Talk:List of WWE personnel/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Images

Are they really nessiscary, they look terrible why are they on the page at all? The Jay Experience 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Per FL criteria probably. All articles on wikipedia are supposed to be illustrated by images even if it isn't because of the criteria.--WillC 07:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough if they need to be there. ^TheJay ^Experience 06:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It dosen't look good... Kalajan (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How is it that we choose which images appear on the page, cuz frankly, I have no idea. I was thinking "maybe its champions"... but then again, I dont think Lillian Garcia is a champion. :/ So seriously, how? Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 07:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the top-tier champions (WWE and IC for Raw, WHC and US for SD and the ECW Championship for ECW) and female champions together with some random non-wrestling talent. Yeah, the image placements look like crap. --Kaizer13 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed (and hopefully established) the criteria for pictures--

Champions and GMs only for the main 3 brands.

Everything below the main 3 brands is fine as it is, but for the main 3 brands, stick to my outline.

Thanks.

Vjmlhds 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Roucka

Should Roucka be moved to the RAW brand since she was an audience member cheering for Beth Phoenix which may hint a possible addition to the RAW divas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.133.155 (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Not until she debuts on the tv show as a wrestler should she be moved.--WillC 07:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

She hasn't made an in-ring debut and she hasn't done anything notable on television yet, and i don't believe she's actually been introduced at all so just leave her in the FCW section for now. ^TheJay ^Experience 06:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Table

is it nessesery --Wwe.fana (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary but it was agreed upon by the project, so it stays.--WillC 08:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Its rubbish and everyone hate it - accept it Kalajan (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

i hate the tabels also but we will revisit it in a month or so.CMJMEM (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Gail Kim

Should we put Gail under the Unassigned talent because Mike Johnson of PWInsider has confirmed that Gail Kim is heading to SmackDown and all wrestling sites, even the ones dedicated towards the divas is clamming this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.133.155 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think so....but more feedback should be given before a decision is made. SteelersFan-9 4 21:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No. It is a complete rumor that has been going on since July. Kim nor the WWE have acknowledged her signing. Until she debuts or promos air for her return does she get place in the article. PWInsider is a non-reliable source as well. Even if a reliable source is brung it is still WP:SPECULATION.--WillC 22:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Gail Kim has been on the road with WWE for the past few weeks, doing autograph signings, etc. so i think it would be safe to say she's signed a contract by now. ^TheJay ^Experience 01:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source?--TRU_CO 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically every professional wrestling website is reporting it, so i think that's pretty reliable.^TheJay ^Experience 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not every site is reliable. Please bring a reliable source.--WillC 04:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Here ^TheJay ^Experience 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. Plus it must source she has a contract and can't say is rumored to have signed a contract for future reference.--WillC 06:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. ^TheJay ^Experience 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the Tomko section below this, WWE rarely announces they have signed anyone anymore and instead they try and keep it as a "surprise". Not that it matters because she'll be re-debuting soon enough but Gail's been signed to a contract for months now and has been brought on the road with them at TV tapings the past two weeks. She should be included but as I just wrote, it won't matter because she'll be back on TV and added back anyway. Hot Stuff International (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

She can be added when she debuts, not until then.--WillC 21:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

We need a good source that she's SET TO COME not RUMERED, I use bold caps not to holler, but to make sure people see it. And Will We've added wrestler's to the page before you joined Wikipedia, Kofi Kingston, Big Show etc I know there's more from back in the back in the good ole' day's. SteelersFan-9 4 21:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Mike Johnson at PWInsider.Com is a reliable source as he reported she signed with them back in July and was doing a photo shoot and was filmed to be included in show openings. I doubt he'd report that if it weren't true as PWI isn't a dirt sheet that has plugs like "Hogan joins TNA, Read HERE!!!!" But when she does return, she can be added so it can end for now. Hot Stuff International (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

See I'm trying to follow rules. No rumors without a verifiable reliable source, but the problem there is, all sources say she is rumored to have signed, she is rumored to be debuting and that does not work. Also PWInsider is not a reliable source.--WillC 01:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Calm down Will.. no need for hostility. I simply stated my opinion. I'm not losing sleep over it either way because as previously written once she makes her debut, and there's no doubt that she will, the matter will be resolved. Hot Stuff International (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm clam, it takes more than unsourced info to upset me. Unless you live in my town and are named Matthew or Jacob I'm fine with you. It is better to wait till they are seen on tv. Crap Wrestling Observer even stated that Kevin Nash had signed with TNA and he stated that he had not when in reality he did. It is better to wait till it actually happens. Sometimes sources are wrong and sometimes they are right.--WillC 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If it was confirmed by the President of the US you would say it wasnt a reliable source untill u say it happen on tv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.111.9 (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

True.--WillC 05:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Travis (Tyson) Tomko back with the WWE...

He just signed a new contract http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=229723160 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.241.20 (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A unreliable source, and the one from Gerweck is also a unreliable source.--WillC 05:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an unrealiable source, chances are that's just a rumor. ^TheJay ^Experience 09:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you actually click that link, you see the actual source is the Wrestling Observer Newsletter by Meltzer. If that's not a reliable source, what is? I know we've had these arguments hundreds of times before, but Meltzer has connections within the business and WWE rarely, if ever, announces the re-signing of former talents or big names on their site. They attempt to keep them "secret" until debuts. Also, we generally treat these sites as reliable information when it comes to developmental signings. So it's really a double-edged sword. Frankly, I don't think this argument will ever really be solved. Dahumorist (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that guy. Of course, once it actually happens this discussion is solved >.> --Kaizer13 (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

He signed today,get over it.

Look on WWE.com right now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 07:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I went and there was nothing there that had to do with Tomko.--WillC 08:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL,SUCKER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 09:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever.--WillC 10:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You honestly can't consider WWE.com a reliale source either. It's in kayfabe. They post news on events they want casual fans to know about it. If you sighted it in anything professional, you'd be laughed at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.67.174 (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kayfabe or no, it's the official site and as such, there couldn't be a more reliable source out there. The site doesn't announce most signings though. --Kaizer13 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

I would like to make it a rule that only champions have their pictures up on the roster page, as they represent the current "face" of that division.

Vjmlhds 19:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree,the other ones are pointless. SteelersFan-9 4 21:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Champs and GMs are fine.

Raw has Cena, Regal, Phoenix (Champions) and Stephanie (GM--or what passes for it).

SD has Edge, Benjamin, McCool (Champions) and Vickie G. (GM)

ECW has Hardy (Champion) and Teddy Long (GM)

FCW, Corporate, Agents, and Other Personnel are fine as they are.

The 3 big brands though shouldn't be changed until there are new champs or a new GM.

Vjmlhds 22:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't we have pic of both mcmahons since they are both in charge of raw right now.CMJMEM (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment Roster/ Corporate, Agents, and Other Personnel

I think we Should Rename the Page to World Wrestling Entertainment Roster and move the Corporate, Agents, and Other Personnel to its own page.Dmansk8r11={] (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tables for WWE matches not articles?

While I agree that the tables make the article easier to read, is there anyway that the information can Make MORE Sense?

Just put the "Ring Name" up for each wrestler, any current titles tehy may hold and the show they are primarily competing on. If they are inactive due to injury or suspension, that can be added as well. That's all you need.

We don't need their real name listed in the employee article, don't need their real/billed heights/weights or any other BS. on the table. Isn't that what each article for each specific wrestler is for to have that extraneous info? Just give us the basics. Qazox (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just turn back to how it was earlier Kalajan (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tag Teams and Stables

It was announced on ECW this week that Finlay & Hornswoggle will face Mark Henry & Tony Atlas so i think they can be classed as a tag team, i'm not sure about Chavo & Neely, neither of them have wrestled much lately. ^TheJay ^Experience 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Atlas will have to become more of an active wrestler for them to count as a team. However, we can now put the occasional wrestler tag on "Mr. USA" now. (That was Atlas' old nickname before anyone asks.)

Chavo wrestled Matt Hardy during last week's double-shot Smackdown tapings, so he's still active, I don't know if Bam joined him or not though, if not, then de-activate him because it has been more than 30 days since we saw him. (Don't remember seeing him at all in November).

Also, Orton/Rhodes/Manu can now be considered a stable as RKO made them the offer to join him on Raw, and the beatdown on Cena clinched the fact that they're now a team.

And Cole used the Priceless name numerous times on the air last night, so I think it's fair now that we can use it here. (If WWE uses it, then it's fine to use it here--we just can't take it upon ourselves to give them a name if WWE doesn't.)

Vjmlhds 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And what about the tag team of Santino Marella and Beth Phoenix?

Cole used the Glamarella name when they where at ringside,I mean they have been called a team by wwe for the past 4 months now.

Glamarella should be a stable not a tag team because they have not teamed together in a match in quite a while.YoMamma6188 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

How is that logical? The definition of a stable is that it needs more than three members. With only two, it's a tag team. --Kaizer13 (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not start this again.

Santino/Beth are not a team, they are a wrestler and a valet (one accompanies the other, but other than Summerslam, they don't team up in the ring). If we list "Glamarella" as a team then we have to do the same for the Burchills, Regal/Layla, Edge/Vickie, DJ Gabriel/Alicia Fox, and any other male/female pairing.

A tag team is a pair of wrestlers who regularly team up together and could compete for the tag team titles.

There are only 2 exceptions that should be considered:

1. If a male/female team were to become tag team champions or have a ppv match for the belts.

2. The Bella Twins due to the twin thing being their whole reason being there.

Other than that, let's use some common sense.

Vjmlhds 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I NEVER said add all the male/female pairs stupid,I said Glamarella SHOULD be because WWE CALLS them that AND they are talked about on WWE.com as Glamarella,now I will just add them myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 07:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

First, insults will not be tolerated, one more and I'll recommend you be blocked.

Second, the reason we don't include Glammarella is because if we do that, then somebody else will put in the Burchills, then somebody else will put in Edge and Vickie and so on, and it will lead to an edit war, and the page will be locked again.

What I'm doing is putting out a fire before it starts.

Vjmlhds 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No,you are trying to make the site be your way,you think everything has to be done only YOUR way.Glamarella IS a stable because they are called that,the Burchill's aren't because they haven't been seen together,Edge and Vickie are because vickie doesn't wrestle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If you object to the way the article is managed, then please reasonably list your arguments. There's no need to assume bad faith and to result to insults. Hazardous Matt 18:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, since the changes you have been insisting upon are going against consensus, it would probably be best to discuss the reason for the changes here, rather than risk a 3RR violation. Hazardous Matt 19:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Oreius--

I'm not trying to make anything MY way. I'm just following wiki rules that had been set a long time ago.

The "Glammarella" name is a play on all these cutesy-fartsy names that Hollywood actors get slapped on them by the tabloids when they hook up (i.e. "Brangelina", "Bennifer" etc.).

That doesn't make them a tag team.

It was established awhile back on wiki (go through the archives) that male/female pairings don't equal tag teams.

The only exception would be if a male/female team were to either hold or wrestle for the tag team belts on PPV because those situations automatically classify you as a team because you would then be either the champions, or the #1 contenders.

And obviously the Bella Twins are a team because of the twin thing being their whole M.O.

Other than that, male/female or female teams are not considered as a team because otherwise it would be opening Pandora's box for others who would get added in.

That is the best way I can explain the situation, so please just drop it.

Vjmlhds 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your wrong Oreius, A stable has to have "3" people in it. Matt and VJ are right....your wrong. SteelersFan-9 4 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Stay civil and do not attack others. aye matthew ✡ 12:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment Roster/ Corporate, Agents, and Other Personnel

There is a separate page for this so it being on this is pointless --Dmanskater <sup>11</sup> (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Where and there was no consensus to move them to a new page. The page is call List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees, the corporate management sections need to be in this article. It is not just for wrestlers.--WillC 21:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Deuce

Wasn't Deuce released? Yanksrule46 (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Dan Deragon (Yanksrule46)

No, Domino was released earlier this year. I wouldn't be half surprised to see Deuce fly the coop either, though. --Kaizer13 (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

DiBiasie, Manu, Orton Team

They've never teamed up so if no one can give me a reason why they are in 24 hours I'm getting rid of them.--Wwe.fana (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you see Raw this week?

Orton talked to Rhodes and Manu backstage, talked about realizing their collective potential together, and told them to meet in the locker room if they were interested.

At the end of the show, all 3 came out en masse to help Jericho beat down Cena, and WWE.com played it up as the 3 of them coming together as a unit.

Rhodes and Manu have been running buddies for months, and on Monday they finally joined up with Orton after weeks of teasing.

Vjmlhds 14:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yah, thats right Kalajan (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

They've Never teamed up in a match about 11 hours left--Wwe.fana (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN -- Please read this. You don't get to make unilateral decisions just because it suits what you want. Hazardous Matt 01:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Randy and Cody teamed up at Survivor Series (with Manu at ringside), Cody and Manu have been palling around and teaming since September, and they all came together on Monday for the Cena beatdown.

Thus they are now a stable (as Cody and Manu obviously took RKO up on his offer to join forces).

This bit of advice goes for any Wiki editor--"countdowns" are frowned upon, and pressing the issue could get you blocked if you don't back off.

Vjmlhds 04:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Tables

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

– Making threats to change something in an amount of time does not go over well. I was a little short with you (And I apologize) but that doesn't set well when there was a decision before most of the editor's who don't want it were on Wikipedia. IMO I didn't attack you. I just assumed that you were new. Again, trying every three day's or so does not change most of the editors of this page's mind. SteelersFan-9 4 19:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as i believe that almost everyone hates them, we should take them down, I`ll give 48 hours Kalajan (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone hates them. And 48 hours until what? Hazardous Matt 15:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to any Wiki editors--

Threats don't go over well here, especially "48 hours until I blow up the page" variations.

You don't like something, we'll talk about it here, and work something out through the process, but threatening to blow up the page at a certain time (especially when there was a strong consensus for the changes)---that doesn't fly.

Vjmlhds 16:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong i'm not a newbie buut i haqven't got time to take down the tables so wateva Kalajan (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To make a comment I'd assume your a newbie,making threats to move something, isn't good. SteelersFan-9 4 05:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not insult the newbies, kthxbai. aye matthew ✡ 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of tables, unless the tables are made more neat and readable. ^TheJay ^Experience 08:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I assumed your a newbie, because I don't a user that's established, who would make threats. SteelersFan-9 4 19:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

No more comments are to be made on this discussion because it's resolved. I will revert them. SteelersFan-9 4 19:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Priceless

check out here http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/slammyawards08/ in best tag team, just saying so that noone takes it down Kalajan (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job, and I'd like to say, that i don't like you being blocked at all, and that randy orton and chris jericho should maybe be put in too Gangsterwolf (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Orton, yes, because he was the one who made the offer to Rhodes and Manu to join forces, and those 3 had been teasing getting together for awhile.

Jericho, no, because he was just using them to get to Cena, not to be a full time crew with them.

The whole motif of the group is 2nd/3rd generation guys, and Jericho is doing his own thing.

Vjmlhds 22:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

heels/ faces

I thought it would be cool to seperate the rosters based on faces and heels, thoughts?

Noble

No need for an Inactive notation next to Jamie Noble's name. He worked a Dark Match this past Tuesday which of course is before the 12-17 cut off date from the last time he was seen on TV. Hot Stuff International (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done.--S R X 02:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Legacy

The Connection of Orton, Rhodes and Manu is indeed called "the legacy"

http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/results/8098226/

"Making good on his challenge from earlier in the night, Orton and the team he calls “The Legacy,” including Manu & Cody Rhodes faced off against Triple H & Batista." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.189.7.130 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, He says "If were not 100% in everything we do, then this Legacy is over" witch implies he beliieves its a legacy not that its called The Legacy, sorry but it's true. --Wwe.fana (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The link above does not work anymore. I also watched the footage with Orton saying the stuff written above... In a sense, he did not name the team "The Legacy", but rather referring to the legacy of their team, being second and third-generation wrestlers. Plus, Ted DiBiase is a member of their team as well, but he's just taking time off!(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibboorton (talk • contribs)

OKay look in youtube (the born of the legacy) and Ted was part of the legacy ( when it was priceless but remember that orton punted him and when he returns I don't think he's going to be pleased about it, anyway you have to wait for the time to come. AKA for him to return. Kala jan 15:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically, since The Legacy was started after DiBiase was punted, he was never in that group. "Priceless", sure, but not The Legacy. Priceless and Legacy are two different groups. If one applies one's thinking, DiBiase was never a member of The Legacy. --Kaizer13 (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant. Ted was priceless but not the legacy. Kala jan 17:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sim Snuka is in The Legacy isn't he? Sinofdreams (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Kala jan 21:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not. It is not confirmed. I think Cole said he was passing the first test. SimonK S K 21:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

manu is out of the legacy someone change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.187.204 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, and Snuka is in the Legacy, I can't believe you still haven't realized. Kala jan 18:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

2 Things to say sorry about the "not the Legasy" thing (I Heard the commentators call it the Legasy)and who's Done. Are you talking about Jack Doan The Referee?--Wwe.fana (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No I meant <done> as in <to do> as in I have removed Manu from The Legacy. Kalajan€₣ 22:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait a Minute Shouldn't we wait till Orton officially Kicks him out.--Wwe.fana (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Orton said, If you lose you're out. Simple as that! Kalajan€₣ 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris Cage is now Caylen Croft

Chris Cage is now Caylen Croft:

http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=35340&p=1

http://flrankings.proboards80.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=11750 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.241.20 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But Cage isn't in The WWE. Kalajan€₣ 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He's in FCWSinofdreams (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No he isn't, and FCW is part of WWE. Kalajan€₣ 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes he is, and I know FCW is part of WWE. Sinofdreams (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Christian Cage, Chris Cage. 2 diffrent people, Kalajan. ₰imon_K^S_K 19:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kane.

Glen or Glenn

Look at this discussion and answer. Kala jan 21:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Both Sinofdreams (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No you can't have two names can you! Kalajan€₣ 13:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Small text

Text within tables should not be in small text because it makes it hard to read, and per the ruling at Featured lists.--S R X 22:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SRX, the tables shouldn't have the small text. Kofi9192 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardcore Holly

Under Hardcore Holly, it says he's inactive, which is fair enough, but then it says "Currently in rehab for painkiller addiction". The only cite there is his wwe profile, which doesn't say anything about him being in rehab. I suggest that this be removed per WP:BLP. 86.44.91.229 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was going to remove this yesterday but I forgot about it in the midst of other edits. It is removed until a source can be found. — Moe ε 20:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Brian Kendrick and Ezikiel Jackson

Can you prove it's a tag team not a wrestler/manager relationship.--Wwe.fana (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well they have teamed up numerous times, defeated tag team champions and look like their going to hold the titles.Adster95 (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Proooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooof!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Wwe.fana (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well there obvously feuding with Primo and Carlito, hense the singles matches, they defeated them. As a tag team they defeated them here http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/archive/11212008/ in a non title match and Jr hinted in his blog about them being tag champs http://fans.wwe.com/jimross/blog/page/2 But back to my point they are a tag team.Adster95 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

They're a tag team, and Marella and the Glamazon are too, check out the raw quick cut (22-12-2008), Santino says Glamarella, and then they tag. Kala jan 21:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

They're not a tag team. They just happened to tag. Check out JTG's profile on WWE.com, it mentions his tag team, Cryme Time. Check out Ted Dibiase's profile, it mentions his tag team partner Cody Rhodes. Check out Marella's, it only mentions his "relationship" with Beth Phoenix, not a tag team. And Phoenix's profile doesn't even mention Santino. Hazardous Matt 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry who are not a tag team Kendrick and Jackson are a tag team! I dunno how we were talking about Glamarella again. On Jacksons profile it mentions Kendrick. Adster95 (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at the quick cut, and you'll see how, at the beggining Santino is going to say something about Santy Claus and John Cena confronts him saying that there are some things you don't say. Santino tells him that he wants him to confront Glammarella in an intergendal match - watch it and see how he says Glammarella. Kala jan 18:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

JR has called them a tag team (even in singles matches), they are a tag team. TJ Spyke 23:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yah, thats right. Kala jan 23:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There a tag team now, sorry.--Wwe.fana (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

They are getting a tag title this friday so they are a team. sinof dreams 23:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Maryse

Isn't that a spoiler? shouldn't her winning the title be removed?? 24.127.183.220 (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a spoiler but theres a reliable source beside it and despite the fact it spoils smackdown for some people, it is allowed since it has a reliable source. Adster95 (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If it has happened it should be put down. Kala jan 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been taped, but until it's aired, it can't be entered into article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and all that. --Kaizer13 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

But so what it's been taken place. Kala jan 23:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, those are just the rules. Follow them or not, it's your call. --Kaizer13 (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No Kaizer, the rule is to put it in. Read WP:SPOILER. Do your research, before criticizing other's correct decisions. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 06:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't need your fucking patronizing dude. Nobody even tells me that rules have been changed. --Kaizer13 (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaizer please stay Civil I haven't been here that long (since March) but since then its been that if its relaibly sourced its ok. Adster95 (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaizer, it's up to you to make sure that you know all the rules. Also, as per what Adster says, please remain civil. 99.240.224.232 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think that a few users might not be 100% with kaizer, my point is that although kaizer might have a dodgy past (which I don't know), he is currently editing constructivly, I don't know the rules well either (I come with good intentions), oh and Kaizer, no swearing, now-now ;-(). Kalajan€₣ 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored. But Kazier WP:NPA. §imon_K^S_K 23:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kapoor

I don't know if this is legit but in spain Ranjin Singh is called Ulises. Kala jan 18:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Do the Spanish announcers refer to him as that? --Kaizer13 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yah. Kala jan 21:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

But in English he's Rainjin Sign or sing or something. Kalajan why don't you sdtart discussing on the spanish page.--Wwe.fana (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tried it and trust me, they've no idea, anyway, this one's better, and I am English, I just live in Spain. Kalajan€₣ 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I Apologise--Wwe.fana (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey you don't need to! You haven't been rude I don't think... Kalajan€₣ 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike Adamle

I cant find him on the list, and he is not on the alumni page. Adam Penale (talk)

Well, he's not been released yet but then again, he does not make any on-air appearances nor do I know of any backstage work he may have. Hmm...a non-wrestler whose sitution is unknown...should he go in the Unassigned talent section? --Kaizer13 (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes put him in the unasigned talent. Kala jan 12:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Since ya'll took him off the unassigned section shouldn't he be put on the WWE Alumni? Sinofdreams (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And there he is. Kalajan€₣ 20:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea cause I put him there. *sinof dreams 21:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And what did I know!?! Kalajan€₣ 22:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Chavo really an ECW wrestler?

Even if WWE says so, he still has appeared on SmackDown! much more than ECW, regardless of his kinship with Vickie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey368 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If WWE says so it's true, but I don't know if you know about the talent exchange, anyway, Ecw wrestlers can appear on any brand. Kala jan 13:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Priceless

The Legacy is not what they're called, they are called Team Priceless. Look here wwe.com Silver Hawx (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I think this is obvious; its the Legacy. Kala jan 08:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Tag teams and stables

Adding the tag teams and stables is really pointless. It's a list of employees therefore tag teams and stables, just shouldn't be included. It's to trivial, and Wikipedia is not a trivia website. It's causing a lot of edit warring, and it's not worth it. If nobody comes up with a real reason to keep it (not "I like it, I want it!") I'll leave it, but otherwise I plan on removing them. aye matthew @ 13:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

In wrestling you've always had your men's, women's and tag team divisions.

Since you have tag team titles, I think it's fair to list those who are currently in contention for said titles.

If there were no tag team championships, then I'd agree with you that there'd be no point for the section.

A lot of the problems comes from pairings like Punk/Kofi for example, when they're tag champs, they obviously get included, but then they lose the belts, go their separate ways, and there's a difference of opinion as to whether to keep them.

And of course the Glammarella nonsense doesn't help.

But I think as long as you have tag titles, you have a tag division, thus the section does have some merit.

Vjmlhds 14:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a championship list. It's a list of employees not divisions. It's an employee article, not a list of champions. That is not a valid reason of keeping them, IMO. aye matthew @ 14:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Tag teams and stables are as big of a part of pro wrestling as steel chairs.

I think you're going down a slippery slope here Matt (with all due respect), you take out the tag teams, somebody else will say "Well if that's not relevant then why is this (insert section) in here?"

Some things are best left well enough alone.

Besides, if there's no edit war about tag teams, there will be one over something else.

Just the nature of the beast.

Vjmlhds 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, are steel chairs employees, please tell me because I'd love to know their salary. Nothing else on this article is broken, tag teams and stables are. Do they hire an employee named "John Morrison and The Miz"? No, then they shouldn't be in the employee article. aye matthew @ 14:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Matthew has a valid point. I don't see why that information can't be forked to List of World Wrestling Entertainment Tag Teams and Stables and have to stay in an article that, by name, shouldn't really have that information. Hazardous Matt 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, and I could also see that article being formed. aye matthew @ 14:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

With good reason, as it could include a list of former tag teams and stables as well. My word, the possibilities! :) Hazardous Matt 14:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as there's something for teams and stables, then that's fine by me.

Just remember though, if you take out teams and stables here, ya gotta do the same for TNA to be consistent.

Vjmlhds 14:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah. It just may not happen right away. Most of the guys who work the TNA articles are already overloading themselves. Hazardous Matt 14:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that if you remove teams from WWE, then you have to do the same for TNA.

I'll certainly help put the new pages together once they get started, but I was referring to removing teams from the respective roster pages.

Vjmlhds 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I understand what you meant. Hazardous Matt 15:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with IMatts suggestion but you'd have to put a link at the top of the page saying that tag teams and stable are at List of World Wrestling Entertainment Tag Teams and Stables. And in the actual article divide it into Smackdown, Raw and ECW. Kala jan 19:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't have to put it at the top. You put it at the bottom, in the See Also section. Hazardous Matt 19:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but you must put it in. Kala jan 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I$'$ve started the tag team and stables article in my sandbox although I've got three types of tables for it so take a look here for option 1 and for 2 and 3 here thanks Adster95 12:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The first one's nice. Kala jan 15:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I like Option Three. Hazardous Matt 17:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally like Option Three so should I move it into mainspace? thanks Adster95 17:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is a tag team division, then there should be a table for tag teams and stables. Thats my view on this.--NickSparrow (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Kala jan 20:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Why are the Tag Teams and Stable still on this page since they have their own? Wasn't that the would reason for the creation of that page? sinof dreams 21:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Oh, you mean the page that was redirected here? content forking. §imon_K^S_K 21:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out here (Sin). Kalajan€₣ 22:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Stratus

Is or isn't she signed up? I think she is 'cause some time in 2008 she appeared with Simmons and Murdoch and said that she might return. Kala jan 02:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

She isn't signed. She just shows up for special occasions. The Raw she showed up at was in Canada. She had been scheduled to show up at that Raw for months. No reason to have her on the roster if she isn't fully active and signed. Plus she said she might return in 2007 at the 15 years special for Raw.--WillC 02:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay but she must be signed up to some contract, Oh, by the way happy 2009! Kala jan 05:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible but last I heard she is working with them without a contract, just like people who work tryout matches do. Likewise, happy 09.--WillC 05:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, and seeing as she didn't appear on monday night it must've been one night only. Kala jan 14:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian Cage

Did Christian resign or does he have any relation with WWE? Sinofdreams (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Look [1]Sinofdreams (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source per WP:RS.--Tr uc o 02:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus Cage's profile is still on TNA Wrestling.com. If he has signed that would have been removed by now for legal reasons.--WillC 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually Christian's contract with TNA has expired, he is technically a free agent. The TNA website is just outdated right now. — Moe ε 18:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A source must be presented that his contract has expired. At one point Samoa Joe's contract was thought to be up, but he is actually locked up for many more years to come.--WillC 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, and if it's true that his contract expired, you need a source that states that he's returning. Kalajan€₣ 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE is not saying anything because they are going to bring Christian back as the man who took out Jeff Hardy at Survivor Series making a match between them at Wrestlemania 25. Sinofdreams (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh are you Cage or something?... Source! Kalajan€₣ 22:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a blog on WWE.com and I got plenty of responses for what Christian might be doing in WWE. [2] Sinofdreams (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So, just cause the fans say so t'dosen't mean it's true, imagine it dosen't happen, we would've lied to the readers. Kalajan€₣ 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting on a responce from Corey Clayton to see what is going on aroung WWE, and Christian, since he is always backstage. Sinofdreams (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say but could you tell me you the **** Corey Clayton and Christian (might be Cage) are?! Kalajan€₣ 22:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey man forget you like u know everything about Wikipedia and the WWE and Christian Cage!!!Sinofdreams (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No I know nothing about Cage, nm about Wikipedia and quite a lot about WWE but something I do know is that you need a reliable source to confirm it and not some fans opinions, from what I've heard I believe Cage is returning too, but you need a source. Kalajan€₣ 23:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... who's Corey Clayton? Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 17:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Corey Clayton is incharge of the WWE Universe. Sinofdreams (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't Christian be put under Unassigned Talent since it is believed to be that he is coming back, and that his profile has be removed from the TNA website? Sinofdreams (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah of course Corey Clayton is. Good try, Vince Mcmahon is the Chairman. And no, until it isn't confirmed it shouldn't be put down. Kalajan€₣ 19:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE Universe. Not the WWE. §imon_K^S_K 23:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I said WWE Universe not WWE. $sin$of$dreams$23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

........*facepalm* Anyway, Cage is not contratcted to WWE. So how are we gonna put him under unassigned talent? §imon_K^S_K 23:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

What is *facepalm*? IDK there are plenty of websites, people, and fans who believe that Cage is contracted and the one who took out Jeff Hardy! sinof dreams 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fans and rumor websites are not reliable sources. And *facepalm* for epic failz. §imon_K^S_K 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Look Sinofdreams please just calm down, you've been here for nay but a week, a and you also robbed 2 of my signatures, which dosen't realy matter but anyway, stay civil and in stead of talk pages, edit mainspace, and I agree with Simon, he won't be added until we have a reliable source. Kalajan€₣ 00:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusing people is violating WP:NPA. Who cares if he stole your sig? Imitation is the higest form of flattery (I think). §imon_K^S_K 21:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

He guys check this out. [3] it talks about Christian returning, the attack in Jeff and them having a match at Wrestlemania, and also Gail Kim. I think it is reliable. Sin Of Dreams •™• 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a RS. §imon_K^S_K 22:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

[4] Sin Of Dreams •™• 22:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That one is reliable, but we don't put rumors in Wikipedia. §imon_K^S_K 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to say that it dosen't confirm anything, it just says that he is thought to return. Kalajan€₣ 22:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Although that is reliable, it is speculating his return because there has not been an official contract signing yet. Plus, its just restating what Batista thought about Christian returning to WWE.--Tr uc o 02:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Look!! [5] LSU Tigers 22:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

[6] LSU Tigers 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that reliable. It says to use sparingly. ₰imon_K^S_K 22:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Per all the recent FACs, WrestleView should only be used for PPV and TV Results. It can only be used with PPV articles and bios on certain occasions. If it has to do with Reception, production, or special information. In this case, it can't be used.--WillC 23:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Carlito and Primo

Why is there a picture of every champion except Carlito and Primo? Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Because, from my knowledge, there isn't a picture of the two together available on Wikipedia.--Tr uc o 20:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So? You can still individually put them. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Kofi and Punk

They Havn't teamed since 14th October 2008 so that's over 30 days so doesn't that mean there not a currebt team.--Wwe.fana (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

hey if you're going to talk about stables and tag teams see here. Kalajan€₣ 22:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But There are tag teams on this page and this page is better.--Wwe.fana (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No there aren't. See the discussion that IMatthew started a few sections up (called Tag Teams and Stables). Kalajan€₣ 22:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

FCW

Since the tag teams and stables got their own page shouldn't FCW get their own page? click on my name. Sinofdreams (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Get a picture of the logo and you'll be able to. Kalajan€₣ 23:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Florida Championship Wrestling. Sinofdreams (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, I like it. Kalajan€₣ 00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be taken off this page though?Sinofdreams (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No this is the roster of the whole wwe. Kalajan€₣ 00:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not that I dont want to, but Im just lazy

There is a Michael Hayes reference at this link which mentions him as a Creative Writer.

This is the corporate news article from WWE Corporate on the signing of Freddie Prinze, Jr. to SD creative team.

Someone add them with appropiate templates, cuz Im just too lazy. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why Charles Robinson? Why Sgt. Slaughter? Why Freddie Prinze, Jr.? Why Steve Austin? Why are pictures of them in the article? Why not another referee/producer/writer/agent? What criteria was done to choose who gets their picture in the article? Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

They are just random selections, there is no specific criteria for them, in addition, they probably have the best quality images.--Tr uc o 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who put those pictures there, I'll explain my rationale:

Charles Robinson--he's the only referee with a picture.

Freddie Prinze--he's the highest profile of that group due to his Hollywood fame.

Sgt Slaughter--due to his occasional appearances on Raw.

Stone Cold--due to being the highest profile personality on that list.

Hope that clears things up.

Vjmlhds 06:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, what constitutes of being "highest profile" and what does that even have to do with the list. Obviously, Freddie Prinze is more famous, but as a writer, he is the rookie. Obviously, I think Michael Hayes, Dusty Rhodes or Pat Patterson should have one of their photos as they are more famous in wrestling. I understand the Charles Robinson debate as obviously he is the only image on Wikipedia for referees, but if a Mickie Henson or Mike Chioda pic turns up, I think one of them should be. As for Steve Austin, if occasional appearances should warrant the spot on the page, then it is quite obvious Mae Young, Howard Finkel, Josh Mathews, Roddy Piper and Joey Styles all deserve the spot more than Austin.

Did you seriously suggest Mae Young or Howard Finkel seriously as more popular than Steve Austin? I guess starring in Hollywood films and being the main figure for professional wrestling throughout a decade isn't enough.. — Moe ε 05:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Finley

Is it Finley or Fit Finley? Sin Of Dreams •™• 02:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

His real name is Dave Finlay, Fit Finlay is what he is called within professional wrestling, but his ring name is Finlay.--Tr uc o 02:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fit Finlay? I've never heard him be refered to as that. Kalajan€₣ 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He's not called that in the WWE. §imon_K^S_K 20:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He's been called that in numerous autobiographys and the commentators sometimes refer to him as that Adster95 20:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

He was called that in his WCW days and one website called him that and didn't Jack Swagger call him that a few weeks ago? Sin Of Dreams •™• 21:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

His page says David Finlay not David Finley Finley Sin Of Dreams •™• 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We know. Kalajan€₣ 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I can see how this could be confusing. While Finlay once used Fit Finlay as his ring name, it's more of a nickname today than that. His ring name's just Finlay, and he's occasionally referred to as Fit Finlay. Perhaps it's a backstage sign of respect or something, like calling Triple H Hunter when really nobody ever does that anymore. --Kaizer13 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bam Neely

I don't know if it's for the long term but it was reported Neely was sent back down to FCW so if anyone that follows the TV Tapings sees his name pop up on a regular basis, he could be relocated to the FCW roster from the ECW one. Hot Stuff International (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have a source, don't add it yet, and where was it reported? Kalajan€₣ 19:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you either didn't accurately read what I wrote or you just wanted to act as if you own the entire article.. again. Mike Johnson of PWInsider.Com wrote if anyone was wondering where Neely has been since being absent from TV, he was sent back down to FCW. However that's not to say he won't be back on TV for whatever so if anyone sees his name in more than a handful of FCW show results, he might as well be added to their roster. You just need to relax and remain civil. Hot Stuff International (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just do what we've done with DH Smith, Ryan Braddock and Scotty Goldman, just indicate in the notes he's currently down if FCW and leave him on the ECW roster. --James Duggan 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Slaps forehead* Now I feel like an ass for not having thought of that. Thank you. Hot Stuff International (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is FCW televised? Kalajan€₣ 08:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In Florida on Bright House Sports Network. Hazardous Matt 14:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Low-Ki

Low-Ki's official site announced he's signed with WWE. If that's considered reliable, he can be added to either FCW or Unassigned talent. He worked an FCW taping last night though it's not known if he'll be there for the long term. Oh and if anyone is wondering I don't make these edits myself because I've yet to master editing tables and really haven't had the time to read up on doing so. Hot Stuff International (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you link to the article on the site please? If it's indeed the official site, I doubt there could exist a more reliable source. Thanks. --Kaizer13 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Kalajan€₣ 15:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just look on his Wikipedia page and go down to the External links section? You're not helpless. Here's the link seeing as you couldn't be bothered to look yourself: [7] *sigh* D.M.N. (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh is he a person?! My bad... Kalajan€₣ 16:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Legacy

[8] see there, it's an article by Corey Clayton and he's a WWE insider. This is just like La Familia, even though Orton said This Legacy, Chavo (or Edge; I don't know) Our Familia. Kalajan€₣ 16:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If he said "this" not "the" then an argument can be made as to whether he was referring to the name of the group or rather just the fact that the prospective non-members are second or third generation. Hazardous Matt 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but La Familia said the same and they didn't have any problems. Kalajan€₣ 20:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see how La Familia was notable, either. I really don't understand the desire to create an article for an ambiguously named "stable" that only has two members and hasn't done anything. Hazardous Matt 20:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree La Familia is/was notable definately more notable than Legacy they (argubaly) ruled the ecw and smackdown brands! And had two world championships and a tag team championship as well as a figure of authority in their stable Adster95 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I retract my statement about La Familia as I'm not a Smackdown viewer. I stand by my points regarding Orton's group. Hazardous Matt 20:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay so why is there an article on CM Punk and Kofi Kingston while my article is much better, longer, and it's a stable that's existed for some time and has held the WTTC twice, and yes, they had different names but they are basically the same team, for if DiBiase hadn't been punted he'd be there too and I bet you wouldn't have argued then. Kalajan€₣ 23:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that article is currently up for deletion. Let me resolve this conflict, The Legacy is too recent and has not established notability to warrant an article, simple as that.Tr uc o 23:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

See, Priceless is included, mine and User:Nikki311's opinion, so that makes it almost half a year long. Kalajan€₣ 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway Matt, you don't need to create anything, for it's ready to go, just say 1 2 3! Kalajan€₣ 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Priceless should have its own article. Legacy just began and isn't even official yet. I agree with Truco.--WillC 00:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I could divide the User:Kalajan/(The Legacy) in two sections (Priceless, and The Legacy), for it has been a lot of work and hours and I find readers would see it better that it was on the same article. Kalajan€₣ 00:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Priceless is not in anyway related to The Legacy. Ted DB was NEVER a part of the Legacy. Your article needs a LOT of work, Kalajan. It has week by week info and NN info. ₰imon_K^S_K 00:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say DiBiase was in The Legacy, I said that if he hadn't been punted he would surely be in the team. Hey can I have a judge, I've got a problem with this guy here, he just won't leave me alone! And Priceless is not in anyway related to The Legacy... Are you mad! it's basically the same members!, only Ted DiBiase didn't join and Manu was booted! They just joined forces with Orton, that dosen't automatically make two different stables. Kalajan€₣ 00:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but he not on the team. And I don't have a problem with you. I don't have a problem with anybody. I'm here to show you what is right and what is wrong. Don't take it the wrong way. And yes, Priceless is not a part of the Legacy. It never was, as Ted was never a part of the Legacy. Ted is a part of Priceless. I didn't say that you said Ted was a part of the Legacy. You just listed him as a former member, which is incorrect. ₰imon_K^S_K 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol; I didn't say that you said. Anyway, I just had a feeling, anyway, Nikki311 told me to add Priceless in the same article. Kalajan€₣ 00:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even if Priceless had something to do the Legacy, Diblaise is not a part of the Legacy, because he was not there when the Legacy formed. Nor was he invited. Oh, and please do not engourage WBW. As I said, you have a lot of NN info in your sandbox. ₰imon_K^S_K 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is Priceless did not become Legacy. They were Priceless and then just joined Orton and Deuce to create an entirely new stable. Legacy did not win the tag team championship twice, Priceless did. The two are two different teams like the Corporate Ministry. Adding the Priceless information to Legacy is original research since they are two different teams. If Orton had joined Priceless and then said, we are now Legacy, instead of just seemly disbanding and then rejoin.--WillC 00:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay can I have some help there? Oh and also, whats WBW? Kalajan€₣ 15:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some help where? Hazardous Matt 17:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorting it out; I'm confused. Kalajan€₣ 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Week by week (didn't realise). Kalajan€₣ 15:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jim Korderas

It was announced that he's been released. Shouldn't he be in the alumni section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Info Fan (talk • contribs) 23:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Where was it anounced? Kalajan€₣ 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Several websites such as 411Wrestling,Rajah and PWInsider have mentioned it.

Here's the 411 link...

[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Info Fan (talk • contribs) 00:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah I believe it's a RS. Kalajan€₣ 00:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Mike Kruel & Gavin Spears

I know we have to wait for something more official, but here's some links that report these two were released.

http://www.pwpix.net/pwpixnews/headlines/233565070.php and http://www.pwpix.net/pwpixnews/headlines/233565548.php Dahumorist (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

is christan back

hey guy should we add christian to the smackdown roster?i seem that alot of wrestling sites have been reporting about a future story line with christian coming back and attacking jeff hardy.it seem that that story line is coming true.CMJMEM (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but see, we should wait for it to be official. Kalajan€₣ 15:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Add him to unassingned talent [10], it's definatelty right. Kalajan€₣ 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WrestleView is ONLY for TV and PPV results. There is no reliable source claiming that Christian is back. ₰imon_K^S_K 19:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct, they aren't reporting he is signed. They are reporting a possible storyline.--WillC 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There's something brewing up and as you see, the whole internet knows its going to be Christian. I don't know why no one will accept it. Kalajan€₣ 19:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

They also knew Hardy was going to be hit. Kalajan€₣ 19:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And? It's in his article that it was kayfabe. ₰imon_K^S_K 19:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah and how did they know it was going to take place? Hey, they must have a spy inside WWE or something. Kalajan€₣ 19:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is not a forum, and this maybe just a rumor. And everyone knows how rumors spread very quickly. Why do you think all the unreliable websites have articles that all look the same? ₰imon_K^S_K 19:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that rumors have been proven wrong countless times. Until both parties (WWE and Cage) say that he has signed, these rumors are all just rumors. ₰imon_K^S_K 19:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So they've got a Psychic with them? dunno, maybe the prophecy came true (if you watched Smackdown! and read the article you'll probaby know why), oh and forum I don't remember using this as a forum. Kalajan€₣ 19:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Anyway, this talk page is for discussion on improving the article, not for speculating on whether there is a spy in the WWE. That is what a forum is for. ₰imon_K^S_K 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic for gods sake, and seeing that there isn't anything wrong with sarcasm, *smirk* (I owed you). Anyway, Cage is in wwe, read the god damn source, it was created before yesterday night... Dunno, as I said... psychic... magic... spying... torturing for info... Kalajan€₣ 19:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what is so hard to understand. Wrestleview is ONLY reliable for PPVs and TV results. Nothing else. Cage has not confirmed signing with WWE. WWE has not confirmed Cage signing. Is it that hard?₰imon_K^S_K 20:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding Cage is against: WP:SPECULATION, WP:Rumor, WP:RS, etc.--WillC 20:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah ok whatever, so how are you going to explain that the unreliable source was right? as I said,... psychic... magic... spying... torturing McMahon for info... Kalajan€₣ 20:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How are you gonna explain if your "reliable source" was wrong? ₰imon_K^S_K 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

See Simon, normal people who edit wrestling articles watch wrestling, and for what I see, you don't. Kalajan€₣ 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

........................What? I watch wrestling. What I think is abnormal is you not understanding what a reliable source is. Again, you have nothing to show that Cage is back with the WWE. Nothing reliable. ₰imon_K^S_K 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

See, I'm not abnormal, so in that case, I find that the rest of WP:PW must be (nothing personal), so you did see SmackDown! and you didn't realise that Jeff was hit and run, THAT is what I call abnormal. Kalajan€₣ 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Did Cage say HIMSELF, (not what some people think) that he caused the "crash?" Nope. Did you see Cage in the video? Nope. Did WWE say that Cage is back? Nope. You have nothing. ₰imon_K^S_K 20:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

in the past wrestling sites have been right about big show and jerico's return.they were also right about tomko too.CMJMEM (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And? It does not talk about Christian returning. It is a possible storyline. Please read carefully. I can not stress this enough. There is no reliable source. Period. ₰imon_K^S_K 20:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A source that states that Jason/William Reso has signed a multiple year contract is needed. Not a Cage may have signed a contract and wwe has a possible storyline in the works for him to return. That is speculation. That is not saying he is signed. That is just blowing smoke out of their asses.--WillC 20:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, who was it then, did you see Cage? No, cause you didn't look inside the car because it was hit and run. Blowing somke out of what! Kalajan€₣ 20:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we saying that it was someone else? NO! There is no RELIABLE SOURCE for your claims. Did YOU see Cage and ask him if he has signed. Did he say Yes? This is pointless. Until we see him on Smackdown, he has not signed. Period. ₰imon_K^S_K 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Until we see him at Royal Rumble, he has not signed. See, I know this is pointless as the page is blocked, shouldn't be. I'm going off to have dinner. Kalajan€₣ 20:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to resolve dispute

This is ridiculous, this page is protected over what? I want to help solve this dispute, what is the problem?--Tr uc o 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Kalajan keeps on adding unsourced statments. See above section for more info. ₰imon_K^S_K 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. For goodness sake, Christian Cage (Jason Reso) may have possibly signed with WWE already, but no Reliable source has announced this. In this case, the only reliable sources that can be accepted will be a site directly linked to Reso or WWE's website. Other websites are not accepted, even WrestleView and PW Torch, because they are not directly connected with Reso or WWE. Until a Reliable source has announced this to WP:VERIFY (verify) this information, it is just WP:SPECULATION (speculation) until otherwise verified by WWE. In addition, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTAL (crystal ball).--Tr uc o 21:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly what Will and I said. They just don't seem to get it. ₰imon_K^S_K 21:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, now the page is protected for editing for all users due to a silly edit war.--Tr uc o 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Read this. ₰imon_K^S_K 21:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well consensus is among various users not just 3, so we have to settle the dispute with Kalajan, so lets wait until after his dinner :P--Tr uc o 21:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be waiting and playing my PSP. ₰imon_K^S_K 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

if you are going to say that there is no source for christian then the same has to be said for stone cold,rowdy piper and others that are on the talent page that don't have a credible source.you can'it both ways.CMJMEM (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, they have profiles on WWE.com. Plus make appearences regularly. Also since WWE is publicly owned, they must state who is released. They have given no statement that they are released. Defacto they are signed.--WillC 21:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong, it's called, visual sources. Both have appeared on WWE programming, and it can be sourced citing the episode with {{cite episode}}.Tr uc o 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is obvious. Steve Austin still shows up part-time. (Cyber Sunday) Rowdy piper show up too. (Fued with Marella, Again Cyber Sunday). Alas, wit Cage, have you seen him on Smackdown? ₰imon_K^S_K 21:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I had a great dinner and agree with you, all I was saying was that Wrestlzone should be stated reliable, because of what it said about Hardy's accident. Anyway, let's straighten this out calmly, UNBLOCK THE PAGE! Kalajan€₣ 21:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You stated WrestleView as reliable. ₰imon_K^S_K 21:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If we unprotect the page, Cage can only be added once one of the following happen. He is seen on TV, PPV, or WWE.com (his face must be seen, not a body part or a man in a mask). WWE says he is signed. Cage states in an interview from a reliable source he is signed. It must come from WWE or Cage himself.--WillC 21:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, WrestleView, look they were right [11]. Kalajan€₣ 21:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Its called a storyline, its not real its scripted television. That video never said it was Christian Cage did it? Nope.--Tr uc o 21:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah I know what a storyline is, and although they didn't say anything about Cage in the video, you have to use your common sense. It's simple. Kalajan€₣ 21:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, information has to be added with a Reliable source in order for it to be verifiable. Its that simple, I'm sorry.--Tr uc o 21:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever think maybe it is Gail Kim? It can be anyone. Maybe it is Big SHow, Chavo, Triple H, Matt Hardy. No one knows who it is.--WillC 21:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You can't propose to make a source reliable. A reliable source is one that has accurate fact checking, established staff, is mentioned in other third-party reliable source, and has an extensive history. WreslteView has some of that, but not accurate fact checking, and as a result, it was found unreliable by a Wikipedian who checks sources for reliability. So its not reliable, only marginally for pay-per-view articles.--Tr uc o 22:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably Cage but it could also be Dos Caras Jr.. And I've proposed to make WrestleView a reliable source at WP:PW. Kalajan€₣ 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WrestleView is already a reliable source but not for this, and your source can't source Cage being in WWE. It does not say he is signed.--WillC 21:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your point, Kalajan. Again, No RS, No dice. ₰imon_K^S_K 22:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's make this simple, and hopefully the page can be unlocked.

No Christian on TV, on WWE.com, or announcement from his lips to God's ear = no Christian on the page.

I know...looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...but still, gotta play by the rules.

Agreed?

Vjmlhds 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not in agreement but I won't add Cage until it's been proved, just get to it (unblocking it) Kalajan€₣ 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

honky tonk man has been seen on tv more recently than stone cold, so why isn't he listed?CMJMEM (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not true at all. ₰imon_K^S_K 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And Honky was about a two day contract. Kalajan€₣ 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

People, do not start another edit war. People need to quit editing the page.--WillC 22:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But if they do that, it's boring. LOL :-P (I meant it) Kalajan€₣ 22:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a joke. Its an encyclopedia.--Tr uc o 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry dude but even I had to laugh at that. It has become more of a circus lately. I just would like to see people quit reverting each other and talk. If people keep on doing this today it will get protected again.--WillC 22:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I said I meant it. Kalajan€₣ 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Glamarella:

Are they added? If they're not add them. Kalajan€₣ 22:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed to death. They aren't a team. They are a valet/wrestler combination.--WillC 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

They've team up numerous times. Kalajan€₣ 23:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

And? They may be notable, but they are still mostly a manager/valet combination. ₰imon_K^S_K 23:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As you said mostly, and partly (which is something) a team, which makes them a team that accompanie one another to the ring. Kalajan€₣ 23:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, teams accompany one another to the ring, but this obviously mor of a manager/valet thing going on. Stop bringing dead discusions. This has beeen decided numerous times. Check out the archives. ₰imon_K^S_K 23:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay wait, no wall-smashing. Where did the Glamarella name come from then, just because they have an affair t'dosen't mean they aren't a team. Kalajan€₣ 23:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, they do not wrestle as a tag team regularly, so they do not warrant themselves as a tag team.--Tru co 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE has them as a tag team. I'm going to try and contact Corey Clayton and make him make an acount to clear things out. Kalajan€₣ 23:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

But I'm tired so I'll do it tomorrow. Kalajan€₣ 00:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay I asked Corey Clayton to make an account and give us some answers, I don't know what he's going to do though. Kalajan€₣ 12:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This won't help us at all. How do we know that it is Corey? It can be a sock of yours for all we know. ₰imon_K^S_K 15:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan, you do not work for WWE, so your statement "WWE has them as a tag team" is your opinion. An active tag team, as defined in the article, is a duo of wrestlers who wrestle together actively. A tag team is not a valet/wrestler or manager/wrestler kind of thing, which Santino and Beth Phoenix do regularly. Tru co 15:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

All right but Truco, what happened to your sig? Kalajan€₣ 17:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A bot messed up the parameters for Template:color, it will be fixed soon.--Tru co 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, but I don't do socks. Kalajan€₣ 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay?--Tru co 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes okay, I meant that I didn't know why your sig did that but I now do. Kalajan€₣ 17:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to sound prudish, but maybe we can move the conversation back to the article? Hazardous Matt 17:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Get back to editing! ₰imon_K^S_K 17:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, every change I make, someone tries to make me shmash a wall (confronts me about it). Kalajan€₣ 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Kalajan has been blocked for 24 hours for continually edit warring. Tiptoety ^talk 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring again

While checking the unblock request for Kalajan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), I checked the history of this article and found that there is still a massive amount of edit warring going on. Since there is such a dispute about who is or who is not an employee of WWE, and since the same edits are being done and then being undone, I've protected this page for a week. And if I've protected m:The Wrong Version, that's too bad. I don't follow professional wrestling or the rumor mill for it, so I have no opinions on what the correct version is.

Work out your differences here at the talk page, not in edit wars. Also remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, so everything said here needs to be reliably sourced. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to resolve this dispute by searching for reliable sources for the wrestlers in question. I am basing these reliable sources on WikiProject Professional Wrestling Sources.

Here are the wrestlers in question. If/When I have found a reliable source, I will include the url link beside their name.:

David Otunga - http://www.wrestleview.com/news08/1225317534.shtml

Mike Hutter - http://www.wrestleview.com/news08/1228748343.shtml

Dos Caras Jr. - http://www.wrestleview.com/news08/1224968010.shtml

Phil Shatter (Chad Lail) - http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/82975/WWE-News:-Shane-McMahon-in-Mexico,-Carlitos-Future,-Chris-Harris-and-More.htm

Matt Walsh - Matt Walsh's myspace page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=30417295

Byron Wilcott -

Jason Riggs - Jason Riggs' myspace page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=23661752

Johnny Riggs - Johnny Riggs' myspace page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=6074049

That is all. Dahumorist (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you guys want this article placed on article probation, I suggest everyone stops edit warring. D.M.N. (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mayspace is not a reliable source, wrestleview might not be either for this but I don't care. As long as it ends the protection.--WillC 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the official myspace of said person is a reliable source? Myspace serves the same purpose as official websites nowadays. Dahumorist (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with myspace is that anyone can make a myspace look legit. We don't know if that is a fan created page for the guy/girl whatever or the real guy.--WillC 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Since all of these guys are "unassigned talent" types, let's come to a conclusion on this...

Unless these guys make an appearance in FCW (or on one of the big 3 brands if they skip over FCW), do not include them on the roster, period.

These guys are not worth having the article shut down.

Vjmlhds 20:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that, or we can use the approved sources according to WP:PW, which I did for 4 of the people in question already. Frankly, I'm just wondering why this is still considered a dispute. I am resolving it currently as you can see above. If we have problems with some of the sources, then those guys will remain off the page until further sources are provided. Dahumorist (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you remove the unassigned section move the page to List of World Wrestling Entertainment on screen employees. Kalajan€₣ 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly would that accomplish? Just because a few unassigned individuals can't be verified you feel it's necessary to remove all off-camera personel? Hazardous Matt 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Heck I'm just trying to prevent edit wars and make a consensus. Kalajan€₣ 22:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's called content forking. Don't even think about doing that. iMatthew // talk // 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, pick on the little guy why don't you. Kalajan€₣ 17:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan, do not tell someone that we've reached consensus on removing off-camera personel (as you did here) when you've only made a suggestion to do so without anyone else having commented. Hazardous Matt 22:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I thought everyone would agree. Kalajan€₣ 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line is, whether you agree or not, we users of Wikipedia have to abide by Wikipedia's WP:MOS, and the MOS states that we must cite information using reliable sources. In this case, WrestleView is not reliable because it is only reliable for Television and Pay-Per-View results. Other website, even PW Torch and WON, are not reliable because of the same reasons. Myspace's are not reliable either, unless it can be confirmed that the myspace is actually the superstars, like a photo promoting their URL. That's the bottom line, which is ridiculous that an edit war broke out over this.--Tru co 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan, do you want to be blocked again? I think that until these wrestlers appear on TV, we will NOT add them. When we reach a consensus and the page gets unprotected, I strongly suggest that no one touches it, unless it has been vandalized. ₰imon^KSK 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. Kalajan€₣ 22:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Next time use discussions to build a consensus or to get a question answered to avoid edit wars and protection of an article.--Tru co 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the article is now protected so I suggest agreeing with whats his name's suggestion and remove the unconffirmed guys. Kalajan€₣ 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone agrees to it.--Tru co 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. And keep my suggestion in mind, everyone. ₰imon^KSK 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously the edit warring needs to stop, I added a disambiguation to the top of the article since 'WWE Superstars' redirects here and people are reverting it. -.- — Moe ε 00:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we ask for our page back? Kalajan€₣ 14:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up

Doesn't the talk page need to be cleaned up? There are 30 sections Benton Tigers 00:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it does, I'll archive it if no one has a problem.--WillC 00:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do it its fine with me Benton Tigers 01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait until we finish this block thing. Kalajan€₣ 13:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jericho

When the problems get resolved and the page gets unprotected we need to remove chris Jericho. Source-[12] Benton Tigers 21:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Its just being used as a storyline, if it were a true firing, WWE would report an article on Jericho about a release. When the problems are resolved, he needs to be moved to unassigned talent.--Tru co 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Deal Benton Tigers 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, switch out Matt Hardy's pic for Jack Swagger due to him winning the ECW Title, as well as reactivating Dibiase and adding him to the Legacy.

Vjmlhds 22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Tru co 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you say unassigned talent? Good idea. Kalajan€₣ 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sgt. Slaughter/Ron Simmons released.

Both Sgt. Slaughter and Ron Simmons have been released from the WWE. Can a mod please remove them and Slaughter's picture.

http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=35826&p=1

As for Gavin Spears, if an update does not come up on wwe.com or a reliable source that he was released, we can add him back to the ecw roster.

Firstly, I don't know if PWinsider is a RS, probably is though so I'll agree with you there, if no one can find a source saying that they are, remove them. Kalajan€₣ 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be easier to wait for a second source, rather than put the burden of proof on finding information that states Slaughter and Simmons are still with the company, as you're suggesting? Hazardous Matt 15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I looked up Simmons on WWE.com and I don't think I saw him in the roster (were he usually is). Kalajan€₣ 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

People can be taken off the WWE roster page for various reasons. PWInsider isn't listed as a proven-reliable source. It's probably best to just wait and get a fully-relaible source on that. Hazardous Matt 16:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan Farooq is still on the WWE RAW Superstar page [13] Benton Tigers 16:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I said I didn't see him. Kalajan€₣ 17:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Geof Rochester needs to be removed as well. He was Director of Marketing. His bio was removed from the wwe corporate site, and no longer listed as a member of the board of directors.--NickSparrow (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point here, the page is blocked anyway, and then when it's unblocked everyone is going to try and edit at the same tyme, so... Can someone just unblock this! Kalajan€₣ 20:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Use {{editprotected}} for this request. That way, another admin will review it. I don't have time to review this request at the moment since I'm busy with other stuff. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well can someone try that? Kalajan€₣ 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You are not completely helpless, please feel free to do it yourself. iMatthew // talk // 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ron Simmon's profile is no longer on the RAW page.

Referee Mickie Henson was released as well. Henson, Simmons, Slaughter (and picture), Rochester needs to be removed. Matt Cappotelli was released, but he wasnt even listed, so we are good on that front.--NickSparrow (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hade Vansen has been released as well. He is a developmental talent.--NickSparrow (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection: Utterly ridiculous

"Oh my God, so much edit warring! Quick, the article will die, lets protect it!"

This "protection" is a big load-a-crap. This is Wikipedia. We collaborate with information and try to reach consensus. The failure to reach consensus for some is not an excuse for limiting the ability of the diligent users to edit and improve this article. Which ever admin who "protected" the article, with all due respect, you don't own it. Seriously though, with all due respect, because I have no idea who you are, and why you did this, but it was of absoulutely no consensus. I imagine you were satisfying some user's request, but this is outrageous. People have to come to the talk page and write down the differences THEY should be making and adding to THEIR contributions, for THEY made them. And for what? So a selected few (the admins) get to make those contributions [which didn't belong to them, I might add].

Oh, and if you, the admin, say you're protecting the page due to policy, you are wrong. Because, due to WP:PROTECTION, Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. I suggest the article be "de-protected", because the proper channels weren't done. Also, just because someone is an admin, it doesn't mean you can create the consensus of protecting a page all by yourself. First review the cause and partake in the proper analysis of the situation which in this case would've been blocking, semi-protecting or just a simple warning. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The admin was User:Elkman. He actually had a reason to protect it Alex because it was fully protected once for edit warring, and then after it expired, the warring began all over again. As a result, the repeated edit warring led to another protection, which expires in a few days, I believe. If the edit warring continues, WP:PROBATION needs to be sought for those warring users.--Tru co 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan, you, Dahumorist and SK. A handful of people, and I might be mistaken, but I am not aware if anyone else was involved. These four users could have been warned and even blocked, oh, and Dahumorist and SK were the ones really "firing up the war". So, basically with warnings for Truco and Kalajan and potential blocks for Dahumorist and SK, I believe the "protection" could've (SHOULD'VE) been avoided. I already explained the proper channels that should have been partaken, as stated in WP:PROTECTION. Oh, and Truco, that other protection you mentioned that happened before... it was also... utterly ridiculous. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes both wars were ridiculous. Warnings were given to all users for edit warring, and Kalajan was blocked for 24 hours. He then returned and stirred up another war, which led to the current protection. SK was only being a good faith user and trying to get Kalajan to reach a consensus in order for removal of the full protection. In addition, why should they have warned me if I wasn't involved in the war?--Tru co 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, based on looking at the page history, that page protection is suited for this case. It looks like you need some time to resolve some issues of who is supposed to be on this list. Blocking is of course possible, but that usually just leads to a slower edit war, which won't really accomplish a consensus. Once you all have have come to a consensus just request the page be unprotected at WP:RFPP. The page isn't locked forever, it is just a break from editing until a problem is resolved. Prodego ^talk 00:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't a problem, it was just a silly war by one editor, and the reverts by other good faith users.--Tru co 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Truco that there isn't no problem. Especially not one that should affect every single other editor in Wikipedia (about what? million? millions?) and prohibit them from editing this article, regardless of a short length of time or not. However, Truco, it wasn't just one editor. You reverted some edits by SimonKSK, SimonKSK had a bried edit war with Dahumorist about something having to do with unassigned talent and Kalajan was just parading with bad edits (be them good faith or not) which were reverted by SimonKSK. All this, I checked in the history. So, in conclusion, it was you four who actually would have something to dispute about, however, because SimonKSK is not upset because of your revert Truco, I guess this doesn't include you. Prodego, as you see, there was only 3 editors involved, whereas two are ready to discuss and reach a consensus at the talk page. The other, Kalajan, is a once-blocked editor who continues to be involved in edit wars. A longer block could have taken care of that, or maybe a probation. No need for protecting the article. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I edit warred. Yes, it was good faith. Yes, I think the protection was stupid. My edits were all good faith. I reverted Dahumorist's edits, cause he had no reliable source. Kalajan was just being uncivil. I agree that a longer block should have taken place for him, and his talk page should have been protected because of this. I mean, the first edit war was pathetic. He didn't seem to get what a reliable source was. He edit warred, made personal attacks, was uncivil, and did I mention he edit warred? In my opinion, a longer block should have taken place. 1 week, in my opinion. It's sad, but all we can do is wait it out now. ₰imon^KSK 02:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't own the article. I never said I did. I clearly stated my reason for protecting the page a few sections ago, if you had read back that far. (Which you didn't, since you didn't know who protected the page.) When I first saw the page history, I saw that JamesR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected it on January 10, then Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unprotected it after a consensus had supposedly been reached on this talk page. The unprotect was done on 16:26, January 10. (I think that's my local time). Between that time and 20:44, January 11, here's what happened to the article:

Byron Wilcott and David Otunga were removed and then readded to the list five times.

Dos Caras, Jr. was removed and then readded to the list seven times.

Jason Riggs and Johnny Riggs were removed and then readded to the list four times.

Glamarella was added and then removed from the list three times.

Matt Walsh and Mike Hutter were added and then removed from the list three times.

Chad Lail was added and then removed from the list three times.

I protected the page at 20:44 on January 11. Kalajan (talk · contribs) was blocked at 14:23 on January 11. In that time, he made 8 edits to the page and used inflammatory edit summaries. Nevertheless, other people were edit warring, as shown by edit summaries and the number of reverts. Dahumorist (talk · contribs) made 6 edits and said he was looking for sources, SimonKSK (talk · contribs) made 8 edits and used an edit summary to encourage discussion on the talk page, Kaizer13 (talk · contribs) made one edit with an inflammatory edit summary, and Truco (talk · contribs) made two edits. TJ Spyke (talk · contribs) made one edit, D.M.N. (talk · contribs) made one edit citing WP:BLP, and Spike7000 (talk · contribs) made one edit. There were a few other edits that didn't touch on the contentious material about unassigned talent.

With the number of times each of these wrestlers was added and then removed from the list, it's pretty clear that there was an edit war going on. My decision to protect the page was to stop the edit war and to encourage discussion here. I see there's some discussion, but not much of a consensus yet. I'm willing to discuss unprotecting the article if people are willing to come to an agreement on what sources can be used to cite someone being a WWE employee. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No Truco you're wrong, because I didn't return and make another war, the page was protected because I asked to be unblocked and because I've had issues with Elkman in the past (Elkman we have to speak), he protected it after looking into the history. And SK, my block is over so it's too late to suggest another one. Lets just stop edit warring and unprotect this, if anyone declares war, he'll be blocked, not the page. Opinions? Kalajan€₣ 16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I had nothing to do in this war:

Byron Wilcott and David Otunga were removed and then readded to the list five times.

Dos Caras, Jr. was removed and then readded to the list seven times.

Jason Riggs and Johnny Riggs were removed and then readded to the list four times.

Glamarella was added and then removed from the list three times.

Matt Walsh and Mike Hutter were added and then removed from the list three times.

Chad Lail was added and then removed from the list three times.

Probably the third?

Anyway, everyone edited, more or less it matters not, all that matters is were we are and it's all our falt. WE have done this and we'll get out of it. Please don't treat me like a vandal or anything. I participated, and I don't see it fair that you say four editors were in the war, it was well more. Kalajan€₣ 16:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It was stated above that while other editors were making edits to the page those edits were not what contributed to the conflict that caused the page to be protected. And regarding your issues with Elkman and your block, I don't see an issue there. Tiptoey blocked you and Nikki311 (upon your request) evaluated your block and found it justified. Hazardous Matt 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving the discussion here so that other contributors can edit in peace (Matt, your comment here please). Kalajan€₣ 16:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're suggesting that you move the discussion regarding this article off of the articles talkpage? Hazardous Matt 16:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes because as you see this thing is getting heated up, it would cause a bad impression. Kalajan€₣ 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. Discussion goes HERE, this is the talkpage, not a page is your userpage. D.M.N. (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh god there are more rules here than in Naziland (Germany in WWII). Anyway, lets see, let's reach a consensus here. Now, we unblock the page, and if a user fires up a war, let he be blocked, not the page. My issues with Elkman started in april and it was all a mistake (Contact me Elkman). Let's say that almost everyone warred, that's that, and reach the consensus I suggested. Kalajan€₣ 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And the thread is Godwinned. Anyway, the policy is not for an immediate ban. An editor is to be warned and a ban may result if the editor in question does not stop the behavior they received the warning for. Hazardous Matt 16:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah, but they weren't even warned, just because I vandalized a page about 8M ago it dosen't mean I can't turn a new leaf. Kalajan€₣ 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You were warned for your edits repeatedly and disregarded them. Some of the edits done were good faith reversions, which while violating 3RR may not warrant warnings if it's to revert vandalism. Now, if we can please get back to addressing how to resolve the protection instead of just dwelling on the protection itself? Hazardous Matt 16:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course. Anyway, the user that wars will be warned, if he does it again blocked, and that's that. Kalajan€₣ 16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop focusing on getting people blocked and please read below and contribue to this can be resolved. Hazardous Matt 17:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ted Dibiase

Why is he listed as inactive? He finished with the filming of The Marine 2, and appeared on this week's Raw, so he is not inactive anymore. --Pavlen (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read a few sections up you'll see that the page has been fully-protected due to edit wars. It will get updated eventually. Hazardous Matt 15:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)