Talk:The Undertaker/Archive 9

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

Personal Life[edit]

SummerSlam Hell in a Cell match[edit]

Vicky Guerrero has reinstated The Undertaker in today's taping of SmackDown, and scheduled a Hell in a Cell match for him against Edge at SummerSlam. It is a fact, but it is a spoiler. Should it be added now or should we wait for the official confirmation to be aired on Friday?

By the way, if we're going to discuss this, please let's give arguments and don't limit our answers to a "yes" or a "no." It is unnecessary, very rude, and very undesirable. Definitely not what we would expect from an editor of an encyclopedia. Editors argue in a logical manner. 66.229.214.176 (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be added until after SummerSlam. WP:PW consensus is to not add future event, like a match at SummerSlam. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that Vicky reinstated him? That's not a future event. At this time the Wikipedia article of the Undertaker is not up-to-date, because he's not "banished" anymore. Unless, of course, there are policies against spoilers. 66.229.214.176 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source to say that Vickie reinstated him? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who says these wrestling websites arent reliable are kinda dumb. Wikipedia isnt very reliable either so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.221.225 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't reliable because people add info without sourced and use unreliable ones. Which is what we are attempting to prevent in pro wrestling articles. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't reliable, but I have 2 friends who were actually at Smackdown on 7/22/08, the taping of the 7/25/08 episode. They heard Vickie Guerrero announce that she reinstated Undertaker! If nobody believes me or the other people saying it, you'll see that we were right, and you were wrong, on Friday! ~~Someone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.109.39 (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is right, and no one is wrong. But the information cannot be added until it airs or WWE add it to WWE.com. This is the guidelines of the project to stop rumours being added as fact. And at an SD! taping there may be several things which happen which do not air. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not saying you're wrong. I believe the match will happen, since the spoilers are almost always accurate. Point is, seeing it with your own eyes fails WP:V. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... not to mention that it also violates WP:NOR as well. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • you guys need to stop. in the past wrestling sites were not reliable. but now they are very accurate.spoilers are never wrong.spoilers should be but up before it airs at the very least.if we trust them when tna releases someone we should trust them on spoilers.CMJMEM (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those sites used to be thought of as vastly inaccurate. But a select few have recently been found to be reliable sources by featured article reviewer and administrator Ealdgyth in occurdance with the specified criteria. See here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Darrenhusted on this. No information can be added until it is aired officially by WWE on TV or until it is updated on their website. I had read the spoilers earlier myself and I am aware of the fact that they are correct, however we cannot use those websites as reliable sources because not everything which they post is reliable (a lot of them had also mentioned about the Undertaker losing at Wrestlemania 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 - it is rumoured every year but it never happens). Stick to facts. If you have spoilers, please have some patience and wait until the actual event airs, there is no harm in waiting. It will eventually be posted if it is true. Mayankeagle (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuit for the World Heavyweight Title section[edit]

The Pursuit for the World Heavyweight Title section says 2007-present, however that title is now on RAW, so shouldn't there be a new section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.111.7 (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surly I was about to point out, any ideas? RkOrToN 00:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This could be the worst suggestion ever made, but it could be renamed "Pursuit of the World Championships" as both the WWE and World Heavyweight title are referred to as World Championships at times. Let's see if he actually does challenge Triple Hayge after he beats Edge at SummerSlam. --Kaizer13 (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until he actually challenges for the WWE title you can't change it to that. After he comes back he might, or he could start feuding with someone or take on a new (or old) persona. You never know he could always get the title back from RAW, or transfer over there. Bm2 (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling style/ influence/ popularity/ backstage contributions[edit]

While a lot of wrestling articles on Wikipedia (e.g., about Ric Flair or Bret Hart or Barry Windham or even Sting) mention about their popularity/ influence/ skills and about them being considered one of the "finest" wrestlers ever, the Undertaker's page hardly mentions anything about it except that he is a "senior" performer in the first page.

Let's face it - we all know that the Undertaker is highly skilled because despite his huge size, he has executed wrestling moves which nobody in the WWE has done - he can walk the top rope, he can do the suicide dive (flying vertically over the top rope), he has used many finishers (and introduced some of them) in the WWE like the tombstone piledriver, the chokeslam, the last ride, the triangle choke, the gogoplata, the dragon sleeper, etc. He is the longest lasting signed athlete in the history of the WWE and he has featured in more PPVs for the WWE than any other wrestler. That's why the WWE always mention about the "evolution" and "adaptation" of the Undertaker in their articles as well as TV shows, and he is called as the "best pure striker" in the history of the business and the "most dominant force" in the history of the business.

The Undertaker is associated with some of the most memorable matches in WWE history including the Hell In A Cell match with Shawn Michaels (which is 1 out of the only 4 matches which received a 5-star rating from Dave Meltzer of Wrestling Observer Newsletter) and also with some of the most memorable moments. He has survived across various eras of wrestling and stood in the ring with opponents of all sizes and varied skill-sets, in all types of matches be it Hell In A Cell, Inferno, Casket, etc.

Considering the amount of effort which the Undertaker has put more into the business by being locker-room leader, by carrying the torch during the lean years of the WWE, by mentoring other superstars, and also by helping other characters like Kane get derived out of his character and gain superstar-status with a more successful career than earlier - I think it needs to be called out in some or the other form in this article. There is a reason why he is called the "Phenom" and the "Conscience of the WWE", and why he was voted as the greatest athlete in the history of Raw by the fans - http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/raw15/exclusives/raw15pollresults/

Can we at least mention some of these facts (not necessarily in the same format as below) in the article's 1st paragraph or in a separate sub-section like "Popularity" or "Wrestling Style and Influence" or "General Impression" or "Fan/ Peer Opinion", for which I am also posting reliable-sources:

Let me know your thoughts on this. Mayankeagle (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The raw poll is meaningless as WWE.com could have fixed it. The tripod pages are not RS, and JR's blog only mentions him in passing (and is also subject to a level of kayfabe). Phenomforever is not RS. Linking information from videos can also be tricky, and most wrestling interviews are done "in character" and so may also be seen as kayfabe and subject to over-the-top claims (such as the "greatest ever"). I don't see any way this information could be added without being seen as OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The interview-video links are from news channels, done "out of character", and are therefore reliable. You can take a look at it for proof. JR's blog, as far as I understand, has nothing to do with kayfabe because it is not linked with WWE.com but it has more to do with his own opinions (and as former Senior VP of talent in the WWE, his opinion does count). Otherwise, I guess we should also remove points like "considered one of the finest wrestlers" from the pages of Sting, Windham and others to keep Wikipedia consistent if we cannot post similar information on the Undertaker page despite having reliable sources. Not sure why but I always get the feeling that the Undertaker page is highly constrained compared to other wrestler-pages and a lot of information is prevented from being posted here, which otherwise seems relevant by looking at other wrestlers' pages. At least can we mention some other descriptors which he has like "the grim reaper" (more of a nickname in the early 1990s rather than a descriptor), "the best pure striker in the history of the game" and "the most dominant force in the history of the WWE", etc for which we can also get links from WWE.com? Mayankeagle (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even interviews done out of character while with WWE will still tow the party line. As for Sting and others; yes, you should remove all the "considered the best wrassler EVA!" rubbish, not try to add it to this article. And wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate names. All the titles from WWE (the grim reaper", "the best pure striker in the history of the game". "the most dominant force in the history of the WWE") are kayfabe, and you have no way of substantially proving he was "the best striker" or the "'most dominant force in the history of WWE" (which strictly speaking is only 6 years old). Even if WWE say he was those terms are meaningless at best and kayfabe hype at worst. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WWE has been there since only 6 years but when they say "most dominant force in the history of the WWE", they definitely cover the WWF before it - sometimes they even say "most dominant force in the history of the business" or "in the history of pro-wrestling". You cannot substantially prove that he is the best pure striker (which is due to the large arsenal of wrestling-moves that he introduced to the WWE) or that he was the most dominant force (but it is quite obvious from his 16-0 Wrestlemania streak). However, the "grim-reaper" or just the "reaper" was a very common nick-name used for him in almost every match since 1992 to 1996 until the end of his "Deadman" persona but I am not able to find a source for it right now except commentary in old matches (they are kayfabe, of course, as is "Deadman" - but if that can be listed, so can this be if there is a source). Can we at least mention that he is the longest signed athlete under contract in the history of the WWE/ WWF, in the first para, and that he is the locker-room leader backstage (for that, the only source I have is the news-interview video and the other WWE-interview link from Tripod which was not put on WWE.com to prevent kayfabe and his character because they cannot mention on WWE.com that he is the locker-room leader)? Mayankeagle (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His record for appearing on the first Raw is noted, Pat Patterson, Steve Lombardi and Shawn Michaels have been wrestling for as long or longer with WWE. Anything containing "most", "best" or other superlatives should be avoided as seen in the WP:MOS. The whole "dominant force" thing is OR, the whole enterprise is scripted, Taz was the "most dominant force" in ECW but once in WWF he became the world's best loser. As for the Grim Reaper thing you would need concrete refs, and proper RS before adding any fluff. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn and the others haven't been signed for longer than the Undertaker as wrestlers (Shawn had joined the WWF before Undertaker and he is still there - however, he was there as the commissioner between 1998 and 2002 due to his injury) - the Undertaker has been the longest "wrestler" in contract with the WWE. I have a link for this from PhenomForever.com - http://www.phenomforever.com/info/factfile.php, not sure if Wikipedia considers it reliable but usually we don't put wrong information in the fact-file of PhenomForever (I am a moderator at that website, so I know). It can also be derived from the Wiki pages of Shawn Michaels and the others that they haven't been in contract as long as Undertaker. As for the "most dominant force in the history of the WWE", it is as much derived from enterprise script as much is "Deadman" or "Phenom" - if they are accepted, I am not sure why this is not because he is not a dead-man in reality. Big Daddy V's profile on Wiki contains a nick-name which was derived out of the Undertaker's nick-name but slightly modified, calling him "most dominating force in the WWE" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Frazier,_Jr. I guess we are letting every other wrestler's Wiki page call them as one of the most "popular" and one of the "finest" and one of the most "well-known" and the most "dominating", but the Undertaker's page stays constrained. As for the Grim Reaper nickname - http://baletawwe.blogspot.com/2006/02/undertaker-mark-calaway.html or http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/jasonsite/nicknames.html or http://www.phenomforever.com/info/factfile.php (there are many other sources too, each one independent of the other). Any 1991 to 1994 match has it in the commentary as well. We can also add links to videos for the sake of source. Mayankeagle (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Reaper nick-name has been added with sources. I feel we should add a legacy section like Mick Foley or Ric Flair to talk about the influence that the Undertaker and his legacy has had on the business of pro-wrestling. Randy-Orton.com, Wrestlezone.com, JR's blog and a lot of other websites talk about various wrestlers considering the Undertaker to be their greatest opponent and regard him as the locker-room leader (for which there are news-interview videos and other sources too). Mayankeagle (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Information[edit]

In the section about The Undertaker and Mankind in the Hell in the Cell match. It says that the match ended with taker chokeslamming mankind on thumbtacks.

He did indeed do that, but the match ended when taker used his trademark Tombstone Piledriver. Sumpnlikeapimp (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might not seem like much, but if your writing about something, you should have the correct information.

Removing the Streak Table[edit]

I don't know why I'm doing this, as I'm not going to be successful due to my nationality, but I have removed Takers streak table for the following reasons:

  • 1. Already mentioned several times in the article. Also known as "in prose" or something like that.
  • 2. The removal of Randy Orton's Legend's Killed list serves as precedence for this removal.

We apparently have to have a consensus, so I'm posting this, although once again, I am not expecting to be successful as I am a Canadian editing a pro-American website. I will not have any part in this discussion beyond this post, as I have things going on in my life, and I don't have time for debates that shouldn't need to occur. Killswitch Engage (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think we should removal the table. And the fact that you're Canadian has no relevance here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What the.... I deleted this....Killswitch Engage (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see any notability for the table. Any information not already in the article could easily be added in its proper place.  Hazardous Matt  16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your deletion, since I just noticed it now and wished to comment. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your second point, that seems to be rather pointy to me. Besides, The Undertaker's streak is more notable, having had a DVD released about it. The Orton list was also easily disputable, ie. does Rob Van Dam count, did he actually "kill" Triple H, etc. -- Scorpion0422 18:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the streak table should stay, because it's a important part of the undertaker's character and its not very easy to keep track of his streak while reading the article. I agree to the fact that WM streak is not an actual accomplishment because the matches are pre-decided but again so is the title matches, so should we remove the table we should delete every title from accomplishments part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.214.161.39 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with the new direction that the project is taking wrestling pages, we should be removing acclomplishments, as they are in-universe and non-wrestling readers may not know what a "World Heavyweight Championship" is. Killswitch Engage (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what "in-universe" is, if you were bold, you would go to WT:PW and read the many threads about the new style and the archives, then you would visit the MOS to read what the "new style" is.SRX 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No thank you, it's already giving me headaches, and I'm just reading the crap that this "new style" has created. Killswitch Engage (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Undertaker's streak is notable not just because WWE has released a DVD on the same, but also because it is listed as the greatest WWE record at the WWE records page - http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/wwerecords/. Therefore, I feel it must remain on the page so that everyone gets a view of whom he defeated to establish his streak. Mayankeagle (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Pursuit of the World Heavyweight Championship"[edit]

He's not on the same brand as the title anymore, I don't think current events can really be put under that same label anymore. New section? Change the title? 3pointswish (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would would think start a new section to deal with his return and after that. The "Pursuit of the World Heavyweight Championship" one is long enough, without adding more to it. Unless someone wants to trim it down a little, or something. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undertaker U rock.im glad vickie reinstated.i hope u beat edge at summerslam.plus win the wwe championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.149.73 (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but not a forum thanks Adster95 (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the current 2008-Return section is fine for this because he has not yet started a pursuit for the WWE championship. If he does it, then we can rename the section. Mayankeagle (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying Return (2008-0 say something like Feud with Big Show or Edge, but the most good one would be Feud with La Familia due to the fact that he HAS feuded with La Familia since his return in PPVs like Summerslam, Unforgiven, No Mercy and Cyber Sunday. Mention theit Casket Match at Survivor Series 2008.--LukasVandelanotte (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstone - The History of The Undertaker DVD[edit]

This 3 Disc DVD collection was released on August 23, 2005, and since then I'm assuming it has been discontinued for an obvious flaw, mistaking the Undertakers match against Sycho Sid taking place at Wrestlemania VIII instead of XIII, which of course this mistake caused all of the info listed on the screen about the event to be wrong. This probably isn't note worthy, but since I can't find any other acknowledgment of this mistake. By 2005 you'd think the WWE would have checked this enough to not let a slip up like this pass into the retail market. The voice over and design treatment are the same as the 15-0 DVD, which was probably put out to cover up this DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.12.91 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect PPV For Undertaker vs Mankind Hell in A Cell[edit]

The PPV For Undertaker vs Mankind Hell in A Cell is not King Of The Ring it is Survivor Series.

fieldyrulz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldyrulz (talk • contribs) 03:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasnt it was at the 1998 King of the Ring.LifeStroke420 (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PWI Ranks[edit]

PWI

Guyss PWI ranked Taker #5 as the best singles wrestler in 2007 and #6 in 2008 please add this information in his championship and accomplishments and award section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali92shah (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a consensus which is to add only the highest PWI award the wrestler has won. 'Taker has won higher and it's already listed. RandySavageFTW (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finisher List[edit]

The finisher list needs to be updated to reflect the information posted in the Gogoplata article section (That the move is named Deadman's Judgement when executed by the Undertaker) -68.209.116.39 (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wrestlemania streak[edit]

he didnt win at 16? Matrix8110 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer, no, he didn't.  Hazardous Matt  21:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

taker was in coronation street and he ran over liam connor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.200.154 (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol sorry although funny but not a forum Adster95 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Undertaker Success at Mania[edit]

Takers success at Mania is of course unquestionly the best in history. 16-0 is amazing for any wrestler in the WWE. Wrestlemania 23 is believed to be the night the Undertaker had his best win ever. Taker would have liked to have retired at Mania 24. He has defeated: Psycho Sid Vicious, Mark Henry, Batista & Edge. If you could please edit my article on Taker's defeated opponents. That's all I have to write. Thanks for reading!

I think that includes a bit too much WP:OR not enough WP:NPOV.  Hazardous Matt  00:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Show feud[edit]

Information about Big Show defeating Undertaker through knock-out at No Mercy was written on this page, however information about Undertaker defeating Big Show at Cyber Sunday in a Last Man Standing match was not added. When I added the Cyber Sunday results, they were removed by somebody. If the feud has not ended and it is not relevant to add the Cyber Sunday results right now, then the No Mercy results should also not be included. Otherwise if the feud has ended, then the Cyber Sunday results should also be included - it is not like weekly Smackdown information. Mayankeagle (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in the long term the feud may add up to nothing, and as there were no title on the line then this does not seem notable. Week by week also applies to PPV matches. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the feud isn't over, fans deserve to read about it thus far. And what about the other matches? I've checked other wrestler articles on Wikipedia, and they're all up to date. Let's give that much to The Deadman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.161.83.17 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read about on the three thousand wrestling sites that exist. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Undertaker/Archive_9&oldid=1136228101"