Talk:List of WWE personnel: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:48, 8 November 2008 editTruco (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,625 edits →Clearing things up to prevent another page blow up.← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:12, 8 November 2008 edit undoOreius (talk \| contribs)49 edits →Organization Next edit →
Line 112:		Line 112:
	I agree with this as well and guys don't write wiki user blank sign your posts using 4 of these ~ thanks] (]) 10:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)		I agree with this as well and guys don't write wiki user blank sign your posts using 4 of these ~ thanks] (]) 10:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
	:Sorry you all feel this way, but that won't change anything. <span style="font-family: verdana">''']'''</span> 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)		:Sorry you all feel this way, but that won't change anything. <span style="font-family: verdana">''']'''</span> 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

			It WILL change weither you like it or not,so you guys fighting for it are just makeing sad and lame ways to defend it,and your STILL loseing,more people hate it,you just haven't heard it yet,so HA

	==Table==		==Table==

Revision as of 23:12, 8 November 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of WWE personnel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

This professional wrestling article is a frequent target for editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of storyline events, unconfirmed information, rumors, and other content inappropriate to an encyclopedic article. Please make sure to familiarize yourself with what Misplaced Pages is not, and consider whether your additions to this article will serve to make the article larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar.

Professional wrestling List‑class Mid‑importance

	List of WWE personnel is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Goldust

What's the story with Goldust?

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

Vjmlhds November 7, 2008 23:46 (UTC)

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

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

Consensus needs to be formed

Tag team names

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

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

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

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

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

Do we add championships?

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

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

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

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

Primo Colón

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boxes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inactive Category

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

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

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

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

Vjmlhds November 8, 2008 3:41 (UTC)

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

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

Organization

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

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

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

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

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

It WILL change weither you like it or not,so you guys fighting for it are just makeing sad and lame ways to defend it,and your STILL loseing,more people hate it,you just haven't heard it yet,so HA

Table

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

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

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

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

Pictures

Are the pictures really necessary? Adam Penale (talk)

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

Just hear us out...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Championships

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

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

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

Primo (Colon?)

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

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

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

Tag teams and stables

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

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

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

Goldust

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

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

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

Removal of inactive talent

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

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

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

DH Smith and T.J. Wilson

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

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

Hacksaw Jim Duggan

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

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

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

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

Clearing things up to prevent another page blow up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vjmlhds November 8, 2008 21:13 (UTC)

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

Categories: