Talk:The Undertaker/Archive 1

Finally the picture is changed

Thank you to whoever changed the picture, we can finally see who the guy is. --The Sess 22:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Return of the Brothers of Destruction

Anyone heard any rumors on the return of the Brothers of Destruction since The Undertaker and Kane are now on the same show. Maybe a "resurrection" of Paul Bearer as their manager.--The Sess 22:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Change the Picture already

The picture doesn't even show the front of his face and you can tell the picture has been zoomed in on because of its pixely appearence. Here's an idea lets put a picture up that shows his current persona and make sure it is actually perfessionally taken.--The Sess 22:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's way better than the other one. The old one didn't show his face, it was from the side, and it wasn't even his gimmick. This new FREE USE picture actually shows his face and his gimmick. If people want to see another picture, just scroll down in the article. --Mikedk9109 (sup) (stalk me) 23:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Great American Bash

I'm going to remove the part about the punjabi prison match being changed to against Big Show. It has not been reported on WWE.com, despite Bobby Lashley's identical condition, reported on dirt sheets at the same time, being referenced there. 60.224.193.192 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

trimming

Mike, I'm begging ya. I'm begging ya. really. guys, help me out here. Mike, don't shorten it. it looks bad

The article is too long and looks boring. It needs mixed up and is was way past the wikipedia article size limit before i trimmed and cleaned it up. This is an encyclopedia not a match-by-match news site. Just like there is no week-by-week, why should there be so many previous events that happened really close in time. They just arent needed for this article.

--Mikedk9109 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

the article is fine as is

Undertaker's height and weight

6'5? Are you smoking crack? Wow, ok ive seen this guy live ringside, and he is a lot bigger than 6'5. He is more like 6'8. Hes like Kane, he wears padded heels in his boots. -Undertakerlives

6'10? Whoever put that in was smoking crack. The guy's only like 6'5 1/2 - wrestling stats are complete lies.

Undie is two inches shorter that Nash and Nash legit height is 6'9. I would guestimate Undie is 6'7. The WWE stats are rubbish tho, yes.(Halbared 13:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC))

Shouldn't some differentiation be made between the Undertaker's real height and weight and his billed height and weight? His billed WWE stats are 6ft 10 ins and 305 lbs (not 328, ignore WWE.com, they just haven't bothered to update his Superstar page! If you listen to the ring announcer when the Undertaker is making his way to the ring, he quite clearly says 305 lbs). However, in real life, he is in actual fact only 6ft 8 ins and 280 lbs. Luke Edhouse 02:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The weight sounds accurate, he is in the best shape he has been in for years. Where did you get the height from?(Halbared 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Actually, he's legitimately 305 lbs, but his real height is 6'8". Trosk 21:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

He isn't legitimately 305 lbs at all Trosk, it is a known fact that WWE exaggerate both the height and weight of their talent to make them appear bigger. Although the Undertaker is billed as being 6' 10" and 305 lbs, Calaway is in fact only 6' 8" and 280-285 lbs (it fluctuates slightly from time to time obviously, but he tends to remain in the 280-285 pound region these days). Luke Edhouse 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How would you know his real weight? You work for him? Trosk 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

To Trosk: No, I do not work for him, but "Toxxic", a top wrestling magazine often features listings of wrestlers' real heights and weights as opposed to what the wrestling promotions bill them as. In WWE, for example, the general rule is that in certain cases, 2 inches are added on to a talent's height and 20-30 pounds is added on to a talent's weight to make them appear even larger than they already are. In the Undertaker's case, his WWE weight is 305 lbs, however, his real weight is in the region of 285 lbs (as reported in Toxxic). Also, although you'll come across a few discrepencies on the Internet, if you check out one of the top, most reliable unofficial Undertaker websites PhenomForever.com, it backs this up based on real wrestling data information sources as opposed to 'manufactured' ones I guess you could call them.

Well to be acturate the undertaker is 6' 11 and a half and i know this because i have a picture take with him and i with a height chart behind us but he's out of his undertaker get up just dressed normal before the match this was taken in 1997 in toronto . and i am pretty sure his boots cant have that much padding, but i could be wrong

How tall would that make Kevin Nash? Or Paul Wright? I personally think that Undie is not even 6 ft 8 in, but it is more accurate than 6 ft 11 in I think.(Halbared 07:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

P.S. I recommend this Undertaker website to everyone, it is one of the best Undertaker websites you'll find and your ultimate #1 Undertaker resource on the Intetnet. Luke Edhouse 00:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Luke, stop plugging that stupid phenom site on here. How the hell would they know any of his "true" stats anyhow? .Undertakerlives

Actually The Undertaker is 6'11 305 lbs. I had a picture with him at the Wrestlemania Rage party the day before Wrestlemania XV and he was clearly a foot taller than i was. Back in 1998, They billed the Undertaker as 7 feet 328 lbs. But his correct height is 6'11. He's definitly not 6'5 because Test is 6'7-6'8 and when Undertaker fought him at Summerslam 2002, he was about 4 inches taller. If you actually saw when The Great Khali and The Undertaker stood face to face, you can tell Khali was 4 inches taller at 7'3. This person needs to get his facts straight

Test is not more than 6 ft 5 in. I estimate that Undie is not above 6 ft 7 in.(Halbared 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

It makes me sick how people over-estimate the kayfabe of wrestler's heights. Undertaker is 6'8", not 6'5. Kane (Glen Jacobs) is about the same height. Kevin Nash is 6'11"- legitimately, check out the NCAA acrchives and look at the 1979-1980 Tennessee Volunteers (Nash played center, which means he would have to be pretty tall). Back to Undertaker (who also played college ball) he is 6'8". As stated above, he quite possibly may be a bit taller than 6'8", as he isn't completely dwarfed by the Great Khali (who is a legit 7'2 or 3).

I've analyzed some of his pictures... I estimate his height at somewhere around 6'6

I wish WWE would give his actual height and not the height with the padding in his boots! It confuses people.

He's 6'8, they say it in his biography on the very first page. They say he's 6'8. There's no way he's 6'5.

He's about 6'9 1/2 or a legit 6'10. Look at him when he came face to face with Khali for the first time, they were very close to being eye to eye. 'Taker has to be at least 6'9 & some inches. Son of Kong 33:7 3 August 2006

It's clear from reading all this that no one knows the undertaker's height or his weight for that matter. People are positive about so many things so since you're all thinking something different in regards to his height and his weight because he doesn't keep changing from 6'5 6'9 6'7, etc. Why don't you all just agree to disagree and go back to what the WWE originally states him as being 6'10 and 328 pounds

I agree that 'Taker is 6'10 but he is NOT 328 lbs. If he was he'd be fat but he's not. He's only around 285-305 lbs.

I found a picture of Calaway face to face with Kane when he first became the American Badass & he had an inch over Kane. As the American Badass he more than likely didn't wear shoe lifts so he definitely has to be taller than Kane.

The Undertaker is 6'8". everyone argues about wrestlers height and weight. Brock Lesnar is 6'4", Kane is 6'8" he wears lifts. Batista is 6'5". End of the height disscusion.

Like I said, he is 6'10, 328 pounds. It's done people. please. end it. leave it at that. As soon as a girl came up behind me and started arguing about 328 being fat, the arguing started up again. Just end it. Tonetare 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Calaway is 6'10 because when Jacobs was Isaac Yankem & they fought Calaway had an inch on him. Jacobs has said that he's about 6'9 so he was probably wearing lifts he was about 6'10 but Calaway wore lifts making him a half an inch taller. So, leave his height at 6'10 & his weight is 300lbs, nothing more, nothing less. Son of Kong

I agree with you Son Of Kong. Tonetare 22:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just leave it at 6'10 or 6'9. Son of Kong

No, it's been discussed to death already. He played center in college basketball, and thus his height at the time is a matter of public record, at 6' 8". While some people do continue to grow after the age when they'd be in college, it is generally an inch, at the most. His weight is around 305, based on his build and how much of it appears to be muscle. -Darryl Hamlin 07:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with the height, I'd say that his weight varies from 285-298. Son of Kong

Birth date

The last editor has sent detailed information to verify the change of birth date which is quoted (incorrectly) as 1962 by several sources including IMDb. I won't paste his email here, but the information is available if needed. I've also invited him to this page to add any comments that would help. -- sannse (talk) 22:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The information sannse is refering to is an e-mail which was sent to me from the website administrator at Waltrip High School's website, the high school which Calaway attended as a teenager. The webmaster confirmed details that Mark's surname is spelt "Calaway" (note: just one 'L') and that he graduated from the Class of 1983 aged 18, born March 24, 1965. As sannse said, whilst the information is not posted here but it is indeed available if needed. -- Luke Edhouse 01:31, 28 Jan 2005

The original e-mail correspondance sent and received between myself and the Webmaster of Waltrip High School's website which outlines and confirms Mark Calaway's name spelling and date of birth is below:

Forwarded Message

Subject: RE: Waltrip High School Website Date: 28/09/2004 14:16:44 GMT Standard Time From: rlipham@houstonisd.org To: LukeEdhouse@aol.com

I stand corrected. The correct spelling is indeed Calaway. I was a metal shop teacher at the time and had him in my class. He was a real quiet but pleasant kid. As far as his age you are correct to guess that he would have been 18 at his graduation in 1983. So yes he must have been born in March 1965.

Richard Lipham

Original Message

From: LukeEdhouse@aol.com Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 9:04 AM To: Lipham, Richard W Subject: Waltrip High School Website

Dear Webmaster

I was reading the Waltrip High School website and on the Waltrip Trivia page, I came across this:

"The professional wrestler known as The Undertaker graduated from Waltrip in 1983 as Mark Calloway. He was a member of the basketball team."

I knew that "The Undertaker" had attended Waltrip High School and I've researched and written some information for a # 1 Biography site and Internet resoucre on the Undertaker/Mark Calaway www.Undertaker-WWE.com

One thing I wanted to query is that I was under the impression that his surname was spelt 'Calaway' not 'Calloway' i.e. you said that he graduated as 'Mark Calloway' in 1983 but in the basketball team photo you have put on site, his surname is listed as 'Calaway'. Would you be able to clear up any confusion on that matter at all?

Also, lastly, if Mark Calaway graduated from Waltrip in 1983, does that mean he was 18-years-old in 1983, i.e. born in 1965?

Any information you would be able to respond to would be fantastic and greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Luke Edhouse

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Luke_Edhouse"

Sit up sig move?

I was just wondering since only Undertaker and Kane get up from being knocked down by chair shots etc in the 'sit up' manner could it be considered a signature move? Or for that would it have to be an actual 'attack'? Night Bringer

Wel, it is a signiture of his, and he does move... so I reckon it could be a signiture move. Hes famous for it.Emi211 06:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An update on the date of birth issue

I sent IMDb.com the detailed and reliable information on Mark Calaway's date of birth being March 24, 1965 and NOT 1962 but they aren't interested. So, a note to all readers of this page would be to just ignore IMDb's date of birth entry because, A. Not only is it wrong, but, B. They are unwilling to change it, as you can from the message they sent to me below:

---

Re: Mark Calaway's date of birth by - IMDb Help Desk (21 Apr 2005 11:22:39 AM)

---

Hello

Thanks for your message.

There are many 'official' sources giving different dates of birth for Mark, however we are satisfied that ours is correct and will not be changing it unless we receive communication from Mark himself.

Many thanks

Regards, Alex The IMDb Help Desk

What's your source that's more accurate than theirs? NightShade 01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, IMDb even told me that their information wasn't gained from either Mark Calaway or the WWE, but is the information as posted by an IMDb member. There are lots of sources to corroborate that Calaway was born in 1965, do you want me to list them all here? For a start, he was 18 when he grdauated from Waltrip High School in 1983, do the math and you can work out what year hw would have been born. The evidence/source for that statement has already been posted on this discussion page. Luke Edhouse 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Hello, I thought I'd like to add my own bit to the mystique that is Undertaker.

The Undertaker is one of the Only WWE Characters (Then the WWF), to act in a Bollywood movie, Khiladiyon Ke Khiladi.

The actor Akshay Kumar, who is a martial arts exponent, is said to have hurt his back while lifting Undertaker high in the air, apparently for a extended bodyslam. Akshay Kumar was out of business, for six months.

I'm not sure why you posted this on the talk page. Do you want to add this to the article? --Chrysaor June 30, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

This is incorrect. According to Percy Pringle III the real Undertaker, Mark Calaway, did NOT appear in that movie. It was a faker and was falsely billed. Dragon December 24, 2005

Old School

The base move of Old School is Flying Shoulder Breaker, not Flying Clothesline. It does look like Flying Clothesline but in fact the Undertaker is targetting the shoulder blades instead of the back of neck. And after he does the move, sometimes the victim would grab his shoulder and stalk in pain.

yeah is the undertaker a bjj studier too? bjj07

"redneck biker"?

Is that NPOV? Ctrl-F for it, you'll see it... ;-) --Jack (Cuervo) 8 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)

Don't believe so, since I think he self-identified as a redneck a few times.

Article size

I see that Undertaker's article, and the articles of other WWE superstars get constantly updated, pretty much after every RAW or Smackdown show, not to mention PPV's. Should we really do it? The article is gargantuan as it is now, and I don't think that Taker's feud with Orton should be described with every new development of it... I think that all of those articles should be trimmed. (DuDe)

what i noticed (which i also do) after some time people shorten the paragraphs as they type up new ones

add back the info and stop making the decade of destruction years so short. it's irritating and it's missing major events

YO DUDE, I agree with you. Before it had undertaker started off as wrestler with purple boot spats knee high boots and a stetson bowler hat. Some fool got rid of that and shortened the whole decade of destruction years. And in addition, all this information is a SPOILER and there a rules about spoilers and spoiling these events. It shouldn't have whetehr Taker won or lost as that could spoil the event and there are also people spoilign recent Undertaker matches. They come on here and write what exactly happened on smackdown because it occured on Tuesday and airs on Friday and they spoil it for me and lots of other users. This article just need to stick to who the Undertaker is. Describe his wrestling character (how it includes mind games, how he enters, how he is scary etc.), all of his different outfits and hairstyles, wrestling moves, his different music. Not all this continually updated info and spoiling info.

I think that only important matches in his career and ppv matches should be put in, which isnt alot, this would considerably shorten the article size.

Clean up

This article needs to be cleaned up - the sections need to be summarized and there's some cluttered lists near the end of it. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Last Name Spelling

This is a point I feel great need to redress. In Journey into Darkness, Mark's last name is spelled Callaway. Given that the book was published by WWE books, and the fact that the WWE obviously had some control over this, I feel that continuously removing my edit that pointsa out that the double l spelling of Callaway may be accurate to be in poor taste and I ask that it be stopped. -- Warwolf

This has been addressed here before. See the e-mail exchange at the beginning of the talk page - that pretty much settled the matter about the spelling. Just because the book is published by WWE, doesn't mean that the facts presented in it hold any water. Tales from Wrescal Lane and Mick Foley's Christmas Chaos were published by WWE as well - that doesn't mean we can make inferences based on them. If Journey into Darkness was a real-life biography, then it would be a more authoritative source. Considering that this book is a fictional account about the history of the Kane and Undertaker characters, it's not a good idea to make inferences based on it. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I hardly think the e-mail exchange "settled" the matter. Why would a website administrator be absolutely certain about the precise spelling of the surname of a pupil who graduated twenty years earlier? Moreover, why would WWE deliberately spell his name only slightly incorrectly? McPhail 09:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I assumed it was settled considering no one has changed the blurb about the other spellings being incorrect. Look at the Yearbook photo. A real high school yearbook is far more reliable than a work of fiction. Despite being published by WWE, the book on Kane has its share of continuity problems with WWE storylines (See Glen Jacobs#Journey into Darkness). If we want to continue to speculate, the author may have also misspelled the name as well. I'll take the word of someone who actually had the guy in his class and a high school yearbook over using speculation about a work of fiction. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the yearbook picture is pretty conclusive proof. McPhail 17:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I also remember seeing his father's obituary in the online version of the Houston Chronicle (followed a link from a wrestling site), and the name there was Calaway as well. — Dale Arnett 17:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Taker goes by "Callaway" in Shawn Michaels' new book. Just putting it out there. Maestro25 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, people can argue about the surname spelling issue as much as they want. I accept the fact that in several WWE affiliated publications Calaway's name has actually been spelt "Callaway", I'm not sure why that is. I could list a whole number of instances where is has been spelt "Calaway", whether it be on the closing credits of the 1991 movie "Suburban Commando", on the A&E Biography documentary on Mick Foley, on Percy Pringle's official website, his father's obituary in the Houston Chronicle newspaper, his High School Yearbook basketball team photo, the original e-mail from the Waltrip High School website administrator who was also one of Calaway's teachers who checked records to confirm the information. Right, I've listed all of my sources, not that it's made me feel any better. If you want to dispute the name spelling then do so, I have just as many reasonably reliable sources of information as other people claim to. There will be cynical people who will probably laugh or throw accusations of lying, but the less immature people who will have the decency to believe that I am not immature enough to lie over something so trivial may be interested to know I have a friend in the United States who has also checked official records of registered births in 1965 in Houston, Texas and "Mark Calaway" spelt "Calaway" (born March 24, 1965, father Frank and mother Catherine) is one of the names listed. Why the spelling of "Callaway" crops up in certain WWE related material I do not know, just as I do not know why some people also reference and claim "Calloway" to be the correct spelling when it is not.

Regards,

Luke Edhouse 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, in my description of the revert back to "Mark William Calaway", I typed "Callaway" by mistake, didn't mean for there to be two L's.

Luke Edhouse 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The IMDB has now changed The Undertaker's entry to "Mark Calaway". McPhail 15:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you notice in the Biography of the Undertaker's/Mark Calaway's IMDB profile by clicking on the "More" link, they have his birth name listed as "Mark Lucas Callaway" which is completely wrong and based on information sent in by a fan. His middle name is not Lucas and the spelling of Calaway has one letter L not two. The same issue exists with his date of birth which has been listed as March 24, 1962 since the profile was first set up and information was added by, yes, you guessed it, just a fan. I have contacted them several times with the supporting evidence I have to corroborate that Calaway's birth name indeed only contains one L, that there is no documented or substantiated proof that his middle name is Lucas and that it is in fact Mark William Calaway according to official birth records for Houston, Texas in 1965 and that he was born in 1965 not 1962 but they refuse to change it and say they are no longer accepting edits to Mark Calaway's personal details unless they come from Mark himself or his agent. Luke Edhouse 02:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

To support the spelling with 1 L: His close friend and colleague Percy Pringle (aka Paul Bearer) spells his name as Calaway on his website: http://percypringle.com/Hall-of-Fame/HOF-Undertaker.html

Ericinho, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Others

Who removed the 2 Undertaker pics I posted on the "Return of the deadman" part. And why!?

Possibly they were unlicensed? McPhail 17:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I am changing the the word "employee" in the intro to "wrestler". WWE wrestlers are not nor ever have been employees in WWE, WCW, ECW, TNA, or Independents. They are independent contractors as stated in the WWE financials. From a legal standpoint, there is a big difference. I am a supporter that Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible. Please refrain from referring to wrestlers as employees. ABB

Merge "Incarnations" with WWE/F Section

Can someone merge the Incarnations section with the WWE/F so that the page can be organized and it takes up space.

Appearances

Shouldnt there be some mention of his guest appearances? Such as his bounty hunter role in Hulk Hogans movie, Suburban Commando? --GimpyTheGreat 09:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ring Name At WWF Debut And Subsequent Appearances

The name used for Mark Calaway at Survivor Series 1990 was The Undertaker [1]. For a brief time in late 1990/early 1991, he was billed on WWF TV as Kane, The Undertaker. The "Kane" portion was dropped after Brother Love was replaced as his manager by Paul Bearer. - Chadbryant 20:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure he wasn't hailed as Kane the Undertaker at Survivors? Halb

I'll back up Chad. It was just "The Undertaker" at SS. I checked the video today. BoosterBronze 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)BoosterBronze

Nope. The Ring Announcer said "Kane, The Undertaker" http://youtube.com/watch?v=dAK6jrjp1Ko Proof's in the pudding.

Both videos have been removed at YouTube, but I can assure you he was introduced as "The Undertaker" at Survivor Series. If the second video had a ring announcer announcing him as "Kane the Undertaker", it could not have been at his debut. He was not introduced by a ring announcer; he was introduced by Ted DiBiase on the house mic. I have it on tape, and DiBiase clearly says: "I give you: THE UNDERTAKER!" He was, for a short time thereafter, billed as "Kane the Undertaker" (as others have stated); so if the video has an announcer introducing him that way, it was from a smaller show after the Survivor Series. Tuckdogg 04:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: Link to his Debut: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQbX13hDTLo&search=undertaker. Link will probably be dead before long. Just search for "Undertaker" at YouTube and you can generally find it posted somewhere. If it's not an introduction by Ted DiBiase (with commentary by Gorilla Monsoon and Roddy Piper), it's the wrong video. Tuckdogg 04:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

His debut DID refer to him as just The Undertaker but he WAS referred to as Kane, The Undertaker early in his career.

However, I remember watching a copy of Survivor Series from The Undertaker's debut and Ted DiBiase says "Kane, The Undertaker" and it brought memories of Poltergeist into my brain. A few years later, I watched the actual video tape produced by the WWF/WWE and the name "Kane" had been edited out. Too bad the videos on YouTube have been removed. I hope someone can find extra proof of this.

Article Size

This article is a frequent target for unregistered or new editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of the subject's in-ring career. This is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. More experienced good-faith editors should watch for irrelevant additions to this article that will only serve to make it larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar. - Chadbryant 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Who summarized the decade of destruction years? It had so much good info before. This section of this article from 1990 to 1999 (The decade of destruction years) has been summarized way to small. There are major events in those years that are not mentioned and in the part about the first inferno, the summarizer didn't even announce the winner. Add back the info and stop shortening it so unreasonably like you have. How rude to keep getting rid of so much of someone's research

Children?

Are those the true names of his two daughters? Just wondering.And does he have another child with his ex-wife? Just wondering. User:MgHoneyBee Mar.23,2006

Yes, Chasey and Gracie are indeed the names of his two daughters with his wife Sara. He does have another child from his previous marriage, a son, born in 1994. Some websites and other sources report that Calaway has two sons from his first marriage, but there is only documented evidence for him having one son and when Percy Pringle (aka Paul Bearer) was once asked about this, he stated that the Undertaker has only one son from his marriage to ex-wife Jodi Lynn. Luke Edhouse 01:57, 1 April 2006

Thanks! Do you know the name of his son? User:MgHoneyBee Apr.2,2006

I'm pretty sure his son's name is Gunner. User:Undertakerlives

I'm not 100% sure of his son's name. Some websites report him having two sons, but I've only been made aware of one son, which was information shared by Percy Pringle (Paul Bearer). The only site to list a name for his son(s) has been IMDb.com, others have since copied the information and put it on their own websites. I would agree with User:Undertakerlives and say that his son's name is Gunner, but due to the rather unreliable nature of IMDd.com's information regarding Mark Calaway has come to light, I can't back that up.

Name change

Can't we move the article to The Undertaker for the same reasons as Triple H, Steve Austin, and The Rock? He has spent 16 years under that same ring name. Maestro25 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Undertaker, like the wrestlers stated above, has trancended his fame to beyond the ring.

Name varification

I do not think that the WWE is lieing about his name The Undertaker but his real name is Mark Calloway because I tried to look him up under that name it poped up a lot of stuff on him and now they have changed his birth name. Furthermore, I know they can lie about the weight but I could see them making a mistake on the height though but I do not think that doctors know everything to the absolute fact on height and weight. If anybody has something to say you can email it to me under TripleTrinity06@sbcglobal.net or if you guys have a way to contact Mark himself give me a contact based upon his email or what not!

Sexystudd2010 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Tony

Actually, the information about the spelling on his name was obtained in an e-mail exchange with one of his high school teachers. It's posted here on the talk page if you'd like to see it yourself. As for height and weight, a variety of sources are used. For example, Powerslam magazine, which is less likely to use kayfabe heights than sources like WWE.com. Another source is people who go to see live events, where they can properly compare heights of wrestlers, and themselves.

Darryl Hamlin 16:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source that states that Mark's middles name is William? I haven't found anything yet. Thanks. User:MgHoneyBee Apr.2,2006

Calaway's surname and date of birth

I have received a message from Wikipedia asking me to post this information again for some reason, so here it is - it's just the same information which was posted previously on the Mark Calaway discussion page....

The original e-mail correspondance sent and received between myself and the Webmaster of Waltrip High School's website which outlines and confirms Mark Calaway's name spelling and date of birth is below:

---Forwarded Message---

Subject: RE: Waltrip High School Website

Date: 28/09/2004 14:16:44 GMT Standard Time

From: rlipham@houstonisd.org

To: LukeEdhouse@aol.com

I stand corrected. The correct spelling is indeed Calaway. I was a metal shop teacher at the time and had him in my class. He was a real quiet but pleasant kid. As far as his age you are correct to guess that he would have been 18 at his graduation in 1983. So yes he must have been born in March 1965.

Richard Lipham

---Original Message---

From: LukeEdhouse@aol.com

Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 9:04 AM

To: Lipham, Richard W

Subject: Waltrip High School Website

Dear Webmaster

I was reading the Waltrip High School website and on the Waltrip Trivia page, I came across this:

"The professional wrestler known as The Undertaker graduated from Waltrip in 1983 as Mark Calloway. He was a member of the basketball team."

I knew that "The Undertaker" had attended Waltrip High School and I've researched and written some information for a # 1 Biography site and Internet resoucre on the Undertaker/Mark Calaway www.Undertaker-WWE.com

One thing I wanted to query is that I was under the impression that his surname was spelt 'Calaway' not 'Calloway' i.e. you said that he graduated as 'Mark Calloway' in 1983 but in the basketball team photo you have put on site, his surname is listed as 'Calaway'. Would you be able to clear up any confusion on that matter at all?

Also, lastly, if Mark Calaway graduated from Waltrip in 1983, does that mean he was 18-years-old in 1983, i.e. born in 1965?

Any information you would be able to respond to would be fantastic and greatly appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Luke Edhouse

Luke Edhouse 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Mark's WM stick!

Mark is the mose Wester sines Bret "The Hitman" Hart his 14 stink Jimmy Snuka to Mark Henry!

- SMX

Sure, why not. Bcarlson33 23:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well sure, most of them do, but you still have the Jake the Snake, Diesel, Kane (first one), HHH, Ric Flair amd Randy Orton matches.(Halbared 09:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

Grammar

Which statement sounds better?

He went on to continue targeting WWF Champion Triple H, the leader of faction.

or

He went on to continue targeting their leader, WWF Champion Triple H.

Dbalsdon 13:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

the second one sounds way better

Never Submitted?

Taker never submitting is a bit of a misleading statement, in that while he has never cleanly tapped out to my knowledge, he has submitted to Angle as part of a draw, from Obbsessed with wrestling...

July 4, 2002 - Smackdown!: The Undertaker vs Kurt Angle ended in a NO CONTEST -- Undertaker retains! 220.239.241.191Kurt Angle had put a Triangle Chokehold on Undertaker, who tapped out just as the ref counted Angle's shoulders down.. 220.239.241.191After the confused referee discussed it with other referees, he declared the match----a DRAW! I'm gonna change it to "Undertaker has never lost a match via submission"

Undertaker has lost via submissiom(Halbared 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

When?

OK, I feel a bit amis not being able to give a date and time, but I simply can't recall that exactly, but when he was the Bad Ass character I remember him submitting, sorry I can't give details.(Halbared 08:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Undertaker lost a controversial decision to Kurt Angle via Submission once. I also believe he lost via Anklelock in a later match.

PPV Wins

Not that it's really relevant enough to be in the article, but Undertaker has more wins on PPV than any other wrestler(he's won 75 matches). TJ Spyke 01:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's unique, and certainly sounds relevant to me. PhilTLL 03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty relevant to me as well. It's an obscure, interesting little bit of information. Certainly isn't gonna hurt the article to have it included. It'd probably fit best, however, if the article had a trivia section.Odin's Beard 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Did someone move the page?

Why is this page now called "The undertaker"? If someone moved it, the least they could have done was capitalize "undertaker." Poofyspikes 00:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

WHO CHANGED THE PICTURE

WHO WAS SILLY ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE PHOTO TO WON YOU CAN BARELY SEE UNDERTAKER IN. A VERY SILLY PICTURE. USE ONE WITH JUST HIM SOMEONE PLEAE CHANGE IT.

Yeah - I don't like the choice of picture either. It is free and it does have the Undertaker in it, but whether it's a suitable free alternative to a good fair use picture is debatable. The one being used for Batista is OK, as is the one used for Hulk Hogan. This one is far too cluttered, with a huge crowd and several WWE performers in the picture. I think it should be changed as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Cropped it to show only the Undertaker. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The picture is extremely stupid, you can't even see his face. Somebody needs to change it, maybe to his current gimmick (Deadman). Just my opinion--The Sess 20:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be rude or insulting. I don't know who put that picture up but you're not being very civil in the way you're speaking to them 02:58, 4 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) .

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

Mark Calaway → The Undertaker – Calaway has performed under the stage/ring name of The Undertaker for over 15 years, making this move comply with WP:NAME. --Oakster ^(Talk) 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support The most successful gimmick wrestler ever, he will never change his name.(Halbared 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
• Support Many other wrestlers are under their gimmick names. Stone Cold Steve Austin for example. 66.176.85.30 21:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. McPhail 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, better known by the gimmick name. Oppose Actually, the gimmick name is owned by WWE, not Mark Calaway, wrestlers should only be under gimmick names if they own them. --Dubhagan 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is a large precedent for using wrestlers' real names as their wikipedia articles and, although Calaway is highly unlikely to gain wrestling acclaim under any other name and will likely be known as the undertaker to most people, this article is foremost about the person (hence the "shoot" information and discussion of his life outside of his character), and secondary about the character gimmick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemcarlson (talk • contribs)
• Oppose Luke Edhouse 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Davemcarlson. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support. WP:PW should go with ring names whenever they can - both to maintain kayfabe and to comply with WP:NC. kelvSYC 06:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Davemcarlson and the reasons I stated more fully here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Plotcheck#Discussion. Individual wrestlers should *never* be indexed under their character names. Tuckdogg 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support, 15+ years as Undertaker and hardly anyone would know his real name.Maestro25 04:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support He is most known by that name and many wrestlers have said that he answers primarily by that name outside of the ring.--Darren Jowalsen 18:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The only time I think a wrestler should have a wikipedia article under their gimmick name is if they have only wrestled under that name in any of the big promotions (WWE/WCW/ECW/TNA; any other big international fed including ones in asia and other areas). Mark Calaway has wrestled under other gimmicks names (for example as Mean Mark Callous in WCW) and therfore should be indexed by his real name. On a side I agree with Davemcarlson's idea that this is about Mark Calaway mainly and not the wrestling gimmick the undertaker. JohnstonDJ 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Why shouldn't wrestlers be allowed to be listed under their ring name? People like Snoop Dogg aren't listed under their real name. TJ Spyke 21:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: That depends on your viewpoint of things. My point (and the point others have made) is that, with wrestlers, there is a disconnect between the character (Undertaker) and the man playing him (Mark Calaway). They're acting, and their characters are not really any different than characters played by anyone else on TV. Kurt Angle is not really an arrogant prick; Mark Calaway is not an animated corpse; Mark Henry is not actually a 400lb. sex addict. They're just playing characters. The articles written here, for the most part, are not about the history of the character. The articles are about the man (or woman) behind the character. Sometimes, like with Kurt Angle or Mark Henry, the character name and real name are the same, so there isn't really a problem. When they're not, such as here, the article should be indexed under the real name, since that's the focus of the article. If someone wants to write a kayfabe article discussing the history of The Undertaker from a storyline perspective, I'd wholeheartedly endorse putting that under "Undertaker (wrestling)". But an article that discusses Mark Calaway's marriage, his children, his past in WCW and the characters he played there, etc. should not be indexed under "Undertaker" because it's not about that character. It's about Calaway the man, and should be under his own name. Just because other wrestlers customarily call someone by a readily recognizable character name ('Taker for Calaway, Cactus for Mick Foley, etc.) doesn't mean we need to ignore Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedic resource. Tuckdogg 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Oh, (duh), Snoop Doog. There's a difference between a stage name and a character name. Snoop Dogg selected that name for his rapping because it was more interesting than his own name. Nothing has changed about him, he just signs a different name. It's like an author using a pen name; same person, different name. They aren't playing a role, they've just changed their name for the public. Wrestlers, on the other hand, are playing characters. They act out the roles they've been given on television for entertainment purposes. These may sometimes closely resemble their real life personalities, but they are just taking the actions the script writers tell them to. Snoop can't go on MTV, shoot someone, and then tell the cops, "Dude, that was just my character Snoop. I was acting!" Mark Calaway can dress up like a zombie and bury his opponents in caskets and no one thinks, "Man, that Mark Calaway guy is strange." The actions are atributed to the character, not the man. That's the disconnect, and that's why the vast majority of wrestlers should not be indexed under their character names. Tuckdogg 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - we should use his true name.--Aldux 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Most people know him as The Undertaker. Simple as that in my opinion.--Yugioh73036 03:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Yugioh73036

• Oppose - While Calaway is best known for wrestling as The Undertaker, that would be like moving Richard Dean Anderson to Angus MacGyver -Darryl Hamlin 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Personally, I really don't think it's that important. If you search for "The Undertaker" it redirects you straight to the Mark Calaway page anyway. Although "The Undertaker" is the name Calaway is best known by, some would argue that it is common for most professional wrestlers' Wikipedia pages to be listed under their real names. Some may also argue that the pre-WWE career, biographical and personal information pertain to the man Mark Calaway as opposed to just the Undertaker character. I personally believe it's fine leaving it as Mark Calaway with a redirect from The Undertaker, but if majority of people here really want it changed to The Undertaker, then sobeit, I'll support that decision simply because I don't really care that much to be honest. Luke Edhouse 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is important - putting it at "The Undertaker" gives a little too much creedence to kayfabe, when we should be focusing the real man himself. There's a smaller gap between say, Chris Jericho and Chris Irvine than Undertaker and Mark Calaway. The Undertaker is an undead, supernatural character while Mark Calaway is a mortal guy. While the "American Badass" gimmick shortened the gap somewhat, he's returned to old character since and will mainly be associated with that gimmick. This is why I oppose the move. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On a related note - this was raised with Chris Jericho and someone proposing to move it to Chris Irvine. It didn't apply there because the gap between the character and real life wasn't as large, but moving Mark Calaway to the Undertaker would sort of be like moving Patrick Stewart to Jean-Luc Picard. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So, perhaps I'm being to unempowered and giving in in order to perhaps keep the majority happy, if it is indeed the majority? Hmm... in that case, instead of being flippant and not really caring, I'll go with what was my personal gut feeling and oppose the move as opposed to just supporting it for the hell of it. Luke Edhouse 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A wrestling gimmick is different than a part played by an actor. Many wrestlers on here are under their gimmick name (Alex Shelley, Chris Sabin, Eric Young, Sting, Axl Rotten, Danny Doring, C.W. Anderson, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Balls Mahoney, Al Snow, Juventud Guerrera, Tazz, Rob Van Dam, Ric Flair... Need I mention more?). And according to Wikipedia's naming conventions, we should use the name they are best known by, which in this case is his gimmick name. --Dubhagan 03:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, wrestling gimmicks are different from actors, but they still shouldn't be confused with each other. Those other cases are exceptions, where the distinction doesn't matter as much. However, I hold that the difference between "The Undertaker" and Mark Calaway" is extremely large - particularly because because the Undertaker is an "undead" character while Calaway is regular man. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; wrestling characters are EXACTLY like other TV characters played by actors. The only difference is that wrestling used to try and maintain kayfabe. Kayfabe is largely dead now; the only real vestiges of it remaining is the tendency to refer to the wrestlers by their character names instead of their real names (e.g. most other wrestlers call Mick Foley "Cactus" instead of Mick). The two should be kept separate in an encyclopedic resource. Check out imdb.com, another reference site, which indexes all wrestlers under their real names and lists their stage names as the "characters" they play on TV (as it should). I don't consider this an issue of indexing them under their "most commonly known name", because the character and the person playing them are completely different (even if we confuse them). I read an interview with a wrestler once that summed the distinction up perfectly: "Steve Austin is the one on TV raising hell. Steve Williams cashes the paychecks." Tuckdogg 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also say that if the wrestlers noted above are all indexed currently by their character names, they should be moved, and not the other way around. Tuckdogg 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, ownership of name should be taken into consideration. --Dubhagan 05:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Result

No consensus (actually, pretty much 50-50). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Support The name needs to be changed to the Undertaker

Cain or Kane

If I remember correctly, Cain was the correct spelling of the name when he was wrestling early on in the WWF/E. They just recycled it with the spelling "Kane" for Glen Jacobs. If anyone can shed light on which spelling is correct, like with a video with him labeled as "Cain" or "Kane" would help. MB 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As per Obsessed with Wrestling it's spelt Kane. --- Lid 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you give a link to the scan? MB 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the official US Patent and Trademark Office website, showing the transcript of a trademark application for the name "Kane The Undertaker" filed by WWE back in 1990 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pbk290.2.1. Hope that clears the issue up. Luke Edhouse 01:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is broken, but I searched for it myself and found that "Kane the Undertaker" was indeed trademarked by the WWF/E. I could have sworn seeing a video of one of his matches where it said "Cain the Undertaker" though. MB 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's possible. WWE sometimes play around with names right at the beginning. An examples of this is Ludwig Borge/Ludvig Borga.(Halbared 09:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

Well what I say isn't the be all and end all obviously, but I've never come across any videos where the Undertaker's name was spelt "Cain the Undertaker", I've only ever seen one which said "Kane the Undertaker", however, even when the ring announcer would announce him as "Kane the Undertaker" most of the time his name flashed up as just "The Undertaker". The only thing I will say about the Ludwig/Ludvig example, is that's a more commonly occuring spelling variation of the name because of the name's origin. However, another example of this would be Dennis Knight's name Midian/Mideon - WWE used "Midian" before deciding to go with the "Mideon" spelling. Anyway, "Kane the Undertaker" was the only trademark name that WWE registered in 1990, they never filed a "Cain the Undertaker" trademark. P.S. Apologies for the broken link - not my fault, it seems that the US Patent and Trademark Office's website doesn't allow links to pages to be stored. Still, as MB said, you can search for it yourself at http://www.uspto.gov/ and you'll find it. Luke Edhouse 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They changed the Ludvig thing so that it was spelt phonetically. I had forgotten aboot the Mideon one, I was trying to remember Bastion Booger, tho am not sure on that one.(Halbared 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

It was actually more because of where Ludvig Borga was announced from - Helsinki, Finland. "Ludwig" is a famous German version of the name spelt with a 'w' (e.g. Ludwig van Beethoven) but "Ludvig" is a more common Scandinavian version of then name spelt with a 'v'. As for the Borge/Borga bit, well, I'll shut up because I don't know, hahaha. Luke Edhouse 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's because Borge was pronounced Borga by Tony Halme (there is also a famous entertainer with the same name in the USA), even though it is spelt Borge. And I guess American (going off Websters) prefer phonetic spellings.(Halbared 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC))

Ah, okay, I see. Sorry, I'll stop clogging up this section now, haha! :-) Luke Edhouse 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

His WWF/WWE debut was as the Surprise Partner for Ted DiBiase's team during Survivor Series 1990. The actual title line on the screen was "Kane, The Undertaker". I saw this on PPV and then my local stations stopped carrying wrestling for a month. When they brought it back, "Kane" had been dropped, so I was confused.

I found this link verifying the use of the name "Kane, The Undertaker" http://www.wrestleview.com/info/faq/undertaker.shtml If someone can show me how to link it into the main page or do it for me, it'd be appreciated. Until someone proves me wrong about this, please stop changing the info on the main page.

You both are right -- I have (or had) a few early matches of the Undertaker, and in one of them the title on the screen was "Cain the Undertaker". Not sure when they used "Kane the Undertaker", but in any case, both names were only used briefly. -ZW

Locking the article

I REALLY think this article should be locked. Some stupid fanboys keep adding the most irrevelent of details, like the color eyeliner, boots, and tights he wears on what seems like a week by week basis. Furthermore, the article keep reverting to a tone that makes it sound like it was written by the 5 year old son of a WWE writer (ie: "It was at Royal Rumble where the Undertaker would would face the most feared wrestler in the world, the 7-foot beast known as Kane, in a match that can only be described as sickening: The Hell in a Cell. Such a twisted structure had seen the most brutal of fights, bla bla bla.....!!!") And the version of the article that keeps being reverted to is not separated into paragraphs, but rather blocks of text that span multiple pages and don't have any subtitles/divisions. This is all fine and dandy if you run a fanboy website, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It would probably be in everyone's best interest if we prevented these people from editing the article anymore. Y2kcrazyjoker 05:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY like the changes made to the article. Wow, am I impressed by the sweetie pie who made the changes. He neatly separated them into years and just did excellently. As for that loser who was saying it was separated into blocks. I erased what he wrote and I neatly created it into non blocks to shut his little punk mouth up

Dont lock the page, just edit the "5 Year olds" writing. Taker's early career really did need to be updated- how can the 2006 section be the same length as the entire 1990's? Y2KCRAZYJOKER I made u a page. go read it bitch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabcan (talk • contribs)

Your IP and account are logged, by the way, so you aren't anonymous. I would suspect you won't be allowed to edit articles from here on out. Y2kcrazyjoker 19:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Who put that pansy ass picture of Taker up? Can we get a good one?

Y2kcrazyjoker enough. stop harassing users. I love this article by the way

Poor Undertaker picture!

Who ever put that picture of Undertaker up? That does not represent him in his character which he is so known by and it could mislead people making them believe he is using the American Badass gimmick.

I would suggest a latest picture of Undertaker from WWE.com, possibly one of the ones from his Judgement Day appearances, there are a few to choose from on WWE.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.214.172 (talk • contribs)

This article is about Mark Calaway, not the Undertaker gimmick exclusively. That's a good free picture of him there and free pictures are favored over fair use ones. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so. But it is mostly talking about his westling career as "The Undertaker" You cannot see him cleary in that picture anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.214.172 (talk • contribs)

It's suitable and it's free. And even if it mostly talks about "The Undertaker" it's still about the man behind the character. We should worry far more about the article text than the picture. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummm can't people actually get a picture in where Taker actually looks that the picture he is taken in, like when he's signing autographs?.

Also, there are hadly any pictures of him in his character. Whatever happpened to the thing that was on here a while back which had the various stages of his character, from original all the way through to the appearance he uses now, it had step by step pictures. I feel this needs to be introduced on this page once again.

Encyclopedia?

I really don't care either way, but we need to decide if it is OK or not to have the constant little itty bitty updates on the kayfabe happenings. WHile the recent campaign against the such seems orchestrated by only a handful of users (the list of articles targeted by kayfabe or whatever category was only created by one person and has never been modified) they may (or may not) have a legitimate point. BMSprint 12:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling seems to have largely decided against this and one of the active topics is a war on "week-by-week" edits. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Height info

As Great Khali made his debut,standing face to face with the Undertaker,taker was up to Khalis eyes.This confirms that he is only 3.5-5 inches shorter. Since Khalis height is in actual terms 7'3, Undertakers height will have to be 6'10 to 6'11.5.

Undertaker is 6'10 1/2 --Mikedk9109 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC) why does someone keep changing Undertakers height to 6'8 whilst it is 6'10 to 6'10 1/2

Because he is 6 ft 8 in.(Halbared 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

At The Great American bash, Michael Cole introduced The Undertaker as 6 foot 10!

We're talking legitimate here, not kayfabe.(Halbared 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

Oh for goodness sake already, for ones in for all, how tall is the man? We probably need someone professional like someone from the WWE to actually come on here and state his height. I have heard all the way from 6'7 to 6'11 from you all which are to completely different measurements. I can't trust what anyone says on here

New picture?

Is It time that we updated this picture as it is currently dated and makes him look like a street bum in a shelter.Image:Undertaker.jpg --Lucy-marie 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I Agree someone should change it --Dustind

The picture is free use. So, unless you can find a better free use photo than that, it stays.

--Mikedk9109 20:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My Pics

I put a pic of Mark as THE COMMANDO & as "MEAN" MARK CALLOUS. Who keeps deleteing them? Please stop. --Dustind

Well, they arent needed, and they disrupt the text very much. --Mikedk9109 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a rude thing to do? Dustind, I have been treated unfairly quite a bit on wikipedia. It's just something you have to put up with. I really liked the picture you had up here and I admire your contributions to this wwe site. I hate it when people ride roughshod on other people on this site and just utterly disrespect them by getting rid of things that other people worked hard to get and put on here. Mikedk9109, please don't harass users. I've looked at the work that Dustind has done on this site and he's made some great contributions, one of them being that picture. Dustind, I hope you put your picture back up :) sorry you have a harasser dude User:crabcan

I never harassed anyone. They make the text all messed up and unable to read. So, dont say I harassed anyone. Because you dont know what your talking about. --Mikedk9109 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the user page of the person who claims to be Crabcan, Mikedk9109. -Darryl Hamlin 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I did, that user was blocked indefinately. I left one picture of yours on the Undertaker article Dustind. Happy now? --Mikedk9109 14:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Darryl don't cause trouble. It seems like these three have all compromised which is pretty cool. It was nice of that user to stand up for Dustind and Mikedk9109, that was nice of you to leave a picture of something he left up. I know how it is getting disrespected on wikipedia too and that can offend. By the way Miked9109, I also know what you mean about folks coming on here writing stuff that doesn't make any sense. Was that Dustind? If so Dustind, maybe you can avoid people erasing so much of your information by checking your grammar and whatnot and maybe asking a parent in your dwelling how to spell certain words

Ok. Well all Dustind did to mess up the article was, he put the pics right next to eachother and it majorly disrupted the text. So I got rid of them. So I decided to leave one up as long as it was in the proper format to fit the article. --Mikedk9109 02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ok Mikedk9109, you're no harasser. You're just a good kid looking out for the page's best interest. Maybe you and I can make our own page together one day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) .

well Mikedk9109 couldn't find it in his heart to say thank you for my comment, but that's how some people are I guess 23:10, 3 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) .

Grammar

Calaway debuted in the World Wrestling Federation as The Undertaker (A character based on a Chicago area independent wrestler named Clyde.) on November 22, 1990 at Survivor Series 1990. Before Calaway debuted, he appeared as Kane The Undertaker in different house shows but the "Kane" was soon dropped, ironically, later becoming the name of his storyline half-brother, Kane.

The word "ironically" used here is incorrect. THere is no irony at all in the fact Kane was the name of the brother character whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs) .

Please don't nitpick as it can create bad feelings with users. thank you 03:01, 4 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) .

It's not nitpicking. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must adhere to the highest standards of use of the English language. Which includes using all words with their proper meanings, not the colliquial meanings they've obtained from years of misuse. -Darryl Hamlin 05:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just end it. it's done. it was nitpicking. leave it at that. Thank you!

Sorry, but I don't believe in redefining words to back my arguement up. I find that it tends to backfire. -Darryl Hamlin 04:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why Old School instead of Pile Driver?

Ehem why do we have a picture of Taker using Old School instead of the Tombstone? The Tombstone is his signature move way more then old school. Night Bringer 12:51, 17th August 2006 (GMT +10)

The Old School picture is a free use picture and the Tombstone picture is not. So, the Old School picture is favored over the Tombstone picture. --Mikedk9109 19:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

A-a-a-a-ahem! just clearing my throat and saying Mike acts like he owns this page sometimes, as he doesn't allow a lot of people to do what they want with it but he just likes the Undertaker like the rest of us. Tonetare 00:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, be civil and avoid personal attacks. He's just adhering to guidelines outlined in Wikipedia:Fair use. The Old School picture is a picture of one Undertaker's signature moves and is a free alternative to a free use picture of him performing the tombstone piledriver. If you find a free use picture of Undertaker performing the tombstone piledriver, you're more than welcome to add that. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think until we find a fair use Tombstone pic we should stick with a non free use one because it is his SIGNATURE move. Old School yeah he pulls it often but the Tombstone is better known and if we can't find one then why not just NOT have any pic. Surely it should only be a pic of on of his finishers not a move he uses during the match you don't see pics of those on any other article.Night Bringer 11:37, 18th August 2006 (GMT +10)

I don't think it's needed. Yes, it would be nice if it was there, but it's not critical to the article. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Tombstone piledriver is not just his signature move. Kane used it all the time along time ago. Justin Credible and Andre the Giant also used this moved but it was not called the Tombstone. Now Old School, Ive never seen anyone else use that move. So, if you can find anyone else that has used that move then please tell me. So, therefore since no one else uses old school it is the Undertakers signature move. So that picture is better to have than the tombstone one. Plus it is free use and is favored. --Mikedk9109 20:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How is the old school pic free use? It looks like it was takin at a tribute to the troops. the copyright still belongs to WWE. And if someone in the crowd took the pic, its original research.

I believe you are misinterpreting what original research means in terms of Wikipedia, especially in regards to photographs. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages by appending ~~~~. -Darryl Hamlin 03:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Undertaker is practically the only person who uses the Tombstone frequently, ok Orton tries it at times and Kane uses it occasionally but no where near as much as Taker and if you ask most WWE fans 'who uses the piledriver?' they'll pry say Taker and they'll definitely say Taker if you mention the word 'Tombstone'. Therefore it's his signature finishing move, and Old School is too complicated a move to have a pic showing, also in most pages we don't have pics of signature moves only Finshers. So about you look for a free image of Taker using the Chokeslam, his other main finisher, instead of pushing your opinion that Old School should be pictured? Night Bringer 13:46, 19th August 2006 (GMT +10)

K first of all, chill out man. Second, I want a pic of the Tombstone as well. It's his main finish. The Old School is not his main move. I'm not pushing to show a pic of old school. I'm on your side.

Ive added it, we need more pics, this article is pretty boring just solid text...

Wikipolicy stands, unless you find a free use image of his chokeslam or piledriver don't put in a pic regardless of how boring the article seems. This is the way we're approaching all WWE stars pages now. Night Bringer 21:51, 12th September 2006 (GMT +10)

Undertaker match on Smack Down

Undertaker vs. Khali is a pay-per-view match, but it was aired on Smack Down. I think this should happen more often because announcer's are always crowing and dramatizing about him being the biggest star on smackdown, yet he rarely ever even shows up. It's like he is not a smackdown superstar so why crow about him being one. this year his part-time self, he's had 2 matches on smackdown and another thing, he named his son Gunner. uhhh, does anyone find that a little out there? He WAS my favorite wrestler in the 90s not so much afterward. He used to do the Dark Side character to a T, now you can tell even by his eye-contact, he is just not as good as doing that character Tonetare 22:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

First, I know people that have the name Gunner. So whats the point of making fun of it on Wikipedia. Also, the Undertaker gets to be called the best superstar on SmackDown! because of his reputation. From all the matches he has had since 1990. So thats why he gets the dramatization from the commentators. --Mikedk9109 22:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So if you knew to people named Killer too, that wouldn't make the name sound anymore decent. And the Undertaker was good once upon a time. Let's not encourage is part-time and absent behavior by crowing about him and dramatizing about him. Let's control ourselves a little bit so that he knows he isn't doing anything special. He is getting more respect right now what with the absences than when he was in the 90s when wrestled on a weekly basis, so he'll probably keep to the absences now. He's probably like, 'oh well, their still going nuts. I guess I can break every 4 months after wrestling two weeks. Tonetare 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is kind of true. --Mikedk9109 15:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh! ) :0 well thank you Mikedk9109! That was very nice of you. Tonetare 19:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Do your research - mark had an injury SKRIBUL 19:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Great contributions SKRIBUL, however behave yourself with respect to inappropriate posts like the one above. Work on getting your point over respectfully. Thank you! Tonetare 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I will try to be more respectfull in the future. SKRIBUL 18:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully call Tonetare's remarks bollocks. Anyway, I doubt that the discussion place for this particular wiki is the space where you should start venting your personal opinion, plenty of fora around where you can do that. Respectfully yours, Dave.

Bollocks?! speak english. This is the exact place to be venting your opinion being a discussion page. Not to mention the fact that you just vented yours which makes you kind of a hypocrite. But anyway, you really made no sense because nothing you said proved why Undertaker shouldn't be getting so much over-exaggerated praise weekly. You really proved my point that he shouldn't be. Undertaker works part time you said, but is still the locker room leader you said. Thank you for that. Everyone crows on and on about him when he barely ever shows up. They really shouldn't do this. He must be saying to himself, hey part-time keeps them this happy, then I guess I can stick with this plan. And you say Undertaker's had great matches. So has Shawn Michaels every week on RAW, so has Cena every week on Raw but they aren't getting nearly as much overexaggerated praise as the Undertaker. TareTone 04:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, get off your high horse. Your opinion is noted but simply not relevant. The rules clearly state: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject". And you are correct to say that I shouldn't either, so I removed that portion of my previous post.

Keep the remarks here limited to the content and form of the article. You might want to check out a site like paulnemer.com for discussion about wrestling.

And for your information, bollocks is in the English dictionairy, you might want to refresh your knowledge a bit. 211.206.122.35 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Dave

Doesn't matter if it's in the english dictionary. You didn't use it in the way it's used in english, so that's why I said speak english. Never said use words in our dictionary there, big guy. And how am I on a high horse and being arrogant by telling you my opinions and how what you said just makes a good argument for what I said. I guess that's an 'oh phooey you're right' kinda thing. Anyway, I'm glad you erased your hypocritical remarks. TareTone 17:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Only real losers start nitpicking about grammar when they can't come up with better arguments, Taretone. Anyway, Dave has a point. You are entitled to your opinion, but the fact that thousands and thousands of wrestling fans still mark out for The Undertaker, that despite his few appearances he is still one of the bigger draws in the WWE, that alone proves you wrong. Or do you have the arrogance to claim that all those thousands of The Undertaker fans are wrong and you are right? Just like all those thousands and thousands of Hulkamaniacs are wrong for marking out for Hogan despite his sporadic appearances and lacklustre performance?

No one every claimed that The Undertaker is the most proficient wrestler in the world, but very few dispute that second to Andre the Giant he is the best big man ever, that he is the ultimate gimmick in Wrestling Entertainment and that already during his active career he is a wrestling legend. The fact that you disagree with this is fine, but fact remains that thousands and thousands of wrestling fans do agree and more importantly, his peers seem to think the same. The fact that he works part time is completely irrelevant. I myself am 6"4 (i have wrestled in the independent circuit myself, though not very successful I hasten to add ;) ). At a certain time I was ordered by my doctor to loose weight because of the enormous stress on my joints. Now Calaway is taller than I am, and also heavier, so combined with the high quantity of appearances, his 16 years must have been murder on his body. And fact remains that Calaway is due for a hip replacement. So working part time is only smart and justified, unless workers need to be addicted to painkillers or cripple in order to get your praise? So pout all you want, the man has paid his dues and gets the respect and praise he fully deserves. 84.81.226.215 20:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Marcello

I don't feel like reading all of what you said for a couple of reasons. I stopped after the first two lines. It's too damn long. Keep it short. And also because you gave me a bad argument to the whole discussion about bollocks, that is you resorted to childish name-calling. But the point at which I stopped reading was that baloney sentence in which you acted like someone else. Anyway, I may give you the respect of reading if you keep your response short and simple. bye! TareTone 04:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure kid, i do hope you can handle real life discussions better than online where you avoid responding to arguments and opinions that undermine your ramblings. The virtual equivalent of a little baby covering the ears and chanting lalalala in loud voice to avoid hearing the ugly truth. Anyway, read the Wikipedia rules: this is not the place for discussions about the topic, only about the article. That cannot be so difficult to grasp? Same goes for Marcello and others. Please keep these kind of discussions limited to wrestling fora like www.wrestleview.com, this is the place for article related discussion!!!

Damn! You have acting like a baby down pat, don't you? lol, no wonder you were doing that childish name-calling that I was talking about. TareTone 01:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures...

The profile Picture is shockin and there is only one other pic atall! im going to change the profile pic and add some more SKRIBUL 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

do NOT remove free image pictures!!! i have revert your edit. plus you didnt not add the correct copyright, so i suggest that you stop uploading pictures till you have learnt how to use copyrights80.47.159.132 11:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC

Sorry - All sorted now SKRIBUL 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent picture SKRIBUL. It is about time we got rid of that old ugly picture of the Undertaker that didn't belong here. I think the one you put in is much better and more appealing. Hopefully, no jerks will change it. You never know on wikipedia. Tonetare 23:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Who removed SKRBUL's picture of the Undertaker? The other one was much better in my opinion. Although the page is Mark Calaway. It is not called American Badass or Undertaker. If that were the title maybe your picture would have lasted SKRBUL. I don't really know why the name is called Mark Calaway as he is not famous for being Mark Calaway. He is famous for being the Undertaker just as Booker-T's name is under Booker-T and not his actual name. Tonetare 14:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously get some more freaking pictures on this page please Big foot123456789 4:25, 29 August 2006

Undertaker Vs The Undertaker

WWE.com has changed Mark's superstar page to "Undertaker" from "The Undertaker" - "Undertaker" is not linked to this page only "The Undertaker" is, meaning people typing in "Undertaker" are being redirected to "Funaral Director" SKRIBUL 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you were referring to the domain each domain costs money and WWE does not officially support domains for any of its superstars now, that particular domain, I think you mean theundertaker.com I BELIEVE is left over for when they did have them for their bigger stars in the Attitude era. The point is officially you should use the full WWE.com address e.g. wwe.com/superstars/smackdown/so-and-so. User:BMSprint 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

User 69.228.200.10 keeps changing the page to the following message:

kfhdkfhskdjfhksdjhfksd flk[sgak 'sglkkag 'lfg 'fdlgk df'lg 'lfdgk fdlgkdflhlk'h'g'kgh'kgh;lg'hlgfh;l hg;hlhh5698340896349683968=5968856 gef;ghlh;lb.,c b,.v.b.,cvb,vcbcv b'n,c ',;n'b;n, bn ',nxc n',xc n;'xc,

x',cbn

,cvnv

c;ncv

,n

cv;,n cxv;n, cv';,n ';cxv,n';c,n'

c,vn'

cv, 'cxn,'c v,n 'cvn,'cvn, 'cvnl, x'clvn, c'lvn, xc'l,xc 'lvn, c'lvn,x 'cvn, xc'n,x 'c,n PLEASE LEAVE THE UNDERTAKER PAGE LIKE : THIS. DO NOT CHANGE OR YOU WILL LOSE THE PRIVILAGE OF EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA.

User Rsm99833 reverted the page but it was wierd and there were no boxes ect (if you dont get what I mean you can look at history) I have now fixed the problem but beware thay this user will probabally try to change the message back... SKRIBUL 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The same Ip adress vandalised Kane's page to make it say he died on August 23 2006. Perhaps his IP should be banned? Cosmic Larva 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Except IPs aren't banned. IP addresses are blocked, and still only temporarily, because IP addresses are not completely static. Only people, not IPs, not accounts. -Darryl Hamlin 03:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that was the same IP address Collegedude 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

My edit summary for my recent edit was cut off due to bumping the enter key while typing it in. It should be: "Fixing height/weight. When rounding, 138.636363.... should be rounded up to 139 kg, not down to 138 kg." Darryl Hamlin 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Undertake and making appearances on other shows

How come the Undertaker never appears on the Late Night Show, Conan, Saturday Night Live, etc. like a lot of the other Main Event wrestlers sometimes do?

It doesn't fit his character. For sure part of the reason why his character excels in longetivity. - Dave

Why doesn't it fit his career? Wouldn't more people come to know him and he would get more popular, like Hulk Hogan did. I mean, I've seen Randy Orton on one of those late night talk shows and his career hasn't gone on nearly as long as the Undertaker's. Why can't the lights go out on the late night show, smoke arise, the Undertaker brings the lights back. And it could be real funny. that guy with the big-ass chin is really scared as he is asking Taker questions. He doesn't understand a word the Undertaker is saying because Undertaker's like "For life has no purpose without the dawning of the dead. They whome fear do not seek the eyes of those" and stuff. And J Leno is just like "whaaaaaaat? uhhh yeeaaaa' I mean, it could be so hilarious. Why hasn't Taker done this? frankly, I just think he hasn't thought of this idea before. It could be similar to what the Ultimate Warrior did on R Cineo Hall or however you spell it TareTone 04:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Two points, TareTone. One, it might fit his career, but it wouldn't fit his character. The Deadman gimmick doesn't work with going on Leno. Two, it's spelled Arsenio Hall. -Darryl Hamlin 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

judging from the pretty ignorant comments, Taretone is either 15 or a troll. And FYI, Undertaker has done a few talkshow appearances in his first 2 years of his WWE career. The fact that he 'doesn't do talkshows' has the same reason as why you won't see him during tribute shows. The WWE protects his image like a mother lion her cubs.

For a character that has risen repeatedly from the death, who can let lightning strike (..) talkshow appearances just don't work. Apart from that, I doubt if Calaway seeks more popularity, he is rather to himself contrary to Hogan. Not to mention that the man is hugely popular already, talkshows won't help that one bit. 84.81.226.215 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Marcello

I am not going to respond or acknowledge the post above mine because I don't like that user. Anyway, Darryl, I just gave you a great thing that Undertaker could do if he went on the Late Night Show. I think he might have done that throughout the 90s but didn't think of that idea. Ultimate Warrior did it even though character didn't fit the Arsenio Hall. Thank you for the spelling by the way. TareTone 04:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the WWE is very protective of the characters of Kane and the Undertaker, to the point where Glen Jacobs had to be in character to an extent on the set of See No Evil, and that neither of them has ever been on tribute shows. -Darryl Hamlin 06:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Undertaker gimmick is already hugely popular, crowds love seeing Taker in action he doesn't need to enhance his image by appearing on talk shows. The whole fact you don't see Taker at every show really adds to the whole mystic of the gimmick, TareTone haven't you ever heard the expression "less is more"? Night Bringer 23:11, 20 September 2006 (GMT +10).

Quality of this Wiki

Needless to say that not only the annoying fanboy additions, but also the relentless trimming of the article have resulted in a serious decline in quality. Relevant information is left out. If you decide to trim text, have the courtesy to first run things past the rest here at

I don't know what this is about exactly, but you aren't being very polite about it. Your sentence isn't finished and you didn't bother to right your name afterward. I suggest you read some wikipedia rules TareTone 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Photos

I think that more photos should be added to this section. Son of Kong

1991 Survivor Series

The Undertaker that participated at the 1991 Survivor Series looks different from the one after 1994 summerslam with Ted DiBiase's Undertaker vs. Paul Bearer's Undertaker. I have absolutely no proof that they are different people. But can anyone comfirm that it's the same person? Kingjeff 06:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I can guarantee you that there has been only one person 'using' the Undertaker gimmick, and that is Mark Calaway. Keep in mind that aging and a new look/outfit and haircut can do a lot to ones appearance. Already the undertaker that lost the casket match against Yokozuna looks different from a 'green' Calaway starting out in the main event WWF. 211.136.7.178 12:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Jim