Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about List of WWE personnel. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
I'm willing to consider unprotecting this article if the contributors are willing to agree about what sources will be used to substantiate whether someone is to be listed in the "Unassigned talent" section, or anywhere else in the article. First, I'd like to remind everyone of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and also point out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Sources has a list of sources and web sites that have proven reliable for professional wrestling.
Here are the main issues I see:
In fact, I'm wondering if it's even possible to prove that someone has been hired by the WWE if they haven't appeared on-air yet.
I'd like to get agreement on whether the following wrestlers should appear in the list of unassigned talent, as well as consensus on the sources:
I have no opinion and no knowledge about whether these wrestlers are WWE employees or not, and I haven't done any research. That's for you guys to determine. (Also, I may be mixing real names and screen names here. I don't know the difference -- I'm more proficient in architecture, like the difference between Richardsonian Romanesque architecture and Beaux-Arts architecture.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think any talent that pwinsider.com announces (i know its not a rs, but they are about the only reliable site when it comes to hiring/firing of talent/employees), should be allowed. In the "Unassigned" section, if a rs is not given, then the non rs should be listed, with the text of "Unconfirmed" next to the individual's name.--NickSparrow (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
--NickSparrow (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the protection from this article. It doesn't look like any of you have agreed on which sources are reliable, or whether any of these particular wrestlers indeed should be listed or not listed. In other words, I'm pretty sure you people will edit war over this article again. Besides, you're spending far more time debating my protection and people's block logs than discussing improvements to the article.
I suppose I was expecting too much for a group of professional wrestling fans to agree on how to edit an article. After reading this article and this article, I have more of an insight into the minds of today's 18- to 24-year olds. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Why's it been protected again? Kalajan€₣ 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I told all of you to stay away from the page. Truco said to use warnings. I said to build a consensus. NONE of you listened. I don't get what is so hard? ¿Should I say it in Spanish, amigo? I am tired. I have no words. None. ₰imonKSK 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This is nuts, let's show that we can work together here, people. SOME OF THIS IS A REPOST FROM ABOVE - I say use the links I provided above for the people in question. Mike Hutter, David Otunga, and Phil Shatter (Chad Lail)'s links meet the WP:PW specifications. Nick Sparrow posted a source for Jason and Johnny Riggs. The others (Byron Wilcott and Matt Walsh) still need to be discussed. Why don't we keep a section on this talk page that keeps track of them using "unacceptable" links, and when/if an acceptable one is found, they can then be added. According to , Dos Caras isn't coming afterall, so he can be canned completely. Agree or Disagree? I Support. Dahumorist (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind who comments here, but most admins will probably know what this is. This protection log makes for very bad reading. I remember several months ago similar thing happening on the Sarah Palin article. Shortly after, that was put on probation. I, looking at the above, am leaning towards a possible article probation towards this article due to the amount of edit warring that is taking place. For those unaware of article probation, please see Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, and for an example of it in place, see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. D.M.N. (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Why does everybody keep argueing over the page being protected and the page being blocked why don't the wikipedians block the users who are causing the vandilism instead of protecting the page and making people (Kalajan) mad. Benton Tigers 22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
In my oppinion the occasional wrestler status of Vickie Guerrero and Jerry Lawler should be removed. They have just 1-2 wrestling matches a year and therefore they are no real wrestlers. Vickie Guerrero is the manager of Team Lay-Cool and Lawler is a color commentator. I mean with Hornswoggle I understand that he is an occasional wrestler, but not with Vickie Guerrero and Lawler. --Hixteilchen (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I am intending this discussion to build a consensus among editors who edit this page. If, a consensus cannot be reached, and another edit war breaks out, probation will be sought. If I missed a subject, add it below the other ones. --Truco 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Jeff Hardys contract ran out on the 32st of July, it is not clear if Hardy has signed a new one or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.16.244 (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the exact wrestlers that are being debated over signing with WWE, or being released, but the bottom line is: For signings, the only accepted reliable sources are statements made exactly by that wrestler (this can be sourced with whatever source as long as the source states "Christian Cage officially stated in an interview") or an announcement made by WWE. For releases, many can be sourced with WrestleView, WON, and PW Torch because these websites have inside information with WWE and they get the news edge on releases, but these are the only accepted sources for that (and by WWE and direct statements by that person). For FCW: they must appear on FCW, WWE/FCW must acknowledge their signing or appearance, blogs by WWE employees, and statements by that wrestler.--Truco 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
1. Support As long as we have a set standard on what makes a reliable source, I'm fine with it. Vjmlhds 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose I hate to cause trouble here, but when it comes to developmental signings, WWE.com never does them. The only sources for them are sites like PW Torch, the newsletter, 411mania, PWInsider, Wrestleview, etc. Dahumorist (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Undecided If a wrestler themselves, WWE.com or a reliable source posts the hiring/firing of any wwe employee, then that should be allowed. As for the release of developmental talent, it should be placed under discussion here, if a reliable source is not posted, but pwinsider or the other newz sites post the release. We must consider this, since WWE.com does not post the release or signings of developmental talent, and we need to keep the page accurate as possiable. As I mentioned with Unassigned talent, remove the category all together. When the wrestler debuts in FCW or WWE television, then they can be added. If a accurate source, WWE.com, or the wrestler themselves (not myspace) states they have been signed to WWE and have not debuted yet, then they can be placed in "Other personnel" with the source and "Wrestler; yet to debut full time" next to their name.--NickSparrow (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
A tag team is an active duo of wrestlers who tag-team regularly, this is not an example of "Glamarella." A stable is more than a duo of people, which doesn't necessarily need to consist of wrestlers. Members should be added as they are officially stated via WWE.--Truco 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
1. Support Fine by me. Vjmlhds 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Dahumorist (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Hazardous Matt ' 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Support (was an Oppose), Glamarella's a team, it's not that hard! Kalajan€₣ 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support A team of a male/female should not be listed as a tag team unless they go after the tag team titles, or win them. Then they should be listed. A stable is 2 or more active members (managers/valets can count towards this).--NickSparrow (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Inactivity of wrestlers falls under the criteria that they have not appeared on television over 3 weeks, a general average time. In addition, if they are out for other reasons they have stated or WWE has stated, that is qualified as sources.--Truco 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
1. Tentatively Support I think 30 days is the best time frame, but in principle I agree. Vjmlhds 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support I agree with the above, should be 30 days. Dahumorist (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support 30 days. Sometimes Creative just forgets someone's on the payroll. Hazardous Matt 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
4.- Support One month is 30 days right? Kalajan€₣ 14:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - One month. If inactive, I suggest putting: Inactive; last seen on WWE television on ........ D.M.N. (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
6. Tentatively Support I think if a superstar is not on television or wrestling at live events, then they should be considered inactive. If the wrestler fails to be seen on television within 3 weeks, but wrestled in a dark match or on the road at live events. Then it should be noted by their name.--NickSparrow (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
A wrestler belongs to the brand which WWE.com has them on, if they appear on other tv shows more regularly, like the Miz and Morrison on Raw, it is because WWE tapes ECW and Raw together and due to the "talent exchange" which is equivalent to the disbandment of the brand extension in a way.--Truco 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
1. Support Amen. Vjmlhds 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Support Unless of course, WWE does a brand change on television and is slacks on switching them on the roster pages. Dahumorist (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Hazardous Matt 22:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
4. Strong Support Whatever WWE says goes. Kalajan€₣ 14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Whichever brand WWE.com has them listed on, it should be like that here. They can appear on all the brands due to the talent exchange agreement.--NickSparrow (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Here's an easy solution to all of our problems.
Get rid of the "unassigned talent" table.
All of these rookies are not worth the trouble of having this page locked.
I propose from now on unless there's a sourced article saying these rookies have appeared in FCW, then they are not to be included on the page, period.
Since there is too much controversy over what makes a reliable source, then let's make life easy on ourselves and don't include rookies who may or may not have signed contracts until we see them in a WWE or FCW ring or TV program.
This is getting out of hand and a hammer needs to be dropped or else this going to continue.
No TV or source showing they wrestled in the WWE system, no mention in the article, period and amen.
Vjmlhds 22:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the definition of employee:
An employee contributes labor and expertise to an endeavour. Employees perform the discrete activity of economic production. Of the three factors of production, employees usually provide the labour.
If the talent is unassigned and not competing, that means they have yet to begin fulfilling the labor they must do in their contracts. So if the person is not working, then they still aren't officially employed, just making checks for doing nothing. Raaggio T/C Guest Book 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you decide to do with unassigned talent is fine by me, just as long as there's a set criteria.
Plus somebody needs to fix the page ASAP.
Somebody put Ricky Ortiz and Teddy Long on Smackdown so now both the SD and ECW tables are screwed up, and Victoria needs to be removed from Smackdown as she will retire after her match tonight. (WWE.com is reporting this, so it's not a spoiler).
Vjmlhds 13:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanted to further note some stuff regarding Low-Ki. He worked another FCW taping so he might as well be placed under their roster. He also is going by the name "Kawal" so at the very least that name change can be made. Hot Stuff International (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This Is not a reliable source but it is the only one that I found that can say anything about his return to WWE. Benton Tigers 21:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Not an RS. Period. ₰imonKSK 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Is PW a reliable source? Benton Tigers 18:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I found the official site she had the interview with confirming his return to WWE: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/posts/view/66103/EXCLUSIVE-Deep-impact --Mrrko (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait I'm confused. This page shows Christian Cage on the WWE roster as non signed talent. Wouldnt that mean that he is back. If it does not mean that then why is it shown.Jonathanmbarnes (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Well sorry. But if its not confirmed wiki admin usually will not take the time to add people who have not yet debuted on the show. Also wiki admin has told me that the Wrestler stating that he him self has signed a contract is not a reliable source since many wrestlers lie about the current status in a company. So there goes your deal with him saying that he said he is back.Jonathanmbarnes (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
he's on WWE ECW (DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!)--Wwe.fana (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hardcore Holly is now out the door (WWE.com)
Vjmlhds 00:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
(Note to an admin) On wwe.com Victoria announced she has retired from wrestling in the WWE. So she should be removed from the roster. Govvy (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Please remove the "Hardcore Holly" row from the "Male wrestlers" section under the "Raw" main header. Holly was released from the company, see this. Also, "Victoria" announced her retirement, and is no longer an employee. Please remove her from the "Female wrestlers" section under the "SmackDown" main header, see her new Alumni page and the results from her retirement episode of SmackDown. Thank you, iMatthew // talk // 15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Chris Jericho needs to be removed because he was fired on Monday Night Raw last week, and Victoria needs to be removed from the Divas because she retired after last night's Friday Night Smackdown, and Jeff Hardy I believe it is needs to be put as out of action for now due to a pyrotechnics accident on last night's friday night smackdown. --Chrismaster1 (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well you must learn a thing or two from Wikipedia for the professional wrestling. Chris Jericho will be never fired. That was in kayfabe and probably he will return like Undertaker did. --Pavlen (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Jerico got fired and got his job back ages ago--Wwe.fana (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The name of the stable on the ECW Brand consisting of William Regal, Ezekiel Jackson, and Vladimir Kozlov is The Tormentors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.62.216 (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit baffled here. Obviously I missed the whole 'Unassigned talent' war that led to the protection but looking at the article the names in question were removed and aside from removing Holly and Victoria, the page seems to be in order. So can't the page be unprotected with the idea that all future 'unassigned talent' won't be added to the page if their signing is in doubt, until they pop up in FCW or wherever they're going to be placed? If we can figure out the Active/Inactive issues, this seems a lot easier to fix doesn't it? In fact I think it already has been so what's the deal? Hot Stuff International (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on some of the consensus above, I've created an FAQ page, which is linked from the top. I urge all editors to read it. I've tagged some of the discussions as resolved, but one (the sources one) is unresloved as of now. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It has loads of non-fcw wrestlers on it. Whats with that? Do they wrestle both places? Kalajan€₣ 21:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes some do but I think its to show that Jack Swagger is part of FCW alumini or however you spell that and that hes now a big star on ECW or something like that Adster95 10:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please place Theodore Long and Ricky Ortiz into their proper categories. They belong in the ECW roster, and both are listed in the Smackdown roster. Thanks--NickSparrow (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Just now noticed Vickie Guerrero is no longer listed on the page anywhere. Her photo remains, but she was removed from the smackdown roster on this page. If someone could fix this. It would be greatly appreciated.--NickSparrow (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Kalajan found a link. Looks official? If you all agree, then I will add a edit request for it to be puut in the article. Simon \\ c</small>Yes we can! 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Checking history of the page there has been an unassigned talent section - which should be added as the page is called List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees - not List of World Wrestling Entertainment active employees -- Celtic Cross 23:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I repeat that-- Celtic Cross 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree there should be you are total right 82.21.192.131 (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.