Talk:List of WWE personnel/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 23

OK...let's find consensus

Well let's get some consensus on some basic things so we can get this thing unlocked.

The boys in The Shield should not be labeled as "developmental", and Johnny Curtis should be known as Fandango since that's who he's wrestling as.

I vote that's this is how these guys should be listed.

Vjmlhds 03:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

[1] source for Curtis being Fandango. STATic message me! 04:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That source says he wrestled as "Simply" Johnny Curtis. It's also reader-submitted. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't you guys just use "Johnny Curtis / Fandango"? While Fandango has appeared in vignettes and house shows... he hasn't debuted on television. The last we saw of Curtis, he was still being called Curtis (backed up by source http://www.wwe.com/superstars/johnnycurtis). So list both names until Fandango actually debuts. Simple, conflict solved. Starship.paint (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I didn't mean to imply I don't want him called Fandango. Just pointing out the contradiction. Not to be a dick, either. Just for clarity's sake. Personally, I don't even know who Johnny Curtis/Fandango is, and have absolutely no preference for a name. Whatever is verifiable, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Instead of repeating myself, see above. Not seeing the point of having two sections for one question. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's Seth Rollins' profile in the "WWE Superstars" section of WWE.com. Here's Ambrose. Here's Reigns. Compare this to the redirect of any other similar URL with a developmental wrestler's name. If we use these profiles to verify the status of every other "Superstar" on the list (and we do), this seems a no-brainer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, no comment on the other points, but your "see above" is exactly what I was talking about above when I said you're conducting original research. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit. But this is a talk page. I was using it to try to explain some things to an objecting editor, not to add or remove anything. Original research is only a crime if used as justification for editing an article. My hands are clean in the edit war itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll see that most of the regular editors of this artice (myself, STATic, IncredibleHulk, Keith Okamoto) are in agreement about most topics, and have repeatedly brought forth references backing us up. It's one editor in particular (WWEJobber) that no matter how much the rest of us ask politely and no matter how many references we show, insists on doing things his way and just overall has a "my way or the highway" approach to this article. I could understand if we were all sniping at each other, but as I said, we're usually in agreement with each other regarding how to edit the article, and it's really just one editor who doesn't want to work with us. We usually find consensus/common ground. Thus I ask ask with the utmost of respect that the lock be opened. Vjmlhds 15:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear: being "in agreement" is not enough. You must be in agreement that is concordant with policy. WP:CONLIM explains that local consensus cannot override site-wide policy. And policy requires verifiability, collaboration, and consensus building. What I see is both "sides" making assertions without reference to sources. I sometimes see references to past agreements, but no one ever actually links to those, and those "agreements" I've seen, like the discussion up in "End the nonsense" above, has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Again, let me be clear: for creative works, the only time you may refer directly to the creative work (the "text" of the shows) is to site unequivocal facts. If you are interpreting in any way (that is, deciding the "status" of the various characters), then you need independent third party sources. If those sources do not exist, then you cannot label the people either way (which may, for example, in this case, mean leaving off the "developmental" part).

As far as dropping the protection, I can promise you I won't be dropping it until such time as you all prove that you can come to policy-compliant consensus, more than once. If you want to ask an uninvolved admin to drop the protection, you can make a request at WP:RFUP. But I'm absolutely not going to do it myself now, because I see a long-term problem here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave three sources verifying the three disputed wrestlers are listed on WWE's official main roster, and so should be here. It's a stretch to say this requires interpretation, or cannot be "verified by any educated person with access to the source, but without further, specialized knowledge". Yes, I also pointed to a past discussion, but that doesn't negate my policy-based point. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am kind of new here, but I'd like to add my 2 cents to this discussion. I understand both POVs and, yes, The Shield guys are on the main roster. It is a thing that don't need further explanation or even be discussed. The guys are ready to make a big impact and to be the next best hot thing in the business. But what I understand about WWEJobber arguments (you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that even working on the main roster and being on PPV, they (and referee Rod Zapata too) are still under developmental contract (as can be seen here) and he simply put a note about this fact. He didn't move them back to the developmental roster section or other disruptive kinds of thing. Dean just made his debut on NXT during last week tapings. Seth still has his championship rematch against Big E Langston. The Shild stormed on NXT as part of a storyline. Searching the article history, I could observe that this kind of note was used before. He was right in the cited examples and there are others such as Mason Ryan and Michael McGuilicutty (this one being a Tag Team champion with David Otunga) during their New Nexus tenure; Trent Barreta, Tyler Reks, Yoshi Tatsu and Sheamus during their time on ECW; and many more. My opinion is that it is an important information and should be noted there. The guy could be a pain, but he is right in this case, and it will not hurt to put this note there. Nomelck (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A note would be fine, if backed up by a source. Unsourced stuff, especially contentious stuff, can be removed from Wikipedia. The link you provide doesn't indicate any of the wrestlers on that page have WWE developmental contracts or standard contracts, only that they wrestle for NXT (and so probably have some type of WWE contract, unless, like OVW and HWA, NXT also has their own guys). If the note said "Also wrestles for NXT" or something similar, it would be fine, with that source. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you be alright with this note, WWEJobber, instead of mentioning contracts? I think we'd all like it if we could reach a compromise and get this page unlocked. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone could wrestle for NXT. NXT is a TV show. It does not mean the same thing. Daniel Bryan, Johnny Curtis, Michael McGuilicutty, Percy Watson, Derrick Bateman, Big Show, Tyson Kidd, Justin Gabriel, Jinder Mahal, Heath Slater, Drew McIntyre, The Usos, Kane, all wrestle for NXT. Some of them have storylines in the show. So the prerrogative that "The Shield guys are still listed on the roster because they are in the middle of a storyline" is not correct. They are listed because they are part of the developmental roster yet. But now thay are part of the main roster too. Just like the Nexus when main evented Summerslam. It is not an uncommon thing to happen. WWEJobber (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not logical. Bryan, Curtis etc, yes, they appear on NXT, but they are "main roster" now. They're not listed on the NXT roster page. It doesn't matter if they guest-star in NXT. You can't compare them to the Shield... because the key difference is that only the Shield can compare to itself because they appear on both WWE and NXT pages. Are you denying that the Shield are not in the middle of storylines? Rollins is still NXT Champion on television, Reigns is still playing the rich throughbred gimmick and Ambrose hasn't even debuted. How can you remove Seth Rollins from the developmental roster page when to viewers of NXT TV, he's still NXT Champion? He's not part of the Shield yet, even on the recent 12/12/12 NXT. It's also not logical for Rollins for example to be under TWO contracts, main roster and developmental. Starship.paint (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

But all the things you said are exactly everything that I ever said about it. So do you agree with me now? And they are not under two contracts. This I never said. They are under developmental contract. Just this. They are not full main roster yet. It is simple. WWEJobber (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, then. Find a reliable source. Even a sketchy source would be better than nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

[Reliable source 1] [Reliable source 2] [Reliable source 3] [Reliable source 4] [Reliable source 5] WWEJobber (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been clearer. Please provide a source stating that any (or all) of these guys is working on a developmental contract or is not a part of the main WWE roster. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should I provide a source stating that the guys are not a part of the main roster if they clearly are? I did not understand. WWEJobber (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Five days ago, you said "They are not full main roster yet." Did I misunderstand you? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

They are part of the main roster but they are not full main roster members yet because they are still under developmental contract. What is the difficulty in understanding here? WWEJobber (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you think they're on a developmental contract and that you believe this means they are not "full" main roster. But if you'd like to note either of these claims in the article, you'll need a source making the claim, or it's original research. You've been around Wikipedia for a while, you know how this works. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think or believe in anything. I have already posted the sources that indicates that the guys are still in the training facility while working with the main roster. WWEJobber (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Those sources show he's on the NXT roster. They say nothing about contracts or whether this means he's not "full main roster". Jumping to conclusions is original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The NXT facility roster (student) not the NXT program roster (wrestler). It is not a conclusion of mine nor original research. WWEJobber (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

So where does it say these are students, or distinguish between a "facility roster" and a "program roster"? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because http://www.nxtwrestling.com/ is the facility official website. The TV program one is http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt WWEJobber (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A new idea.

After a conversation with User:Qwyrxian, he gave me an idea that I really wish I would have thought of myself.

Since there are no sources that concretely say if such-and-such wrestler is "developmental" or not, then NOBODY should be listed as "developmental".

Either they go on the main roster or the NXT roster.

We already have the note at the top of the page saying wrestlers from the main roster may also appear on NXT, so in cases like the Shield or Big E Langston for example, there would be no need to say "also appears on NXT" as that is covered.

As to how to list wrestlers -- If they're on WWE.com's main roster, they're automatic. And guys like Brock Lesnar or the Rock, who aren't listed on WWE.com's "official roster" (for storyline reasons), but are actually under contract are included.

And if guys are scheduled to make appearances and have matches and whatnot lined up in advance, it would be fair to assume they're under contract.

Likewise if a wrestler is on NXT's roster page on their website, he gets listed on the NXT roster section.

If a wrestler is on both, the main roster takes precedence.

HOPEFULLY, we can get some traction here.

Vjmlhds 01:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but not a new one. I've said basically the same thing in a couple of the other similar sections you started. So yeah, I agree. Not keen on assuming wrestlers have contracts just because they have a match coming up. The Rock's advertised for the Rumble, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's currently under contract or on the roster. Could be a one-night deal, effective on that date only. Verifiability is still key. If someone is not on either website's roster page, or doesn't have another source saying they work for WWE, they don't belong here. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well here are 2 sources that back up both Rock and Brock being under contract with WWE. The Rock's Agenda Brock's Status The article about the Rock shows he has multiple appearances lined up with WWE leading up to the Royal Rumble and through to Wrestlemania. This should indicate that at minimum he has at least a short term contract.

Likewise if a wrestler is on NXT's roster page on their website, he gets listed on the NXT roster section.

If a wrestler is on both, the main roster takes precedence.

What is the difference from this to what had been done all this time? The fact is that the wrestlers that still are farm students should have a note as always have been done (listed on the main roster section or not). The big problem is that when the FCW website was renamed NXT Wrestling they removed the Alumni section (that always indicated when they graduate and was always used as a parameter in this article). But even without it we always recognized that the wrestlers were still students while they were not removed from the facility roster section. WWEJobber (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Bleacher Report technically isn't a reliable source, but those sources for Rock and Brock are good enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is Jobber, that there is no definite, concrete way of knowing whether someone is still "developmental" or not. In other words there is no source that says wrestler X is still officially viewed by WWE as "developmental talent". There's too much grey area. So (after some consulting from Qwyrxian) the best way to go is simply not labeling anybody as "developmental". And with the note at the top of the page, there's no need to individiually point out each wrestler who may still also work in NXT while also a part of the main roster. Vjmlhds 17:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I found this little tidbit Call up Policy What this means in a nutshell is that when somebody gets called up from NXT, that there are plans in place for how they're going to be used. Basically if you see them on Raw or Smackdown, then there's a reason for them to be there, and they're gonna be part of the show (and thus part of the roster). Hopefully, this will put to bed a lot of grey areas. Vjmlhds 18:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Being used on Raw and/or Smackdown does not mean that a wrestler cannot still be a student in their developmental facility. Hope this will put to bed a lot of grey areas. WWEJobber (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mysterio/Sin Cara inactivity; tag teams/stables

Sorry if I'm intruding your conversation here, but whenever you get the chance, you might want to list Rey Mysterio & Sin Cara as inactive with neck and knee injuries, respectively. Also, on a completely different note, with the tag team "renaissance" that has been seen lately, we should put a section under Main roster and NXT roster showing tag teams and stables, but only those that have been cemented as such, to at least try to avoid further arguments. Please reply. Thanks.209.213.155.16 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

According to this, Sin Cara is healing a knee injury, but Mysterio has a family issue, no injury. As for the teams, I don't think that's appropriate. This article is a "real world" list of contractors and employees, and things like teams and championships are more WP:INUNIVERSE. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If championships are out of question, why leave holders of championships listed on the article?209.213.145.236 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say either was out of the question, just more in-universe. Championships are slightly more real world, in my opinion, since a champion (at least a world champion) acquires real responsibilities and benefits with the belt, along with storyline glory and whatnot. And there's already a notes column where it can tidily be noted. The tag team thing just seems a bit too "fake" and irrelevant here, especially for a whole table. Back in the day, tag teams at least drove together, but now everyone flies and buses with everyone. That's not to say I'd be opposed to seeing a List of WWE Tag Teams or List of WWE stables article. This info would be totally relevant there. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A List of professional wrestling tag teams with a WWE section would be better, now that I think of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A seperate article about tag teams would be a great idea. Include a U.S. section (WWE, TNA, ROH) a Japan section (NJPW, AJPW, Noah), and a Mexico section (AAA, CMLL). Vjmlhds 18:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For a start, anyway. Australian and European wrestling is still chugging along. But yeah, in relative obscurity. I probably won't create the article, in any case. Just a suggestion that I'd support. Can IPs create articles? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am okay with the creation of the list, but in a separate article, not this one. WWEJobber (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I like it. When many things seem to be too kayfabe, we should see if its good enough to be an article, just an idea. By the way, you also mentioned championships, would you mind explaining to me why contenderships would be too un-notable if champions are notable enough? Keep up the good work. Please reply and thanks.209.213.145.236 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Contenderships are very abstract, and can be let too much to interepretation (this guy is # 1 contender, this guy is #2...no this guy is #1, and that guy is #2...and on and on). With a championship, there's a belt that clearly defines that this guy is this, and this guy is that. Vjmlhds 03:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but wouldn't it be simple enough to say that the #1 contender is just next in line to officially compete for the title, #2 next and so on? Please reply. Thanks.209.213.145.236 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If we start listing contenders, we're gonna have arguements over who is #1, #2, and so forth, and the last thing this article needs is something else for people to have a dispute about. With championships, there is no debate...you either have a belt or you don't. Vjmlhds 07:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Could we possibly put them simply as just "contender" without putting a number behind it?209.213.145.236 (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, that opens up too many cans of worms with editors arguing who is and isn't a contender. Look at it this way, if you're wrestling for WWE (or any company), you're automatically a contender because at any time you can be thrown into a title match. So there's no need to list guys specifically as contenders..if you can lace your boots and step into the ring, you're a contender. That's as simple as I can put it. Vjmlhds 16:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to aggravate you or anything, and I do understand that there are surprise championship matches, but by contender I meant a competitor that will face for a championship as a known fact; a predetermined one, therefore. Just giving ideas, that's all.209.213.145.236 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I smell what you're cooking, but I'm looking at this from a Wikipedia point of view. Anything that could start an edit war is something I'd really like to avoid. Let's worry about getting this page unlocked first, and then when the dust has settled, we can come back to this. Vjmlhds 18:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.209.213.145.236 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It was confirmed on SuperSmackdown that Rey Mysterio suffered a neck injury and Sin Cara suffered a knee injury, and Sin Cara noted on Twitter that his knee surgery was successful, but im unsure if Rey's is just a storyline, or if it the real deal, like Sin Cara's surgery. JobbersAreCool (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's only a storyline injury. It was used as an out to allow Rey some time off to attend to personal business. Here's the reference - Rey's absence Vjmlhds 00:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Going Forward

I'm hopeful that with the article I just posted above. It can provide a template as to how to proceed when we see NXT guys being called up from this point on.

So let's add everything up:

1. We have sources indicating Rock and Brock Lesnar are under some sort of WWE contract, so they can go on the roster.

2. We have a guideline to go by so we know what to do when an NXT wrestler gets called up.

3. We have a note at the top of the page to cover all instances when a wrestler is listed on both the main roster and the NXT roster.

4. And since there are no sources specifically saying what wrestlers are developmental, then nobody gets listed as such.

5. We have a main roster section and an NXT roster section, and guys get listed there accordingly--once an NXT guy appears on WWE main programming, then he goes to the main roster as per their call-up policy which is referenced above.

Let's se if we can find onsensus here with these proposals, so we can get this thing unlocked.

Vjmlhds 19:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Still fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Even with BL and DJ being just alumni with contracts to appear at some shows and do some matches, they are important to storylines, so it is okay if they are listed in the main roster section. But there are sources indicating that a wresler is still a student in their developmental facility: the official facility website. It is a nice guideline to go by. It is okay if a wrestler gets called up to the main roster he get listed as such, but is necessary at least a note indicating that he still is under the farm wings. WWEJobber (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both guidelines. I say we might want to take action soon. By the way I really need to get a WP account.209.213.145.236 (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I see mostly agreement here, but not quite: WWEJobber, what are the conditions (i.e., sources) under which we would "note...that [a wrestler] is stil under the farm wings"? How would you know when such a note is needed, and how would you know when it should be removed? Note, as always, to base your answers on sources, not your own personal impression.

If this one last point can be resolved (note that I don't necessarily mean that WWEJobber's condition should be included, just that I think we can use a little more time to talk about it) then the page can be unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. This will for sure make the page a whole lot better and end the confusion. Keith Okamoto (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "farm wings" scenario...in the article I referenced earlier on, it layed out the conditions for which guys would be called up. Mainly that wrestlers WWE feels are ready for the main roster would have their characters and storylines ready to go, so that once they arrived, they could immediately get in the mix. Also, at the top of the page of the Wiki entry in question, there is a little note that says wrestlers on the main roster may also appear on NXT. That note is there as a one size fits all umbrella to cover all situations where wrestlers appear both on the main roster and on NXT so it wouldn't be necessary to list individual case where it applies. The whole point of the developmental territory is to prep guys for the main roster (like a minor leauge baseball team for an MLB team). Once the "big leauge team" (i.e. WWE in this case) thinks you're ready, they establish a character and storyline, and once that's in place, you get called up. Just like baseball, once you're with the big club, you aren't considered "minor leauge/developmental". That's not my "definition" of anything, that's how WWE views it, with a reference to back it up. Vjmlhds 03:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.209.213.145.236 (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian the fact is that the farm has an official website indicating when a wrestler is still a student. It was always used as a guideline here is this article since 2009 if I am not wrong. Before it was rebranded we had the Alumni section that indicated when a wrestler was not anymore participating in the developmental facility. Now that the section does not exist anymore the wrestler profile is simply removed (like Brad Maddox and referee Justin King for example). I think that since the facility changed its name a lot of people get confused. Vjmlhds seems to be one of them. Look at this comment of him: at the top of the page of the Wiki entry in question, there is a little note that says wrestlers on the main roster may also appear on NXT.. This note is okay, there is nothing wrong about it, but this talks about the TV show. We are not talking about the program here. We are talking about the farm previously known as Florida Championship Wrestling. A little note stating that a wrestler is still under the facility wings (even participating on important angles with the main roster) will not harm anyone. It will just improve this article more and more. WWEJobber (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not confused by anything. NXT Wrestling is the name of WWE's developmental/"farm" league, and those wrestlers are featured on their own TV show titled NXT. Now if maybe the note at the top of the page were to say "...also appear in NXT Wrestling", would that clear things up? One other thing to consider...the NXT weekly TV show usually tapes numerous weeks worth of programming at a time (and here's a source detailing a typical TV taping schedule--NXT Taping Schedule) So while all of these programs may be still airing with certain talent, the decision to call guys up to the main roster could easily occur before these NXT episodes have ben played out (remember, WWE broadcasts Raw live every week, and all of their other weekly programming is taped for broadcast that week). Again it all goes back to this simple basic concept -- NXT Wrestling is the developmental territory for WWE to prep younger wrestlers for the main roster. WWE has a process for deciding how and when guys get called up. Once everything in the process goes through, guys start working on the main roster and appearing on the main TV shows. Once guys are called up, they go from developmental to main talent...that's what "getting called up" is all about to start with. There is no source anywhere that concretely states WWE still views X and Y wrestlers as developmental even after they've been called up. And simply still appearing on the "facility roster" isn't a concrete source. There's too much ambiguity and room for intereptation. There is a concrete source detailing that when a guys gets called up, certain criteria must be meant, and when said wrestler is called up it's because he's expected to be a contributor to the main product. Vjmlhds 16:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If when they bring up wrestlers turn them just main roster why debut Big E Langston on Raw just 10 days after he got hold of NXT Championship belt? Why put the belt on someone that is not developmental anymore? And why debut Dean Ambrose in a NXT storyline just after he debuted on Raw if it makes him main roster? Appearing on the facility roster is a concrete (and official) source and there is no ambiguity for interpretation in this. WWEJobber (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Putting a certain belt on someone doesn't mean anything about whether they are still "developmental" or not. For one thing, Big E Langaston is now on WWE.com's official roster, so he gets included on the main roster. And for another (and I don't know how many times I have to explain it) there is no source anywhere that says that WWE still views certain wrestlers as developmental even after they have been called up to the main roster. That is what this whole bruhaha is all about to start with. Nothing out there says "even though so-and-so is now part of the main roster, WWE still views them as a developmental student". Labeling wrestlers as developmental even after being called up to the main roster is purely up to interpretation, and if there are no sources to concretely back up the assertion, it doesn't belong in the article. Being still on the "facility roster" even after being moved to the main roster doesn't mean anything. It could be as simple as WWE not getting around to updating the NXT website. Again, a note at the top of the article saying "wrestlers on the main roster may also wrestle in NXT Wrestling" should be sufficient enough to cover any and all situations. Labeling certain wrestlers as developmental even after they've been called up just leads to disputes, because it's contradictory. They're one or the other. When a city's police department hires rookie cops who graduated from the police acadamy, do they say "even though so-and-so officers are now part of the force, Such-and-Such City still views them as acadamy cadets"? When an MLB team recalls a minor league player up to the parent club, do they say "even though so-and-so is on the major league roster, the Such-and-Such Whatchamycallits still views him as a minor league player"? I was once a student driver who had to learn how to drive. But then I took (and passed) my tests, and got my license. The state of Ohio doesn't say that "even though Vjmlhds has his license, he is still considered a student driver". You can't be both a cadet and a police officer, you can't be both a minor league and major league baseball player, you can't be both a student driver and a licensed driver, and you can't be both a "developmental student" and someone who appears on national primetime TV who is expected to help deliver ratings. Be it driving a car, the police force, baseball, or WWE, you start at one level in order to graduate to the next level. And once you're at the second level, you're no longer considered still at the first level, (especially when there's no source that explicitly says so). Vjmlhds 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You wrote a lot of things that are not even related to the discussion and boldfacing words will not change your suppositions into facts. It could be as simple as WWE not getting around to updating the NXT website. The NXT Wrestling website was updated at least three times since the Shield guys debut. Again, a note at the top of the article saying "wrestlers on the main roster may also wrestle in NXT Wrestling" should be sufficient enough to cover any and all situations. In fact not. It does not even make any sense. Why would Kane or Daniel Bryan, for example, wrestle in the developmental facility? They could wrestle on NXT TV show, but in the farm? A main roster guy could go there and give some tips, but why would they wrestle there? In the developmental territory we just have the Administration Staff and the students (wrestlers and referees). The facility official website lists all of them. They just do not list the Alumni anymore. They now just remove them from the roster page. If they are not removed they are still students. WWEJobber (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Jobber, the NXT facility, and the NXT show are (when you get right down to it) one and the same...it's all under the same roof -- WWE. The TV show is merely a platform for them to perform on and show their wares. Trying to seperate them is really splitting the tiniest of hairs. If WWE thinks they're good enough for the bright lights, they promote them to the main roster. You're trying to make a simple concept complicated by insisting on adding unecessary qualifiers. I made comparisons to driving/police work/baseball to try to prove a point that at some point, you go from developmental wrestler/cadet/minor leaguer/student driver to main roster wrestler/cop/major leaguer/licensed driver. And I repeat again that there is no source out there that just straight out says that WWE still views such-and-such wrestlers as developmental even though they are on the main roster. Anything else can be left to interpretation, and if there's any ambiguity at all, it can't go into the article. Vjmlhds 15:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

the NXT facility, and the NXT show are (when you get right down to it) one and the same They are not. WWEJobber (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In its current form it is the same thing. That is like saying the FCW TV show was a completely different entity then the former facility. The note at the top of the page should do the job and Rollins, Ambrose, Reigns and Langston since he now has a superstar page should all be listed with the main roster which always takes precident. The only reason their still listed on the website is due to the tape delay of NXT Wrestling episodes so they need to have it advertised they'll still appear. Especially since Rollins is still considered the champion if you did not read spoilers. However per WP:SPOILERS that does not matter and they should all be listed on the main roster. Unless you would Jobber would like to provide a reliable third party source that says they still are more NXT wrestlers then WWE superstars? STATic message me! 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is like saying the FCW TV show was a completely different entity then the former facility. NXT existed before the farm changed its name. Rollins, Ambrose, Reigns and Langston (...) should all be listed with the main roster which always takes precident. I never said anything different. The only reason their still listed on the website is due to the tape delay of NXT Wrestling episodes so they need to have it advertised they'll still appear. Would you like to provide a reliable third party source about it or it is just an original research of you? Especially since Rollins is still considered the champion if you did not read spoilers. So why does the website list Big E Langston as champion? WWEJobber (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

NXT existed before the farm changed its name. Never said otherwise. I never said anything different. Then what are you arguing about? Also you do not need to cite the sky is blue. Or do you not understand how taped shows and advertisement work? Because I would be happy to explain to you. STATic message me! 20:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing about anything. I think that who are not understand anything here is you. WWEJobber (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly WWEJobber, you're outnumbered. If you're going to say something, please let it be something WORTH discussion or change. You're the only obstacle in between us and our goal of unlocking this page. Sorry, just telling the truth. Try to quote me now, why don't you?209.213.145.236 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's settle down a second. It would appear that the majority of us are in agreement. The fact of the matter is that there is no source out there that says with no doubts that WWE still views certain wrestlers as developmental even after being called up. Anything else that was brought up leaves room for dispute, and when in doubt, don't include it in the article. It is apparent that we have a consensus. It isn't unanimous, but there is only one holdout amongst about a half dozen or so voices that are in support. Let's let Wiki top men look at everything and then make their decision. Vjmlhds 00:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Sorry, Jobber, I gotta put 2&2 together sometimes… Vjmlhds, I'm not too knowledgable of WP, so could you explain to me who these "top men" are?209.213.145.236 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Word of advice User 209....please don't resort to name calling, it violates WP:PERSONAL. Argue about the article all you want, but don't call names. Wiki "top men" are the administrators...the ones who issue the blocks and lock articles and whatnot. They don't look kindly to name calling, it's the kind of thing that could get you blocked real quick, so try to turn it down a notch. Vjmlhds 03:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if you know this but since it seems consensus has seemed to been reached. You can request unprotecting at WP:RFPP. Unless you're planning to continue to discuss it with the Admin that protected it. STATic message me! 03:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I put a request in with Qwyrxian, so let's see what he says. And it does look like we're all in agrement here except for Jobber. Vjmlhds 03:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

":Now this is a nice early Christmas present. I also see a consensus here, one that would make decisions based on reference to specific reliable sources. I am, in fact, going to unprotect the article now. Please implement the consensus decision. I will consider anyone editing against that consensus to be intentionally edit warring (even for a single edit) and will consider blocking accordingly. Note, also, that if edit warring resumes on other topics, I may either re-protect the article or block, since all of you should now be aware that you need to discuss problems, not war over them. The safest policy you can follow, then, is this: if you make a change, and someone else reverts it in good faith (i.e., not blatantly obvious vandalism), don't re-revert to put in your preferred version, open a section on the article's talk page to discuss it. Yes, this takes more time, but no one will be harmed if this list is slightly out of date, and it's best to keep working towards a clear consensus version of the article. Of course, if someone attempts to abuse this process to just stop every constructive edit, that, itself, might be worthy of sanctioning.

":However, please note that this does not mean that the discussion on developmental wrestlers is necessarily finished forever. There have been times in the past on WP where one editor was able to get the help of the wider community and change the consensus. WWEJobber, if you still feel like your concerns are valid, and wish to continue pursuing them, you can use dispute resolution. The next best step would probably be an Request for comment discussion; this is basically a way of starting a discussion here that gets the attention of people in the wider community, such that uninvolved editors might be able to provide a perspective that involved editors can't. If you want to try that and need help setting it up, please leave a note on my talk page and I'll explain more. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to offend. No more like this again.209.213.145.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

So you all reach a consensus about a thing that is not right. Congratulations for all of you. The next time that you are agreeing that the sky is pink I will not come here just to tell you that it is in fact blue. It is not worth wasting my time with people that see a discussion as a personal war and push his own POV to attain a "victory". Have a nice X-Mas. And enjoy your article. WWEJobber (talk) 10:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think I have laughed harder at anything on Wikipedia. Cosidering thats what you have tried to do this whole time. STATic message me! 17:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

CHRISTMAS TRUCE

I propose a Christmas truce from 12:00 AM to 12:00 AM, CT in which arguments temporarily cease and we can talk about editorial creativity or subjects that we haven't hade the time to discuss but are worthy of our attention. We shall resume the war on December 26 at 12:00 AM, CT. This could help ensure a merrier Christmas for all of the frequent editors of this article. Can we agree?209.213.145.236 (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A "Christmas Truce" would only be good if the page was unlocked and back to being semi-protected like it used to be. JobbersAreCool (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The idea is to get the page unlocked and avoid future wars. Top Men don't particularly care too much for bickering. Keep it civil so we can get this thing unlocked. Vjmlhds 03:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-Signing

Please note that Nick Rogers has been re-signed to a contract, but the NXT website is not going to list him due to the fact that he is going to get called up soon, and he was only released before because it was at his request, and he was healing knee and fibula surgeries, and should be listed under unassigned personnel on the page, because he is back to developmental soon, then the main roster when they think he has finished all his story lines and rivalries. His Twitter page is still @WWENickRogers and has a few pictures saying Reinstate The Whistle, posing with fans. JobbersAreCool (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

He has not been re-signed. WWEJobber (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes he was, his Twitter handle never changed, and his bio says he is an NXT star. JobbersAreCool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

He has not. Stop with this. WWEJobber (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if he has or not, but his Twitter handle/account is no sort of proof. If and when he's listed on either the WWE or NXT roster, he can be added here. If there's some other source backing up the "signed, but they're not listing him" claim, let's see it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Mr IncredibleHulk, but his Twitter has no tweets or pictures proving his release from NXT/WWE. He is attending main roster shows with Push Nick Rogers posters, and is planning on moving to the main roster really soon. JobbersAreCool (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

No need to prove he isn't in WWE. If he's moving up soon, we won't have to wait long to add him. Till then, needs a solid source. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Naomi and Cameron

I moved Naomi and Cameron to the main roster.

They wrestle a bit, and to be honest we have to cut some slack regarding the Divas division, because on any given show (TV/PPV/house show), the lady wrestlers may get one match per show (if that), so there's no way any of them can wrestle the same kind of pace that a male wrestler does.

So while they're mostly known as valets for Brodus Clay, they wrestle enough to count as "Divas", and some leniency needs to be taken into account regarding their status due to the comparitively fewer chances that female wrestlers get to be on a card then their male counterparts.

Remember, Naomi and Cameron are wrestlers by trade (that's how they came up in FCW/NXT), and when there are a dozen ladies on the roster and only one match a night for them to actually wrestle, you need to find other ways to be on the show. But the fact that they do wrestle when the situation presents itself should be good enough.

Vjmlhds 06:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Request of edit

I'd like to edit some of the superstars statuses on this page as I've noticed some editors have slacked in keeping up to date. (Olfert12 (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC))

Hi, Olfert12. You will have to specifically list exactly what edits you want and why. It doesn't work like you think it does. someone else will be doing the actual edits. Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You can edit this page when your account is autoconfirmed, which usually happens when your account is at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits. Or you can post exactly what change you want made and someone will do it for you. RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

tag teams and stables

i see you have the main roster, divas, on sceen talent, broadcast team, refs and so forth ... i was wondering if maybe listing the sables and tag team together if that would be a good idea and something you guys would be interesting in doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.32.154 (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We had the tag teams here years ago, but it was decided via consensus that it was unecessary. This is really just a list of who works for WWE, it just kinda gunks up the works to make a section for tag teams and stables, as we then have to double-list guys, and it's just too much. Vjmlhds 15:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

but other roster pages, like chikara or czw, has tag team section. Also, garycoleman asked me for the consensus, because he dont know about it.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds unecessary to me too. AARDJ (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, we have to delete also the list of tag teams and stables of other roster oages, like CZW or Chikara. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bo Dallas

I've added Bo Dallas to the main roster.

All of the usual wrestling news sites (411, Observer, Torch, etc) are saying his inclusion in the Rumble match is the start of his call-up to the main roster.

As we remember not that long ago during the "developmental wrestler" debacle, I produced an article that details all of WWE's protocol when they bring somebody up (mainly if someone's called up there's a reason for it, and his character and storyline are ready to go).

So if he's on mixing it up with the big boys on PPV, then as per the protocol that must mean there's something cooking for him in the storyline, thus he should be considered main roster material now.

Vjmlhds 17:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

However it is just for the Rumble. There's nothing to say he will being showing up on Raw the next night which I doubt since this was done on a Fan Axxes event rather then on television. No one is gonna really know who he is and he is only gonna be in the match for a couple minutes at the most. Basicly just to fill a spot. If he starts appearing on weekly television he should be added. Or if he is put on the Official Roster Page of WWE.com. It is too soon now. STATic message me! 22:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I'd thought we'd agreed to follow WWE.com's Superstar roster, to avoid the original research. As far as my own OR goes, I wouldn't consider a Rumble spot an indication of future plans. Plenty of entrants over the years have been one-off deals. I do think this guy has a likely future, but until he's officialy listed as a "Superstar", it's still the future. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If we see him on Raw or SmackDown, then he goes back in. Vjmlhds 15:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just so there's no accusations of "original research", I will again point to this which details WWE's call-up policy, in that guys don't get called up unless everything character and storyline wise is in place. And it looks like Dallas has a storyline going with Wade Barrett (kind of a call back to Maven-Undertaker years ago) Vjmlhds 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your link details Eduardo Dantas' Bellator 89 title defense. But yeah, I remember the link you mean. Still technically synthesis to take "This is the callup policy" and "Rotunda seems to be in the situation described in the policy" and come to a conclusion not stated by either source. But yes, it seems very likely that he'll be on the WWE.com roster page soon, and it'll be indisputable. Can't you just wait a bit? I'd hate to see this turn into another protected article deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Dallas just beat the I-C Champion on Raw. Common horse sense should indicate they they have plans for this guy if on his first ever TV match he's beating the I-C Champion. Vjmlhds 04:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not common horse sense. He'll likely be listed on the roster soon, if he isn't yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not even a backstage seg w/ Bo Dallas this week. What'd we do now? AARDJ (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly he is still not on WWE.com and is on NXT's website. However NXT's site still lists Ambrose, Rollins (etc) the same guys from before. Also I have noticed everytime referred to on tv he was called "Bo Dallas from NXT" or something along those lines so I do not think we should list him with the main roster. However if the storyline with Barret continues we shall see. STATic message me! 12:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

He's list'd on WWE.com now. AARDJ (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you all like the article fully protected again? If not, I suggest you stop handling content disputes via edit warring. Once somebody reverts something, bring it here and discuss it and stop reverting until there's consensus. Stop acting like there's going to be some terrible calamity if the page is wrong for a few days. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Where does Derrick Bateman and Percy Watson fit into this main roster or devlopmental roster debate as they only show up on WWE's Superstars page on WWE's website when using the 'All' and 'NXT' filters on that page? Logic would suggest that they should be on devlopmental roster because of this. But they also don't appear on the NXT Wrestling website's roster which must mean that they are on the main roster. Because of this, I am so confused! Are they on the main roster or the devlopmental roster? 80.177.47.34 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, but Bateman has a Superstar page, while Watson's is a redirect to the NXT Photo section. So they seem to be in two different boats, wherever those boats are. I notice Bateman's bio says "it only seems like a matter of time before Bateman breaks through to the big leagues." This may be outdated, but it suggests he isn't in WWE yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Bateman appear'd on Slam and's list'd on NXT show page as a NXT alumnus. Watson's list'd w/ the develop wrestlers on the same page. AARDJ (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Percy Watson

Shouldn't we delete Watson from main roster since he not in WWE.com profiles? And why is Hunico inactive still? SinCara66 18:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sincara66 (talk • contribs)

Yep. I've removed him. According to his article, Hunico needed surgery for an ACL injury. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I've re-added Percy to the page and moved him to NXT because he's there more than on the main roster. Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

HHH

I have added Triple H to the main roster (for now) due to the fact that his long rumored Wrestlemania match with Brock Lesnar looks like it's taking shape. When he's Paul Levesque the front office guy, he belongs in Executive Officers...When he's Triple H the main event wrestler in a highly promoted feud, he goes to the main roster.

Once Mania comes and goes and it looks like HHH will be staying in the office, he can go back to Executive Officers.

Vjmlhds 04:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Darren Young

Please don't deactivate Darren Young until it's evident that he'll be gone for awhile. I know of the report the Observer saying he'd be out for 6 months, but there he was wrestling on Raw tonight. He may be hurt, but everybody that wrestles is dinged to one degree or another. As long as he's still gritting his teeth and plugging away, the only fair thing is to keep him active. Vjmlhds 05:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah my bad I did not know he appeared on Raw till I read the results right now and I was just coming back to undo my edit. STATic message me! 05:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder to everyone to remove citations when you remove whatever claim they're attached to. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

SMS

When Mick Foley was named as GM of Saturday Morning Slam it was called temporary and as seen by this source [2] he will only by GM for all of what three episodes? According to the source the matches to determine the new GM will air on March 2, 9 and 16. So I do not understand the argument that it is taped when it says clear as day there will be new GM in three weeks. The show is done on tape delay weeks after but it seems with the matches taking place a new GM will be named the Saturday after that. Even I see no need to have Foley there in the first place since he is gonna be GM for less time then Mike Adamle. STATic message me! 21:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't watch that show, but if Foley's the current GM, we should note that. If/when someone else is (in three weeks or three hours), we'll edit the article accordingly. Not sure I see the problem. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I had him listed as "interim" which was removed even though he was introduced as the interim or "temporary" GM. STATic message me! 01:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. But aren't we all temporary, in the grand scheme of things? Isn't Vince McMahon just keeping the throne warm for Triple H? Didn't CM Punk used to be champ? I don't really see the need for making a point of it for Foley, but I don't see any harm in it, either. No Opinion on keep or delete. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

New Age Outlaws

I added the New Age Outlaws to the main roster.

They've been wrestling a lot at house shows lately, they wrestled on Raw yesterday, and as per WWE.com will be wrestling the Rhodes Scholars next week.

This almost looks like a comeback for the NAO, perhaps leading to something for Mania.

Regardless, since they have been wrestling a lot lately, they should go on the roster...at least for now.

Vjmlhds 00:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Well than your a... I can't say it cause its PG. More serious note though how many house shows did they actually wrestle at? Not necessarily "a lot". Yes they wrestled a match this week, but so did Honky Tonk Man and Hacksaw Jim Duggan. Should we add them too? No and even if they are wrestling a match next week it is the definition of WP:OR to assume they are making a comeback leading to something for WrestleMania when nothing has been announced supporting that. They are also not at [3] and that is the official source for all main roster talent. STATic message me! 20:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

They've had eight matches since Boxing Day. But yeah, that's irrelevant. The "Superstar" roster page test is simple, and they fail it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

They're wrestling the Rhodes Scholars next week on Raw. They're also obviously under WWE contract since they've been working other jobs in the company. The WWE.com roster page isn't the end all be all...yes it's a good tool, but there's also some kayfabe to it. Like for example when Brock Lesnar "resigned from WWE"...they moved him to the alumni page to sell the storyline, but in reality he was under WWE contract the whole time. It was a gimmick to save up his dates since he only works so many per year. They added him back to the official roster when it was announced that Vickie Guererro "signed him back" on Raw after he flattened Vince. The reality is that the Outlaws have been wrestling more...first at house shows, and now 2 weeks in a row on TV. If last week was their first match in 10 years, then no I wouldn't have added them...but counting next week, this will be like their 10th match in 3 months. That's not making an assumption about anything, that's a clear indication that Messers Gunn and Dogg have been used more by WWE as wrestlers in addition to their other duties. Vjmlhds 02:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

WWE.com isn't the final word, and sure, it's working us a bit. If you can find another source saying they're part of the roster, that could work. But you need something, or it's synthesis. We've been over this. You could put "occasionally wrestles" in their notes column, based on any source that shows they've been wrestling. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, here's some sources confirming they've been wrestling more...[4] and [5] Vjmlhds 02:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say in there that they've traded in their road agent and trainer jobs to become contracted WWE Superstars? All that shows is that they've been wrestling. Note it in their columns. The Bleacher Report one actually says "I'm sure that Road Dogg and Gunn are happy in their current positions with the company". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I never said they gave up their "day jobs", all I've said was that in addition to that, they've been wrestling a good bit as well. It's not like they either have to be wrestlers or trainer/producers...they're doing both. They work for WWE (no doubts about that), and are currently working office jobs as well as wrestling. I've shown that they are wrestling enough to make mention of it. Vjmlhds 03:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's do this - let's see how it plays out from now till Mania. If it's apparent that the Outlaws have something cooking for Mania, they stay on the roster. If not, they go. But the fact they have been wrestling more and more can't just be disregarded. Vjmlhds 03:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not make this page get locked again by edit warring. This is not "Lets Make a Deal". We go by the policy and guidelines and the fact of the madder is they are not on the official website per WWE.com. Saying otherwise, is WP:OR. They have wrestled ONE match on WWE television in THIRTEEN YEARS, and a match scheduled for next week. You are speculating, and assuming they are back for WrestleMania let along assuming they are part of the main roster. Billy Gunn barley even became head trainer for like a month or two. Do not revert if more then one edittor is undoing your edit, it will get you no where. STATic message me! 03:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I won't edit the page so as to avoid an edit war, but why are you completely disregarding the 8 or 9 house show matches they wrestled in the last 3 months? If all they wrestled was that 1 TV match, I wouldn't have bothered...but the fact they've going through the house show grind shows that they've been working a semi-regular schedule on top of their office jobs. Vjmlhds 03:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, on top of their other jobs. Nobody's disregarding that. But the way you've been cutting and pasting makes it seem they're no longer a trainer and road agent, only full-time wrestlers. Should we also add Paige and Bray Wyatt to the main roster, since they've been working house shows? No. If they're as "main" as you assume they are (or will be), WWE.com will add them to their roster list, or some news outlet will mention it. Till then, the "occasionally wrestles" note is the only way to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I noticed you did note they were also producer and trainer. Still, no source for the main roster part. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Justin King

Should Justin King have his own Wikipedia page? Being the only black referee in the WWE he seems significant enough, especially next to guys like John Cone. 24.9.253.197 (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that really a notable achievement? If you build an article on that foundation alone, what happens when another black referee is hired? Do we delete it? He's not the first or last, and we're not in a time of racial segregation. Has he done anything else significant, and has it been discussed in reliable secondary sources? If so, his article stands a chance. Others will decide after it's created whether it meets notability standards. Best to gather sources first, then start writing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

NXT

Judas Devlin and Scott Dawson appeared on the 3/13 NXT, losing to Adrian Neville in a handicap match. Bayley appeared on the 3/20 NXT, losing to Paige. Jackjackjackjackjack (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The handicap match was on March 6, according to this. But yeah, I'll remove the "yet to appear". InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Drop El Local?

This alter-ego of Ricardo Rodriguez has been inactive for over 60 days, and hasn't been on a WWE branded show this year. Time to say goodbye? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No, El Local mostly competes at Live events and on WWE NXT on Hulu. If he doesn't appear on NXT and/or stops competing at live events, then we can remove the character. This is Ricardo Rodriguez we're talking about. I think there's plans for Ricardo to compete on his own in the future. Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

So how long should we wait? I notice that I was slightly wrong about the 60 days. He last actually wrestled for NXT on February 21, but this was aired March 27. It seems NXT is due for another month of taping in the next few days. If El Local isn't there, it would be safe to assume he won't be on TV for May, and we should then consider at least tagging him as inactive.

His last house show match (WWE or NXT) was on November 10, 2012, in Lisbon, Portugal. That's over five months ago. I think it's fair to shorten his note to "Wrestles on NXT TV (as El Local)". Actually, why isn't Rodriguez just in the NXT section? His last WWE match at all was on RAW on December 29, and despite his assistant gimmick being a WWE character, too, this section is for male wrestlers. "Other on-air personnel" seems the proper place, if we're set on keeping him in the WWE section. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want to move him, go ahead. But Ricardo does wrestle at live events from time to time(mostly as El Local). Ricardo is a wrestler plain and simple. Keith Okamoto (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put him in Other, left the note saying he wrestles in NXT, for now. If he's not at the next taping, though, probably best to drop it. But yeah, hope he has a bright future as a wrestler. His Virgil gimmick worked with a heel, but not anymore, in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael luisi is no longer General Counsel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.36 (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

NXT and Andre Tyson

Quite a lot of debuts on this month's NXT Tapings.

Danny Burch, Baron Corbin, Sami Zayn, Enzo Amore, Sylvester Lefort, Sawyer Fulton and Travis Tyler all debutted on this month's NXT Tapings.

There is going to be a NXT Women’s Championship title.

Source for both above NXT related things is here.

The only people who should be listed in the Developmental roster section as 'Yet To Appear On NXT' are:

Angelo Dawkins Knuckles Madsen Malik Omari Mojo Rawley Troy McLain Anya Charlotte Kendall Skye Sarah Backman

Is there any source that Andre Tyson is in jail? Because the source just mentions that he was arrested and that he reportedly admitting guilt but I see no source stating how long he got if he is in jail nor what punishment he got if he was charged. 2.219.134.4 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the "yet to appear"s. Also removed the jail bit. That was almost a year ago. Seems very unlikely he's still there. Sounds like he probably spent a night or two, from that source. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if whoever added this had read the initial source linked to in the source used here, they'd see that he wasn't jailed at all. Just arrested and formally warned. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Rock

Please leave The Rock on the roster. He's still listed as part of WWE.com's roster, so as long as he stays there, he should stay here. (talk) Vjmlhds 04:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

He was already there. I just changed his ring name to The Rock, so he was in the R section, not J. And yeah, I know the source uses Dwayne Johnson in the title, but we know Finkel has never called him that. And we know there are a billion other sources out there that just say "The Rock". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see. I saw that the "Dwayne..." entry was removed, thus I thought somebody took him off completely. Cool beans. (talk) Vjmlhds 14:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

NXT and new signings.

NXT spoilers

Bo Dallas is the New NXT Champion, Angelo Dawkins makes his NXT debut and Axl Keegan has been renamed as Mickie Keegan

Bikini contest competitors, Alexis “Lexi” Kaufman and Christina Vargas have signed WWE developmental deals and 2.221.252.192 (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)