This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gloss (talk | contribs) at 23:17, 20 July 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:17, 20 July 2007 by Gloss (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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. |
|
| 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 Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
|---|
Extreme Exposé
Layla, Kelly Kelly, and Brooke are a stable even though they don't wrestle. They are always together and Tazz and Joey Styles always reffers to the three of them as Extreme Exposé.
Yes this is a stable though they do not wrestle that is a note for other users.
Current Champions
I spent a lot of time adding the current champions, believe me. And then you just revert it. I added them, because they are in the wwe.com roster pages. And if its good enough for the OFFICIAL WWE SITE, its good enough for us.
Remember this roster page is a roster page for WWE, if WWE didn't exist, this wouldn't exist. So, we should base our pages off wwe's. Lex94 02:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Do people on this page have no ethic? If you want to remove something from the page, discuss it here. I posted this so people could reply if they wanted the champs on the page, but no one answered so I added them anyway. If you want to discuss removing it from the page, give a logical explanation on this section in the talk page. --Lex94 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you want a reason? How about this: a champions section is already on each of the brands pages (check them for yourself). And if you are so focused with sticking with the OFFICIAL website, then take off the real names. Remember that this is an online encyclopedia, not a wrestling website. We already have enough places to put champions, so leave it alone. And the next time you decide to post a comment on this talk page, try to be more tactful and quit whining when somebody deletes something that you put on. Yes, we have ethics, but we don't need to discuss every single change. --Gamer928 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Slight organisational change
Certain workers listed in "Other roles" are clearly on-air talent (i.e. Steve Austin, Mick Foley). Therefore, I think they're better suited to be listed under the "Unassigned talent" category, under their own sub-category of "Other on-air talent", similarly to how Jonathan Coachman, Teddy Long and Kelly Kelly are listed for their respected brands.
Edit: I made the change. Njgio 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Florida Championship Wrestling?
Where has it been mentioned as such? Misplaced Pages is the only google result for "Florida Championship Wrestling" that is for Keirn's WWE developmental fed. Not saying this is wrong, just hadn't seen it named anywhere yet... 76.50.128.75 19:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was reported as such in Gerweck.net a few weeks back. -凶 19:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
injured?
is the undertaker injured or what? it said he was then later it was removed and now its back again 69.207.162.223 01:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
He has a serious biceps injury. The Hybrid 04:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah-he's injured and acording to the role his sole left smackdown so hes eithier on raw, smackdown or just left WWE plain and simple... which would be bad
FLAGS
Are the flags on this page really necessary? 60.226.158.198 03:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Another thing, Nunzio and Marella's flags are Italy. They are both from America, they're just billed from Italy...Gavyn Sykes 19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the flags should be from where they're billed from. who agrees? Lex94 22:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Kane isn't billed from anywhere. And I'm pretty sure "The Bottomless Pit" and "Death Valley" don't have flags
i think the flags need to go, in the long run its going to stop all these arguements about who was born in one country and raised in another. Vote perhaps????? Cradle666 11:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, these flags do help the page and keeps it informative. But they are getting to be more trouble than they are worth. Now there is a whole new batch of arguments over who was born where or whether the flag should be where they were born or raised. It's getting out of hand and I think we should just drop all the flags and forget the whole thing. I liked them at first and it seemed like a good idea, but things are just getting way out of hand. I'm not going to touch them, I'm just putting in my two cents. Gamer928 19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
^I've re-added this discussion.^ I also think the flags should be removed. There's a Misplaced Pages article that explains why they shouldn't be used in this context. On top of that, it's just another thing for people to argue about. Country of birth is hardly a vital piece of information anyway, so they should just be deleted, like they have been from the TNA page. Njgio 03:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You deleted it from the archive right? there is no need to have the same thing archived twice; might as well take it to WP:PW's talk page that is where the change was discussed. --凶 03:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for getting rid of these flags. There is really no use for them, especially if it is going to represent what country they were born in. Putting the flag of Spain next to Kane's name is extremely misleading. These flags truly have no place on this page. We may as well tack on the state flags and childhood pet if they're gonna stick around. --DaHumorist 13:40, 21 May 2007
I agree with Dahumorist the flags are a stupid idea. They should be removed and the champions page should be put back in
- Ok, there seems to be a concensus against the flags but no action taken. Therefore, I will remove the flags as per this discussion. Sevenzeroone says: Poopy is not fun! 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
judgement day
wasnt shawn michaels injured at judgement day? should we put that in the article 74.67.171.23 20:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- He wasn't injured there his knee has been hurt for a while an I guess he is now taking time off for surgery. He blew his Knee out but don't change it yet for I am not 100% about this.
Wrestling Observer a reliable news source?
Me and a certain member are having a argument on wether to use PWinsider, Wrestling Observer newsletter as a confirmation on firings/hirings, for instance, WWE just recently hired two UK wrestlers under developmental deals according to the wrestling observer, and I added them to Unassigned talent. He removed them, saying WWE.com did not mention it. My argument back is that WWE.com does not aknowledge all hirings/firings, for example (Angel Williams). Also, these forms of information has kept us up to date on current creative team members, some promotions (D'Angeli), and some superstars under contract (McGillicutty). Is there any argument on using these sites as a form of information to post here
- All those sites are nothing but random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo-information, and have been wrong many times before (Wrestling Observer reported Beth Phoenix was fired when she wasn't). Misplaced Pages policies (WP:RS, and WP:V), make it clear: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. ", also from WP:V, "editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." S ince Wrestling Observer fails to be verifiable, or reliable, I have removed the additions NickSparrow placed based on them. Bmg916Sign 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- WWE.com doesnt acknowledge a lot of things including injuries, developmental signings, some releases, and oftentimes character name changes or roster moves for an extended period of time. They are not the only source we've been using here as wrestlingobserver, pwinsider, rajah, 411mania, and others have all provided us with much information. If any info turns out to be actually false, it is usually retracted within a matter of days, but saying that we can no longer use any of these sources is going to render this page very inaccurate. I don't know why, all of a sudden, BMG insists on being the police on a situation that has worked well for so many months, but I, personally, cannot accept this one. I've seen these stupid flagicons and other dumb things go on here, but this one takes the cake. DaHumorist 12:24, 23 May 2007
- Go ahead and leave it, I'm not going to edit war over policy. I still feel as those should not be used, as they are incredibly unreliable, but it's not worth stressing over, I no longer care. Bmg916Sign 16:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- WWE.com doesnt acknowledge a lot of things including injuries, developmental signings, some releases, and oftentimes character name changes or roster moves for an extended period of time. They are not the only source we've been using here as wrestlingobserver, pwinsider, rajah, 411mania, and others have all provided us with much information. If any info turns out to be actually false, it is usually retracted within a matter of days, but saying that we can no longer use any of these sources is going to render this page very inaccurate. I don't know why, all of a sudden, BMG insists on being the police on a situation that has worked well for so many months, but I, personally, cannot accept this one. I've seen these stupid flagicons and other dumb things go on here, but this one takes the cake. DaHumorist 12:24, 23 May 2007
Until her release has been confirmed by wwe.com, Angel Williams should be put back on the OVW roster.
Dave Meltzer is probably the most reliable reporter on all things WWE, thats not to say he cant get things wrong but to say you shouldn't use the biggest and most repected wrestling related newsletter as a source is ridiculous, use it but if it turns out to be false change it, it doesn't matter that much. Skitzouk 13:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
New Policy Pitch On Listed Wrestler Nicknames
I have heard people argue about whether or not to include wrestler nicknames in their space on the roster pages. I think I have a solution. It is my idea to include only the nicknames where the nickname is part of the ringname as in the ring announcement. For example Shawn Michaels is introduced as The Heartbreak Kid Shawn Michaels therefore the nickname should be included on the roster page. Conversely Kane while being associated with the nickname The Big Red Machine/Monster by announcers it is not part of his annoucement and therefore should not be included. In TNA Abyss is always announced as The Monster Abyss therefore the nickname should be included same goes for Ron The Truth Killings. Please post oppose or support and I would like admin response on this as well.69.182.244.170 20:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)JakeDHS07
I had brought his up previously. The agreement was to remove all nicknames, period. I still think that "Hacksaw", "The Masterpiece" etc, should be listed but it's not a big issue with me. Gavyn Sykes 04:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Tag Team Sorting
There seems to be a small edit-battle taking place over this. We need to come to an agreement. What's everyone's stance? Gavyn Sykes 03:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I say alphebatical by the order they are announced or team name (when available).Freebird Jackson 22:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Vince McMahon vs. Mr. McMahon
There's a lot of edit warring going on over this in various articles.
Here are the facts. He is announced to the ring as Mr. McMahon, his HUD says Mr. McMahon. He ALWAYS calls himself "Vincent Kennedy McMahon.
Either is fine, to be honest. Just pick one and stay with it... Gavyn Sykes 20:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let's leave it as Vince McMahon we don't have to pay him any respect. -凶 20:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. He uses both names (in fact, his bio even starts "Vince McMahon".... Both are fine to use, so people shouldn't be changing it for no reason. TJ Spyke 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just as a correction, I looked at his bio, the only time it says "Vince McMahon" is when it was talking about his father, it says Mr. McMahon everywhere else. That is his ring name, he rarely goes by Vince, just only when he refers to himself. The same thing goes with Mr. Kennedy, his real ring name is Ken Kennedy, but he rarely goes by that on screen and it does say it on his roster page.
OVW
Edited the OVW females roster to include all the talent located on the site. And yes, Beth Phoenix is still on thier roster.Sephiroth storm 02:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Dan Rodman and Chuck Palumbo
Why are they listed as part of the Raw roster? They have never appeared on Raw, they should be off. I wont take them off myself, because then the person will just put it back, and we'll just start an editing fight. Lex94 05:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- They should be in "Other" because they have been wrestling in dark matches for all 3 brands. TJ Spyke 00:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Chuck Palumbo should not be listed as an active member of the RAW roster. 1 Heat appearance hardly constitutes him being considered part of the main roster. He should go under Unassigned or Inactive talent until he debuts on TV.GShton 02:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Chuck Palumbo and Dan Rodman should be on the RAW roster because if they competed on HEAT and won a match they are definitely on the RAW roster cause that's usually what happens.
"Usually" being the key word there. Not all the time. Just most of the time. Misplaced Pages operates on FACTS, not things that are likely to happen. Gavyn Sykes 00:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Would someone tell this "Ohgltxg" guy that Palumbo doesn't belong on the main roster with no Raw appearances and mentions aside from one minor Heat appearance. i'm tired of dealing with him. GShton 02:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I contacted him regarding this. He still believes he is right, arguing that Palumbo is a part of the Raw brand because Heat is an extension of Raw and that Palumbo defeated "established wrestler" Charlie Haas and appeared again. Gavyn Sykes 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
an easy way to settle your pathetic squable is to check the WWE roster page, if he's on there fine if not leave him off. Skitzouk 18:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see what would be wrong with listing him under Other Talent on RAW, with "appearing on Heat" next to his name. It's a perfectly fair way, listing him both under the Raw brand, but not adding him to the full-time roster. DaHumorist 16:32, 10 June 2007
That's sounds fine to me. Gavyn Sykes 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Just an update, I went to a Smackdown/ECW house show and Palumbo wrestled for the Smackdown brand, so I'm going to move him to the unassigned talent, since no one is for sure where he will go. Gamer928 17:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
jeez luize ever heard of watching TV hes on smackdown has come over 3 times on smackdown at your smackdown house show hes on smackdown used to be on smackdown formerly in a former smackdown stabble smackdown smackdown smackdown dont you get it!
Vince
vince deserves a spot on this page even though he's "dead". Lex94 06:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
well where exactly do you put him other then in the business side, he "died" on RAW but was listed under ECW ... Skitzouk 16:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
hes not dead he showed up at chris benoits uh... what do you call those things uh.. memorial service thats it he also showed up at an ECW hes not dead.
Rene Dupree
Both Rene and Sylvan's bios say that Rene Dupree was released from the WWE. Sylvan's even says a date. I don't recall this happening. Can anyone confirm with a link? If so, we should delete Rene from the page. DaHumorist 15:50, 12 June 2007
It was never confirmed by WWE.com. And it isn't in the WWE alumini page. But it states he got released in his, Sylvan's and La Resistance's page. Chris2038win 00:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Any updates? Dahumorist 21:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Sylvan on Smackdown
Last night during the draft Sylvan's photo was shown on the smackdown roster. So he needs to be moved to Smackdown. Chris2038win 00:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I mean he was on smackdown when they were tolling the bell ten times for mr. mcmahon with all the other smackdown superstars as well so sylvan needs to be on the smackdown roster.
Why Get Rid Of Sylvan?
If you looked at the SD slots you would of seen Sylvan at the very top. The top left. Chris2038win 03:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Because Sylvan's not actually on the SmackDown roster. Last time he was on TV, he was on ECW BBoy.
It doesn't matter. Sylvan showed up on tv on Smackdown with all the other Smackdown superstars when they were tolling the bell ten times for Mr. McMahon.
Ron Simmons
During the draft, Ron Simmons was shown as part of the Raw roster. Coach said that all former world champions on the raw roster become part of the WWE VENGEANCE main event. Ron Simmons should be part of it.
coach said it had to be a former WWE champion Ron Simmons was NWA champion not WWE.
No he said "world champion" and btw he was WCW champion the first african american to hold NWA was ron killings.
Simmons was WCW, I thought.
Booker was never the WWE Champion either, for the record. 5 time WCW WHC and one time WHC in WWE. He's never held the actual WWE Championship belt. On that note, Lashley's only held the ECW World Title and Orton's only held the WHC.
Anyway, Coach said all former world champions would ELIGIBLE to compete, not they had would compete. If everyone was to compete in the match, it could become a mini-Royal Rumble.
On another note, please sign your posts using four tildes. (~) Gavyn Sykes 22:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a mini royal rumble, because these 6 plus Jerry Lawler are the only world champions on the raw roster. Lex94 02:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The Raw Royal Kingdom/Big Daddy V and Matt Striker
I added King Booker and Queen Sharmell to the stables in the raw roster and someone took them out. please put them back. If you are doubtful because they are not a tag team, it doesnt matter, still a stable. Read stable
They're not a stable. It's noted after Sharmell's name that she is the 'Valet of King Booker.' That's enough. Gavyn Sykes 02:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Besides a stable has more than 2 wrestlers in it.
Fine then they're a tag team. they are two wrestlers, and they team up with eachother... (aka a tag team)
Well Big Daddy V and Matt Striker are in the Stables/Tag Teams section. They are not a tag team considering they haven't wrestled together in a tag team match ever. Therefore they are not a tag team. The only other reason they could be in there is because they would be a stable. If a stable has two or more people in it, it proves that Big Daddy V and Matt Striker are not a stable. If they are not a stable or a tag team, they should be removed from the section. If it makes you feel better, why don't you put next to Big Daddy V: Bodyguard of Matt Striker. Hardyboyz27 23:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hardyz
where are the hardys?user:sub619 17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Jeff is still on RAW, Matt is still on Smackdown!--Duality344 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Stone Cold, Mick Foley
As much as I find it ridiculous, Stone Cold is in the RAW roster page on wwe.com, and Mick Foley is not. Mick Foley hasn't wrestled a Raw show, and Vengeance isn't either a Raw show anymore. So, we cant just put him under Raw because he appeared there and said he was. Then The Rock should be here, because he mentioned that "the rock is coming back to monday night raw". Now, Stone Cold shouldnt be on wwe.com's roster page in the first place, he should be in the Alumni page. Lex94 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I believe he said "Finally The Rock has returned to Monday Night Raw." Meaning for about three minutes in the form of a pre-recorded video segment. He's not coming back, he's stated he's done with wrestling. Stone Cold (and Hulk Hogan) seem to have secured places of honor of the Raw roster page. Terry Funk has always been listed on the ECW roster page as well, despite not wrestling since either ONS1 or 2, can't recall which.
So really, none of them should be listed in any capacity on an active roster page. Mick Foley in "Other Roles" though. Gavyn Sykes 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- To be fair Mick did wrestle on Raw against Umaga and since he is in the running for the title he should be a member of the roster page. --Duality344 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Mick did not wrestle on Raw. Umaga knocked him out before he did anything. Lex94 08:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
mick was in a wrestling match HAPPY and stone cold, the rock, hulk hogan, foley and funk are part of raw and ECW they just dont wrestle... much
Nick Sinn
O.K his profile is on OVW.com anyone think he should be added to the roster? gravediggerfuneral
- No, because he's not under contract to the WWE. Dahumorist 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
raw stables
stop taking the hardys of of the raw stables! user:sub619 15:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
they are not an official stable on raw, as matt is a smackdown wrestler, so unless they hold the titles there ias no need for them to be in there. Skitzouk 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Listen out. The only way for a stable to be part of a brand, they both have to be related to the brand in some way. When they were tag team champions, they both were. But now, Matt Hardy is not related to the brand, because he has no championship. Jeff is obviously related to the brand, because of his roster status. Until, Matt wins a championship, or is drafted, he is not related to Raw in any way. Lex94 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
FCW
If Harry Smith won a 21-man battle royal to become the Heavyweight Champ, who were the opponents? There are only 19 people in the FCW roster on this page. Are two missing from this page, or were the other 2 wrestlers from OVW, or local? Lex94 05:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Isnt anyone going to answer my question?
hey wish i could
- email FCW or WWE otherwise we would only be speculating AfTaDaRkCrU 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Chuck
Why is chuck palumbo on RAW's roster. He should either be, not on at all, or on the Smackdown page cause he will be appering in the next episode
Triple H
Promos are airing for triple h's return, this should be reflected on the roster page.
- only in that it should be noted, he should still be "inactive" until he actually returns AfTaDaRkCrU 18:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
DX
Shawn Michaels and Triple H make up DX on Raw. DX is a tag team. Shouldn't they be under stables and tag teams? Even though they are injured. Meanwhile, Domino over on smackdown is injured and they won't be wrestling as a team until he is better. But they are still listed as a tag team.
HHH and HBK are injured, so they're not listed as a stable. Domino being injured is a different story, they still need to be listed as a tag team, since they hold the belts. Gavyn Sykes 22:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Domino should be moved from Inactive talent to Other On-Air Talent. Even though he broke his nose last week, he still came out with Deuce and Cherry on this week's Smackdown. 76.21.249.103 02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hornswoggle
hasn't he wrestled against boogeyman and little boogeyman on smackdown? doesnt that make him a wreslter? he should be under male wrestlers for smackdown. correct me if i'm wrong.
Not really, since there really isn't anyone else that he can wrestle against besides Little Boogeyman, and since the Boogeyman is on ECW now, I don't see Hornswoggle wrestling anytime soon, good point though. Gamer928 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt Striker, Elijah Burke, Marcus Cor Von
these three are listed as the new breed. the new breed is no longer as matt striker is now feuding with the boogeyman. burke and cor von have not been a tag team in a while. also, one episode of ecw, tazz addressed burke as FORMER new breed leader. he also addressed striker as FORMER new breed member.
Striker was thrown out of the NB some time ago but as far as i know the NB hasn't officially split.AfTaDaRkCrU 20:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
well then he should be taken out of the new breed stable.
Striker was never thrown out, ever. Gavyn Sykes 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
yes he was, becuase he kept getting beat so elijah and cor von turned on him. AfTaDaRkCrU 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You're both half-right. Striker was never "kicked out," persay, but he is no longer a part of the group. He just stopped appearing with them. Having not done anything with them since One Night Stand and now forming his own alliance with BIg Daddy V, I think it's safe to say Striker is no longer a part of the New Breed. Hell, it might be safe to say the New Breed no longer exists. They did say "former leader" recently. Maxwell7985 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Rey Mysterio
Rey wrestled on the raw mexican tour, therfor he is not inactive any more
True, he has wrestled. But that does not make him active until he returns to television. Every returning wrestler does some sort of tour or house shows to get ready for their return. P.S.: Please sign your posts, people. Gamer928 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
WWE DIVAS
i think that the divas on each brand should be listed in subsection. they shouldn't be split up in female wrestlers and other on-air talent. on wwe.com they are all listed as divas. not female wrestlers and other. there should be a diva section for each brand, and if there is something notable about them it can be noted next to their name.
example - in the raw diva section it should look like:
DIVAS:
jillian hall
mickie james
maria
melina
candice michelle
beth phoenix
lilian garcia - ring announcer
queen sharmell - valley of king booker
not really, as someone like Sharmell never wrestles so should be listed simply as "other on-screen talent" where as someone like maria actually wrestles, even if its not all that often. AfTaDaRkCrU 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. Personally, I'd like to avoid even using the term "Divas" on the page. It may be WWE's term for it, but that doesn't make it politically correct. "Female wrestlers" makes more sense and then the other talent. Gavyn Sykes 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages doesn't have to be politically correct. If the term that they use makes sense, then we should use it. Cheers, The Hybrid 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- yes but they dont call it the "Diva's" division, its the women's title so female wrestlers is more appropriate. AfTaDaRkCrU 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- The user was proposing it so that we could group all of the women together, rather than having the female wrestlers in one section, and the backstage talent in another. For a compromise, perhaps we could simply say Females. That way the issue of the non-wrestlers is addressed while remaining politically correct. Does that work for everyone? The Hybrid 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- in that case then it should just say Males as not all the men wrestle, both spilt or both together ...AfTaDaRkCrU 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for even bringing up the political correctness comment. Not really the place for it. In the spirit of being encyclopedic, the WWE does refer to them as "Divas" and most of the time specifies when the match is contested between two divas by referring to it as a "Divas match/contest." So I suppose my comment is rather null anyway. Gavyn Sykes 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, so does Divas work for everyone? There are way more men than women, so both split or both together doesn't really seem to apply either. The Hybrid 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
i say diva is correct. when candice is introduced, she isn't announced as
candice - female wrestler
and sharmell isn't introducted as sharmell - other on-air-talent
they are introduced as candice - wwe champion diva. and sharmell - wwe diva
- no but by the same score J.R isn't called other on-air talent either but it doesnt change the fact thats what he should be listed under.AfTaDaRkCrU 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
your right. then that gives me the idea that the commentators should be grouped together under all three brands looking like this:
WWE COMMENTATORS
Jim Ross - Raw
Jerry Lawler - Raw
Michael Cole - Smackdown
JBL - Smackdown
Tazz - ECW
Joey Styles - ECW
why mess things up they are fine the way they are, besides the brands are listed separately, btw sign your post with 4 "~". AfTaDaRkCrU 19:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
ok forget the announcer thing but the diva's should still be listed under their own section Hardyboyz27 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hart Foundation 2.0
has it been confirmed that they have formed in FCW? if not can people please stopp adding it to the section. AfTaDaRkCrU 06:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories: