Talk:Job (professional wrestling)

	Job (professional wrestling) 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

List

I have a problem with the inclusion of some of the jobbers on this list. I think the list should contain "pure" jobbers, not just wrestlers that currently lose a lot of matches that were bigger and had title runs in the past. Here are some I think should be removed. (and I used this site to help determine things a bit: http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/results.htm)

The ECW one-offs: I think it's too early to tell if they are going to be used more than once, and if so, they should not be on here. And the stripper and the priest didn't even technically wrestle.
Simon Dean: He has a gimmick and a theme song, and his winning percentage isn't high, but he did have a nice run of wins in his first few months, is probably a JTTS now (jobber to the stars).
Scotty 2 Hotty: A JTTS now, but has won a few titles in the WWE.
Funaki: See above.
Stevie Richards/Shawn Stasiak: Both JTTS, but a lot of title runs and a fair amount of good wins at times.
Sylvain Grenier: 4 time tag champ, I don't think he's a bona-fide jobber.
Rob Conway: JTTS, but a gimmick and a few titles.
Lance Cade: JTTS, but did have the tag titles
Shannon Moore: maybe, but probably more of a JTTS, he did beat carlito
Aldo Montoya: Not that bad, he did beat the likes of Kwang and Steven Dunn a lot
Koko B. Ware: JTTS, had gimmick and prop, which is more than a natural jobber would have
Al Snow: No way
El Gran Luchadore: Only appeared 3 times, as a joke
Nunzio: 2 time CW champ
Jacqueline: 2 time Woman's and Cruiserweight Champ, had the occasional win vs other lower card women, but a JTTS during most of her WWE run — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.204.225.65 (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? --63.18.243.157 05:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jobber litmus test

there has to be a way of deciding who belongs here and who doesn't...WillC 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - The distinction I would make would be between wrestlers who had significant career success...vs. those who had little or no success. A distinction between "jobbing" and "jobber" if you will. It always saddens me when younger wrestling fans with no historical memory refer to Tony Garea (!) as a jobber...because he jobbed for WWF during the last few years of his active career. Tony Garea was a 5-time WWWF/WWF tag team champion -- hardly a jobber. Same for Baron Mikel Scicluna (1-time WWWF tag team champion). Just because Scicluna jobbed a lot in the late 70s doesn't make him a "pure jobber" like Frankie Williams. So anyone with a title would have to be off the list -- though one will find it hard to find published sources to support this (very reasonable) exclusion criterion. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why make such a distinction? This article is already headed so far in the direction of showing so few dimensions of its associated subject that there is nowhere else for it to go but full-fledged POV fork. Mick Foley is obviously very proud of the fact that his second-ever match saw him squashed like a bug by the British Bulldogs. You're telling me that it's unworthy of mention because he later became a main event star, NYT bestselling author, yada yada? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "jobber"

I think this article should be moved to jobber (professional wrestling), since we should be using the noun form. The article seems to focus on the jobber, not the act of jobbing. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current jobbers

would that satisfy you all, to list wrestlers who are currently booked as jobbers? WillC 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a jobber list so important? Just let it go. A current jobber list wouldn't be right either. Several Raw wrestlers lose on Raw alot, but end up winning in Heat matches. That certainly isn't a jobber. There isn't many that really job on a fulltime basis in WWE or TNA now. Scotty Too Hotty, Funaki, Stevie Richards and Val Venis are the main ones for WWE. For TNA, there is Norman Smiley, Shark Boy and Jerelle Clark only I believe. So with that said, there isn't many to list. A small list is basically useless. RobJ1981 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the content should be relatively stable - a current jobber list is subject to change and contention regarding who is included on the list. For example, Shelton Benjamin was on a losing streak a while ago, but his inclusion would be questionable. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there are current event articles on wikipedia. WillC 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there are current event articles, doesn't mean there needs to be a current list of jobbers. I don't see why this is such an issue. RobJ1981 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ditto to you. WillC 23:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is fine as it is, consensus has been reached. Let's keep it like this. --Burgwerworldz 04:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your lone opinion, or even two opinions, is not a consensus. WillC 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Current event" articles are different since they document major events whose facts will remain static, not an ever-changing, debatable list of people. Although there isn't a large consensus regarding this issue, Wikipedia:Embedded list provides a guideline for something a list like this. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy relief section

Before this turns into an edit war, we should probably discuss the merits of the comedy relief section. As it is, it really doesn't belong there. All it does is mention two ECW jobbers who are pretty small in the broad scope of this topic. There's not enough stuff in there to warrant its own section - which is why I tried to merge it into the "Gimmicks" section before WillC reverted my edit. If it's going to stay there, there's going to have be a better way of asserting its significance than mentioning two recent ECW gimmicks. Namely, there's going to have to be some less recent, notable examples. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it should be gone. Granted there has been some comedy jobbing in the past, I don't think there has been much. It should be expanded a bit, or just be removed for good. RobJ1981 19:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: DING DONGS. WillC 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be folded into the gimmicks section, since the section references the gimmicks themselves as the "comedy relief" more than the actual act of losing matches. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are splitting hairs....your bunch must always have it YOUR WAY OR ELSE. WillC 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, avoid personal attacks, second of all, assume good faith. We all want to make a good article here, we just disagree about what should be in it. I could have removed the comedy relief section, but I instead I kept the material and merged it into the Gimmicks section since it didn't stand well on its own. Nevertheless, the change was reverted. That's what we're discussing this for, so we can come to consensus. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ding Dongs and the recent ECW jobbers aren't enough for a whole comedy relief section. I think a small note about comedy would be fine in the gimmicks section, but that's it. It doesn't need a section of it's own. RobJ1981 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking an entire article....it's not costing Wikipedia or you money to be separate; it does not belong with gimmicks because they were not consciously jobbers like the JOB SQUAD. I think three examples is sufficient to merit its own space. WillC 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy jobbers don't have the same gimmick as the JOB Squad, but they certainly aren't that note worthy (Ding Dongs, ECW, and a few others possibly isn't enough for it's own section). Armstrongs didn't have jobbing as a gimmick completely, but they are in the gimmick section and it's fine. I think comedy would be just fine in it as well. There doesn't need to be a section for every little thing. RobJ1981 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wrestling is entertainment, be it drama or comedy. it stays. WillC 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to WillC (in his latest revert of the comedy relief) "comedy relief of some sort is used prior to most main events". That's not really true at all. There is comedy on shows, but it certainly isn't JOBBING most of the time. RobJ1981 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry WillC, but as an impartial newbie to this arguement, I tend to agree with the others. Making a "comic relief" section of the article is unnessicary... Everything we need to know is under the gimmicks section.

-NickSentowski 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were invited by others to come here and say that as per the wrestling project page. He should have asked for unbiased commenting, not slanting to his POV with his call. WillC 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rediculous, personal attack on my on my integrity. I am quite offended by this and am now warning you of Blocking. You are also in violation of WP:3RR

How else did you find this page? WillC 23:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-NickSentowski 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block nomination is here

-NickSentowski 22:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think that the "comic relief" part is even notable as a remark, those examples are hard to define as jobbers, just one-shots that happened to lose a match, I say get rid of it all, one stubborn editor should not force us to make a compromise to include it. --Quotes22 22:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling for an arbitrator. The fact that I have posted three such examples (Zombie, Macho, Ding Dongs) instantly, with many more in reserve is enough for notability. None of you are being open to compromise or even debate. WillC 23:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really worth wasting your life over this? You are being totally stubborn. There are over a million other pages on here that may need improvement, find some, and work with those. No one agrees with you, and just because it's a minor fact does not mean it should be included. --Quotes22 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you care so much about not including it? WillC 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random, uncatorized comments

I moved these comments down here as an attempt to clean up the page: -NickSentowski 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list of jobbers through the years should be included on this site. WillC 03:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the first sentence. Would someone clarify? - 194.73.118.78 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty non pov - NightShade 01:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: whatever The Rock said, "jabroni" is NOT used in current italian language by any means, just like a random word like "fuckowsky" may sound east-european but it doesn't mean anything. 195.62.164.225 10:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I waited a couple of days, and removed the "italian" reference to jabroni 195.62.164.225 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Patience Has Expired

As much as I love the openness of Wikipedia, children should not be allowed to edit. Read & Contribute Here. -NickSentowski 19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triple H as jobber

Triple H was given this role from 1996-1997 by Vince McMahon as punishment for the infamous MSG Incident.

No doubt it's true; but does anyone have a reference that can be added? (This article has no references at all). Maybe from the Wrestling_Observer_Newsletter? --Dglosser 23:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VOTE ON COMEDY JOBBING

WillC feels that there should be a secton devoted to wrestlers who job commedicly on a regular basis... Others feel that his section should be merged with the gimmicks section of the existing article... A third group feels that this section should be omitted completely, believing that the examples mentioned are not notable.

Please vote below to MERGE, SEPERATE, or REMOVE this content.

This vote will be resolved in 7 days. - NickSentowski 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE and re-write. While some workers do job for comic relief, they are to few and far between to make a major impact. The gimmick's section is perfect to list those types of workers. - NickSentowski 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE We already agreed to do this once. WillC 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Not notable enough to even have a little bit on it. Don't delete this again Will. I have every right to vote, and have it left on here. RobJ1981 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete it, ever. WillC 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This ought to be a discussion to build consensus, not a vote. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Per RobJ1981, the use of comic relief in wrestling isn't really all that connected with the main point of the article, which is to lose a wrestling match. It's just clutter, and we are fighting this because of a persistant and stubborn editor. I also do not see any evidence that there was any agreement to include it at any time. And WillC did indeed remove RobJ1981's vote/comment, so I think that should be grounds to automatically strike WillC's vote from the record. --Renosecond 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the edit history and saw that his entry was struck, but it was not done intentionally. Perhaps we were editing at the same time and mine saved. In any case, I edited and expanded this article long before any of you were here. If anyone has a vision for this entry, it is me. If you don't want this vote to stick, that's fine. Let's go back to consensus building...the compromise on the table is that comedy relief jobbers stay, but in the gimmicks section...because that's what they are. Everybody wins. WillC 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't even jobbers, they are just one shot characters used to build up a wrestler. Don't go with this "everybody wins" thing, cause that just won't happen unless you change your stubborn ways. You can say that you didn't delete your vote, but with your constant violation of WP:CIVIL and the like, I think there's a fairly good chance that you did. The article looks better without a pesudo-example cluttering it up. Just stop editing this page, and leave it alone, it is perfect as it is now. Just because you alledgedly improved an article does not mean you own it, as the edit page says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --Renosecond 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prove I was uncivil. You calling me uncivil is uncivil. You should follow your own advice about editing. WillC 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the notice board about the little "not done intentionally" comment by Will. I will post the same thing here. I checked the history, it's almost 2 minutes apart (from when I posted, and he posted/deleted my post on this talk page). RobJ1981 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that was some sort of trickery on your part. Your vote was not there when I voted. WillC 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could have been an edit conflict. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't the "edit conflict" screen have been shown? - NickSentowski 02:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a technical glitch and nothing more. WillC 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a glitch or trickery. But it's not like you would admit you deleted it anyway. RobJ1981 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of jobbers

it has been discussed previously that examples of jobbers such as the growing list are not acceptable.....WillC 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Naki

He is not a jobber anymore he beat MVP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.38.72 (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kane

does anyone else consider kane's role since un-masking to be a JTTS. he beats low-profile wrestlers, but loses every time to high profile superstars, and more recently returning superstars. ex. John Cena, Triple H, The Great Khali, Rey Mysterio etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.158.111 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, nevermind, i've noticed by going back that Kane does dominate alot of his matches, and still wins frequently, it just seems he loses in stupid ways, especially to over guys like cena and HHH. Sorry about my first post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KKarvox (talk • contribs) 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another article completely lacking in proper historical perspective

Specifically, the history involved in the article begins approximately at the point where jobbers started to be phased out of regular usage.

I'd rather not rehash that this is another article which is far too WWF/E-slanted. Why no mention of people who didn't work in the WWF who became semi-famous for being a jobber, such as Jake Milliman or Randy Mulkey?RadioKAOS (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It means they are failures at their career"

I removed the statement: "It is a mark of disrespect calling a wrestler a jobber, because it means that they are a failure at their careers."

but it was reverted by user Ezequiel Matias Acosta with the rationale: 'Wrestlers like Damien Demento, Barry Horowitz, and others who were or are jobbers don't like to be called jobbers, or they don't like the term "jobber)"

Even if this is true (no source is given), it is not relevant to the removed statement, as disliking a term does not prove these men are failures at their careers. That we are discussing them long after they stopped wrestling would imply the opposite.

I request impartial mediation on this disagreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg hill (talk • contribs) 11:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Loveable losers"

The three terms given as an example of how WWE addresses jobbers I find to be poorly chosen. "Local competitors" are often just that, and the other two terms are very rarely used.Greg hill (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blading (professional wrestling) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Job (professional wrestling). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603173309/http://www.prowrestlinghistoricalsociety.com/hg-carpenters.html to http://www.prowrestlinghistoricalsociety.com/hg-carpenters.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Job (professional wrestling). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What a "job" really is?

I'm under the impression that this article misses a point : the reason why a "job" is called just like that comes from the fact that unlike the money-making "stars", a jobber didn't have a long-term contract. They made sporadic appearances to fill the card and make the permanent talents look good, and were subsequently hired and paid on a per-appearance basis. Hence doing a single "job", not a long-term deal. Of course this is Wikipedia, I need sources to back up this this claim. I'm going to look for them, but if anybody comes across something interesting, let me know. --Tsort142 12:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]