Talk:List of WWE personnel/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Skip Sheffield

Is Skip Sheffield still a member of the RAW Roster? See http://www.wwe.com/superstars . --Hixteilchen (talk) 04:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

WWE.com removed Skip's profile due to the fact that he hasn't appeared on WWE TV since his injury in 2010. I've moved him to the Unassigned employees section for the time being since he's still signed to the company.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Lawler - EDIT WAR

Hello! I wanna make a discussion about the ongoing edit war about Jerry "The King" Lawler. Jerry Lawler's job in WWE is mainly commentator. He had a WWE Championship match a few weeks ago and The Miz attacked him a few times. But even WWE descibes him as "Raw announcer" - see http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/archive/01172011/ . There is one Wikipedia member, Vjmlhds, who always lists him under wrestlers and he writes in the Notes "Also color commentator". But in my opinion he is "also occasional wrestler". Vjmlhds also wrote in my guest book, but I think it's not right to list Jerry Lawler as "wrestler". So I wanna know what the other wrestling fans think about it. --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the deal:

Jerry Lawler has wrestled 5 times in the last 8 weeks in various kinds of matches (TLC, 2 singles, a tag, and a 6 man), and one of the weeks he didn't wrestle, he was involved in a run-in/beatdown.

"The King" is currently involved in a feud with The Miz (who is WWE Champion BTW). Right now, he's being used more as a regular wrestler/featured player than as a commentator (Josh Matthews has been doing a lot of Raw commentary lately). Lawler has wrestled more on Raw in the last 2 months than some of the Raw bottom feeders have.

When Jerry goes back to his usual 1 match every 3 months clip and stays in the background, then it would be more appropriate to put him back as "occassional". But as long as he's front and center in a featured feud, and has a more active in-ring role, he belongs with the main roster.

Thank You.

Vjmlhds 02:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Damn watch RAW and you see that he is mainly commentator! He had a few wrestling matches but most of the time he is commentator. The last 2 episodes he didn't wrestle! 2 weeks ago, he was attacked by The Miz, he didn't wrestle! Do you wanna show that you are the biggest Jerry Lawler fan on the planet? I don't wanna wait 23 days until we can move him back! It was wrong in the first place to move him to male wrestlers! I will undo this until somebody deals with the problem! Your arguments don't persuade me! That's the point. --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hix is right. Jerry is a commentator. I'm sure that's what his contract says. Also, The Miz/Lawler feud is over. Watch Raw and you'll notice. Feedback ^☎ 00:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure also the contract says that he must also wrestle when called upon.

All I'm saying is that with as much as Lawler has been wrestling and/or been involved with the Miz storyline, that right now, he's above occassional status.

How do you know if the feud is over, because he didn't wrestle or get involved in a run-in for a week?

Give it this week (to see if Lawler may be a surprise entry in the Royal Rumble) before declaring the feud dead.

Vjmlhds 19:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to side with Hix regarding Lawler is a commentator. That's what he does for probably 95% or more of Raw each week. He wrestles and/or gets involved rarely compared to how often he's at the announce table. InFlamester20 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There should be no question now that Lawler should go on the main roster. He is the #1 contender for the WWE Championship, and will be wrestling for the title at the Elimination Chamber PPV.

Go back through the archives, and it was agreed upon that if you either hold a title or are wrestling for one on PPV, you automatically go on the active list.

Vjmlhds 04:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Guess I spoke too soon; after what happened on Raw on the 31st, Lawler should go on the main roster for now. InFlamester20 (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I still disagree, but I know I will be in the minority. If WWE makes Todd Grisham the #1 Contender for the World Heavyweight Championship on Smackdown, that doesn't make him a main roster member. Feedback ^☎ 23:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sign @ Feedback. I think it's ridiculous to give Jerry Lawler a WWE Championship match at Elimination Chamber.--Hixteilchen (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If King is an active wrestler then so is Ricardo Rodriguez. Both filling the same role. If a decision is made for one it should be the same for the other. Devil (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

He is right. Jerry Lawler is mainly a commentator. Watch RAW, he hasnt wrestled in a while. Considering he just wrestled for special occasions. But he is mainly just commentary.

Guest Hosts in Raw's other on-air employees?

i think that all the guest hosts that raw had were so corny they should have another story line I was thinking of adding the guest hosts to Raw's other on-air employees, even though they don't work for the WWE. Is it a bad idea to do it or not?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not a good idea seeing as there only on one night.--Steam Iron 02:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not naming all the guest hosts. I was thinking of doing this; Name: Celebrity Guest Hosts|Role: Guest Host|Notes: Celebrities appear in backstage and in-ring segments.

They are not employed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.125.196 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Uso, Jules Uso, and Tamina

Should an article be made for these three wrestlers, seeing that every other wrestler has an article? - Joeystuff

Yes. But I don't wanna make the article. Someone else gotta do it! --Hixteilchen (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan

Question:

Should we just go ahead and add Daniel Bryan to the Raw roster?

He's been appearing there quite a bit due to the Miz/Cole feud, and he's really not a part of NXT anymore due to there being a new class of rookies.

Vjmlhds 16:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Where are all the tag team articals

Why have the tag team articals beenn removed. They are a vital part foor the roster to tell who is on what team

user:Slash Johnstone 07:42 Canadian time 21 june 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

I agree with you and these sections should be re-added because they are a vital part of WWE. There are a number of teams currently in the WWE and this page should reflect them all. Ajfweb14 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This page is about the personnel employed by the wwe we do not list the tag teams as such.--SteamIron 02:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Add Backgound Color to Main Roster?

Should we add (style="background-color:") to the main roster section to represent the brand the employees are appearing on or is it too much?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its needed.--Steam Iron 00:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ryder and Primo to SmackDown?

I'm looking on WWE.com, where I was told to look, and I still see Zack Ryder and Primo under Raw superstars. Is the trade thing a hoax? WWEFan225 (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a hoax. Don't worry, I've moved Zack and Primo back to Raw. Who ever moved those two to SmackDown wanted to make vandalism.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Also on Zack Ryder's page, it says hes on SmackDown. I'm not sure about Primo, but to be on the safe side I'll check it out. WWEFan225 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Zack debuted on SmackDown as one of Edge's La Familia stablemates. He was later drafted to ECW, then moved to Raw. Primo has stayed on Raw since he debuted. Don't worry, it was all a hoax.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Primo debuted on Raw and then became a Smackdown superstar where he tagged with his brother for a long time. He won both tag titles as a Smackdown superstar and he was then moved to Raw where he's been jobbing ever since. Feedback ^☎ 15:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Joey Mercury

Joey Mercury is the masked man in the SES. So why is he under Unassigned? --Dragonslayer619 21:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

While he is on SmackDown as the Masked Man of SES, he is not fully on the roster as Mercury. WWE has yet to plan Mercury's unmasking, while we wait, he's is unassigned.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As we don't know for sure that he is the masked man he is listed as Unassigned.--Steam Iron 23:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Alberto Del Rio link

I've added the WWE link to Alberto Del Rio because he will be debuting tonight. Please don't remove it.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Add Ricardo Rodriguez?

Ricardo Rodriguez is Alberto Del Rio's personal ring announcer. Should we add him to SmackDown's "Other on-air employees" section or wait until he appears again on a later episode of SmackDown to add him?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Nexus has been removed from FCW official website

Someone might want to remove the compete in FCW for the Nexus members because if you check FCW talent page the memebers of Nexus have been removed, which means they no longer are required to be in developmental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done!--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Why Doesn't Tamina have an article already?

Why not? --~Ryan Mckenzie~ (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I try and make her one, but every time i do the same guy deletes it :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaitlynWWE (talk • contribs) 04:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Its because said person is not notable for there own page at this time and because not everyone needs a page. Given some time they will most likely get a page in the future--SteamIron 04:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Vic Adams' real name "Marquis Youngston"

For anyone who cares, WWE re-signee's Vic Adams' real name "Marquis Youngston" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.60.103 (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

NXT Divas

Aloisia real name is Lindsay Hayward and Karlee Perez name do not have the accent mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.5.119 (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Jemma Palmer

It's been over a year and she has not debuted, perhaps plans did not work out and it's time to remove her, plus there have been no updates for months now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

She recently did an interview with diva-dirt.com and said she was still under contract.69.141.133.32 (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

link?

She said on her facebook that she has been released, so she can be removed, —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaitlynWWE (talk • contribs) 02:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

identity of Brad Maddox and Kevin Hackman

Brad Maddox is OVW's Beef Wellington

Kevin Hackman is Andrew Leavine

look at pics if you dont believe me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Done, also, do you know the Real Names to Devin Allen and Jacob Novak?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No sorry, from what I picked up about them is that Jacob Novak is someone who originally trained at FCW in their school and got a deal after the training was complete. Nothing is known about Devin Allen as of yet, hopefully soon we will know their real names, well if they even make it to WWE's main roster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Aloisia in FCW?

It is best to put her in unassigned employees for now since she has not yet debuted in FCW or till her pic apperas in the main FCW website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Su Yung FCW Debut

Hey. Could someone add Su Yung to FCW Roster? She debuted at the Sept 18 FCW show under the name Vannah. FCW Results 09/18/2010Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Either the link's dead, bad or doesn't exist. So I can't help you with that.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Hope this one works.http://www.lordsofpain.net/reports/fcw-live-event-results-brooksville-fl-ladder-match-no-dq-title-match-new-developmental-diva-debuts-more.htmlWikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll let the WP:PW look through this, and maybe we'll move her.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 01:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Maxine real name

Karlee Perez name do not have the accent mark. Please, stop change it back to "Pérez". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.15.64.17 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Rudy Parker released

Rudy Parker from FCW was released becuase his picture was taken down from the official FCW website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction to FCW and real identity of Kenny Li

Kenny Li is not Mattias Wild because Mattias Wild is White. Kenny Li is independent Chinese wrestler Li Fang.

Twitter account: http://twitter.com/ChineseWarrior1 and if you youtube his name Li Fang you can see some matches of his indy work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Damnit! Well, I've fixed it. I was really hoping it was Mattias Wild because I've wanted to see what he looks like and what he can do.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ron Myers correction

Ron Myers is not Brian Button, his name is not yet known but he is definitely not Brian Button. So yeah Im not sure who Ron Myers is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed that one too. Are you gonna tell me that Sonia's not Su Yung too?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from XLILNIQX, 2 November 2010

{{dit semi-protected}} Unassigned Employees Lita-Amy Dumas

XLILNIQX (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Freddy Prinze Jr.

FPJ is listed as a current employee, but to my knowledge, he left the company over a year and a half ago. Can somebody follow up on this?(Saint0wen (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

That was the case but it seems that he is once again working fot the WWE.--Steam Iron 08:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

CM Punk

He has a shoulder injury I believe and has recently had surgery on it. I read WWE are still planning to use him, but not in an active role. My point is, should it be noted as I'm about to do, that he has a shoulder injury. Inactive or Active is your call, based on the info you can find, as it was just speculation on if he was going to be used, but I'm guessing you'll say it, we'll have to wait 30 days, which is understandable. KCDavis (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Val Venis

I am aware he's re-signed with the company, shouldn't he be listed somewhere. So apologizes if I've over looked something.KCDavis (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

New person added

Peter Orlov whos is better known as Alex Koslov has been added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Move

The title of this page is not right. It should be List of World Wrestling Entertainment Employees but is List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees. To correct it I'm going to move it to List of World Wrestling Entertainment. Then to List of World Wrestling Entertainment Employees, as Wiki views changing the letter to a capital, the same as it currently is. So please bare with me, thanks. Devil (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Wiki still says page exists. I've tried undoing my edit, but it wont work. Could someone help with this issue, please. I am NOT vandelising this page, simple mistake. Devil (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been no consensuses to move this page I must ask you to stop and gain consensuses first.--SteamIron 19:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jillian is still with WWE

Numerous, website's have confirmed that Jillian was only released from her talent contract and is still gonna train the FCW Divas, so can someone add her back onto the trainers section :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaitlynWWE (talk • contribs) 02:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent Releases

MVP,Luke Gallows,Shad Gaspard,Tiffany,Vance Archer and Caylon Croft need to be added to the alumni section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoFan (talk • contribs) 22:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, already added.

Mattias Wild

He goes under the name Matt Clements in FCW

here is the report of an FCW houseshow which featured Mattias http://www.lordsofpain.net/reports/wwe/FCW_Live_Event_Results_12_2_10_3_Debuts_Raw_Smackdown_Stars_from_All_4_NXT_Seasons.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

A-Ry and The King

I moved Alex Riley and Jerry Lawler to the main roster.

Riley wrestles pretty much every week (he's more of a follower of Miz than a manager/valet/bodyguard), and Lawler has been very active in the ring over the last couple of months, and is involved in a feud with the Miz.

Vjmlhds 05:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now, Jerry Lawler has wresled 4 times in the last 6 weeks, and is actively feuding with the Miz.

Leave him on the active roster for the time being, as he right now is being used more as a wrestler than a commentator.

Once either 30 days lapse with no ring activity (or at least an announced match scheduled, like say either Lawler wresltes for the WWE Title at the Royal Rumble or Lawler is an entry in the Rumble match) then leave The King on the active list.

Once the Miz feud winds down, then put the King back in Other Talent, but due to his increased wrestling activity, he belongs on the active roster for now.

Vjmlhds 16:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless he leaves the commentator booth full-time, he's still a Other on-air talent.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now, Lawler is more of a wrestler who commentates than a commentator who wrestles. Over the last couple of months, Josh Matthews has been doing more Raw commentary than Lawler has.

When you're involved in a feud with the WWE Champion, that is the higher priority than commentating.

They have "the King" right more focused on feuding with the Miz than commentating. For the time being Lawler is more wrestler than commentator. Once the Miz feud runs it's course, than we can adjust from there.

Vjmlhds 17:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Jackson Andrews

A page was created for Jackson Andrews (not by me). It might be a good idea if one of the experts here takes a look at it. Doesn't seem like the guy has done enough to warrant an article, but I also know nothing of his past. I haven't given it a deletion flag or anything of the sort. Kjscotte34 (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Jackson Andrews page his disappeared from the WWE Employees page by accident, i think he was teken off the Raw section, if this is the case he needs moved back to the FCW section Mjf1987 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The article should be kept. Why not? It doesn't hurt the encyclopedia and he becomes more notable every day he is still on the main roster. Hopefully, no one decides to go ahead and delete an article that does very little harm. And also, just because of an "accident", we won't go ahead and remove him from the roster. He's still on Raw regardless of what WWE.com says. When he stops appearing regularly on Raw, we'll remove him from the list. Feedback ^☎ 03:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that someone removed him from the roster since he was not on TV this week with Tyson Kidd. Also- his Wikipedia page has been repaired, referenced, etc. by a well established editor. The ONLY reason that I suggested possible deletion was because the original page was unsourced, no real name, etc etc. You have to remember, just because someone makes an appearance on TV in wrestling, it does NOT automatically qualify them for a page here. Kjscotte34 (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New WWE signing

Brandon Barker who was a student of Lance Storm signed with WWE last October. Look at the November and December updates from Lance Storms official website. Link below

http://www.stormwrestling.com/academy/wwesignings.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels

It says he is a WWE Hall of Famer, as well as am ambassador. However, he has not yet been inducted, and will not be inducted until April 2nd, 2011. SHould it be noted that he is an Hall Of Fame inductee, or leave as is?  WWEFan225 ^Message_{Contributions} 19:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

He's going to be a Hall of Famer. So no change is needed. Why do you want to change it to Hall of Fame inductee?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it should be changed. If it is announced that Shawn Michaels killed his son and then his wife tomorrow morning, WWE will issue a statement saying he won't go into the Hall of Fame. It is speculation (WP:CBALL) to assume that he will unconditionally get in. Feedback ^☎ 20:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, now, let's not go there... But indeed, such is speculation to assume such. Best wait till after the Hall of Fame induction ceremony. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 05:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Would the simple solution be to put him down as "2011 Hall of Fame Inductee" until the ceremony? That way it's covered that it was announced, without saying he's an official member. I'm not sure what we've done in years past. Kjscotte34 (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that we have no proof that he's working for WWE, I don't think he's suited for a employees/personnel article. We wouldn't do anything before, because we never added inductees who weren't working for WWE at the time. Feedback ^☎ 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Good call on that. I didn't realize there wasn't a source there before. Hopefully someone stumbles upon one soon. Kjscotte34 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Identitys of New Talent

For those who want the short version of new talent: "Mike McGrath" = Mattias Wild, Real name: Matt Clement "Kenneth Cameron" = Tom Latimer (real name) from England "Monty Lynch" = Rampage Brown, Real name: Oliver Biney from England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.60.103 (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Nash and Booker T

I vote to put them under unassigned talent, as it's been confirmed that they have both signed contracts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.2.63 (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Untrue. I'm currently listening to a Kevin Nash interview that says he will be signing a contract later this week. I don't know about Booker though, but seeing that Nash hasn't signed a contract yet, I don't think Booker has either. It would be speculation to just assume Booker has. Feedback ^☎ 18:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sting

Nothing has been confirmed yet about Sting, so I say that we lock the article and remove him until at least Feburary 22 to see if Sting is really coming to WWE, I am tired of people messing around on these articles, I mean I know we all wanna see Sting in WWE but a 47 second promo could be for anyone, so lets remove Sting and lock the Article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.0.72 (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

remove him he is going to be on the March 3 tape of TNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sting_%28wrestler%29#cite_note-41 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.231.13 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WrestleMania

Just a couple of things to be clear on as we go into the WrestleMania build that will begin on Monday...

As long as The Rock is still only scheduled to be the host of Mania, he stays in other talent. But if they have him wrestle on the show (like say a main event with him and John Cena), then he goes on the main roster, since that would indicate WWE brought him in to be a wrestler.

As far as Jerry Lawler goes, don't be so quick to send him back to other talent should he lose to Miz on Sunday (obviously if he wins the title he stays where he is). Because if the rumors are true, he'll be wrestling at WrestleMania (against some combo of Micheal Cole/Alex Riley/Ted DiBiase).

In short, until it's dead certain he won't be wrestling regulary or involved in a Mania match between now and Mania, leave him where he is.

Now after Mania, when everything with Miz/Riley/Cole/DiBiase is settled, then we can switch him back to other talent, but as long as he's still in the thick of the action with a feud, Raw matches, and a possible Mania match, he stays as part of the main roster.

Thank You.

Vjmlhds 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FCW Diva: Naomi

It upsets me to see that divas like Shaul Guerrero has a Wikipedia page already, undoubtedly because of her wrestling legacy - yet Naomi has done far more than her, and has yet to receive a page. I only ask she gets one as soon as possible, seeing as how she is one of the most important divas there, besides AJ Lee, and has the most creditable wrestling history to put down. If Shaul and Aksana can have a page, I think Naomi can too.

I agree. --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree also. She was runner up of NXT 3, held the FCW Diva Championship and made the PWI top 50 Female Wrestlers list last year. Those alone should quailfy her for one. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither of them should have an article. Feedback ^☎ 04:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DT Porter IS Dovovan Ruddick/Brian McGhee

Look at these pics of Porter1 and of Ruddick1 and 2. Definitely the same person. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson/The Rock

If he does not appear in the next episode or two of Raw or Smackdown can we add him to the list of unassigned employees. He is not attached to the Raw brand and may not even appear until Wrestlemania Mjf1987 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC).

Page protected

3 days. Too much edit warring going on regarding names. Work it out here, guys. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect the page and block anyone guilty of 3RR. This is a problem among 2 or 3 people, don't block everyone else from editing the article. Feedback ^☎ 16:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I second Feedback's comments. Block the edit warriors and unprotect the page. STATic message me! 16:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is really only one guy who seems hellbent on using the formal names (WWE Jobber).

On the article history page, there are 3 guys (me, Mikeymike, and Wrestling 0101) who have said the formal names aren't necessary.

That's 3-1.

Unless somebody else joins Jobber, then the article should be unlocked and the formal names should be removed (James for Jim, etc).

Vjmlhds 22:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

One more vote here against the formal names. Make it 4-1. Kjscotte34 (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Also against formal names. 5-1. STATic message me! 01:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not make this a vote for the stupid issue of names. Who cares if its formal names or not? They're both adequate. I just want this page to be unprotected ASAP and anyone who decides to fail 3RR be immediately blocked. Feedback ^☎ 17:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, it may not be of paramount importance. We still need to remember WP:COMMONNAME though. I'm also not sure if Vince should be in on-air employees, as he doesn't really appear that much.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the page should be unlocked tommorow (since the lock was issued on Friday, and 3 days will have past).

So it looks like we can all agree on this:

Formal names aren't necessary as per consensus and WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. if someone goes by Bill, we don't have to list him as William).

As far as Vince in other on-air talent goes, he is still listed on the Raw roster page on WWE.com, so it's not incorrect to list him where he is.

But if he were to go back to the executive section, it wouldn't hurt my feelings either.

Vjmlhds 19:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I established a middle ground between my opinion and the one of you all and remodeled the article. Now we have room for common/ring names and real/formal names. Like Feedback said they are both adequate, so let us use both of them like in the rest of the article. I hope you all like it. If you does not let us discuss it first to avoid all those reversions and undoings. The real important thing here is to help to improve the article together. WWEJobber (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Protected, again

There is far too much warring going on, not only between registered accounts, but now IP addresses -- and far too little discussion on the talk page. Edit summaries are not the place to resolve disputes. 1 week this time. Longer if necessary, up to indefinite. If you want to make a change to the article while protected, get consensus for it and then propose it with the {{editrequested}} tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Stupid decision, but I'm not going to fight it. You obviously do not know what you're doing. Feedback ^☎ 03:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not need to make personal attacks so much as assuming good faith. That sort of comment is counter-productive to the development of Wikipedia. --Tærkast (Communicate) 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my God, look I can Wikilink to ! Feedback ^☎ 15:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just to make this perfectly clear for everybody so we know what to do the next time this situation happens:

• WP:PW/Style guide has a policy that as long as information comes from an approved source, it can be included in articles. So like in the case of Wade Barrett winning the I-C Title, the spoiler results were found on sites that Wikipedia accepts as valid, therefore, the proper updates to any related articles are permitted.

• Nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that spoilers are not allowed, and nowhere does it say that we can only go by the official website of the promotion (be it WWE, TNA, ROH, or whatever).

• And by going over to WP:SPOILER, it clearly points out that spoilers can't be deleted just because they're spoilers.

• Long story short--Barrett beat Kofi for the I-C Title in a match which occured on 3-22-11. It was verified by acceptable sources, and so the match and the result thereof are allowed to be included in the proper articles.

• Stuff happened, and just because it hasn't been aired yet, it doesn't mean that we can pretend it didn't happen...again as pointed out in WP:SPOILER.

• Hopefully THIS will put all the hubbub to bed, and this article just may be unprotected sooner than scheduled.

Thank You. Vjmlhds 23:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you all agree that the article is ready for unprotection and that warring will not resume, let me know or post a request at WP:RFPP#Current requests for unprotection. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think now that we know what the definitive spoiler policy is, we can play nice. Also, we have new FCW Tag Team Champions in WWE's developmental branch, as Richie Steamboat and Seth Rollins won the titles, so the roster needs to be edited and updated anyway to reflect the change. Thank You. Vjmlhds 13:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Now we know what the..." Spoiler policy has ALWAYS been very clear. The incompetent users who want to edit war because of it should be blocked and handled separately without disturbing every other MILLION USERS OF WIKIPEDIA the right to edit this page. Remember that by protecting a page, the admin is rendering it uneditable by the millions of wikipedia users and millions of anons around the world. All because of what? Two or three buffoons? Warn them on their talk page, and if they continue, block them all and let the page be. It's a stupid decision to protect the page, but of course, the all-knowing admin knows best, right... Feedback ^☎ 15:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Feedback--

Insulting the top men of Wiki ain't gonna get this thing unlocked any sooner. What they did is kind of like what the Army does in basic training--one screws up, all get punished. Being reasonable works better than snide comments. Vjmlhds 21:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the top men of Wiki, just people who have been designated as users who have GOOD JUDGMENT to know when to use a specific set of abilities like protecting pages and blocking disruptive users. Obviously, good judgment wasn't present when the former was done instead of the latter. This isn't the military, you don't shut down a page just because two people can't get along. You push the two people aside, they either cooperate or they get blocked. No need to start punishing other people. Feedback ^☎ 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The page is now semi-protected. Your failure to assume good faith as required is noted. Fully protecting the page is the only appropriate response for a content dispute, when an admin sees good-faith attempts at improvement without obvious vandalism, as was the case here. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's the way it is. In the future, provide warnings to disruptive users on their talk pages and report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring if needed. That would generate better results than blustering here. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I never "failed to assume good faith". Being unhappy with a decision isn't the same thing as thinking the decision was made with bad intentions. I am completely aware that you believe protecting the page was the right solution, and I'm pretty sure you're accustomed to just go ahead with protection as a first measure anytime the slightest of disputes arises in an article. However, protection is very drastic, it affects ALL non-admin editors on Wikipedia and therefore should be used as a LAST measure when it is REALLY needed. It was not REALLY needed here. Blocking the editors works best, although semi-protection was a good idea as well. Again, I hope it is clear that I didn't think you were being an evil power-abusing admin, I did not "Assume bad faith", I assumed bad judgment. You're the admin here which certainly means you have more experience, but I've been on Wikipedia for almost 5 years and I can notice when a decision is being made to hastily without much meditation. THINK ABOUT IT TWICE next time before you protect a page. There are more editors out there than the two or three bickering IPs. Feedback ^☎ 13:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Kofi/Barrett

We have always been allowed to post spoilers as long as they're from accepted sources (PWTorch and Wrestling Observer to name two.)

Barrett won the match and the title, and the proper souces confirmed it.

Why is it now people are having coniptions?

The match happened, he won the belt, it's been confirmed by the sources.

Simple as that, period, and amen.

Vjmlhds 17:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

To end this once and for all, go to WP:PW. Once there click on the style guide. Towards the bottom of the article it has a list of sources that are acceptable to use for information.

As long as whatever information we add to Wiki can be backed up by the sources in the accepted list, IT IS ALLOWED TO BE ADDED.

END OF STORY!

Vjmlhds 18:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not the end of story. You are misinterpreting the information in the article. 174.27.14.36 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe your the one misinterpreting the information.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Spoilers can be posted if there are Reliable sources which there are this Issue is over.

The Rock'Dwayne Johnson

It's known that WWE recently, besides referring to The Rock as his ring name, they are also referring him to Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, but as it says 'Ring Name', he is still refereed to as The Rock. Is that a reliable change it from what he has now to just 'The Rock' under 'Other personalties' in the RAW section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside05 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tough Enough

Question:

Once Tough Enough debuts, do we list the contestants as part of the roster or no?

Vjmlhds 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, USA has contracts for the 14 contestants, not WWE.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But Ariana the contestant on the show, has been signed to a development deal with WWE, she announced on her twitter page so she should be under the women of FCW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.141.188 (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The Rock

We have a first of it's kind situation here.

We have a match booked one year in advance (Rock vs Cena - Wrestlemania 28), so I will tenatively put Rock on the active list.

1. By booking a match a year in advance, this shows WWE and the Rock have a long term agreement.

2. This shows that Rock was brought in to be a wrestler, and they are treating the Rock as such.

3. There is always the possibility that The Rock may wrestle a few times before the next Mania.

Now, if Mr. Johnson disappears for a spell before Mania, we'll just simply deactivate him until he comes back.

Never had something like this happen before, so I think this would be the best way to approach it.

Vjmlhds 04:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion you need to use common sense here, (points 1 & 2) he may not appear/compete for months as there is rumours he has another film shooting soon. As for point no 3, he should be left in other on air employees till he actually competes in a match. By adding him to the list when he may not appear for 6 months seems silly. I would leave him as other on air employees till he competes and take it from there. Thoughts? Mjf1987 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Common Sense:

1. When you set your Wrestlemania main event a year in advance, that indicates that The Rock is going to be a highly featured player in WWE for the next 12 months. That's more than merely being "other on-air talent"

2. When the next year of the company's promotion and marketing is going to center around you, you are just a wee bit higher profile and a tad bit more important than the ring announcer, so it doesn't makes sense (and really wouldn't be accurate) to list him in the same category as someone like Justin Roberts or Scott Stanford.

3. If The Rock has a lenghty absense between now and Mania, we'll just list him as inactive in the notes column...that's what it's there for.

4. Bottom line...when you're already locked into the main event of the biggest show of the year 12 months in advance, you're (to say the least) a featured player, not the supporting crew.

Vjmlhds 17:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I bet that D"TR"J will disappear to do his movies and will come back on January 2012 to the "Road To Wrestlemania" thing. And, in fact, the match is not a certainty because him and/or Cena can get hurt or even die until WM28. WWEJobber (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing to do would be to put him in unassigned employees with something in his notes about his match with John 'Superman' Cena at WM28? Mjf1987 (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no "maybe" about it, WWE has bent over backwards to confirm that it'll be Cena-Rock at WM 28.

And this "both could get hurt or die" arguement is bogus, because if you went by that logic, then EVERY SINGLE PROMOTED MATCH would be subjected to that same treatment. ("The Edge vs Alberto Del Rio ladder match at Extreme Rules may not happen if one of them dies, so we shouldn't list it on the Extreme Rules article!") Heck, we may as well say that any ball game or any Nascar race may not occur if the plane with the team/drivers goes down in a firey inferno!

---Get Outta Here With That Crap!

Rock goes away for awhile, we'll list him as inactive in the notes column. We may not even see Undertaker again until close to Mania time (when the next contestant for The Streak comes forward), so if that happens, we'll deactivate him until he comes back.

Rock has been a presence on Raw for a couple of months now, all integrated with John Cena, so he's not "unassigned".

Rock goes on hiatus, then he's inactive until he shows up again. but the fact they booked a match a year in advance means that he's gonna be a part of the show (in some form) for the next 12 months...and they're promoting him not as a guest host, announcer or anything except a competitor.

Vjmlhds 14:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that to be in a Wrestlemania match does not mean that the guy is part of the roster or even a WWE employee. We have a lot of examples: Akebono, Floyd Mayweather, Snooki. I know that this one is different because D"TR"J is a WWE alumnus, but this already occurred too on WM25 with Roddy Piper and Jimmy Snuka (more than just alumni, Hall Of Famers). The two appeared constantly on Raw at the time and had their match with Ricky Steamboat and Ric Flair against Chris Jericho booked in advance (not one year, of course), but none of them were added here as part of the roster or WWE employee because they are just booked to that match and the appearances were all related to it. WWEJobber (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be is to leave him off completely because as of now he has not wrestled one match and is pretty much making just alumni appearences. When he wrestles a match, you can put him in the page. STATic message me! 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't leave him off because for the next year, we're gonna be hit in the face with Rock vs Cena hype. This is a first of it's kind situation, I'll grant you that. But when you're promoted a year in advance as the main event of Wrestlemania, it's above merely being listed as "other on air talent". The Rock isn't a guest host or an announcer, but is being pushed as a WWE legend who's coming back to face today's big star. This is similar to Hulk Hogan coming back after 9 years away from WWE (and a year and a half away from wrestling period) and challenging the Rock at Wrestlemania X8.

Hogan 2002 = Rock 2011 Rock 2002 = Cena 2011

And Hogan vs Rock was only announced a month in advance, compared to a year. Bottom line Hogan came back to wrestle, and so now is the Rock (as this year's Mania was pretty much proven to be a set up for NEXT year's Mania).

He's not "other talent", he's not a celebrity wrestling a gimmick match, and he's not a legend doing a "hi-and-bye", he's someone who WWE still promotes as a "Superstar" who the next year will be focused on (along with Cena).

Vjmlhds 20:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Static. The best thing to do would be to leave him off the article completely or, at least, as an Ambassador on the "Other employees" subsection of the "Off-screen employees" section. WWEJobber (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

i agree with static aswell Mjf1987 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

When you are going to be the center of the company's marketing and promotion for a year, you're part of the roster.

This isn't a Lawrence Taylor deal, the whole storyline is the "prodical son" coming home to face the current golden boy.

Rock's been all over Raw for the past 2 months bickering with Cena, and the next year will be all about Rock-Cena. While it's possible he may take a hiatus before Mania, you know he's gonna be there for the stretch run.

If he's gone for a spell, he'll be listed as inactive.

You guys are WAAAY overthinking this...he's not "other talent"--those are your ring announcers and managers. He's not an "ambassador" like Sgt Slaughter/HBK/Mae Young--he's the focal point of the most hyped match in company history (yes it's the most hyped match ever---who else has gotten a YEAR of build?!).

It's not that difficult--when your match is going to be the focal point of the company for a whole year, you're above "Other Talent" and "Ambassador" status.

Vjmlhds 16:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why you opened a discussion if you do not care about other points of view. Three people here disagree with you. No one agrees with you. The decision is simple. WWEJobber (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

How is explaining my position = not caring about others?

And don't assume people don't agree with me just because they haven't said so here.

They saw the Rock as part of the roster and have left him there.

If all those people actually DISAGREED with me, they'd have spoken up.

Before everybody gets their panties in a bunch, let's see how this plays out. There's a clear endgame in all this (WM 28).

Vjmlhds 14:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I say we keep him off until he actully has a match, thats like saying Ricky Steamboat was apart of the roster when he was fueding with Jerico. And Steamboat actully had a couple matches. STATic message me! 01:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

And, as I said, I agree with Static. WWEJobber (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Lawler

Please leave Lawler on the active list.

Since 11-29-10, he has wrestled 10 times on Raw, as well as the last 2 PPVs (Elimination Chamber, Wrestlemania)

Lawler is different than Booker T over on SD, as Booker as only wresled once since returning (Royal Rumble), and has spent 99% of his time as strictly a commentator.

Lawler has gone straight form one feud (Miz) to another (Cole/Swagger), and the Cole/Swagger feud is still going.

So Let's leave The King as active until this thing finally gets put to bed, and Lawler stays behind the desk.

Vjmlhds 04:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have no idea why the hell they want to continue this Lawler/Cole crap, but it's still ongoing. Hopefully at Extreme Rules we get some sort of tag team match where Cole and Lawler put their announcer positions on the line. Cole loses, but stays on as a manager or General Manager. Feedback ^☎ 10:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WWE Legends

I propose we start a new section called WWE Legends.

This would be for guys who aren't assigned to any brand (and aren't already agents), but who make appearences, and wrestle on special occasions.

The first 2 entries:

Kevin Nash (who has a legends contract) and The Rock (who is locked in to WM 28).

Any thoughts?

Vjmlhds 03:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I created a new section, called WWE Legends.

This is for people who aren't a fulltime member of Raw or SD, but who make periodic appearances and perform on major shows.

The 1st 3 entries:

Diesel, who has a Legends contract

The Rock, who will be main eventing WM 28.

And Jim Ross, who is a HOFer, and has been involved in the Lawler/Cole/Swagger feud.

This should be the happy medium...not including them on Raw or SD, but acknowledging current/future involvement with the shows.

Vjmlhds 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If they wrestle just on special occasions, they don not need a section because they are not part of the roster/personnel. I do not support this. WWEJobber (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I support this. Jobber, if you don't like it, you're in the minority.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If by "minority" you mean that I am the only one here capable to ratiocinate I am glad. Legends like Alumni and HOFs are not part of the personnel. Principally on the main roster as Vjmlhds did. They are there just to do special appearances. WWEJobber (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly I am against this idea. The section could get out of hand really quick. Any ex superstar could be considered a "WWE Legend" so you'll see names like Sean Waltman and JBL added to list for the Hall of Fame cameo and the SCSA-Raw cameo respectivly. I think its just gonna cause more disruption then the minimal improvment that will be done to having it. If this is gonna work its gonna need a really strict policy (which would be in a hidden note) to who to put and who not to which would most likly cause alot more edit waring instead of disscussion which is already a big problem with this article. STATic message me! 08:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who came up with this idea, I'll come up with the criteria.

1. Must have a definitve role in current storylines (i.e. The Rock and JR).

2. Must have a Legends contract or some sort of ambassador role (i.e. Nash, Young, Sarge, and HBK)

3. Coming in for "hi-and-byes" don't count. (people like Mae Young and Sgt. Slaughter have been making a few yearly appearances for quite awhile, JBL or X-Pac don't quailfy since we haven't seen them in forever, nor have we heard from them since).

4. If you have any other definitve job within WWE (i.e. road agent, on WWE.com, a front office job) then you go into that appropriate section.

5. If you win a title, or are put on either the Raw or SD roster on WWE.com, then you go on either of those rosters if you're a Legend.

This should clear things up, and establish some parameters.

Vjmlhds 16:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay I support the section if you take it upon yourself to control the section and enforce those rules as I do agree with them. The only problem I have is JR he should be in commentators as hes done commentating every week since Mania as far as I can tell. STATic message me! 17:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be watching this section...since it's my baby and my rules, I'll make sure it's up to snuff.

As far as JR goes, wait and see on him...if he sticks around after this Cole/Lawler thing gets settled, then he'll go on the Raw roster. If he disappears again afterwords, he'll stay a Legend.

Vjmlhds 21:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Real names

Is this article goin a bit overboard with the full name thing? Randal Orton, Michael Mizanin. Alot of these could just be like Randy and Mike because that is what they go by. Its still their real name. Other examples are Nicholas Nemeth and Theodore Dibiase. Wrestling0101 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WWEJobber done that. He believed everything should be formal because it's their birth names, not the names that they liked to be called.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ill put my name in first for it to be changed. Anyone agree to make it 2? Wrestling0101 (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And I'll support you on going back to their common names in the article. It's way overboard. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If a third person else agrees I say we should change it. Wrestling0101 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Vjmlhds 18:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You all should read the article that you are editing before do anything. Look at this paragraph:

"Employees and management are organized by role within the promotion. The ring name of the employee is written on the left, while the employee's real name is on the right. If a wrestler is inactive for any reason, due to injury, suspension, not wrestling in 30 days or otherwise, that information is noted."

The real name is linked to Given name and was always like this. Given names are totally different of common names. Common name is the name that everyone knows, like Vince, Mike, Randy. Given name is the legal name or the born name, like Vincent, Michael, Randal. WWEJobber (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And you need to read up on WP:Consensus. The edit warring here has been beyond ridiculous. The article was written using names like "Mike" and "Vince" for years before you started interfering. As for the Legends thing, it seems to be a good idea. Try to be a little open minded. Kjscotte34 (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Husky Harris

Hello

I was wondering whether we could clarify the status of Husky Harris. He has been re-added to the FCW website which means he has been sent back to FCW. There are also reports that he has been sent back to FCW due to him not being ready for the main roster. WWE.com would probably keep him on the website to keep in line with the story that Randy Orton's punt (kayfabe) injured him. Can we move him back to the FCW roster until he reappears on either Smackdown or Raw. Thoughts? Mjf1987 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to move him to the FCW Roster as long he is still part of the Raw Roster. I now he is inactivge on Raw at the moment, but that is written in the notes. --Hixteilchen (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As the rest of Nexus returned to television except Husky can we move him to the FCW section, although he still does have a Raw profile page he is not currently appearing on Raw and has not been seen since he was kayfabe injured and he is regularly appearing in FCW. If he re appears on the main roster we can move him back. Mjf1987 (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hes still on the fcw Alumni page too so that means he is still a WWE main roster superstar. Wrestling0101 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am actully against having Harris, Sheffield or Tarver on the main roster as they are all Nexus cast-offs pretty much. You can believe that Harris and Tarver arn't gonna be seen on the main roster for awihile. Sheffield might be back on the main roster since Vince is reportly high on him. I sugest a move to FCW for Harris and Tarver. STATic message me! 08:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

husky is actually on the talent page for fcw too so the alumni section is probably an error on their part. I agree with static, in my opinion Tarver & Harris should be moved onto the FCW section until they reappear on the main roster Mjf1987 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jim Ross and Edge

Having returned at WrestleMania and commentated at every Raw since, JR should be listed as a regular commentator for Raw until he leaves again, whenever that may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.12.193 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Edge is still under contract to WWE so he should be listed somewhere, probably under "WWE Legends."

• If JR sticks around after Extreme Rules (when hopefully this Cole/Lalwer/Swagger/JR deal is put to bed), then we'll add him to Raw.

• Edge under Legends?

• He is under contract and still making appearances...OK, I'll go along with it for now, but with an eye towards the future to see where he goes from here.

Vjmlhds 04:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edge should be under "unassigned" until his contract expires. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edge right now is being portrayed as a main eventer who had to retire due to injury, but is still kinda involved in the Christian-Alberto Del Rio storyline. At this point, he's more of a special appearence kind of guy (like say HBK), so the best spot for him would be under Legends.

Unassigned employees are people who have contracts and are ready to go, but haven't found a home yet.

Vjmlhds 00:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Two possible changes

I would like to propose two changes. 1. Should HHH be on the main roster? He hasent wrestled a single match for Raw since his return and has been inactive for nearly a month. We should move him to the Off-screen employees section with a note that says is also inactive as a wrestler superstar. 2. Chris Jehrico has long said he will return after Dancing WIth the Stars was over and he just got eliminated. SHould he been unassigned employees till he debuts? Or left off thr list completly? STATic message me! 09:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Just list him as inactive in the notes column. No need to put him in another category. Remember, he is still considered a "superstar", as that is his main on-air role, and is still listed as part of the Raw roster on WWE.com.

2. Wait till we see the whites of Jericho's eyes on WWE TV (or at least a vignette) before we put him back on the roster. Yes, he may have some sort of handshake deal/wink-wink-nudge-nudge/understanding with Vince. But it would make my life a hell of a lot easier (and prevent an edit war) to just leave it alone until it becomes obvious.

Vjmlhds 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I changed my mind on HHH when i saw him in the openning video thing for Raw last night. STATic message me! 01:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you on Jericho too. STATic message me! 01:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Lawler question without the drama

I may have missed this somewhere, so forgive me if I did. Under "Ring Name" on the list, he's listed simply as 'Jerry Lawler' and not 'Jerry "The King" Lawler. Is there any sort of reason for the change? I don't want to change it back without asking, as this page has been tampered with quite a bit. Thanks everyone! Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Undertaker

Rumours are he is pretty much as good as retired but may work Wrestlemania 28 next year as his final match. This would also be the reason why Michelle McCool has left WWE as she wants to start a family and be at home with Mark. Im not suggesting anything to change yet but if he does not appear on TV by say August/September then maybe move him to the Legends section as he wont of appeared for 5/6 months. Thoughts? Mjf1987 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC).

As long as he's on the SD roster on WWE.com, leave him where he is. Don't assume anything, because you never know when he may come back. For example, there could be a rash of injuries or Wellness violations which may force Taker to come back and pick up some slack...it's happened before.

Vjmlhds 14:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Ic champ wade barrett.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Ic champ wade barrett.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Rock on Raw

I'm going to include the Rock as part of the Raw roster, and there is a very good reason for it.

On 5-2-11, Raw debuted a brand new opening that reflected the changes made during the 2011 Draft. Amongst those changes (such as Del Rio, Mysterio, Show, and Kofi) they have now included The Rock as part of the opening.

He is not on the SD opening.

This would indicate that WWE considers Mr. Johnson as part of the show on Raw, and thus a part of the roster.

Vjmlhds 23:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I still think the Legends section is the best place for him for now, mainly due to the following:

1. Although he is booked for a match at Wrestlemania, he still has not competed in a match since March 2004 2. He would not be added to Smackdown opening because it would not make sense as he is feuding with John Cena who is on Raw, so to have to find clips of him and add them to the Smackdown opening would be a waste of resources. 3. Its obvious he wont appear every week which means he is left as inactive for the 250 odd days until the Road to Wrestlemania begins, this just seems crazy aswell as inaccurate. 4. I propose we add him to the main section of the roster as soon as he competes in a match either on Raw or at a Pay Per View before Wrestlemania. Until then he is just a former wrestler who makes very sporadic appearances and has a match booked in 329 days

I hope you understand my point of view and it does not come accros as rude or anything Mjf1987 (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, and I was more than happy with him in the Legends section. But when they include him in the open, they're putting forth that he's looked at as a member of the roster and a part of the show.

Basically they're saying "Hey look, Rock's a Raw guy!"

And techincally, he's the number 1 contender to the WWE Title, since John Cena is the champion (I know, there's no guarantee Cena's the champ at Mania, but as of now, Rocky's got a championship match on a PPV, thus he should be part of the roster for that alone).

But mainly, since he's featured in the open, that shows that WWE is pushing him as part of Raw.

And if 30 days passes w/o a Rock sighting, then he gets reactivated when he comes back.

Vjmlhds 22:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To say his is a part of the main roster is to assume he has been active in the ring performing on television or at house shows, and he has not and he won't be from the looks of it. Either he can stay in the section about legends or he can be in the other personnel of Raw, because the main list is for the active and inactive wrestlers. Going and cutting a promo every month doesn't make him either. — Moe ε 16:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

i agree with moe Mjf1987 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I can live with this. My main contention was that WWE, by putting Rock in the Raw opening, were stating they viewed him as part of that particular show.

Vjmlhds 19:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

FCW Updates

Rodney Thomas is Brandon Barker1 and Brandi Reed has already made her debut, although under what name isn't clear.2 Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Update on Brandi Reed - she was featured on the May 8th FCW TV show as an interviewer under the name Brandi (forward to 8 mins in)1 and also debuted on WWE Superstars last night as a ring announcer 2. Not sure where she should be added, but just passing it along to other editors.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Youtube can't be used as a source for this, and unless another source turns up somewhere, it may not be able to be added.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the TV report from PWInsider for the FCW show1 Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't count as significant coverage of her, sorry.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

WWE Broadcasting Team

Since a lot of the commentators appear on multiple programs, I felt it was appropriate to put them into their own section of the roster page.

Jerry Lawler and Booker T are pretty much exclusive to their repective shows, so I left them where they were.

What do y'all think?

Vjmlhds 03:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Josh was not on Raw this week so its myabe something to look out for in the next couple of weeks but it could be that they have decided to go back to the 2 man commentary team or Josh may have just had something else on this week, watch this space Mjf1987 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't read too much into it.

Outside of Jerry Lawler (who is also a semi-active wrestler), and Booker T , all of the announcers bounce back and forth between all the other shows (just like the referees). Lawler and Booker are exclusive to their shows to provide at least a little bit of a different sound, but the Cole/Matthews/Grishams of the world are quite frankly interchangable, thus the reason why they are on multiple programs. Vjmlhds 17:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

i think that regardless if they are exclusive or not they should all be in the broadcasters section rather than having one or two seperate to the others. Booker T has replaced Matt Striker on Superstars as Striker is apparently going to become a manager Mjf1987 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Since Booker T also has Superstars and Tough Enough on his plate, I'd put him on the Broadcast Team.

Lawler has to be left on Raw because he is a semi-sorta wrestler as well.

Vjmlhds 20:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's what I've done...

I've moved Booker T to the broadcast team because he appears on multiple programs.

Hornswoggle is a wrestler, because he's more or less a comedy act (a la Santino) and he's been wrestling on NXT.

Lawler is exclusive to Raw, as he's also part of the roster as well (he's been wrestling more often than some of the lower tier guys).

I removed Armando Estrada, since Tyson Kidd is doing a "musical managers" gimmick, and it looks like Estrada was just a one shot deal.

Vjmlhds 21:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Alex Riley

Here's the deal with A-Ry:

He was drafted to SD, true.

But on the following Raw, (when Miz asked Riley why he wasn't at Extreme Rules, and Riley told him because he was drafted to SD) Miz told him that he had a personal service contract with him (Miz), not a WWE contract, so the draft pick didn't count.

So when Miz fired A-Ry last week, Riley became a free agent, and this week while Cole was reading him the riot act, he mentioned that the Raw GM had signed him to a contract.

Besides, Riley hasn't even sniffed SD since the draft, it's been all Raw.

So Riley is actually Raw property since the Raw GM signed him.

Vjmlhds 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

we shall see what they decide to do with his profile on wwe.com, he is still listed as a Smackdown superstar officially. Mjf1987 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

now confirmed as being on Raw on wwe.com and moved back to the Raw superstars section :-) Mjf1987 (talk) 16:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Stone Cold

"Makes occasional appearances on Raw" should be added underneath his other roles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.218.81 (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Triple H & Undertaker

Triple H has said in an interview May 2011 he will pretty much be to quote Vince an "emergency break glass" wrestler, Triple H see's himself as more of a backstage employee than an active superstar. With this in mind after how long of being inactive would it make sense to add him to the Creative Writers section with a note Also appears on Raw?

As for Undertaker, there's a good chance he wont reappear until Road to Wrestlemania starts in December/January for one final match before retirement. Michelle McCool left WWE as they want to have a family so this makes you wonder when he will reappear (there's also a possibility he might not if his body is not up to it of course, nobody knows) I think after a few more months of inactivity he could possibly be moved to Legends until he makes a re-appearance.

I know you may point out they are still on wwe.com but they can easily be moved about on here if/when they reappear

The link to the HHH interview is below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn-ARCzPq0g&feature=player_embedded#at=141 (2 mins 20sec onwards)

Thoughts? Mjf1987 (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Leave them as is. That's why we have the 30 day inactivity rule. Both guys are featured in the openings of their respecive shows, thus they are still portrayed as part of the show. Don't make things more convoluted then what it needs to be.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds 14:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Josh Mathews & Scott Stanford on WWE Superstars

Josh Mathews is the Color Commentator for raw matches on WWE Superstars. While Scott Stanford is the Play By Play announcer for Raw matches on WWE Superstars. not how it is listed on the WWE Broadcast team list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.120.38 (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

done Mjf1987 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

CM Punk

Now let's get this straight right off the bat...

Obviously, we all know the storyline with Punk's contract running out.

But let's use common sense--They wouldn't have put the WWE Title on him if he was REALLY gonna walk.

So he stays as part of the roster until

1. He loses the title

2. He actually does disappear for awhile.

Thank You

Vjmlhds 03:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Nash

I still think he should be in the other on air employees section, he makes one appearance and he should not be added to the main roster section, its more likely he will be a bodyguard/enforcer if anything, like Jackson Andrews was for Tyson Kidd (who if i remember right was kept in the other on air employees secton) i can't see him being used as an active competitor regularly, due to his age (just gone 52).

I think putting him in the on air employees for this week and maybe review it once raw has aired next week (22nd Aug) depending on how the storyline has panned out.

cheers

Mjf1987 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

When it gets right down to it, the "other on air talent" section is basically for those with (primarily) non-physical roles.

If you're getting in the ring beating up the WWE Champion, that is a bit above "Other talent" status.

Bodyguards/enforcers usually see their fair share of ring time (see Mason Ryan as the most recent example) as all these guys are wrestlers by trade.

So Nash on the active list is appropriate, as he's involved in a high profile storyline and is mixing it up phyiscally with Punk.

Vjmlhds 23:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Jackson Andrews was a bodyguard/enforcer and was kept on the other on air employees list though Mjf1987 (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I say, for now, keep him in the other on air employees section. He hasn't wrestled a match on TV since the Royal Rumble. Obviously, it could be subject to change, and he could become a full time performer. This is just my humble opinion, of course. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be apparent that Nash is being brought in as a wrestler, and is starting a feud with CM Punk. You guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

As far as Jackson Anderews goes, he wasn't around long enough to even have a cup of coffee. He was on, then off the roster so quick, nobody even noticed.

Vjmlhds 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever, really. I just don't want this turning into a huge dispute like the Jerry Lawler thing, or worse, the CM Punk thing where people actually thought his contract was up. Kjscotte34 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

so far its 2-1 to put him onto the other on air epmployees so can we not keep him there till he wrestles a match, currently he is only an occasional wrestler (e.g royal rumble). It doesnt help when Vjmlhds never seems to want to agree with the majority and comes accross as if we don't agree with him then we are wrong. If Nash competes next week move him to the main roster in my opinion, but for now he is other on air employees Mjf1987 (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is turning into a joke, Look you are the only one on the talk page who is against it, he has not competed in a match in 4 weeks, how about you compromise and keep on other on air employees their till he works a match instead of throwing your toys out of the pram when you don't get your own way, its not your article. I am more than happy for Kevin Nash to go on the main roster when he competes in a match but for now he is an old man attacking CM Punk who is only on a legends contract

Mjf1987 (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Kelly Kelly as Divas Champion at a houseshow in Adelaide, Australia.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kelly Kelly as Divas Champion at a houseshow in Adelaide, Australia.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Rock, Booker T, Hornswoggle

Please leave The Rock, Booker T, and Hornswoggle on the main roster.

The Rock has main evented Survivor Series, will main event Wrestlemania, has been part of the Raw opening for 6 months, and WWE treats him more as "part of the show" than a legend who shows up once every 6 months to say hello. He's equivalent to what the Undertaker is at this point on Smackdown. Thus he belongs on the roster...until after Mania.

Booker T right now is involved in a feud with Cody Rhodes, who happens to be Intercontinental Champion. So there's a realistic chance Booker will be competing for, and even possibly winning the I-C Title. Thus he belongs on the roster...for now.

Hornswoggle is a comedy act wrestler. He's basically SD's equilvalent to Santino Marrella...does comedy skits backstage and wrestles in comedy matches.

Vjmlhds 16:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, plus, Booker has been scheduled to wrestle this weekend at a house show.--Deely talk 18:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The Rock is not on the main roster. He just shows up shows up once every 6 months to say hello. In fact, Roddy Piper appears more than Dwayne Johnson on TV shows and PPVs, for example.

Booker T's case is different. Is the same that Matt Striker, William Regal and Jerry Lawler. A commentator that has matches and feuds with someone. Even Michael Cole has feuds. No one ever said that his feud with Cody Rhodes will result in a title match.

But I agree with Hornswoggle. He is a wrestler.WWEJobber (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rock is in the same class as the Undertaker...we've seen way more of Mr. Johnson in the last year than Mr. Callaway. The whole year has had the specter of Rock-Cena hanging over it. Really...when's the next time we'll see Roddy Piper compared to The Rock. A little perspective. And if you look at the link Deely provided, you'll see Booker is actually wrestling Cody in I-C title matches at house shows in preperation for their (probable) PPV title match at TLC. Vjmlhds 14:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Mae Young appears on TV more than The Rock. This is a fact. And even wrestles more matches than him. And I do not know if you know how to read but in the link there are no title matches mentioned. Read it one more time. And, please, do not embarass yourself again.WWEJobber (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Mae Young?!?! Please...who's embarassing who here?!?! All I know is this...WWE ain't counting on Mae Young to rake in millions of dollars worth of ticket sales and PPV buyrates. Come on Jobber... you're being rediculous. Mae Young...Holy reach, Batman! Vjmlhds 19:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am using her an example to show you how ridiculous you are trying to be. Face the reality. It is not hard to use your brain. Try just a little. It will not hurt. In fact you still did not show me where the title matches are mentioned yet.WWEJobber (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah Jobber he is going to wrestle title matches, I saw it a few months back on PWTorch, so Booker is in fact a wrestler, even if it's only part-time. As to The Rock, he wrestled at Survivor Series, and is going to main-event with Cena at WM28, so until WM28 is over, he should be listed as WWE talent. Last of all, telling someone to use their brain and reassuring them that it doesn't hurt isn't the right way to approach someone here on Wikipedia.--Deely talk 19:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Booker T wrestled Cody Rhodes for the I-C title Friday night in Chattenooga TN. This is as per PWInsider and 411mania. He's also wrestling the whole weekend loop vs Cody, as well as the feud continuing to build on TV. So please, any "Booker doesn't belong on the roster" arguements just got thrown out the window. Vjmlhds 20:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree regarding The Rock, i moved him to the legends section after Survivor Series, he has not appeared since Survivor Series as he is filming a new movie, this will be quite time consuming so it is unknown when he will decide to turn up next, might be tomorrow, might be next week, next month, or not until after the Rumble. Rock is not a full time employee and due to his other movie commitments should be moved to the legends section until he reappears and competes in a macth Mjf1987 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

To be honest, we've seen more of The Rock on TV in the last year then we have The Undertaker. Rock has also wrestled more than Taker as well (I know it's one match, but it was the main event of a PPV that was heavily promoted--not some Raw throwaway match). My whole contention has been that when you set the main event of your biggest show a year in advance, include the guy in the opening of Raw, and he has already main evented a major PPV, this indicates that WWE considers him as part of the show (just like Undertaker...even though he's been MIA since Mania) and not just a guy who says hello every so often (a la Hart, Edge, Foley, Piper, etc.) Vjmlhds 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Raw, SmackDown and NXT rosters into one

Yesterday, I temporary merged the Raw, SmackDown and NXT rosters into one roster due to both the Raw and SmackDown brands being "Supershows" in which the rookies of NXT are also appearing while listing where Superstars and Divas which brand they are assigned to, but I reverted back because I didn't know if it was the right thing to do. Now I had some time to think it over, I'm asking that if it's ok to merge the rosters into one or not.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I say no. Personnel are assigned to one brand. That's how they are on WWE.com as well. A wrestler like Cody Rhodes, for example is a Smackdown superstar, and his appearances there are much more frequent than his appearances on RAW. Kjscotte34 (talk) 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Same here, no.--Deely talk 19:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Leave them seperate. Today, they're doing "Supershows"...tomorrow they may decide to reinforce the split...they're very inconsistent when it comes to that. As it stands now, any wrestlers who compete on the show opposite their own are conisdered as "guests"...that would be the best way to describe the current situation. Vjmlhds 19:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Camacho

Wouldn't Camacho be considered an occasional wrestler? After all, he did attack Justin Gabriel after Hunico's victory over him. Thanks.209.213.145.157 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

NXT Comments

Hi

Could I make a suggestion. As anyone from Raw or Smackdown can appear on WWE NXT, would it be better to add it into the opening text under the bit about the brand. Something like this...

The male wresters of the show WWE NXT are called "Rookies", however anyone on the main roster may make appearances on the show.

This will stop the page being edited all the time if someone starts making appearances on NXT, the only thing that should be listed in the notes section of superstars on the main roster is 'Also appears as a Pro on NXT' it will also keep the page looking alot tidier — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjf1987 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Great Kahli

How come The Great Kahli wasnt anywhere on the List of WWE personnel? He just appeared in the Royal Rumble.

He has been added to the roster by another editor. Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary information in Spanish

Hello. There is a problem, in the section of "Spanish Broadcast Team" must delete, is this encyclopedia of English language and that this information must be unique in Spanish. --187.171.178.136 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Inactive" personnel

People who have been injured or suspended within a storyline and don't appear for a brief amount of time are hardly inactive. As a whole, Wikipedia should not serve as a day-to-day update on a character or employee's status to begin with but noting the fictional status of a character is just silly.

Additionally, adding jargon such as "kayfabe" to note every time a development is a storyline is unnecessary as well. It doesn't matter whether it was Triple H's character who made the announcement within the context of the article. The announcement itself is what matters. If the article is being written as a real world article and not within a fictional context, it should note that WWE as a company decided to make this change and not two fictional authority figures within its television shows.

As far as accidentally removing links, I removed source links that appeared to be attached to the items that I removed.NJZombie (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Those links that you removed during your cleaning were profile links to Zack Ryder, Mark Henry and Kevin Nash.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that since. As they were placed, it appeared they were serving as sources on the information that I removed. The links themselves could have simply been restored without a full revert but I've since made the adjustment myself. NJZombie (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources in Notes section

The inclusion of the footnotes in the "Notes" column doesn't really make sense. If the purpose of the cite is to prove that the person listed as an employee is actually an employee, it should be attached to the person's name in the first column. I've accidentally deleted these cites myself because when people add information in the "Notes" column, they're sticking that information in front of the existing cite making it look like it's a source for THAT information instead. NJZombie (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of moving the source links away from the notes and place the profile links next to the ring name. It'll clean it up and prevent accidental removal.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my thought as well. NJZombie (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's do it. It'll help the page alot.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Triple H's Status as a Wrestler

Are you sure that Triple H is mostly a wrestler? I want to list Triple H as the COO, Executive Vice President of Talent, and Occasional Wrestler. Thanks.209.213.155.16 (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Number-One Contenders in Notes

Could we put if someone is the number-one contender for a championship? After all, they could become the next champion. Thanks.209.213.145.236 (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW same guy different computer. I'll change the article for now. BTW I don't know how to put references so could someone do that for me? Thanks.209.213.145.236 (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Omigosh it won't let me edit! Could someone help me? Thanks.209.213.145.236 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Young, Bateman, Watson

Darren Young, Derrick Bateman, and Percy Watson have been added to the SmackDown roster page on WWE.com - so I think they should be moved to the SmackDown section on here as well. NXT had been run differently in recent months and I think the 2/29/12 episode made it clear that the competition is over. I'd guess the participants are now superstars, not rookies, and NXT is just a show where everybody can compete.

Maxine and Titus O'Neil have not been assigned to the Raw or SmackDown roster page as of this writing, although that may have been an oversight. I guess they can stay in the NXT section for now but I'd guess they'll get moved over eventually too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GMarx22 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC) It should be added but I can't since the page is protected. An authorized user, please update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.125.67 (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done this, I have left Maxine & Titus O'Neil under NXT until assigned to a brand. Have also removed all the 'Also a Pro on NXT under the superstars who were Pro's and also removed Jonny Curtis as the winner of NXT as we only have the last winner listed but it seems this season has no winner. Mjf1987 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC).

Update FCW

I don't know if there is a permeant person or not who does this, but in the List of WWE personnel there is a FCW section and it is very behind and off. There is also a Florida Championship Wrestling page that has the stay list but is updated. Like in the FCW Sonny Elliot they have his real name Daniel Bolton, but the personal list still has it as unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.233.46 (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Undertaker on RAW

Pretty sure The Undertaker is now a RAW Superstar. He doesn't appear on SmackDown and he's been shifted from the SmackDown to the RAW opening video.

--Darkside05 (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we have full real names listed

Many people of European Catholic heritage use their middle name as their given name, as is the case with Shawn Michaels (Michael Shawn) and Nikki Bella (Stephanie Nichole). Can we please list the full names of wrestlers, as not doing so is giving the article a very Anglo-cultural spin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.158.28 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm non-denominational but I'm up for it. Unfortunately, I don't have an account, so I cannot edit this page. P.S. I am not trying to put you down. I have full respect for all denominations. Peace209.213.145.236 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lord Tensai

Lord Tensai just debuted. He needs an entry on the main roster. Also, he had some valet..... I forgot his name. It started with M. Anyways, put him on, please. Thank you.209.213.145.236 (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar

Brock Lesnar just debuted on Raw. He needs a spot. Will someone put one on please? Thanks.209.213.145.236 (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent debuts

Sakamoto and Abraham Washington should either be moved to other talent or be given also appears on the main roster notes

Also Spoilers for what was taped for Friday Ryback and Damien Sandow will need this treatment too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.89 (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lesnar and Tensai citation

Brock Lesnar and Lord Tensai's profiles have officially been added on WWE.com. <wwe.com/superstars/brock-lesnar and wwe.com/superstars/lord-tensai>

Edit citation for Brock Lesnar (wwe.com/superstars/brock-lesnar) and Lord Tensai (wwe.com/superstars/lord-tensai). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sincara66 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Barry Stevens

Barry Stevens has entered the roster. Can he get an entry? Thanks.209.213.145.236 (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Barry Stevens who is also know as low Ryda isn´t a employee of WWE --Nakurio (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Triple H

Can we move Triple H to the Executive Officers section and put him as an occasional wrestler in a few months time should be not appear on television? He has said in interviews that his main job is backstage these days so rather than having him as inactive for 200+ days a year put him in the Exec officers section and move him back should he appear on TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjf1987 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but there's one thing though...everytime HHH wrestles, he's always in a very highly promoted match. Thus WWE still looks at him as a draw, not just a guy who wrestles every so often. Rock, HHH, and Undertaker are all pretty much in the same category...part time wrestlers who when they do wrestle, are main eventers. Brock Lesnar is almost in that territory, but he'll at least appear on TV semi-regularly.Vjmlhds 18:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say Triple H is slightly different, his main role in the company is behind the scenes whilst Undertaker & The Rock are just occasional wrestlers who turn up every so often for feuds, Triple H is always there in a backstage role, thus he could be put into the off screen section with Occasional Wrestler status in my opinion Mjf1987 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If Triple H were like say Jerry Lawler, wrestling an odd Raw match every 6 months, then I'd agree with you. But when HHH wrestles, it's in PPV main events (like vs Punk, Nash, and Undertaker). Mr Levesque is still looked at to generate PPV buys, not merely kill time on Raw, thus while he does have his office job, he still belongs on the main roster due to the high profile nature of his matches. Vjmlhds 15:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Triple H has had 3 matches in a year and a half, he has not been a full time wrestler for some time now, he is thus an Occasional Wrestler, his main day to day job is behind the scenes at shows and EVP talent. He even called himself an emergency wrestler in an interview some time ago (i posted a link in the discussion pages that are now archived). When he returns to television he can be moved back to the main roster, thus keeping it accurate.

Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson has also wrestled in 3 matches in the last 2 years, he turns up a few times a year for a big pay day, he is away shooting movies so wont be back for a while yet, thus he is an occasional wrestler, he may compete at big PPV's to help sales but most the time he will be away shooting movies, once he returns to Televsion he can be moved back to the roster.

Wikipedia is meant to be an accurate encyclopedia, therefore neither HHH & The Rock are full time wrestlers thus they should stay into the relevant sections until they reappear on TV. Vjmlhds - you are the only one who does not agree with these changes, it seems as though you have history of edit wars, abuse and not allowing people to change pages without your consent, If you do not stop i will report you. Mjf1987 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• • I'll give you HHH, as he does have a "day job" in the office. But as far as The Rock goes, I gotta disagree. WWE.com lists him as part of the Raw roster. Yes he's part time, but at this point, so is Undertaker, who has wrestled less than The Rock in that same timeframe, yet you have no objections to him being on the SD roster. Rock and Taker are both special attraction guys that are listed on WWE.com as official members of the Raw and SD rosters respectively. Once 30 days passes (which will be after Extreme Rules) both Rock and Taker will be listed as "Inactive; hasn't appeared in 30 days" just like anyone else on the roster who has been MIA. That would be accurate. Vjmlhds 14:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

DDP

Diamond Dallas Page has had a legends contract with WWE for quite some time, I believe he should be added to the 'Legends' section. AugustWinterman 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.76.127 (talk)

John Cena

You should add in that John Cena will be taking time off due to filming his next film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPreferCake (talk • contribs) 04:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2012

The request is to remove Big Show from the Smackdown Roster. Many of us don't want to do that but people get released and that. If Big Show returns I'll be glad to here it. 81.154.128.70 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Its all storyline The Big Show hasn't actually been fired.--Dcheagle | ^{Thunder Up} 20:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Big Show

Please leave Big Show on the Raw roster unless WWE.com puts him back on the SD page.

Show was removed from WWE.com's Sd roster when he was "fired" and put in the alumni section.

Now John Laurinaitis "rehired" him, and he's feuding with John Cena on Raw.

Show is still on the alumni page.

So as long as Show is in limbo, leave him on Raw (as that's where his stroyline is) unless WWE.com puts him back on SD.

Vjmlhds 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

WWE.com now has officially put Big Show on the Raw roster, so that's that for that.

Vjmlhds 19:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Attitude: Face or Heel

How about we add a new section "Attitude"?. It exists in the German and French wikipedia, too. I think it's an information the users need. --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Teams/Stables

Although this is a topic that used to be on the article then was deleted I think that we should re-add a Teams/Stables section either at the bottom of both Raw & Smackdown's roster or one right about FCW. Even though it isn't officially on the WWE.com website we should add who is a FORMAL team with who. Formal as in tags with them or is seen working together/managing them. Feel free to agree or disagree.

Ajfweb14 (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 June 2012

Under section 3.2 "WWE Legends", Stone Cold Steve Austins' real name should be Steve Williams, not Steve Austin. Thanks!70.73.103.102 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC) 70.73.103.102 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

He had his name legally changed to Steve Austin, so it is in fact his real name. Vjmlhds 13:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: no sources to support the change Mdann52 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct and Offical Information straight of FCWwrestling.com and WWE.com

Edits I have made are correct and offical from both WWE.com and FCWwrestling.com. Also my edits have been earsed multipley times. I would appricate if MickeyMike would stop adding incorrect information and stop deleting my edits.--SCWA Ladies Champion (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Beveling Dirthseets about Ace's "demotion?"=

Where is the actual proof on this. They removed Ace from the corporate section of the site months ago. Nothing recent changed about. All the reports i see are garbage journalism claiming he was recentally taken down and Triple H has his job now, depsite the fact as i said Ace was removed from that list of executives months ago back when he originally started being on screen and Triple H has the ezact same job description he did when Ace was listed there. I'd like to see actual proof that anything changed, because so far i see none besides people without intelligence or journalism education spreading gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.52 (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jim Ross is Play By Play Annnouncer/Color Commentator/Talent scout in FCW

Jim Ross needs to be added back to the Broadcast team section of the List of WWE Personnel. since hes been working down jn FCW as Play By Play announcer. and also will be play by Play announcer/Color Commentator of Season Six of NXT. plus he helps the WWE with talent evaluation of FCW/NXT guys

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.171.210 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Vjmlhds 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2012

Seth Rollins is no longer Florida Heavyweight Champion, it is now Bo Dallas.

76.105.67.145 (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

eve

i think "Ocassional wrestler" at eve's line is wrong and has to mean "occasional" 79.247.113.217 (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Face and Heel

Would if be worth listing all wrestlers in a seperate table below to indicate which wrestlers are currently babyface, and which are heel's. The table could be updated accordingly? Footballgy (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Irrelevant info, plus one man's face is another's heel. Besides, with tweeners and whatnot it's kind of a gray area. Vjmlhds 00:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge question

Should we merge the Raw and SmackDown rosters into one now since the brand extention is mostly dead?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I say no. You still have people who appear mostly on one brand and make an occasional appearance on the other, while the big names crossover. I would say leave it alone, unless WWE.com stops differentiating them on their roster. You could, if it's not there already, put something in the top paragraph stating that the personnel can appear on the brand to which they're not assigned at anytime. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In the past, I'd agree with you, but it's been about a year now since WWE adopted the "Supershow" format, and they really don't even pay lip service to the brand extension anymore. Even the house shows (though still officially billed as the Raw and SmackDown World Tour respecively) are inter-brand these days.

While it's true that tippy-top guys like Rock, Brock, HHH, and Cena mostly stick to Raw, 95% of the rest of the roster work both shows regularly. It's almost a throwback to pre-2002, when Raw was the undisputed "A" show, where all the major stuff went down, and SD was the supporting "B" show, highlighting the secondary storyines and wrestlers.

Also, with Raw at 3 hours fulltime, they're gonna need all hands on deck, so the "Supershow" era is gonna be around for the long haul it looks like. As far as WWE.com goes, they do have a page that lists the entire roster, as well as seperate Raw and SD roster pages. As it sits now, this article mirrors the WWE.com full roster page, while also giving a nod to WWE.com's specific brand designations.

As long as the "Supershow" format is going strong, it's better to list the roster as a whole, since outside of an elite few, they all pull double duty anyway. Vjmlhds 23:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

WWE has actually dropped the name "Supershow" format from all their future events from what I understand. Regardless of that, I even support removing what brand someone is on in the main roster. There is almost zero use for it since WWE uses talents from both brands regularly on each show and there isn't a draft anymore. That, and removing the brands would stop edit warring deciding which superstar is on which brand exactly. Regards, — Moe ε 02:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

When I refer to the "Supershow" format, it merely means a show featuring the whole roster, not necessarily mattering if the word "Supershow" is in the name. My feelings wouldn't be overly hurt if the brand was removed from the infobox, but I can also respect the fact that that's how they're officially listed on WWE.com. I prefer the roster being listed as a whole, and only seperate it if it becomes clear that WWE is gonna reinforce the brand extension. As long as it's all hands on deck on both Raw and SD, then the current full roster listing stays as is. Vjmlhds 03:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is how it's officially list, when you choose the superstar section by brand when you visit WWE.com. I don't particularly care right now because it's not much of an issue, but if it gets to the point there are problems determining brand, then it might be better to remove the brand option from the list. I fully support the main roster being one list. I was actually going to do it myself when I came here to look at it because of the talent being on so many shows together. Regards, — Moe ε 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

New column

How about adding, besides the wrestlers' ring and real names, a column which indicates the date (or year) they have joined WWE ? This is merely a proposal. --Bright Darkness (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's entirely possible, but a couple issues would probably arise. First would be, who exactly we give the year column to, which for sections like commentators and other ring personnel like announcers and referees, a specific year they started may be more difficult to source. That's not impossible, but that comes with the second issue, which would be which year would we list? When they first join the company would be the best answer, but what if they are released and then come back again? What if they leave in an on-screen storyline, but really didn't the leave the company? What if they come back and leave frequently, like in the example of The Rock? These are all things that might be contested when a column like that would be added. Regards, — Moe ε 05:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother...too many different variables that would open too many cans of worms. Vjmlhds 13:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, you are right. Too many controversies would result of it. Not a wise choice. But how about adding the wrestlers' (true) nationality ? They are employees after all. I'm entirely open to your answers, I may take care of it myself if you accept. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Again...let sleeping dogs lie. You do nationalities, and then we're gonna get into grey areas of real nationality and kayfabe nationality...leave the can of worms sealed. A word of advice from someone who in past times had to learn the hard way...don't add anything to the articles that is guarenteed to start edit wars...kinda hard to un-start them without threats of blocks and outright blocks. Vjmlhds 22:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just off the top of my head, I could already imagine an edit war changing Kofi Kingston's nationality, since he's been billed as Jamaican and Ghanian before. Tensai also comes to mind where I think there might be editing disputes. A generic list is probably best served here. Regards, — Moe ε 09:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

How do we reason to organize it like this?

Really. WWE lists it's NXT still as a brand. There is even still an NXT section of the roster they organized to include the people on the main roster who are appearing on the new season, and it's still listing Derrick Bateman and Percy Watson as only on the WWE.com side and not on the NXT itself Website where no one else has been listed that is on the WWE main roster.

The developmental roster should add a column to it just saying whether they have been cleared. When someone gets to be on the other shows and gets a WWE.com profile, then add them from the developmental roster to the main roster. It's just incompetent to be pretending the new NXT is like FCW was. The only thing for that argument being the small fact it's not airing on WWE.com which is far more proof of a marketing strategy more than proof it doesn't count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.69 (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Triple H

In my opinion Triple H should be listed as both a superstar and an executive officer as help holds both positions and I think it is appropriate to list him on both. Sk8terguy27 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessary, you can just add relevant information into the section of notes next to his entry as a superstar. Regards, — Moe ε 20:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd leave Triple H on the main roster until Survivor Series. In his "retirement" speech we really didn't get a definitive answer, plus you have to keep open the possibility that they're planning HHH-Brock II, maybe at Survivor Series. Now when the SuSer build starts rolling, and nothing happens (or if it's not at least being hyped), then we can put Trips in the Executive Officers list. That's the thing about HHH...yes, he has an office job, but he's still always involved in a major storyline. In the last 16 months, he's had major PPV matches vs Taker, Punk, w/Punk vs Miz & Truth, Nash, Taker again, and now Lesnar, with a possible rematch with Brock in the near future. If he'd stay in the freaking office, I'd have no problem keeping him on the Executive Officers list, but since he still always finds himself in the thick of the action, you have to leave him on the roster. Vjmlhds 03:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary Show

I've eliminated the primary show section from the info box.

Yes, WWE.com still lists specific wrestlers to specific shows, but we're officially at the one year anniversary of the "Supershow" era, where it's all hands on deck at every event (be it TV or house shows).

WWE doesn't even put on any pretense any more of Raw and SD being seperate but equal brands.

As long as it's open season in WWE, any listing of a "primary show" just gunks up the works and convolutes things.

Vjmlhds 18:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Heel/Face

Can someone please add a section that tells you which superstars are heel and which are face? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sincara66 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't like that idea. Too many 'tweeners to be able to tell who's supposed to be who. Kjscotte34 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, there is no way to reliably verify either way and it will just create endless edit wars. Duffs101 (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Let sleeping dogs lie. Heel/Face, when you get down to it, is in the eye of the beholder. You either like the wrestler or you don't. One man's face is another's heel. Vjmlhds 14:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Shelby question

It appears that WWE is keeping the character of Dr. Shelby around for Daniel Bryan and Kane's storyline anger management. Can we add the character to Other On-air employees or wait until after Night of Champions?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if we see any more of him post NOC. If he becomes a regular fixture, then yes. If he disappears then obviously no. Vjmlhds 01:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Employees" and "superstars".

As it is clear in this article, wrestlers are independent contractors. As that article makes clear, contractors are a different thing from employees. So we should not use the obviously wrong word to refer to them here.

Also, we should call them wrestlers instead of "Superstars". That's a trademarked buzzword, not a description. Sure, they're called that on TV, but WP:INUNIVERSE should apply here. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Honoring Lawler

I moved Jerry Lawler to the main roster as a show of respect and as a tribute to him. It's meant more as a gesture of honor than a refelection of his official role. So please understand why I did this. Vjmlhds 01:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about facts, not honouring people. While it was nice of you, it's clearly not neutral. Lawler is mainly a commentator and only wrestles sparingly (likely never again), so he belongs in the broadcast section. There's no shame in that! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair he was wrestling a bit more lately, and had a side feud going with CM Punk so he was becoming a bigger part of the show. So all in all, listing The King on the main roster really doesn't hurt anything and is a show of respect. Vjmlhds 02:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You have to admit, he probably won't be wrestling in a WWE ring anytime soon, if ever. So listing him on the main roster is even more inaccurate than it was before his heart attack. If you want to respect him, write him a get well soon card. He's a lot more likely to see that than he is to notice this. If we allow this, what's to stop someone else from moving Vickie Guerrero, Hornswoggle, Booker T or any other part-timer they respect to the main roster? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I would be opening up cans of worms here if I put Lawler on the main roster, so I'll stand down on this one. Vjmlhds 13:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Double listing

It is unecessary to list Vince McMahon and Triple H under BOTH the main roster and exectuive officers.

Vince stays in executive officers, as that is his main job. His once in a blue moon TV appearances don't justify listing him as part of the main roster.

Triple H stays on the main roster. Yes, he has an office job, but he still always finds himself in major storylines on TV and highly promoted matches on PPV, so that justifies his place on the main roster.

Vjmlhds 13:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree neither should be double listed. But I think Triple H should be in the executive section. Yes, he had the odd PPV match lately. But even in TV storylines, he wore a suit, mainly talked "business" and was portrayed as the CFO. This WWE article from August 27 strongly suggests he has retired as a wrestler. It may be a storyline, but if/until he returns to the ring, it is deceptive to claim he is active. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

In fact, Vince is not double listed. Each reference about him goes to a different article, so no double listing here. Triple H is double listed just because he is very important on the main roster (where he is retired per storyline) as an Executive Officer (more than Stephanie that has a picture there).WWEJobber (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether Triple H's retirement is legit or story, the end result is that he is not an active wrestler. If he comes back, he should be added. For now, he's only a suit. You have a point that Mr. McMahon is a separate character, but as he hasn't had a match in over two years, he should be in the Other On-Air Personnel section, not wrestlers. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we can't have two Vinces and Triple Hs on one page. I know Vince has an acticle on WWE.com and on the corporate site, but we count both as one. I also know Triple H is increasing his time to backstage activities, but we don't know if he's actually done with his in-ring activities completely. I say no double listings.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Different article" here means two separate Wikipedia articles, not WWE references. As such, it's not a double listing. The character is on-air, the actual man is executive. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

OK let's put it to bed once and for all because this is getting rediculous.

We need a consensus on whether or not Vince and HHH should be double listed.

I say emphatically NO. It's redundant and unecessary. Vince these days belongs in the Board of Directors section. His TV appearances are getting fewer and farther between to justify putting him in with the main roster. HHH belongs on the main roster at least until the Lesnar thing is put to bed once and for all. If he then decides to stay in the office, THEN we can move him to Executive Officers. Vjmlhds 01:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Vj. I also say NO to the double listings like I said above--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC).

• NO to Triple H. He belongs in Executive. However, Mr. McMahon is a character. Vince McMahon is an executive, who also plays the role of Mr. McMahon. Characters and actors who play them have separate Wikilinks to separate articles in many perfectly fine articles discussing a work of fiction. The Wikilink for Mr. McMahon here should not say "Vince McMahon", however. I'll change that now. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with InedibleHulk with Mr. McMahon character in the Other On-Air list and Vincent K. McMahon on the Board of Directors and Executive Officers section. About Triple H he is much more important now as an Executive Officer like InedibleHulk said, but he still listed as part os the roster in WWE.com Superstars section. He is (keyfabe) retired as a wrestler but still has his job and is part of the McMahon family, so he could be added to the Other On-Air list too, because he appears occasionally on TV shows (even if don't have a match). What can be done on the Board of Directors and Executive Officers section is to cite Paul Levesque name without link it to Triple H article and keep the picture of him (or another of him in a suit).WWEJobber (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem there is, while we know he appeared on-air in the past, his August 27 retirement changes things. He has not appeared since then, and we would be guessing to say he'll ever be back (likely, but read WP:CRYSTALBALL) or that his retirement is a work (unless there's a source for that). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking about he appearing as a wrestler (he retired as a wrestler not as part of the personnel) but appearing like John Laurinaitis (before becoming Raw GM) and Mr. McMahon himself, in other words, appearing because he works there and not as a wrestler, as part of the other on-air personnel.WWEJobber (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It still has the same guesswork involved, though. He may continue to appear, he may not. He may be back onscreen once or twice a year. If he does come back in the future, and it's clear he's working an angle, it'll be easy to readd him to the list. But right now, there's nothing to indicate he'll continue to be on TV after this retirement. It's definitely possible, but so is the Return of Mantaur (fingers crossed!). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if we can agree to this compromise--HHH goes in Executive Officers until it becomes obvious he's involved in a storyline. Vince stays in the Board of Directors because the "Mr. McMahon" character just simply doesn't appear enough to justify going fulltime on the roster. Vjmlhds 10:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree for the most part with the comment directly above me. Vince McMahon will probably not make many TV appearances, just like in 2008. Linda is in the middle of a senate campaign, and he's not going to be on TV much while this is going on. As for Triple H, it hasn't even been a month yet. However, I'm inclined to think that he too will be off TV for the most part until close to the election. What I would not do, is double list at all. My $0.02. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. McMahon appears on TV shows a lot more than Undertaker and even much more than The Rock. Will you take them out too?WWEJobber (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Mr. McMahon has appeared pretty consistently for 15 years, and several times in 2012. Unlike Triple H, there is no indication (real or worked) that he is likely to disappear. Just guesses. He should stay in On-Screen, pending any announcement of his "retirement" (or another limo explosion). As a side note, I recently checked out the character article, found it to be terrible and suggested it be seriously trimmed and merged back into Vince's article. If that occurs, I would oppose double listing Vince McMahon. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As for The Rock, is there even any reason to believe (a reliable source) he's under contract? I don't follow like I used to, but it seems he's more of a "special guest". I really don't think he belongs in the main roster. This isn't 2002. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Rock, he's on WWE.com's official roster, is included in the Raw opening every week, is scheduled to have a WWE Title match at the Royal Rumble, and will more than likely wrestle at Wrestlemania. So he does count as part of the roster. In all honesty, guys like Rock, HHH, Taker, Lesnar, and even Jericho are all pretty much "special attractions" who work part time schedules and come and go as they please. Vjmlhds 13:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. McMahon is on WWE.com's official roster too. You don't have any excuses now to not put him with the main roster. What applies to one applies to the other.WWEJobber (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Big difference--The Rock is getting championship matches and main eventing PPVs, while Vince's main job is in the office and behind the curtain, making only special on-air appearances these days. You gotta use some common sense here--Vince hasn't been a major on-air character since last summer when CM Punk dropped his "pipebomb" and threatened to leave the company. Once HHH became COO in July 2011, Vince's appearances have been few and far between. You just can't do a "one size fits all" deal with everybody...you have to take each case as it's own seperate entity. Vjmlhds 16:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the CM Punk angle Mr. McMahon was relieved by Triple H from his duties, relieved Triple H from his duties himself, named Laurinaitis the new Raw GM, evaluated Laurinaitis job, fired Laurinaitis on NWO, named AJ Lee the new Raw GM and named Booker T Smackdown GM. All of these appearances are important to the storylines. Undertaker isn't getting championship matches and main eventing PPVs. What now?WWEJobber (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I vote put both Vince McMahon & Triple H back into the Executive Officers section until they are involved in a storyline then move them to the main roster, both have a majority backstage role rather than a on-air role.

Also no to double listing people (e.g Triple H & Vince McMahon, they are only needed once, with makes occasional appearances in the notes Mjf1987 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Very good. I can live with HHH in the Corporate section until it becomes obvious he's in a storyline again. Ditto Vince. If Vince is involved in a storyline, I have no problem with him being added to the on air talent. But these once in a great while one-off appearances he's been doing lately just don't cut it. Also, Undertaker is still considered an active wrestler by WWE. Now we all know that in the last couple of years, his deal has been to only come around at Wrestlemania time to defend the streak, but WWE still promotes him as a full-time member of the roster, just like they do with the Rock. Vjmlhds 23:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Id imagine after Wrestlemania next year The Rock will disappear for good, then we can move him to the Legends section Mjf1987 (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Board of Directors and Executive Officers

In my opinion I think that the Board of Directors and Executive Officers should be two separate tables under WWE Corporate I think it just looks better to have them separate, if you want to keep them together then then should be some way to show who the Board of Directors and Executive Officers are. Sk8terguy27 (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Members of the board are noted in their "Notes" column. I think it makes sense to keep them together, since board members are also executives. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is true that the board members are also executives, but they having authority over the executives. Sk8terguy27 (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Shelby

Dr. Shelby isn't played by Sam Huntington, he's played by Michael Aspinwall. On September 21, Huntington tweeted "Once again, I'm not Dr. Shelby. Maybe he and I should Smackdown to settle this... #WWE" to try to quell the rumors. https://twitter.com/SammyHuntington/status/249320874333835264 76.217.160.20 (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sakamoto

Per the Manual of Style for linking, it's better to clarify his name is unknown, but his common ringname is "Kazma", and link that, rather than link "unknown".

Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper.

Keep that in mind, and if you feel you have a reason why this should be overruled, let's hear it. Don't just revert quietly. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a reference beside Triple H's name in Corporate?

It stands out. Is it to say "Triple H" is the same guy as Paul Levesque? Is that necessary?

Its there for those who don't have a basic knowledge of wrestling ie someone who has never in there life watched pro wrestling may stumble about this page and not know that Paul Levesque also goes by the ring name Triple H, its also there for the pro wrestling fans who have no idea that Triple H real name is Paul Levesque.--Dcheagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 07:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering whether the citation was necessary, not the info. The Wikilink redirects to Triple H and his name is sourced there, so I figure verifiability isn't challenged or likely to be challenged. After asking, I noticed most names also have references. In my opinion, that's not necessary and 367 references is excessive. But it's not a huge problem, I guess. Just a little confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Should writers, broadcasters and office workers have "Ring Names"?

I thought this would be a no-brainer, but someone objected to having blank spaces. Screw common sense, just fill all blanks? In the lead, we explain one column has a Ring name (and Wikilink it). That article defines it: A ring name is a stage name used by a professional wrestler, martial artist, or boxer. While some ring names may have a fictitious first name and surname, others may simply be a nickname, such as The Undertaker. Where in Scott Stanford, Canyon Ceman or Jim Ross is a wrestling career (OK, Ross kind of wrestled twice, but the point remains) or stage name mentioned? Do we fill up the Notes column with irrelevant stuff to avoid blanks? This is clearly inaccurate at best, and confusing to readers at best. The pros of fixing it outweigh the cons of blank spaces. Would it be better to type "Not Applicable" to fill it instead? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, if we list real names first, the weight would be on the left side (like English naturally reads) and the blanks would be less conspicuous. How about it? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, we could just combine the real names and ring names of writers and office workers and maybe put any ring names in brackets next to their real names, I mean most of them use their real names anyway. On the other hand, I think broadcasters should be kept separate, as they appear on TV, so shouldn't we have their personas listed as well, in that case I don't feel like any gaps are just being filled for the hell of it. Jeffhardyred (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Though I'd rather see the broadcasters get the same two column/bracket treatment. 7 of 10 use their real names (Marcelo Rodriguez should not be listed as "Marcelo Laprea". This is his maternal surname, not like an English surname. See Spanish naming customs). Of the three who use stage names, only Matt Stryker can really be considered a wrestler, with a ring name (Mathews dabbled in it, and Cole was just a joke at Wrestlemania). So it's a choice between having seven columns of duplicate names or three names in brackets. I think the latter would look much tidier, and we wouldn't be misusing "ring name". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, I'll change it to be as such. Jeffhardyred (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good. But the ring name should be the one in parentheses. This article is looking at WWE from a real world perspective, as a business, not in-universe like PPV articles or wrestlers' Career sections. WWE has no contract with "Josh Mathews", because he is a fictional character. The guy playing him is Josh Lomberger. Parentheses are usually used to add supplementary or clarifying info, not the main point. The main point here is "Who works for WWE?" The character they play is supplementary info. Capiche? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I re-added the X-Pac name to Sean Waltman, since he was "X-Pac" in his most recent appearance, on Raw 1000. I said this in my edit summary, but forgot to make the edit. Apparently, an edit summary without an edit doesn't show in History. So just explaining myself here. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

NXT profiles on WWE.com

According to NXT's page on WWE.com, it looks like some of NXT's most featured superstars and divas have profiles on the website. But when I click on Seth Rollins' profile, it's just a photo gallery and a brief description of him. Should I move the featured NXT superstars and divas on the main roster or wait? Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that we have to wait until them profiles'll move to the main roster. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrestlers 'real' names

I propose that the entire name of wrestlers are entered under the real name category. Many people use their middle-names as their given names, including many wrestlers. Having only their birth-certificate first name listed does not truthfully indicate what they are called. Shawn Michaels being an example; he is listed as "Michael Hickenbottom", but has stated numerous times that he has always been called Shawn (his middle name). It seems the current way of listing names (excluding the middle name) is very Anglo-centric, considering it's very common for many people (Hispanic, Irish, Italians etc) to use their middle names as their given name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.87.119 (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Active vs. Inactive

Do we have a criteria as to what we consider active or inactive anymore? In the past, it was a thirty day wait. Now, it seems that these guys (or girls) are being listed as "Inactive" the second that they're listed as injured. For example- John Cena is listed as inactive due to his elbow surgery. While not currently involved in "competition," for lack of a better word, he is still active in storylines, and appearing on TV almost every week. Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

#1 Contenderships, Face/Heel, Where on card, Tag Teams/Stables, Valets

We should be listing #1 contenderships, a stable or team they're in, who they're valeted by, whether they're face, heel, tweener, or antihero, and where they are on the card from a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being lowest possible or usually on NXT, such as Camacho; 2 being someone who usually appear on Superstars, such as Alex Riley; 3 being someone who is popular but can never land a main event, such as Brodus Clay; 4 being someone who is involved with a secondary championship and could occasionally do main events, such as The Miz; and 5 being a cemented main eventer or someone looking for a world title, such as Ryback. Thanks for spending the time to read this. Please consider and respond. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.145.236 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that'll be too much and unwanted. Keith Okamoto (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an out-of-universe article, dealing with the real personnel of WWE. The information you suggest is fictional, in-universe stuff. See WP:Real world. Much of it (especially your rating system) would create a shitload of original research problems. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

too much original research. can someone tell me where the discussion sbou the tag team is? i removed a lot of tag team section in the articles of czw and chikara, but garycoleman question me about the discussion. Thanks--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ricardo Rodriguez

I've added Ricardo Rodriguez to the main roster due to the fact that Jesus Rodriguez (the man behind the gimmick) also wrestles as the masked luchador "El Local". Rodriguez (as Local) has wrestled a number of times on Saturday Morning Slam, and and also dons the mask for house shows as well. Due to this "double life", I think it's appropriate that Rodriguez gets bumped up to the main roster. Vjmlhds 15:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Sources, please!

I've noticed a tendency of regular editors here to change the active/inactive status of wrestlers, while (often) listing an unclickable reference in the edit summary. While this is better than nothing, it is standard everywhere else on Wiki to cite facts in the article itself. For a reader, there is no way to verify the info, besides carefully scanning the page history or Googling for themselves. The footnote that appears to be backing up the claims of surgeries or whatnot is actually just a link to that wrestler's WWE profile. I've been pretty lenient about allowing unsourced stuff, but I'll have to insist on it now. It's not much to ask, is it? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

On that note, what are the profile links in the Notes column meant for, anyway? They are often in empty boxes, so what info are they backing up? References are not meant to be used as simple external links. They should serve to verify something. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Its the verification that they're on the roster. Also everything should be cited especially on injuries and stuff like that but if there's no reliable source that says they will be out of action it shouldn't be mentioned. STATic message me! 20:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I see. Wouldn't it make more sense then to have that citation in the first column, beside their ring name? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Split developmental roster?

I was thinking, since everybody in the Developmental roster is in NXT, maybe we should split the roster to who appears on WWE NXT that airs overseas and on Hulu Plus and who is just appearing at NXT Wrestling live events. The reason behind this is because on the WWE NXT site on WWE.com, there is a section showing the NXT wrestlers who appear on the program. What do you guys think? Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. In fact, the WWE.com section of NXT just show the wrestlers that already appeared on the TV show. It is not like a "roster" section. It is more like a "some of our roster" section. And the fact that a wrestler is working NXT house shows do not mean that they will be part of NXT roster. For example, Daniel Bryan and Kharma (I can't remember if Sin Cara too, but I think he didn't) wrestled some FCW live events before they officially debuted and they never became part of the FCW roster. They debuted directly on main roster TV shows. And there was a female wrestler (I don't remember her name right now) that was in developmental, signed a contract, but never wrestled a house show because she had problems with her visa and she was future endeavoured even before her debut. So such a move is complicated. I think that the way the article is right now is okay. WWEJobber (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A question...

I have a question to ask all of you, so we can put a topic to bed without an edit war.

WWEJobber thinks it necessary to point out that Ricardo Rodriguez's alter ego EL Local only wrestles on Saturday Morning Slam and at house shows.

I'm not saying that information isn't true, but I just fear it would lead to a slippery slope of other people putting qualifiers on other wrestlers.

Like for example Brock Lesnar, who only is contracted for X amount of dates, or Rock/HHH/Undertaker, who only show up for major shows.

All of that to me is too much information that gunks up the works a bit...in other words cruft

To me all that matters is if a guy wrestles for WWE or not, and if he does, he gets listed on the roster...end of story.

What do y'all think?

Vjmlhds 03:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Vj, but he's right. Plus, WWE.com doesn't have a profile of El Local. If ADR fires Ricardo and El Local appears to fued with ADR, then add it. But for now, leave as is. Keith Okamoto (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

(Shrug)...I can live with it I guess. My only worry was people feeling the need to cram anything they could into the notes section and making a mess out of it. I don't need to know what guys had for breakfast that day, you know what I mean? Vjmlhds 04:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I know, but remember when Cena introduced his masked persona during his angle with Barrett two years ago? It never left the live events due to WWE rushing their main fued to end at TLC. Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Eight words "too much information"? Come on. "but I just fear it would lead to a slippery slope of other people putting qualifiers on other wrestlers.". The other wrestlers do not play two different characters. Ricardo Rodriguez is just an exception. And El Local is not even mentioned in WWE.com. So I think it is important to inform that to people that did not go on house shows or watch Slam. The raison d'être of the article is to give the necessary information to readers. I understand your point of view and respect it. But be afraid because of it seems a little bit exaggerated. WWEJobber (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The stuff about El Local isn't bad in and of itself, I was just wary about what other kind of stuff people may try to cram in there. I've seen it happen in other articles where...let's just say once the tube was opened, it was impossible to put the toothpaste back in. I didn't want it to happen here. Vjmlhds 04:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Improperly placed citations

Yesterday, I corrected the problem of citations next to claims in the notes column that they don't back up (e.g., Alex Riley is said to be "Inactive; recovering from knee and elbow surgery". This is "sourced" by his WWE profile, which only indicates he works there. This obviously belongs in the column that claims he's a WWE wrestler. Many wrestlers have nothing at all in the notes column, with a citation. The way it was, editors were throwing unsourced info into the notes column, next to the citation, giving the false impression that these claims are reliably sourced. User:Jeffhardyred apparently likes the improper way better, and reverted. What does everyone else think? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

House Shows

This section violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Feel free to restart the discussion, but when you do so, discuss the content, not the contributor, and especially don't fling accusations at other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

At the top of the page, it is quite clear that WWE put an end to the brand extension when they initiated the "supershow" format. This includes TV, PPV, and house shows. However WWE Jobber insists on putting a qualifier in there stating the brand extension is "resticted to some house shows and tours". No it's not. Go to Wrestlezone or 411 Mania or PWTorch or any site that has house show reports, and you'll see that just about all (if not out and out all) house shows feature some sort of mixing and matching of Raw and SD talent. The Supershow format means that anybody can be on any show at any time. Are there "Raw" and "SD" World tours? Yes...but in name only. Look at the cards, and you'll see it's a mix of Raw and SD talent. Jobber is being disruptive, and I feel he is in line for a block. Vjmlhds 20:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Block him, he's being disrespectful to the WP:PW and Wikipedia as a whole. You're correct while he wants everything to be his way. I think he works for the WWE and wants this page to reflect WWE's product note by note. Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC) I don't think he's an employee, but more of a case of someone who tells you how to make a watch when all you want to know is what time it is. Anyway I reworded the opening paragraph to as plainly as possible (while still being formal and respectful to wiki standards) state that anybody can be on any show (televised or live event) at any time. Hopefully, this will end any confusion. Vjmlhds 20:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ambrose/Reigns/Rollins

I believe that Dean Ambrose, Roman Reigns, and Seth Rollins should be added to the main roster. It's apperant that WWE has something in mind for these guys by involving them in a main event match on a major PPV. I vote Add Vjmlhds 06:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll vote Add. I believe those who appear on NXT TV debut on WWE TV are considered main roster superstars. While they do still appear in developmental territory shows, they were promoted to main roster status are only there to improve on their skills. Keith Okamoto (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This voting do not mean a thing because you are not voting some way to edit the article. You are voting to change a real FACT. The article is not a keyfabe thing. Wikipedia is a real thing with real information. So even if you be in a consensus the article will not change its way because you can only edit things here with FACTS or proven sources. The three guys appeared in Survivor Series and maybe will appear on Raw but it will not change the FACT that all of them are still developmental wrestlers. They are still listed here http://www.fcwwrestling.info/NXT-Wrestling-Superstars.html not here http://www.wwe.com/superstars yet. It is exactly like the NXT Rookies of the first 3 seasons. They appeared in every main roster TV show that their Pros appeared because they are always accompanied by them but all of them were still developmental wrestlers even appearing on main roster. So we have 21 examples (22 with Brett DiBiase) that appearing in a main roster TV show does not mean that a developmental wrestler will became part of the main roster automatically. And Keith Okamoto, you are a two-faced-guy, because in my talk page you wrote "Guess I'll wait until those three appear more often." and here you said something totally different. You have to grow up and stand by your words like a real man. WWEJobber (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, voting does mean something, as it's how disputes are settled. Also, by the simple fact that these guys are being used on the main roster and involved in a major storyline shows that they've been upgraded from developmental. Look at it this way...in baseball, when a guy gets called up from the minor leagues to a major leauge team, does that mean he's still "officially" a minor leauger? No. If you're on the big leauge roster, it means you're now a big leauge player. Same applies here. Once you're in the big leagues, you're a big leaguer. Sometimes you just have to use common sense...there's a reason why WWE had these guys do what they did last night. Jobber, you really need to quit grasping at straws in this article (first the brand extension stuff, now this). Also you shouldn't have went after Keith Okamoto the way you did ("Grow up and be a real man") because that can be construed as WP:PERSONAL, and that isn't looked too kindly upon by the Wiki top men. Vjmlhds 15:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Vj (or however you shorten that name). Just watched Survivor Series and these guys have clearly arrived on the big show. Everyone stops being a developmental wrestler eventually. They aren't featured here the way the NXT classes were, as part of a planned (in-universe planned, that is) NXT segment; they've started a WWE feud with a WWE wrestler in a WWE title match. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Like Husky Harris (Bray Wyatt) did in Hell In A Cell and Brett DiBiase in Summerslam, InedibleHulk? So, guess what? One still is in developmental. The other never made the cut to the main roster. WWEJobber (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Husky was on the main roster until March of the next year until he was sent down for a gimmick change. The storyline has continued tonight just like everyone knew it would. They're not disappearing oh yeah and WWEJobber in case you haven't decided to read it yet WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS stop using the same argument. STATic message me! 02:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You could read this article too. It works both ways. WWEJobber (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

I've fully protected the article for a week. Stop bickering through edit summaries, and discuss issues here. Also, some of the reverting that's going on appears to be in very bad faith, and I'm seeing some ownership issues in play as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, man, I noticed that you blocked the article, but the "Broadcast team" section became a mess. Can you please put the following under the "Broadcast team" section title? It should work.

{| class="wikitable sortable" align="left center" style="width:65%;"

Thanks for the attention. WWEJobber (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Vince McMahon

I shouldn't have to do this...but in the executive officers section, Vince McMahon should be listed as Vince McMahon.

That's the name he's best known as, that's the name he's always refered to as when he appears on talk shows or in the paper or whatever, and even on-air he goes by that name (to clear something up, his ring name isn't "Mr. McMahon", but Vince forces everyone to call him that when playing the evil boss--he is refered to on-air frequently as Vince by wrestlers and announcers when he's in a good guy/neutral mode character wise).

Vincent K. McMahon is only how he's refered to in his corporate bio, but that goes with the territory of being a CEO, as all major company CEOs are given the same treatment.

That doesn't mean that's the name he uses in daily life or when refered to in the media or even on-air.

Use the most commonly identifible name here on Wiki. This isn't a corporate "hoity-toity" site.

Vjmlhds 00:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. McMahon is not Vince's ring name is one of the most absurd things that I ever read here. It is like a thing that someone that never watched any WWE TV show could say. WWEJobber (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well that was a pretty dumb thing to edit war over and get the article fully protected. His most recognizable name is Vince McMahon. STATic message me! 01:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Quite a dumb war. And yes, Vince McMahon is Vince McMahon. His "Mr. McMahon" gimmick is clearly a gimmick and ring name. This is a thing that a guy who has watched WWE fairly religiously since 1986 is saying. Also something anyone with access to Vince McMahon's article can figure out quickly. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, misread your comment, Jobber. Vj, if the promoter forces everyone to call anyone anything in a wrestling context, it's a ring name. But that really has nothing to do with anything here. This is about the guy in a business context. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That his most recognizable name is Vince McMahon no one here has any doubt (at least is what I believe). Including, it is under his photo in this article. What we are discussing here is about business context. Not ring names or how most people recognize him. WWEJobber (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that for business and corporative purposes he should be listed as Vincent K. McMahon in this section only. My opinion is that this section is something more formal than the rest of the article. Nomelck (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as the person who protected the article, this discussion would be much better if people stopped asserting opinions and starting showing either sources or guidelines/policies to support a position, if any exist. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

My sources are on the article because I put them there. Here http://corporate.wwe.com/governance/board.jsp#VKMcMahon and here http://corporate.wwe.com/company/bios/vk_mcmahon.jsp WWEJobber (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If it'll get the page unlocked, I'll stand down on Vince McMahon. If you want to list him as Vincent K McMahon, I can live with it. It's not worth having the whole page locked. Vjmlhds 04:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Replace Genickbruch with WrestlingData?

The German site Genickbruch.com is referenced here a lot. It has an English-version site, WrestlingData.com. I think, as this is en.wiki, this would be more appropriate. Simply replacing the domain name in the link URL, and leaving the other parameters be, gives an identical (aside from the language) page. This seems like an easy and reasonable fix. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: You need to wait a couple of days for people to comment on this to make sure that it has consensus. Also, when you reactivate the request it would be helpful if you could specify exactly what needs changing. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait. I thought I was specific, but please change the domain name in the link URLs from "Genickbruch.com" to "Wrestlingdata.com". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. Now that I've actually tried playing around with the URLs, I can see that this would be an uncontroversial change. I'll go and make it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 November 2012

Jim Ross, Michael Cole & Vickie Guerrero do wrestle occaisionally. Add "Occaisional wrestler" to the notes section of those three.

CHZRFan (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrestling in 5 minute gimmick matches once a year does not constitute being an "occasional wrestler". STATic message me! 16:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward agreeing with Static. Though "once a year" isn't accurate. Cole had five matches this year, four on TV. Guerrero had three, two on TV. Ross had three TV matches in 2011, none this year. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Still having 5 or under and none of them not being formerly trained as wrestlers doesnt really surice as being an occasional wrestler also considering that none of them are known for their wrestling in any shape or form. STATic message me! 02:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Static. It is the same thing that have Theodore Long or Paul Heyman or Lilian Garcia in a match. WWEJobber (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Negatory. JR, Vickie, Cole et al are fine just where they're at. I'm even considering removing the occasional wrestler tag from Jerry Lawler, but I'll hold off on that to see if the ol' ticker will let "The King" get back in the ring or not. 16:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Jerrold Lawler

Why was Jerry Lawler's name changed? 

I see that there is a source cited, but it does not seem all to accurate, for many years this page and His own bio page, had his name stated as Jerry O'Neal Lawler. I don't think it should have been changed to Jerrold.

Joe Temp (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)(JoeTemp) November 26, 2012

I corrected the information and the source. Now is everything okay. WWEJobber (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WWE Corporate

Let's take a vote on whether the new style of denoting board members and Executive officers should stay or go.

• Stay - It's cleaner and simpler with the asterisks. Wrting out "Member of the Board of Directors" and "Executive Officer" after each and every name is overkill and makes the section look like a fustercluck. Vjmlhds 16:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Stay the way it was. It was much cleaner. The "asterisks version" make it looks visually polluted. The "Notes" part of the section exist to this kind of thing. WWEJobber (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet to Appear on NXT

Two of the guys with this in their "Notes" have actually appeared on NXT. Adam Mercer lost to Big E. Langston on the August 1 episode. Brandon Traven lost to Brodus Clay on the September 5 episode, and lost to Damien Sandow on the October 17 episode. Jackjackjackjackjack (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, per this and this. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Full roster listing

Because somebody reverted the page back to seperate Raw and SD rosters, I feel it necessary to bring this up as a reminder.

It was agreed to earlier on this talk page (go back through the archives) that we'd list the main roster as a whole since every wrestler can appear on every show.

Since August 2011, when announcements were made on both Raw and SmackDown that all programming would be "Supershows", the brand extension was rendered essentially null and void.

Even house shows feature wrestlers that are "from the opposite brand".

Now when you throw in newer shows like Main Event and Saturday Morning Slam in the mix that are full roster by design (along with Superstars), it makes it even more apparent that there is no "brand" seperation anymore.

Vjmlhds 16:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

End the nonsense.

Let's end this nonsense right now.

Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose, and Roman Reigns ARE NOT DEVELOPMENTAL WRESTLERS ANYMORE! They were called up to the main roster, are involved in a highly promoted storyline, and are going to have a high profile PPV match (which maybe the main event).

They are "big leaugers" now.

And it states quite clearly at the top of the page that wrestlers on the main roster can also wrestle in NXT. I don't understand the need to specifically label these guys as "developmental" when it's clear that these guys are coming out of the gate with a major push. They've arrived.

And WWE is bending over backward promoting Johnny Curtis under his new gimmick of "Fandango". He's being advertised on TV vignettes, and wrestling under the new name in dark matches and house shows. What will it take to make it super-duper-officially-official for some people?

A congessional vote?

So please, stop the convoluted BS.

Vjmlhds 19:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, on both points. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

They can be "big leaguers" but they are under developmental contract yet and this should be noted because it is an important information. It is exactly the same thing that happened with the Nexus at Summerslam: seven developmental wrestlers working on the main roster main eventing a PPV (a bigger one than TLC) and it was noted here in this same article at the time. The same thing with the Usos that have a feud and a match for the Tag Team Championship against David Hart Smith and Tyson Kidd while developmental wrestlers. You all could see it if you search the history. And the Shield guys are in the middle of a storyline with the developmental roster. You could not let your personnal opinions go against and above facts. WWEJobber (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion on the matter. It's about weighing evidence. They've been featured on WWE TV since they attacked Ryback, and seem to be leaving NXT (Ambrose last wrestled there on October 11, Rollins just dropped his NXT title, Reigns is slightly more questionable). In light of this, the balance tips in favour of assuming they have regular WWE contracts, just as we assume those who are still on NXT are still on developmental contracts. Until you present more definitive evidence for your "under developmental contract" claim, such as a reliable source, we have no reason to believe it's true. The fact that developmental wrestlers have been on WWE TV before doesn't mean that everybody on WWE TV is a developmental wrestler. The Shield might be, but we need more than your speculation. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that they have profiles in the WWE Superstars section of WWE.com is also pretty telling. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

Above, Vjmhelds said we should "End the nonsense". And I just have. The article is now fully protected. Indefinitely. The reason why is that as far as I can tell, none of you seem to be capable of following the most basic of WP policies. First, and foremost, Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment. You all have got to stop edit warring, and until you can demonstrate that you're not going to do that, we're going to have to keep the page protected.

Second, as you attempt to start making decisions about what belongs on this page, you must stop the original research. I see a lot of commentary above from people saying "Well, he's on this show, and he's been in this event, so we can't call him X." That is pure original research. We do not make analysis like that. How do we avoid OR? By citing sources. In order to list someone as a "developmental wrestler" (or whatever), find an independent, reliable source that states that. If two sources disagree, then we include both sources and both pieces of information. If there are no sources, we do not list the information either way. We do not make decisions based on the TV shows themselves. Remember, any act of interpreting a work of fiction is always original research, and thus cannot be done by editors, only reliable sources.

Third, a number of you have been trying to make this about contributors, not content. You're personalizing everything.

So. Now. Start a conversation. Use sources. Establish consensus. Once you have established consensus, use the {{edit protected}} template to request that the change be made. Do not use that template until after consensus has been achieved. Once you can demonstrate that you can all work well together, then you can request that the page be unprotected by filing a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP.

If you cannot achieve consensus on something, Wikipedia has a very robust set of dispute resolution processes. For instance, if the question is about what is or is not a reliable source, you can consult WP:RSN. If the question is about given undue emphasis to one fact or another, you can go to WP:NPOVN. If you just need more eyes to provide input, there's WP:RFC. If it's a broader problem, you can try WP:DRN. If there are behavioral issues, you can bring them to WP:ANI. You can, of course, always ask me for advice about which process is most effective. But you can't just keep sniping at each other, edit warring, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I always thought the most basic Wikipedia policy was "Sign your post with four tildes". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you, Qwyrxian. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Now what?....

OK...so now what do we do with Big E Langston?

He comes in, and whoops up on the "franchise" player John Cena during the main event on Raw.

Does this mean he's still developmental?

What is the breaking point when guys stop being developmental?

I would think that it would be like MLB...once a guy gets called up, he's not a minor leaguer anymore.

We have to have a line of demarcation on when we can consider guys main roster, and whether or not they're still developmental.

When did Wade Barrett, Brodus Clay, AJ Lee, Damien Sandow, Ryback, and on and on become "officially" main roster and no longer developmental?

When do The Shield boys stop being "developmental"?

There has to be a point where the umbilical cord gets cut.

Vjmlhds 04:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, how about adding a roster section called "Rookie roster"? It will show who's on the main roster, but still appears in NXT Wrestling for either more training, working on mic skills, etc.. We can even put the main roster wrestlers who appear mostly on WWE NXT in there like Derrick Bateman and Percy Watson. Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems like it would invite even more disagreement and speculation about who belongs where, especially if a main roster guy works an NXT show or two. Is he/she there for training, there to train others, wrapping up a storyline or just adding name value to a card? We probably won't know for sure. Simplest way is to follow the lead of WWE.com. If someone's on their main roster ("Superstars") page, they belong on ours. If they aren't, but are on the NXT site's roster, they go in our NXT/Developmental (whichever we call it). If they're not listed in either roster, they don't belong here. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I have a hard time understanding...for the longest time, when somebody got called up from developmental, he was put on the main roster with no fuss. First we had a little note saying "Also works in FCW (now NXT)". Then we put a note at the top of the page saying that main roster personnel can also wrestle in NXT..again, no fuss. Guys like Clay, Sandow, Ryback, and Cesaro were added immediately once they made their debuts, but why is it that the Shield boys are causing such a fuss? We had a good system going here, and now because of stubborness by a select editor, the whole works are gunked up. It almost feels like the article is being held hostage by 1 person. That isn't right. Vjmlhds 18:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cire web

Please fix the Template:Cire web to {{Cite web. Thanks. mabdul 17:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

JTG

The list states JTG is inactive, however he was in a match with Brodus Clay at this weeks Raw event.--Mjs1991 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he also beat David Otunga in a dark match at the TLC PPV on Sunday. Here's a source for both. Please remove the "inactive" note from the notes column. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Is everybody in NXT working on a WWE contract?

A comment above got me thinking on this, and Google sucks (or I suck at Googling). Is everyone on the show contracted to WWE, or are there pure NXT wrestlers, who are paid by someone entirely different (Skinner, perhaps)? I know that NXT is different from OVW, HWA and DSW (where guys worked without anything to do with WWE) in that it's owned by WWE, but is it that different? Does anyone have a source saying one thing or the other? Should the "Developmental roster" section be renamed "NXT roster", until this is clearer? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider this Gavin Reid fellow. Unlike many other NXT wrestlers, he doesn't seem to have any presence on WWE.com. Is this because he's strictly a NXT guy, or does WWE have another reason to ignore him like this? Same with Angelo Dawkins. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those who are competing in NXT as wrestlers are signed to WWE's developmental contract, as they can't appear straight to the main roster because they aren't ready for tv yet. They are trained into the WWE style of wrestling by trainers, some of whom were WWE Superstars themselves. Most who appear in developmental don't make it to the main roster mostly because they don't have what WWE wants in a in-ring competitor. Some are demoted to being referees(Maddox & Zapata), while others moved to creative or other on-air roles(Pierce & Saxton). The few who make it to the main roster have their contracts upgraded to main roster status, the process usually takes a few weeks/months before the transfer's complete. Before and during the transfer process, the new talent compete in dark matches during tv tapings and compete at live events to test their skills in front of a live crowd and producers to develop a background story for the gimmick the talent is using. I hope that clears up most of the confusion, IH. Keith Okamoto (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a great explanation, and I think something like that would be very helpful in Farm_team#Professional_wrestling or the NXT article. But I've been a wrestling geek for 25 years, and am generally familiar with the system. And I know there were guys in OVW who worked alongside the WWF prospects, but were paid by Jim Cornette and had nothing at all to do with the WWF. I suspect NXT is different, since WWE owns it, rather than works with it, but just wanted some confirmation that NXT is purely a WWE training ground and not also a traditional promotion. Keirn can't book anyone not under WWE contract, without permission, even for house shows? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're listed on http://www.wwe.com/superstars, you're "main roster".. because it's WWE.com. Referees (like Brad Maddox) seem to be an exception. If you're listed on http://www.fcwwrestling.info/NXT-Wrestling-Superstars.html or http://www.fcwwrestling.info/NXT-Wrestling-Divas.html, you're in the developmental roster... because it's NXT Wrestling, the renamed FCW, which is WWE's developmental territory. If you're listed on both, like the Shield, main roster should take precedence. Note, by "main roster" I mean WWE television or PPVs, not house shows, not dark matches. Starship.paint (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Is everybody in NXT working on a WWE contract?" The answer would be yes, because NXT is owned by WWE - see the WWE logo in the middle of the NXT logo at the top of the NXT website and " © 2012 WWE, Inc. All Rights Reserved." at the bottom of the page. However, as I have talked about above, there must be two kinds of contracts, one "main roster/television/PPV" contract for John Cena, and one developmental contract for Gavin Reid, as evidenced by his absence from WWE television programming and WWE.com. Source for the existence of developmental contracts... [1] Starship.paint (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. Of course, I know developmental contracts exist. I was asking if anybody had a source saying that each and every wrestler in NXT had one, or that it's a mix of developmental WWE wrestlers and guys who are paid directly by NXT and have no intention or hope of joining WWE in the future. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, a standard WWE contract doesn't mean someone will necessarily wrestle on TV or PPVs. They have to basically do whatever WWE wants, whether it's win at WrestleMania, job on NXT or kiss Hornswoggle at house shows and autograph signings. The main difference from developmental contracts is the money and job security. Sure, a guy like Cena or Punk probably has a special clause or two in their contract, but there's nothing stopping WWE from sending most guys to NXT on their regular contracts, and paying them the regular downside guarantee. But since WWE's paying them, they generally like to get their money's worth by using them on TV. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Everybody listed on NXT Wrestling roster has a WWE developmental contract (superstars, divas and referees). Some of them (like Gavin Reid and Angelo Dawkins) are just not ready yet like others that came from another big promotion (Xavier Woods, Kassius Ohno and Adrian Neville that came from TNA, ROH and Dragon Gate/Evolve) or others that are receiving training since FCW (like Big E Langston). And there are the wrestlers that even under developmental contracts are given the chance to work on the main roster (like The Shield guys and Rod Zapata). And all members of the Administration Staff are WWE employees (even the developmental's President Steve Keirn). It is just simple as that. I hope it had helped. WWEJobber (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but what I really want is a source confirming or denying it. Do you remember where you heard/read this? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In the old FCW website (before it was converted to the NXT Wrestling name) and on the FCW TV shows. But why a developmental territory website would list non-developmental wrestlers? WWEJobber (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Because they'd still be wrestling for that promotion, even if they weren't training for a WWE career. All the older devolpmental promotions did it. Not so unreasonable to think NXT might. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"And there are the wrestlers that even under developmental contracts are given the chance to work on the main roster (like The Shield guys and Rod Zapata)." - definitely needs to be sourced. Note that the Shield guys are already listed on the WWE.com page alongside Cena, Punk etc., so an easy inference is that they already have full "main roster" contracts. About Zapata, I don't recall WWE.com listing referees. A logical reason why the Shield have not been removed from the NXT page is that there are still episodes of NXT that have been taped but not aired regarding the Shield, so they are still going to appear on NXT for the time being until their storylines are wrapped up (Seth still NXT Champion on the TV show) Starship.paint (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact it is not just the case of episodes that have not been aired yet because they probably will tape more episodes with them because Seth still have his rematch agains Langston. Unfortunately the new NXT Wrestling website do not have the Alumni section that the old FCW website had to denote when a wrestler's developmental contract ends and he gains full main roster status. WWEJobber (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So let's get all of this wrapped up in a nutshell so we can get this thing unlocked.

The Shield boys should be listed on the main roster, as they're on the WWE.com roster page. For the sake of compromise, I'll concede to a small note saying that they also work in NXT. The term "developmental" to me means that they're not ready for the main roster...at worst, The Shield boys are in middle ground.

They're obviously ready enough for the main roster, but they may still be working out some small kinks, so they also work in NXT.

If we can all agree to this, hopefully the powers that be will unlock this thing. Optimally, we need to have this thing unlocked by Sunday night to be ready for any title changes that may happen at TLC. Vjmlhds 19:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Vjmhlds, are you not listening to what I write, or deliberately ignoring it? "the term 'developmental' to me means..." is irrelevant. InedibleHulk is on the right track (thank you, by the way): we need sources. I cannot stress this enough. You have all got stop talking about what you think, about what you interpret. One last time: WP:CONSENSUS cannot override site-wide policy. This is not about you all coming to an agreement about what makes sense. It's about finding sources that support one side or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not deleberatley ignoring anything. Here are the sources...[2]...this is the WWE roster page from their website, where the three men in question (Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns, Dean Ambrose) are listed. This is proof that they are indeed part of the main WWE roster. Here is the roster page from NXT, WWE's developmental territory...[3]...this shows that the three men in question are also still part of that as well. So I go back to my proposed soulution above...list the 3 men on the main roster, with a small note saying they also appear on NXT. I have provided sources to support both elements of this proposal. Vjmlhds 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the problem here. Everyone is making confusion between NXT Wrestling (the developmental facility formerly known as FCW) and NXT (the TV show). The roster on NXT Wrestling official page is not the TV show roster. It is the facility roster. The developmental wrestlers. The ones that are still receiving training. The farm's students. The facility official website. The TV program official website. It is very simple. WWEJobber (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have a solution to this. I've asked before if the developmental roster section should be split between the TV visible roster and the live event/training roster, but was rejected and added the notes, starting this disaster. I'll take the blame for this mess, but I still think the developmental roster should be split. Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if divided this will not add anything to the Shield guys. The developmental are still debuting on NXT one by one week after week. WWEJobber (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How about just re-naming the section the NXT roster? That way, The Shield are included since they still have profiles on the NXT Wrestling website and the other who haven't appeared on NXT TV won't be left out? Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That would make things much easier (and reduce Wikipedia's server load by a whopping 10 bytes). The problem seems to be with the implied associations between contracts and rosters. By removing the word "developmental", we make it much clearer that this is simply about rosters, not contracts. Rosters are easy to verify, contract details are not. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll support this idea. It makes sense, and takes away ambiguity. Vjmlhds 14:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not make any sense. NXT is a TV show. NXT Wrestling is a facility. You are getting confused since WWE renamed FCW. WWEJobber (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

NXT is also a common short-form for NXT Wrestling. Would you prefer we called it "NXT Wrestling roster"? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course I prefer, but what will you do with the five guys discussed here? Double-list them? WWEJobber (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, list them in the main roster, with a note saying they also work on NXT (or in NXT Wrestling, whichever you like). The Shield guys, anyway. Langston doesn't seem to be on WWE.com's main roster. Who's the fifth guy again? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There was a note but there was people disagreeing with it. But "also working on NXT" does not mean a thing because all the main roster guys could work on NXT (even on the farm's live events). The note should explain that they are still training on NXT Wrestling facility therefore under developmental contract yet even wrestling on the main roster. The 5th guy is referee Rod Zapata. WWEJobber (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, anyone could wrestle on NXT. And if they do, they should also get a note. You'll need a source for "still training" and "developmental contract", and you don't seem to have one. That they're listed on NXT's roster is verifiable, so whether anyone disagrees or not is a moot point. Not sure how we'd verify where a referee works, since WWE doesn't seem to even acknowledge ref's names lately. That's still open for debate, I guess, but consensus and policy are pretty clear on the others. Let's get this page unlocked. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already posted the official sources in he section above. They are still listed under the farm students section. WWEJobber (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)