens of thousands fewer than the estimate. And many of those will be duplicates, lists of keywords and plain garbage. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Goldust" gets 937 actual results for me (including garbage). 973 for "Dustin Rhodes", both in quotes. If I check Verbatim, 563 for Goldust and 593 for Rhodes. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, however, Google News is the more important factor in judging than basic google search, and I'm getting "Goldust" 311 vs 27 for Dustin Rhodes... and also, I found out... Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query. Starship.paint (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those are blogs and recyclers, and the actual news is mainly just recaps, previews and results. Those types of sources aren't great, since they're not about him, but about the current state of Raw. Naturally, they'll use current names, as they did in Mad Mikey and Sparky Plugg's day, regardless of the bigger picture of the overall career. The results are also biased, as the Internet only started going mainstream around Goldust's debut. Not saying the results are useless, but the bare numbers certainly are.
Also, I'm now very curious about what's in the other 231,999,000 results (99.999569% of total) for "mystery" Google doesn't let us see. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. As Starship.paint has noted, "Dustin Rhodes" is not the real name of the individual, so the only rationale for moving the page to "Dustin Rhodes" would be if the individual was better known as "Dustin Rhodes" than "Goldust" - this is patently not the case. Runnels has been wrestling for 25 years (since 1988). In 14 of those years, he appeared on worldwide television with the WWF/E as "Goldust". He has not performed as "Dustin Rhodes" since 2001. The arguments about titles won by Runnels under the name "Dustin Rhodes" are totally irrelevant since they have absolutely nothing to do with WP:COMMONNAME. McPhail (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For 13 of his 14 Goldust years, he was openly acknowledged on TV as Dustin Rhodes wearing a costume, as well. Same as when he was his other gimmicks. On the other hand, nobody called him Goldust in WCW, TNA, Japan or his first WWF run. The name "Dustin Rhodes" has been the common link between them all. Goldust is clearly second, whatever the outcome here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The announcers may have occasionally alluded to Runnels' "Dustin Rhodes" persona during his runs as "Goldust", but that doesn't change the fact that "Goldust" was the name he performed under and the name by which the average viewer would know him. Runnels has spent longer in the WWF/E than in all the other promotions you list combined, and the WWF/E has consistently had a much larger global audience than any of its competitors since the 1980s (besides WCW in 1996-1998, when Runnels was wrestling in the WWF). I think his appearances with the WWF/E clearly outweigh his significantly less high profile appearances with other promotions. McPhail (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was my opint. However, Wikipedia isn't a pro wrestlinc encyclopedia. A lot of people don't know about wrestling, they will see that Goldust is the name under Runnels wrestled more time. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the only change that has happened since the last request is that Runnels has won a major championship under his Goldust gimmick which means that the case for Dustin Rhodes is even weaker than it was when there was a consensus to move the article to Goldust.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Goldust costume, but playing the role of brother and son to some guys named Rhodes. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was my point one month ago. Goldust and Black Reign are extensions of Dustin Rhodes gimmick. However, looks like the administrator thought Goldust is the common name.. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator didn't think the oppose votes were based firmly enough in policy. Can always try again. If Google counts for anything, Dustin Rhodes has the slight edge for prevalence in English sources (in my results). We know Goldust was often later called Dustin Rhodes, but Dustin Rhodes was never earlier called Goldust. So it was also more commonly used in real time, and is recognizable to older fans and new, while Goldust wouldn't ring a bell to anyone who stopped watching in the mid-'90s "Mantaur Era" dip. More natural because Rhodes' nickname was "The Natural" (joking...sort of).
Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the subject are often avoided though they may be frequently used. "Goldust" is inaccurate because the subject in seven sections (including Seven's section) is not Goldust at all. Ambiguous because the article starts with "Not to be confused with...".
"...it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations...". In this case, wrestling organizations. How many call him Rhodes? WCW, AJPW, TNA, WWE. Goldust? Just WWE.
In short, Wikipedia prefers Dustin Rhodes. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Goldust

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Goldust's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "owow":

  • From WWE Diva: "Official Women of Wrestling: Sable 1999 Updates". Retrieved July 4, 2006.
  • From The Public Enemy (professional wrestling): "Public Enemy". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved August 14, 2009.
  • From Strike Force (professional wrestling): "Strike Force profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2011-03-12.
  • From Shane McMahon: "Shane McMahon's Profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2007-07-18.
  • From Cynthia Lynch: "Bobcat's Profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2008-04-19.
  • From Dick Slater: "Dick Slater". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2008-09-15.
  • From Paul Burchill: "Paul Burchill Profile". Online World Of Wrestling. Retrieved 2008-04-27.
  • From The Natural Disasters: "The Natural Disasters' profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2011-03-15.
  • From Maryse Ouellet: "Maryse Ouellet". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved December 23, 2008.
  • From Konnan: "Konnan's biography". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved January 26, 2006.
  • From Alicia Fox: "Alicia Fox". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved March 29, 2008.
  • From Sika Anoa'i: "Online World of Wrestling - Sika Anoai". Retrieved 2007-09-08.
  • From Jacques Rougeau: "The Quebecers profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2009-08-27.
  • From Jacqueline Moore: "Jackie Moore's profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2009-05-22.
  • From The Headbangers: "The Headbangers". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2008-01-03.
  • From Terri Runnels: "PMS's profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
  • From Don Muraco: "Don Muraco's profile". Online World Of Wrestling. Retrieved 2011-04-05.
  • From Sara Del Rey: "Sara Del Rey's profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2007-12-27.
  • From David Hart Smith: "David Hart Smith". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2011-01-31.
  • From Molly Holly: "Jonny Fairplay's Profile". Online World of Wrestling. Retrieved 2007-05-12.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

Can someone clarify his year or birth (with references), as I noticed it was changed recently from '69 to '68 with no edit summary, and a quick look on Google shows sites that list '66 and '70. 109.149.67.242 (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now been changed back to '69, again with no reference or edit summary. 109.149.67.242 (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Goldust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Goldust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Goldust

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Goldust's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Raw03272017":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Goldust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page title would only be appropriate if he were still using Goldust

He is not using the character anymore at this moment, thus the page should be titled either Dustin Rhodes or Dustin Runnels.Mancalledsting (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 July 2019

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Although there is a reasonable case made in support, that he more often goes by Dustin Rhodes now, and therefore satisfies NAMECHANGES, the opposition argument that he was better known as Goldust for the peak periods of his career also carries weight. Overall I don't think either side make a persuasive case to establish firm consensus, and !votes are also even split numerically.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Goldust → Dustin Rhodes – Widely regarded today in AEW. The title was changed to Goldust in '13 when he teamed up with Cody Rhodes/Stardust. Since, he didn't appear much in the main roster and now he is probably in the upper midcard level or possibly even a legend of AEW, once again teaming with Cody. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This requested move was closed as move on August 3rd by Wugapodes, but has been reopened and relisted per discussion below.

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose - Well over a decade in the world's biggest promotion as Goldust, including the Attitude Era, one of the sport's historical boom periods. In addition, his ring name in AJPW (another of the biggest promotions in the world) was Gold Dustin, a play on this name. This tops a short stint in WCW and his current role in a fledgling promotion as Dustin Rhodes. He may be doing well in AEW, but he's 50 now, and his fame was established as Goldust. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per WP:NAMECHANGES, looking at new sourced in the past month [1] they seem to consistently call him Dustin Rhodes in the title of the article, and the articles themselves just mention he was Goldust. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 21:25, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have several doubts. As we said several years ago, his common name is Goldust, since he worked several years and won several titles under that ringname. But, per Name change, he is Dustin Rhodes. I don't know... I understand both policies. Pro wrestling si strange, it's in the middle between real life and fiction. Pro wrestlers have gimmicks or characters like actors, but they make public appearences under that names, being like stage names. But since the names are for characters, is very common to change the name several times (WWE changed Stokey Hathaway twice in two months). it's not like other artist, where is less common a change in their stage name. I will say... weak oppose. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I closed the last RM and it's clear the situation has changed. AEW is exlusively calling him "Dustin Rhodes" and the media appears to be following suit, although normally noting that he was formerly known as "Goldust". Per WP:NAMECHANGES, we look at sources published after the change, and those appear to favor the move.--Cúchullain t/c 21:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - As per WP:NAMECHANGES. Likely to be the WP:COMMONAME if not already. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I opposed the move to Goldust in the first place years ago. Dustin Rhodes has always been the stage name of Dustin Runnels. This isn't necessarily the same thing as most wrestlers, i.e. Seth Rollins being a ring name of Colby Lopez, because announcers commonly referred to him as Dustin Rhodes even as he portrayed characters like Goldust, Black Reign, Seven, etc. At this point, WP:NAMECHANGES is a factor and Dustin Rhodes isn't obscure enough to disqualify it as he's been called that name in every promotion he has worked in.LM2000 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, well known and best known performance name. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Had WWE announcers not frequently referred to him as Dustin I may have opposed, but this is what he's been known as universally and will be what people search for him as now. Definitely support the change ILoveAlanisMorissette (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - His tenure as Goldust is longer than his tenure as Dustin. Even without his paint, Dustin would still be known as "The Artist Formerly Known as Goldust". 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hell in a Bucket Hansen SebastianTalk 04:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I read WP:NAMECHANGES to refer to situations in which, as it states, the person actually changes their name, such as Cassius Clay->Muhammad Ali, or Bruce Jenner->Caitlyn Jenner. In these cases, it makes sense to rename the article, as it wouldn't make sense to insist on keeping it in the old location. I don't see that WP:NAMECHANGES refers to a person who now portrays a new character on a television show. However, even with additional weight placed on sources after he started portraying the new character, we still have many years as a featured performer during one of the sport's major boom periods vs. several months in a brand new promotion. Either way, Goldust is still his common name. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same. Namechange isn't think for this scenario. Other artists, like actors or musiciams, doens't change their names so often like wrestlers. John Hennigan changes his ringname every new promotion.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original close discussion

No closing rationale. No administrator interpretation of contentious policy. No consensus reached. Just some non-admin counting votes. Lovely. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The !vote was too close for non-admin closure at this stage, should have been relisted. Wugapodes did not provide any rationale.LM2000 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow response, I was travelling today. The consensus seemed obvious to me, so my apologies for not providing a rationale. I'll explain my reasoning and if people still disagree I'll reopen and relist.
The opposition argument centers mainly around COMMONNAME: Goldust is the name he gained notability with and so is the best title because it is most recognizable. This is a point of contention as Fylindfotberserk thinks that Dustin Rhodes is the common name and was even a point of contention in the original 2013 RM. So simply asserting that it is the common name is not sufficient, the way that WP:COMMONNAME says this is to be evaluated is by coverage in reliable sources.
LM2000 points out that even when he was known primarily as Goldust, some reliable sources would refer to him as Dustin Rhodes. This situation has changed since 2013, which is why this RM exists, with the subject primarily adopting Dustin Rhodes rather than Goldust. Supporters say that, per WP:NAMECHANGE, we ought to weigh recent sources more heavily than older ones. Participants in the 2013 discussion note that older sources were not unanimous (though they predominantly used Goldust), participants in this discussion note that older sources were not unanimous, and participants in this discussion, including the opposes, note that recent sources refer to the subject predominantly as Dustin Rhodes. So if we weigh sources per WP:COMMONNAME and we give extra weight to recent sources per WP:NAMECHANGE, there is clear consensus that contemporary sources prefer Dustin Rhodes over Goldust.
Some editors disagree that WP:NAMECHANGE applies, arguing that we should consider the likelihood that this name will remain. This is supported by policy, with WP:SPNC saying The determination of how much extra weight should be given to more recent sources is guided by the likelihood the new name is going to stick – while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it needs to be unavoidable that the new name will soon be the most common name.. However the supports also rebut the argument that the name change is unlikely to stick. As previously mentioned, an editor in this discussion (and editors in 2013) contends that Dustin Rhodes is already the common name, and another notes that source referred to him as Dustin Rhodes even as he portrayed characters like Goldust, Black Reign, Seven, etc. showing that this name has already stuck across multiple name changes contrary to the concerns of the opposes.
While the number of support and opposition is relatively equal, discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE and consensus is determined by the strength of arguments not a head count. The opposition seems to concede that recent sources prefer Dustin Rhodes, and unsuccessfully argue that we should not follow WP:NAMECHANGE because a name used by sources (somewhat sporadically) since at least 2013 may not endure. The supports meanwhile addressed every concern of the opposes: the name is likely to stick, and it is in common use both now and previously. Given the strength of arguments, it seems to me that there is consensus for the move.
I hope I explained well enough, feel free to ping me again if you want clarification. As I said, if people feel this rationale is inadequate I'll reopen and relist the discussion; ping me if that is the case as well. Wug·a·po·des​ 04:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed response.LM2000 (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes, I think you may have misinterpreted the "since 2013" situation. Since the creation of the Goldust character in 1995, this has been his primary name while under contract with WWE (1995-1999, 2001-2003, 2005-2006, 2008-2012, and 2013-2019). He has been in the fledgling AEW promotion for three months, which is pretty insignificant in comparison to the majority of 24 years in the world's biggest promotion. However, I'll also recognize at this point that people will find the article regardless of where it is, and that most fans would also know him as Dusty Rhodes. I'm going to step back at this point, as I don't want to fixate on "winning" a discussion that is ultimately meaningless. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GaryColemanFan: I tried to clarify it a bit by adding "...used used by sources (somewhat sporadically) since...". My understanding of the 2013 discussion(s) is that at the time the subject had been referred to as Dustin Rhodes, and my point was merely that the use of the name Dustin Rhodes by reliable sources existed prior to the name change. Consensus from those discussions is quite clear that his commonname at the time was Goldust, so my apologies if it read as if I meant that his primary or even common moniker was Dustin Rhodes at the time. And don't feel that you need to disengage; you've provided good perspective to the RM discussion and were completely justified to ask for a rationale. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wugapodes this is more accurately no consensus, not a consensus to move. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that there is no consensus, but have reopened and relisted the discussion so that it can get fresh eyes. More discussion can't hurt, and the alternative is move review which is more trouble than just letting someone else close it. Since it would clutter up the logs if it gets closed as consensus to move, I have not moved the page back, but if anyone feels strongly that it should be reverted pending continued discussion please feel free to revert me. For the ultimate closer any result other than "consensus to move" should result in this page being moved back to the status quo name "Goldust". I've watchlisted this page for a bit, but if you need my attention again your best bet is to ping me. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks and who knows we might end up back where we started but in particular on my side it didn't seem like a neutral or objective close but based on what he could do in AEW. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can understand that; the original close without a rationale clearly did not set us off on a good foot. There's no reason I have to be the one closing this, and its better for everyone that the participants have faith in the close. Wug·a·po·des​ 18:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is someone going to move this article back now that the discussion has been resumed? PC78 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @ 19:14, 5 August 2019 Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  23:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dustin_Rhodes&oldid=965942450"