Jump to content

Talk:List of WWE personnel/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

WWE Ambassadors

I think Kevin Nash is an ambassador because he just got suspended for family issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallofhorror2014 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous Edit adding Heather Lynn To Unassigned Personnel

It was incorrect to post Heather Lynn in "Unassigned Personnel" as per Resource #261 because the author of the resource article failed to do some research into the story as Heather Lynn herself, by way of Twitter has denied being signed to WWE Developmental/NXT. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripleb2k1 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Prefall 10:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Batista

Apparently, Batista is still under contract. So, he needs to be added back. Can somebody please do this? http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/550141-update-on-batistas-wwe-status-wwe-returning-to-spain-meet-the-bella-twins-this-weekend — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C6E6:300:B15E:656:9AEF:CC74 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody will ever reply to you except me. And I am powerless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.98.94 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Boo-tista — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.236.239 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Lazy people running this page won't add him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.98.94 (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Name Change?

Natalya's name was changed to Wilson but the reference given to her real name does NOT have any where anything on her name being changed. It still says that her real name is Neihart, not Wilson. So if someone can change it back thatd be great. 72.15.25.104 (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

She did not change her name. In Canada, most womens don't take the name of their husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.22.21 (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2015

Brad Maddox (Tyler Kluttz) should be moved from unassigned personnel to main roster. He is wrestling house shows. 67.82.74.88 (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Batista — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.98.94 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Roster

Alex Riley and Jason Albert are shown on the main roster. As are the Bunny, Chris Jericho and Hunico. Any reasons why they arent shown. I understand for Riley and Albert because of being in NXT but they are technically on the main roster. And as far as Hunico goes he does play Sin Cara but both Hunico and Sin Cara are on the roster. So if someone can fix this great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.15.25.104 (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nah, Sting isn't listed on the wwe.com roster so are you saying he should be removed? The WWE website isn't the be all and end all. Batista isn't listed there either but he should be on this page.

Ring announcers - where should they go?

At the start of 2012, 2013, and 2014, ring announcers were considered as part of the other on-air talent. Sometime in 2014 or 2015, someone shifted ring announcers to the broadcast team. Vjmlhds' 2014 proposal proposed that, but on the other hand, that proposal was never really accepted because the "other on-air talent" section still stands. So I'd like to establish a new consensus on this, while reverting to the old consensus until this discussion is settled. Here are the options. Option 1: Put them with the other on-air talent. (old consensus) Option 2: Put them with the broadcast team. (current version). Option 3: Put them as a separate section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • My personal view on this is either Option 1 or 3. Ring announcers just aren't the same as "broadcast team" members, which are either commentators, TV show hosts, pre-show analysts or interviewers, who use their voice to tell a story based on the in-ring product. Ring announcers have more in common with referees, bell-ringers and timekeepers, who cater to the live crowd, while broadcast team members cater to the television product instead of the live crowd. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Christian

Christian is retired because of concussions. Why is he listed on the roster as an unknown injury. He should be moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.213.185 (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

WWE announced his retirement but Christian didn't. He never said he was retired.207.136.213.240 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sylvester Lefort

Sylvester is taking time off, Why is he listed as not seen in 30 days??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShmoo888 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was he taken off the roster? Didn't ever hear him getting released. 207.136.213.240 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Stable /Tag team affiliation

Should any Stable /Tag team affiliation be stated under "notes" on the roster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.237.58 (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

No, because it would lead to constant chaos - keep things as simple as possible. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2015

86.177.63.125 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You have not requested a change to the article. Datbubblegumdoe (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Lana as a wrestler?

I personally disagree with Lana being listed as a wrestler now. Somebody is insisting that she remains listed as a wrestler because she had small brawls with Summer Rae. In my opinion, brawls don't count as wrestling, and that I don't think she should be considered a wrestler until she wrestles a televised match or if one's announced. It's like The New Age Outlaws, Vince and Stephanie, El Torito, Hornswoggle, the commentators, etc. Whadayya think? Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

She got some moves though Dange 34-4 (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2015

May i be able to edit on the wwe personnel page

Ggmaties77 (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Tim Wiese doesn't have a contract, he never has and never will.

If anybody can give any evidence to the contrary, go ahead. But being a guest timekeeper at a house show nine months ago does not equate to evidence he has signed a contract. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Lana/Hornswoggle/Torito

One would not be incorrect to label Lana, Hornswoggle, and El Torito as wrestlers.

Lana is obviously in a feud with Summer Rae (as an offshoot of the Ziggler-Rusev feud), she has brawled with Summer, and it's apparent that it's leading to a match between the two (either one-on-one, or a mixed tag with their respective fellas). And the women should be given more leeway regarding this issue compared to the men anyway, as they don't wrestle nearly as many matches as the guys do (1 diva match - MAYBE 2 if they're lucky - per card)

Lana is no longer just a wall flower who stays on the outside.

And Torito and Horny have wrestled a ton of times. Granted mostly as comedy acts and not serious competitors, but they've wrestled plenty, and are not merely sidekicks.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on Torito and Horny, but Lana has NO match on her resume. She trained to wrestle, but got injured and couldn't do it at that time. She was put on as manager, and with Dolph, has had some physical segments with Summer, but that doesn't mean she has wrestled an actual match. If I were you, I'd wait until she has wrestled a televised match (or has one announced). I personally think she'll be a wrestler soon, but I don't think it'll happen for another couple weeks minimum, or until SummerSlam maximum. For now, Lana, who has no match on resume, I just think we should wait until she does a match or if ones announced. Future WWE Champion, DrewieStewie (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're splitting too many hairs here. It's very apparent that she and Summer are gonna have some business, and it's become obvious that she's graduated from from mere manager to a fighting diva. People like Paul Heyman or Zeb Colter or Hogan/Lita/Gunn (Tough Enough) are there in non-physical roles, and are listed as such. Lana has clearly made the jump from that status. Personally, I think the "Other on-air personnel" list should be strictly for those in non-physical roles. Once Lana started throwing down with Summer, and it became clear that they're destined for a match, then Lana showed that she's above being merely "other personnel". User:Vjmlhds (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTALBALL says you're woefully incorrect to do this. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

changing the profile

So I wonder how do you change the profile of a wrestler Ak47wwe (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"Occasional Wrestlers"

This "occasional wrestler" thing has got to go - you either wrestle or you don't.

HHH wrestles on major shows every year, Stephanie is starting to as well, Lana is building up to a match with Summer Rae in some form or fashion.

Whether you wrestle 2 matches per year or 200 shouldn't matter.

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Lana and Stephanie.

Lana and Stephanie McMahon should stay in the main roster.

Lana is clearly feuding with Summer Rae, and everything is setting up for them to wrestle each other in either a singles or mixed tag match (with Ziggler and Rusev).

And women wrestlers should be cut a bit more slack than the males, as they don't wrestle as often as men do anyway.

Stephanie is in the HHH category of saving his bullets for major feuds and angles, as she has wrestled the Bellas (with that feud main eventing Raw a couple of times last year), and has some business with Rhonda Rousey - which was set up last year at WrestleMania, and is rumored to culminate this year at Mania.

This is something relatively new in wrestling, where WWE is using people like Brock, Taker, Rock, Sting, HHH, and Stephanie in spurts for feuds leading up to major shows, then they disappear/fade into the background for awhile, and then they come back for their next feud/match, and so on, and so on.

Gotta have some wiggle room for stuff like this - no need to be so rigid.

Vjmlhds (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As I told you, I think they should stay in the Other on air personnel. Both have feuds, but they aren't wrestlers, the point of the section Female wrestlers. A feud doesn't transform a valet/comentator/referee into a wrestler. A lot of personnel had matches (Heyman, Long, Laurinitis, Michael Cole...) but they aren't wrestlers. Also, some of your thoughts are CRYSTALBALL ("everything is setting up for them to wrestle each other", "has some business with Rhonda Rousey"). It doesn't make Lana and McMahon wrestlers, they still a valet and an Authority Figure. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
They are occasional wrestlers, yet they are mostly on-air personalities. They stay in the on -air personalities part of the page as I have put them. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
HHH and Steph are way above Heyman and Coulter - you see Heyman and Coulter getting major Wrestlemania matches every year like HHH does? Not all "other on-air personnel" are the same HHH still is viewed as a major attraction, which is why he gets high profile matches on PPV every year - to lump him in the same grouping as Paul Heyman and Zeb Coulter is misleading. Heath Slater wrestles 200 matches a year - do those matches mean as much to WWE as 1 or 2 yearly HHH matches? - gotta have some perspective here. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
im sorry... Levels? Another OR. Here are four levels:wrestlers, broadcast team, referees and other. No matter mcmahon have a superior status to heyman or colter, it doesnt make her a wrestler. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a list of personnel, not a list of wrestlers alone. They occasionally wrestle, but they are not billed as such. And you sir, are in an edit war with the other user which is not permitted. Until a consensus is made here, you should not be moving them. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Who does the billing? Joe Schmo Wikipedia editor or WWE? Vjmlhds (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unassigned personnel/NXT

Should we move the wrestlers that have ring names and appear at NXT house shows to the NXT roster? I know the rule states we only move them if they appeared on the show and are on the website, but can we make an exception? I'm only asking for the ones that do have ring names and not the ones that don't. Keith Okamoto (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Wrestlers such as Elias Samson and Peyton Royce have ring names and have appeared on television - and even have WWE-sanctioned Twitter accounts - so surely should count as NXT wrestlers as opposed to "unassigned"? IanPCP (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

James Storm

James Storm debutted on NXT this week's episode of NXT defeating Danny Burch. Why's isn't he listed on NXT as WWE personnel? 2A02:C7D:C0D:8B00:9C74:CE81:D915:12EE (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Simple, he hasn't officially signed with WWE. He's like Johnny Gargano and Tommaso Ciampa, a free agent. Once we have a source of his official signing, then he's added.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Because it was just a one shot deal, and there's talk about him being on TNA's upcoming India tour. I'd hold the phone about adding him to the NXT roster until after he decides whether or not he's going to India with TNA or not. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Broadcast team

I think we should split the broadcast team section in 2 - a section for the play by play/analysts/interviewers on the main shows, and a section for those who host shows on WWE Network.

As it is, the section is turning into a cluster (you know what) with everybody cramming into the one section.

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind, split it up.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Move Amanda Saccomanno/Mandy?

Due to Total Divas returning next week, should we go ahead and move Mandy to Other on-air personnel in the Main roster section?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2015

Please change on the main roster King Barrett to Wade Barrett for matters of he was Wade Barrett from 2010 to 2014 then he won King of the ring and change his name to King Barrett then mid way threw 2015 he change his name back to Wade Barrett. Jtm112701mo (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Question: It's not a very big change, but is there any way you could give a reliable source for the change? Eteethan(talk) 23:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 Not done. There is nothing in his article that confirms the professional name change back to Wade Barrett as you described. When changed there and accompanied by a reliable source, then it may be changed in this list.  Be prosperous! Paine  00:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2016

Hey, I was lurking around the internet and found out that Monty Brown was actually signed to a Legends contract. Could someone put that up? Here's a reference if needed. https://twitter.com/TheMontyBrown/status/675125651846930437 27.33.127.235 (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Hey, thanks for the contribution. SPERs need to be very exact, in the sense of "Change X to Y". In addition, Twitter is not a very reliable source. Do you have a news article or anything like that? Sorry about the delay --allthefoxes (Talk) 19:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Triple H

Since Triple H doesn't wrestle, unless for special occasion, shouldn't he be moved to Other on-air personnel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As long as he's front and center, and involved in feuds with people, he stays on the active roster. This isn't OR, but a pattern traced from 4 years of his "COO" role, and a track record of him still being pushed as a major player. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
As I told you, be involved in feuds doesn't mean he is a wrestler. A man/woman is a wrestler when he/she wrestles. However... Triple H looks more like a semi-retired wrestler. He is an authority figure, but he still wrestling. We have no source about retirement, so I think, he should keep as male wrestler. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
You know what's scary? The Great Kabuki has had at least sixteen matches this year. You know who's really front and center, wearing a suit and talking nonstop? Michael Cole. Triple H is still pretty major, but it's hard to call him more than semi-active, as a wrestler. Not impossible, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Here's the difference between HHH and say...JBL JBL since he came back in 2012 has wrestled 1 match - his quickie cameo in the 2014 Royal Rumble. He has never been part of any storylines or any feuds. HHH - since his COO gimmick started in 2011 - has been involved in numerous storylines, and had a bunch of matches (Punk, Nash, Taker, Brock, Bryan, The Shield, Sting, and now it looks like Reigns could be next up). HHH is still promoted as a major player, and thus it would be misleading to toss him in the "other personnel" file. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, I don't know why do you talk about Other on air personnel as a minor level to Wrestlers. JBL is retired, so he isn't a wrestler. Right now, he is a commentator. If someday, HHH says he's retired, he'll go to the other on air talent. As Bill says, it's not about how many matches you had. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
So a man who averages less than two matches a year is a wrestler? He does more promos in a week as the on-screen COO than he's had matches in the last four years. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Then @RealDealBillMcNeal:, do you think HHH should be included as Other on air employee or as a male wrestler? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

HHH's matches since August 2011 - when he began his COO gimmick

  • Sept 2011 - Night of Champions (vs CM Punk)
  • Dec 2011 - TLC (vs Kevin Nash)
  • April 2012 - WrestleMania 28 (vs Undertaker)
  • August 2012 - Summerslam (vs Brock Lesnar)
  • April 2013 - WrestleMania 29 (vs Brock Lesnar)
  • May 2013 - Extreme Rules (vs Brock Lesnar)
  • April 2014 - Wrestlemania 30 (vs Daniel Bryan)
  • May 2014 - Extreme Rules (Evolution vs The Shield)
  • June 2014 - Payback (Evolution vs The Shield)
  • March 2015 - WrestleMania 31 (vs Sting)

And more than likely, he'll have a match at this year's WrestleMania as well (vs Roman Reigns if the kids on the interwebs are right)

So while it's not a lot of matches in pure numbers, they all take place on major shows, vs main event talent, with weeks of build. They promote HHH matches as major deals, so he's very much part of the actual roster

Again, what's your problem with the Other on air personnel? All of them are part of the actual roster, from Renee Young to JBL. I don't undertand what do you think Male wrestlers section is about. If HHH is in the other on air personnel, he'll still part of the actual roster. It's not like a minor league or an insult. Its just HHH isn't a wrestler because he is focus in other role. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
HHH is wrestling in major matches on PPV, and still considered a major player. Zeb Colter is riding around in a scooter. HHH belongs more in the column with the actual wrestlers than the guy riding around in a scooter, and Rusev's eye candy. Nobody's watching WrestleMania to see Zeb ride a scooter. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Triple H's current role is basically Mr. McMahon from the Attitude Era. Vince competed in some matches while in the Other on-air personnel role. I see nothing wrong with putting Triple H in the Other on-air personnel section.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
During the Attitude Era, Wikipedia wasn't even invented yet. And Vince was transferred to the main roster (in the early days of this article in 2007) when he was ECW Champion. Bad comparison. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Spitting in the face of people who don't want to be cool wasn't invented yet, either. Those people would have thought the guy with the apple didn't want to be cool. They'd have laughed at his hair, too. Some things change. Some things don't. Today's Triple H is a Mr. McMahon, just not Vince McMahon, dammit. Apple-spitters certainly have no chance in Hell again. Cyclical business, you see. Hack-phooey! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

With the events of TLC, it should be fairly obvious that Roman Reigns and HHH have some business to attend to, thus any talk of putting HHH in "other personnel" should be held off until after WrestleMania 32 at least. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Original research. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
He looks pretty active now. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Triple H is more active than The Rock is on WWE TV yet The Rock doesn't get moved to other personnel or suffer the over 30 days inactive rule whenever The Rock is inactive for more than 30 days despite him being making Part-time appearances. The Rock will be inactive for over 30 days as of February 24th so he would need to make appearance on the February 22nd's Raw episode to avoid being inactive for more than 30 days. 90.202.105.108 (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

el toritos name is Mascarita Dorada

99.239.195.227 (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Player-coaches

Shane, Steph, and HHH should all remain on the main roster, as they are all essentially player-coaches in WWE.

Player-coaches (or player-managers in baseball) have a long history in "real sports". In addition to the examples provided, the following have made significant history as player-coaches:

  • Lou Boudreau - won 1948 World Series as starting shortstop/manager with the Indians
  • Bill Russel - won 2 NBA Titles as starting center/head coach of the Celtics in the mid '60s
  • Frank Robinson - first black MLB manager with the Indians in 1975 as a player-manager...hit a homer in his first game in that role to help the Tribe win.
  • Pete Rose - broke Ty Cobb's all-time hit record in 1986 as player-manager with the Reds.

So if the "legitimate" sports can have player-coaches/player-managers, then why can't WWE...as essentially that's what Shane, Steph, and HHH are.

They own it and run it, but they also still "strap 'em on" when need be...just like everybody else I mentioned and shown via reference.

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

i oppose to steph. Other on air personnel is under main roster, as female wrestlers section. Steph isnt a wrestler, she doesnt belong in a wrestler section. I dont understand why do you think other on air personnel is a minor level.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Not seeing the forest for the trees, dude. Does Steph wrestle each and every week....no. Does she do so when a card needs a special attraction...yes. Stephanie is no different than Shane or HHH...she gets in there when she has to, and when she does it's a big deal. And to further my point, Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, Kevin Sullivan, and Kevin Nash were all wrestling player-coaches, as they all had stints as head booker in NWA/WCW while also wrestling, as was Jeff Jarrett in the early days of TNA. You can't just go by RIGHT NOW THIS SECOND..you also have to factor in past history, precedents, and have some flexibility. Can't have tunnel vision regarding this stuff. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Again. SPECIAL ATTRACTION. WHY? Female wrestlers isn't a section exclusive for special attraction, is for female wrestlers. And steph isn't a female wrestler. She had TWO matches in 2014. Before that, her last match was in 2003. There is no sense to include an authority figure under a wrestlers section because she is a "special atraction". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Again - tunnel vision. Lana isn't a wrestler...never had a match in her life and is strictly a manager. Stephanie is a former Women's Champion, has wrestled numerous times, is always in the thick of storylines, and gets in there to spice things up. Once again - GOTTA SEE THE WHOLE PICTURE...not just the little smidgeon right in front of your face (see picture below) Vjmlhds (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Stephanie WAS a wrestler. Right now, she is a authority figure. NOW, she isn't a wrestler. No tunnel vision or cows. We can't include under the wrestler section people who wrestler one decade ago. Colter was a wrestler, Lawer was a wrestler, even Michael Cole was a wrestler, but NOW, they aren't.. just like Stephanie. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
You're just furthering my point...RIGHT NOW this, RIGHT NOW that...not factoring in the idea of being a player-coach. Cole was a one trick pony - hasn't wrestled or been part of a storyline before or since. Lawler CAN'T wrestle anymore because WWE won't let him after his heart attack, and Zeb Colter CAN'T WALK anymore (the scooter wasn't a gimmick - he had hip surgery) Again not factoring in important details...Stephanie is still front and center, still in the middle of things, and still capable of wrestling (as Summerslam 2014 proved). Vjmlhds (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Again. Still in the middle of thing doesn't transform steph into a wrestler. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, you aren't seeing the forest for the trees...Steph is a player-coach - doesn't wrestle all the time, but does when she has to JUST LIKE HER BROTHER, AND JUST LIKE HER HUSBAND You don't have to be a FULL TIME wrestler to be a wrestler. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't wrestled all the time? She wrestled two matches in the last 13 years. She is not a wrestler. She is under an authority, non-wrestling role. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
A wrestler is one who wrestles, and is still capable of doing so. Nothing more, nothing less. Stephanie has wrestled, and can still do so if called upon JUST LIKE HER BROTHER AND JUST LIKE HER HUSBAND. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
To put it another way, My philosophy is more like the top picture...it takes everything into account - the sky, the grass, the trees. Your philosophy is like the bottom picture...zeroed in on the cow's head, and completely blocking out everything else. It's always better to have the top picture perspective....you don't miss anything.Vjmlhds (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree:One other thing to consider...women wrestlers simply don't wrestle as often as the guys do...just a fact of life in wrestling They get what..1 (maybe 2) matches a night? As a rule they should be given more slack simply because you can't hold them up to the same standards as the guys. So that's 3 things in my favor...the player-coach philosophy, the big picture/tunnel vision philosophy, and the fact that women wrestlers don't wrestle as often as guys do anyway, so they have to pick their spots carefully. All you have to throw at me is that she's "not a wrestler"...gotta come at me better than that. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

So? Should we use a different standard for men and women? Why not "people older than 50 years". They had special circuntances too. It's not our problem how WWE uses the female wrestlers. your big picture includes a woman who was a wrestler 10 years ago in a wrong section --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm saying...not everything is cut and dry/black and white..men and women ARE NOT EQUAL in regards to wrestling...just the way it is...this isn't a perfect world utopia...gotta deal with things as they are...not in some fantasy land. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Putting it to bed

Here are 2 references that make it clear that Stephanie McMahon should count towards the main roster.

1.ABC news refers to her husband as "fellow wrestler" HHH...meaning they consider her a wrestler too.

2.WWE themselves refer to Stephanie as a wrestler as part of their booking agreement

So when both WWE themselves, and the mainstream press call her a wrestler, that's pretty much a done deal that we should too. She had a hiatus to play "mommy", but as per her deal referenced above, she's back in her old role as a personality/executive/wrestler - a player-coach if you will Vjmlhds (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The Rock Being Exception To The Over 30 Days Rule and Other Personel

It has been 30 days (January 25, 2016 was his last WWE appearance) since Rock made a WWE appearance so shouldn't he be labelled as Inactive; hasn't appeared in over 30 days as of tomorrow? The Rock isn't on this week's WWE tapings for SmackDown and Main Event nor was he on Raw this week. Everyone else get labelled as Inactive; hasn't appeared in over 30 days whenever they aren't being used by WWE and The Rock should be no exception because he has part time appearances for WWE which is due the fact he mostly working in Hollywood doing movies. Honestly, Triple H is more active than The Rock is yet The Rock doesn't get moved to Other Personnel or suffer the Over 30 Days Rule whenever he is inactive from WWE. 90.202.105.108 (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Rock has been heavily advertised as being a part of WrestleMania 32...he has a clear, documented wrestling-related itinerary ahead of him - it's not like he's just sitting around twiddling his thumbs (as far as wrestling goes). Rock is still listed on the WWE.com roster, which is why we list him on this roster. Inactive means sight unseen for 30 days, and no clear plans for using him on the horizon...there are documented plans for Rock having business at WM32, so he isn't "inactive" - he's in the mix. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Eva Marie

On WWE.com, Eva Marie was removed from the main roster, and is now exclusively on the NXT roster.

Leave her there until she returns to the main roster.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

Take diego and fernando 30 days inactive and alex riley is compete in nxt not wwe roster DPS18 (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 04:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

All of the WWE performers are now known as Superstars.

"Our female performers are world-class athletes, actors, public speakers and philanthropists. They’re role models, inspiring and empowering women and girls to be confident and strong. They dedicate themselves to WWE, achieve great success and earn the same respect as their male counterparts.

All of our performers – male and female – will be known as Superstars." [1] (Stephanie McMahon on The Players' Tribune on the subject of female performers no longer being called Divas)

I am just mentioned that news in case anybody reverts Dohvahkiin's edit by calling them Divas. 2A02:C7D:C0D:8B00:14BE:56B8:9963:FDD0 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.theplayerstribune.com/stephanie-mcmahon-wwe-divas-announcement

NXT Tapings Debut and WWE.com's Superstars page Notes.

Mandy Rose is listed in the NXT filter of WWE Superstars (also listed is Shinsuke Nakamura whom debutted at NXT Takeover: Dallas. However, Austin Aries; Tommaso Ciampa and Johnny Gargano are still not listed on WWE's Supersatars page under the NXT filter (or even under the All Superstars filter for that matter) though we know that these 3 are regular members of the NXT roster and should be listed. Interestingly, Rhyno is still listed in the NXT filter of WWE's Superstars page despite being listed here on List of WWE personnel in the part of Ambassador/Legends section.

No Way Jose debutted for the NXT TV Roster in the April NXT TV Tapings. 94.8.206.153 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Brie Bella

Just so there's no confusion Brie Bella hung 'em up at WM 32.

It just won't be publicly acknowledged until it airs on Total Divas in a few weeks, but she is officially done.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

She is still under contract. Until official announcement, leave her in the female wrestler section. After 30 days, we'll render her inactive. After 90 days, move her to unassigned section. DantODB (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Lana and Maryse

Lana and Maryse should be listed as wrestlers.

Maryse's track record shows that she is a wrestler by trade (2X Divas Champion), and is presumptuous to assume that all she will be is Miz's manager when her track record says otherwise.

Lana - she had her debut match, is part of the BAD & Blonde stable, and was part of the ceremony for the new Women's Championship with the other female diva...err...superstars, thus indicating she is considered as part of the diva...err...women's division.

Instead of going tit for tat with reverts, discuss the issue here so we can reach consensus, and whatever the consensus says goes...if consensus says no, THEN, we can change it back

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Although she has been a champion in the past, does not change the fact that there has been no announced WWE signing for Maryse. She is a former wrestler and has not wrestled since (I think) 2012. Mainly, there is no confirmation of a contract signing. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 04:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
WrestleZone is an unreliable source. Even it was an RS, the given article also states "it’s unknown at this time whether or not Maryse is back full-time with WWE". She is advertised to accompany Miz at the rematch, but does that really prove that she is signed to WWE? If anything, we have to wait until confirmation from Maryse, WWE, or a reliable source that clearly states that she is signed. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 05:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Assume anyone involved in a match in WWE has signed some sort of contract - they just don't show up. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's a another source - this one saying that it's full time. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
All of these sources you are providing are unreliable. Please look at WP:PW/Sources. My point I'm trying to make is that this page on current WWE personnel shouldn't involve Maryse because she is not under contract. Many wrestlers make sporadic appearances, or are possibly signed to WWE but don't perform. Maryse, to current knowledge, is not under contract whatsoever and shouldn't be included in this page. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 06:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think WWE will formally announce the re-signing of Maryse, so I propose that we wait until she makes further appearances. As of now, I agree that she should not be listed on the page. Still, no competitor status for Lana. One match. Same amount of matches as Jim Ross and Lilian Garcia. Even Terri Runnels had more matches and she was not considered a competitor. Stop assuming and look at the current stats. DantODB (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's yet another report about Maryse - this one saying that she'll be a semi-regular. I agree with DantODB about one thing - WWE won't just come straight out and say they've signed Maryse to a contract (just not how they do business), but given that she will be on SmackDown, it looks (at first glance anyway), that her and Miz are gonna do the "power couple" gimmick, so I highly doubt this was just a "one-shot deal". Vjmlhds (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. But as DantODB said, we can't use "first glance" assumptions, but we have to use the facts and perhaps wait until any confirmation appears, not from WWE, but from Maryse or a proven reliable source. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Given the fact that an established wrestler has returned to WWE and has immediately immersed herself in a storyline (something that has happened a million times in wrestling) - I'm not seeing where the debate is coming from. She ain't working for free you know. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
SmackDown could be Maryse's final appearance. She could make further appearances. We still don't know. All of this is speculation. Look at the current facts. She has one appearance scheduled. After this, we'll reevaluate. DantODB (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly on SmackDown possibly being her last appearance. Again, we must look at the facts. I agree to wait until further appearances before concluding her signing with WWE. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 18:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Now things are making sense, as it turns out Maryse came back to be part of the next season of Total Divas, so she will be around for awhile. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Definitely a good thing to mention that. Knowing that the source isn't a proven reliable source, we should still wait it out until anything else is said from more reliable sources. Other appearances other than SmackDown could lead somewhere, but it's best we wait until a clear confirmation. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 01:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree. If Maryse is going to appear on Total Divas, WWE will most definitely be confirming it by posting a statement. Otherwise, the E Network will. DantODB (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Lana and Maryse II

Lana and Maryse should not be listed as competitors as of now. The Total Divas casting does not constitute competitor status. Let us all look at the facts that say that Lana has only wrestled one match. She is probably going to be a full-time competitor. Probably, being the operative word. The fact is, she is not, as of now. It could change. We just have to wait it out. Regarding Maryse, she is only advertised to appear as Miz's manager. She is not a competitor. Regardless of what her wrestling background is, she is not a competitor as of now. This could be a situation that's similar to how Mickie James returned to TNA for one match. It could also be a situation where Maryse will be back wrestling full-time. Either way, she is not wrestling as of this time. DantODB (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's the thing - you are assuming Maryse will only be a manager when her background says otherwise. This right now this second thinking is very flawed, and that is what leads to disputes. We live in an age of multitasking, where people are doing numerous jobs at once. That is why to strictly list Lana and Maryse as "other personnel" is wrong. Lana is starting to wrestle, and Maryse has a clear background as a wrestler and has been back a total of one day - so to just toss her into "other personnel" when her track record clearly shows she is an honest to God wrestler is extremely short sighted. You can't just be in the moment - you have to see the big picture. I'd rather the information be in such a way where we have some flexibility, rather than so rigid that we go round and round. There's nothing out there that says Maryse is strictly there to be Miz's manager. You have to give yourself some breathing room, and not lock yourself in so tightly. Vjmlhds 9talk) 00:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Open invitation for a third voice to settle the issue...Lana and Maryse - on the roster or not? And remember, it is documented that Maryse will be part of the new season of Total Divas, so she will be around awhile. Vjmlhds 9talk) 00:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not assuming that Maryse will only be managing. I'm saying that as of now, that's what her role is. You are the one that's assuming that her background will mean she will play a certain role. Again, mere speculation. "Lana is starting to wrestle, and Maryse has a clear background as a wrestler and has been back a total of one day - so to just toss her into "other personnel" when her track record clearly shows she is an honest to God wrestler is extremely short sighted." – these are full of assumptions. Lana is starting to wrestle, let's say that. We've only seen her in one match. You're also suggesting that the on-air personnel is lower than competitors, which is not the case. Their roles are their roles. No one is beneath anyone and not wrestling does not constitute a lower-tier status in the company. It is what it is. "I'd rather the information be in such a way where we have some flexibility, rather than so rigid that we go round and round." – it is not about what you prefer. It is about the facts. Rigidity, as you call it, maintains a concise article that reflects present time. "There's nothing out there that says Maryse is strictly there to be Miz's manager." – There's nothing saying that she will wrestle, either. We only have the fact that she is going to be in Miz's corner on SmackDown and on Total Divas. It is not a matter of whether they belong on the page, it is a matter of their current roles in the company. DantODB (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
It really has to come down to straight facts and the fact is there are no proven reliable sources to Maryse's affiliation/signing with WWE. The source given by Vjmlhds about Total Divas isn't a proven reliable source. As I said before, we must wait until a clear confirmation from a proven reliable source. I'll let anyone else have another voice for Lana's situation. But, we cannot use assumptions and we can't use a "right now this second thinking". Simply look at the facts and make sure it is proven by a reliable source. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 02:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Maryse has updated her Twitter bio, and is now calling herself a "WWE Superstar". So if the girl herself is saying she's in (and using "Superstar", and not "Diva", so it's current) I think it's as good of source that there is...what's better than it coming straight out of the horse's mouth? Vjmlhds (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

OK - now that I think we can put to bed the debate of if Maryse is "officially" back or not (since she herself basically confirmed it on her Twitter page) - the question is how to list them...as wrestlers (based on Lana starting to wrestle and being part of BAD & Blonde, and based on Maryse's track record) or as "other personnel" (based on Lana only just now starting to wrestle, and Maryse not wrestling right now this second) I say add them to the roster, DantODB says other personnel. Anybody want to break the stalemate? Vjmlhds (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, you're rendering the other on-air personnel as lower than competitors. The other on-air personnel is part of the roster in the same capacity as the competitors are. Lana is not "starting to wrestle." She wrestled one match and has not been advertised to wrestle more. We don't know what her wrestling future is. As of now, she is not a full-time competitor. Maryse is not advertised to compete, either. As I said, it could be a Mickie James in TNA situation, or it could go the complete opposite. Either way, as of this time, she is Miz's manager. DantODB (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the fact that she wrestled in the past wouldn't necessarily mean she would obviously be listed a wrestler. From my knowledge, Maryse isn't a wrestler anymore (since 2011, maybe 2012?) and seems as if she isn't going to wrestle again anytime soon. As for Lana, I wouldn't mind her being listed as a wrestler, but also agreeing to what DantODB stated on how her future as a wrestler is uncertain after wrestling that one match. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 05:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I asked for a third voice, and I got one. The opinion went against me here, but in a similar situation on the TNA article, it went in my favor. You win some, and you lose some...such is life. I'll respect the opinion of the third voice - consider the issue dropped. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Shane McMahon

As long as Shane is on the WWE.com roster, he should be listed here, and as a wrestler.

He really doesn't have a defined role - he's not an authority figure (him running Raw last week was a one-time deal), and when Shane is around, he usually wrestles a good bit (and/or jumps off something really high), so him being listed as a wrestler would be accurate.

Vjmlhds (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Kendrick

Hi. Do you think Kendrick stills in WWE? I mean, we don't have any source about him as NXT trainer (As far as I know, he only trained Eva Marie). Also, Kendrick appeared twice in Ring of Honor, on TV. He appeared at Final Battle and the next day, he had a televised match. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd dump him. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Adam Rose and his first WWE Wellness Policy violation.

Found news of Adam Rose’s first WWE Wellness Policy violation.

Back in May 2014, Adam Rose was suspended for 30-days. Source: http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/04/16/adam-rose-konnor-suspended-wwe-failing-drug-test-wellness-policy/

Is HollywoodLife a credible source?2.221.192.205 (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2016

I believe Liv Morgan is now on the TV Roster 118.92.233.25 (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

You have real name for Stonecold Steve Austin as Steve Austin but that is incorrect, his name is Steven James Williams Nod3million (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as explained in the Stone Cold Steve Austin article he was born Steven James Anderson - Arjayay (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2016

spelling error under the male roster list Ryback is listed as inactive because of contact dispute, should be contract dispute CaseyH334 (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Brand Split in 2016

There is talk of the the brand split could return this year. There is no word yet on when the Draft will be held but it is thought that might be before SmackDown goes live on the USA Network on July 19th. If the Brand Split truly returns later this year should we keep the WWE roster how it is currently but add Raw and SmackDown into the Superstars's notes or revert to having a table for Raw and table for SmackDown? 2.222.35.142 (talk) 12:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

If things stayed the same, nothing would ever return. The way it was should be the way it is. Just refined for modern sensibilities, like any old future reboot. Whooo Beetlejuice! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Bobby Roode debutted for NXT at the Download Festival in the UK

Bobby Roode debutted for NXT at the Download Festival in the UK. [1] So do we add Roode to NXT or Unassigned? 2.222.35.142 (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.instagram.com/p/BGhAEzbMUnn/?taken-by=wwenxt

Cruiserweight Classic roster section

Since the 32 competitors in the Cruiserweight Classic have been announced, should we add them on here or not? My reason for adding them is because a few of them have already signed by WWE like Johnny Gargano, Rich Swann and Tommaso Ciampa.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Broadcast team

"Charly Arnolt Announcer, debuting Monday" - which Monday? 86.184.53.196 (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Kota Ibushi and Bobby Roode

Bobby Roode and Kota Ibushi have both just debut'd at NXT TV Tapings, they should be added to the NXT Full Roster section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.155.81.82 (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not unless it's confirmed that they signed to NXT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:28FE:FD20:8DA6:B170 (talk) 07:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Free Agents

Is it possible to move guys like the Rock and the Undertaker and other free agents along with the female free agents to Unassigned since technically they are unassigned? Or has it been set in stone that we arent going to move them unless WWE does? Dw122339 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Brand split roster listings.

I propose that once the draft happens and every one is assigned a brand, we simply add a "brand" column to the existing listings (R for Raw, S for SmackDown).

This way, it's a whole lot easier/cleaner than making 2 separate lists (actually 4, since each brand will have a male and female section), and if you want to line up Raw and SD, all one has to do is click the little arrow tabs to align everything that way if you so choose.

The current format (which has lived a good healthy life post original brand split) is solid as is...much easier simply to add a small 4th column to the Male and Female rosters (with a little note in the lead indicating R=Raw, and S=SmackDown) than go through all the hassle of making 2 separate rosters (each w/ it's own male and female section).

Just a thought.

Vjmlhds (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I made and hidden the separate lists because it would match the NXT lists. If we do it your way, it would be better. Should the NXT lists do the same and merge them together? 'P' for Primary and 'H' for House shows?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree to that...at the end of the day, all the main roster guys are under the WWE banner, and the same for the NXT crew regarding primary/house show. My suggestion gives you the versatility of viewing the rosters either as one unit, or broken down by Raw/SD and P/H by simply clicking the arrow. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I have an idea. For the main roster, we'll add 'width=?%|Brand' and with the NXT roster, it's 'width=?%|P/H'. What do you think? --Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd do about a 5 to 7% width, since all you need is room enough for 1 letter. Just remember to put a little note at the top showing R=Raw, S=SmackDown (for the main roster), and P=Priamry, H=House Show (for NXT). Vjmlhds (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Many years ago, we had one usefull method. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_WWE_personnel&diff=404903023&oldid=404816854 I think the best idea is to split the Main Roster into two subsections, RAW (male, female, other talent) and SD (male, female and other talent) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Too much of a mess. Much easier and cleaner by simply adding a brand column, and allowing the user to arrange the list by brand should he so choose. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the brand column is messier. It's visually easier to separate the wrestlers in their brand. I know who is in RAW without clicking anywhere. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
In fact, looks like the consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asistencia_Asesor%C3%ADa_y_Administraci%C3%B3n_roster&diff=586285121&oldid=578125249 When AAA drafted into Evolución and Fusión, their roster article was separated as well. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said a few sections up, the way it was should be the way it is. Our diffs were five years and five months apart, but the day was still the same, and so was Wikipedia splitting the brands for the brand split. Then, now, forever! Besides, sortable columns need Javascript and a fair chunk of readers turn theirs off. We can't just screw them. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe instead we could highlight the columns of the superstars and divas on Raw and Smackdown in Red and Blue respectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:5644:600:28FE:FD20:8DA6:B170 (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of having each wrestler on the main roster highlighted red and blue respectively rather than an extra column, which makes it more easy to locate in my opinion. If we were to do this, the rest of the article unrelated to the brand split (NXT and House show wrestlers) should stay as it is. Sekyaw (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

But where would the injured (Emma, Luke Harper, Nikki Bella, Tamina and Tyson Kidd), Ryback [contract dispute], Rosa Mendes [maternity leave], Triple H, Undertaker and Heath Slater fit in? Seeing they weren't drafted. - 90.202.102.5 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Leave it the way it is. If you go to WWE.com, you'll see they list all the wrestlers collectively, and you can then navigate to see it broken down by brand. This format is essentially the same theory. All the wrestlers are listed collectively, and by simply clicking the arrow, can be divided out by Raw/SmackDown/free agent. much easier and cleaner to have as few charts as possible. The other way was a cluttered up mess. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the format we use many years ago (since 2005 until the supershow era) and I never heared about "mess" (and used in other rosters, like AAA roster). In fact, I think your version is a Mess. I have two brands into one. WWE splitted their main roster intro two brands, we made the same. It's easy to have two subsections insetad mix two brands into one table. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, looks like "easy and mess" are pretty subjective. So... 1, the two brand split is the format the article used from 2005 until the supershow era. 2 We use the same format for the AAA Roster when the promotion splitted into two brands 3, WWE.com includes their superstars intro one list, it' doesn't mean we follow them. Imagine they changes the website, wikipedia too? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Much like the discussion about whether or not to include brands in the lede of wrestler articles, I think we should do things the way we did before the brand split ended in 2011. If it wasn't broke, why fix it?LM2000 (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with doing the way it was done when we had split brands in the past. There was no issue with how it was formatted. DantODB (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna let this go...just wanted to try a new idea to see if it would work, but if everybody likes the other way better, then I'm not gonna make a fuss. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought Vjmlhds and IP 2605:6000's suggestions had some merit. But on the other hand, the inactive personnel are currently settled properly, and Hulk brought up the Javascript issue as well. starship.paint ~ KO 13:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016

Mojo Rawley and Carmella have been added to the roster.

2605:6000:3F05:2800:A4B0:BD1C:D258:2134 (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2016

I think that the male and female rosters plus the commentary for each show should be split, to make it less confusing for a reference you can check the same article from the history tab and go back to 2009, in my opinion this makes it much more clear than having their brands on the list and separating them will hopefully again make it less of a struggle. I wish that i could do it but it is protected

Salmanas22 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This appears to be a discussion into the formatting of structured text. Such a change needs further discussion before an edit request is opened. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Smackdown

Smackdown is now called Smackdown Live or atleast when you check the roster on WWE.com it says Smackdown live roster, do we want to put it as Smackdown or Smackdown Live? Dw122339 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Smackdown Live Dange 34-4 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Paul Heyman

Paul Heyman is listed as part of the Smackdown on-air personnel but shouldn't he be under Raw as the mouthpiece of Brock Lesner, or did I miss an announcement he'd been drafted to Smackdown? I checked his profile on WWE.com but couldn't see anything listed there. 86.169.112.55 (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Kota Ibushi, Daria and Nikki Glencross

Kota Ibushi faced Murphy on this week's NXT (July 27th) should he be put him on NXT? (Despite Ibushi also being in the CruiserWeight Classic) We see the Authors of Pain, TM61, Bobby Roode and Oney Lorcan on NXT TV and have them in the Primary section of NXT but none of these 6 don't have bios on WWE's website yet.

Also, should Daria and Nikki Glencross be moved to Primary section of NXT? (Both of whom are in a 6 Women tag team match on opposite sides on August 17th's episode of NXT according to NXT spoilers) - 90.196.244.111 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Raw Cruiserweight Division

With the "Cruiserweights Arrive September 19th" promo from Raw last night (22nd August) can we count Rich Swann, Noam Dar, Brian Kendrick and TJ Perkins as members of the Raw roster? IanPCP (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Steve Cutler

Should Steve Cutler be in the 'main' section of NXT? He's appeared on TV the past 2 weeks now, which is more than Nikki Glencross and Daria, yet we moved them to the 'main' section already. IanPCP (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, we have the Authors of Pain (Rezar and Akam), Daria, Nikki Cross listed even though WWE don't have them on the website when one uses the NXT or All filter. Steve Cutler also isn't listed on their website (Cutler also doesn't have Wikipedia page) but Steve Cutler couldn't win a match on NXT TV until 2 weeks ago when defeated Kenneth Crawford when both of them had trons and music whereas in the past Cutler was Jobber Entranced (No entrance or music on TV). So, in my opinion I feel that Cutler should be added to the NXT TV roster.

We do need a lot of Wikipedia pages added for the NXT House Show Roster seeing as from the NXT House Show Roster only Hugo Knox, Bronson Matthews, Tino Sabbatelli, Tucker Knight and Sara Lee have their own Wikipedia pages. - 90.194.82.124 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to move Cutler to the TV section now as the person above agrees, and no one has challenged it yet. IanPCP (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Gargano and Ciampa

Sometimes I put Gargano and Ciampa on the WWE NXT Tag Team list but someone takes it down? They are a tag team in NXT, so why don't we treat them like they are? Eurocus47 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unassigned cruiserweights??

This article from wwe.com - http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/2016-09-19/article/cruiserweights-arrive-raw - only lists Kendrick, Swann, Metalik, Alexander, Dorado, Dar and Perkins as "joining Team Red". Is it worth moving Ciampa and Gargano back to NXT, and Tozawa and Gallagher to unassigned personnel? In addition, those seven listed above now have profile pages on wwe.com listed under the RAW filter, whilst Ciampa/Gargano are only listed as NXT, and Tozawa/Gallagher aren't listed. IanPCP (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ciampa and Gargano are still on NXT as they are currently in a storyline with The Revival over the NXT Tag Team Championships but DIY have yet to debut on Raw so in my opinion they should stay on NXT until they (DIY) officially debut on the main roster. Tozawa is only wrestling Dragon Gate for now so he needs to finish his dates there before he can show on Raw. Bollywood Boyz (aka Sihra Brothers) are in the 2016 NXT Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic tournament so they might show up on future NXT episodes (like Ciampa and Gargano did after 2015 NXT Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic), Jack Gallagher is wrestling in the Indies for now so until Gallagher gets a written contract by WWE that only allows to wrestle in WWE then he can't show up on Raw. - 2.126.116.65 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2016


70.16.205.212 (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC) RAW

Male Wrestlers Akira Tozawa - Cruiserweight Big Cass Big E - WWE RAW Tag Team Champion Big Show Bo Dallas Braun Strowman Brian Kendrick - Cruiserweight Brock Lesnar Cedric Alexander - Cruiserweight Cesaro Chris Jericho Curtis Axel Darren Young Enzo Amore - Cruiserweight Epico Finn Balor - Cruiserweight (Inactive: Torn Labrum) Goldust Gran Metalik - Cruiserweight Jack Gallagher - Cruiserweight Jinder Mahal Johnny Gargano - Cruiserweight Karl Anderson Kevin Owens - WWE Universal Champion Kofi Kingston - WWE RAW Tag Team Champion Lince Dorado - Cruiserweight Luke Gallows Mark Henry Neville - Cruiserweight Noam Dar - Cruiserweight Primo R-Truth Rich Swann - Cruiserweight Roman Reigns Rusev - United States Champion Sami Zayn - Cruiserweight Seth Rollins Shawn Michaels - 2011 Hall of Famer Sheamus Sin Cara - Crusierweight Sting - 2016 Hall of Famer Titus O'Neil TJ Perkins - Cruiserweight Classic Tournament winner, Cruiserweight Champion, Cruiserweight Tommaso Ciampa - Cruiserweight Triple H - Minority Owner, Member of The Board of Directors, Executive Vice President of Talent and Live Events, Producer, NXT Senior Producer Xavier Woods - WWE RAW Tag Team Champion, Cruiserweight

Female Wrestlers Alicia Fox Bayley Charlotte - WWE RAW Women's Champion Dana Brooke Nia Jax Paige - (Inactive: Suspended for 30 days) Sasha Banks Summer Rae - (Inactive: Hasn't appeared over 30 days)

Other On-Air Personnel Bob Backlund - Manager of Darren Young, 2013 Hall of Famer Lana - Manager of Rusev Mick Foley - RAW General Manager, 2013 Hall of Famer Stephanie McMahon - Commissioner, Minority Owner, Member of The Board of Directors

Referees Chad Patton Darrick Moore John Cone Rod Zapata Shawn Bennett

SmackDown Live

Male Wrestlers Aiden English AJ Styles - WWE World Champion Apollo Crews Baron Corbin Bray Wyatt Chad Gable - (Inactive: MCL Sprain) Curt Hawkins Dean Ambrose Dolph Ziggler Erick Rowan Fandango Heath Slater - WWE SmackDown Live Tag Team Champion Jack Swagger Jason Jordan Jey Uso Jimmy Uso John Cena Kalisto - (Inactive: Strained Intercostal Muscle and Erectus Spinae Muscle Injuries) Kane Konnor The Miz - WWE Intercontinental Champion Massacre Mojo Rawley Randy Orton Rhyno - WWE SmackDown Live Tag Team Champion Shane McMahon - Minority Owner, Commisioner Shelton Benjamin - (Inactive: Torn Rotator Cuff) Simon Gotch Tyler Breeze - Host of Shoot The Breeze

Female Wrestlers Alexa Bliss Becky Lynch - WWE SmackDown Live Women's Champion Carmella Eva Marie - (Inactive: Filming a Movie) Naomi Natalya Nikki Bella

Other On-Air Personnel Daniel Bryan - SmackDown Live General Manager Maryse - Manager of The Miz

Referees Charles Robinson - Senior Referee Dan Engler Jason Ayers Mike Chioda - Senior Referee Ryan Tran

Broadcast Team Andrea D'Marco Booker T Byron Saxton Carlos Cabrera Carsten Schaefer Cathey Kelley Charly Caruso Corey Graves Dasha Fuentes David Otunga Funaki Gene Okerlund - 2006 Hall of Famer Greg Hamilton Jerry Lawler - 2007 Hall of Famer Jerry Soto John Bradshaw Layfield JoJo Lita - 2014 Hall of Famer Marcelo Rodriguez Mauro Ranallo Michael Cole Mike Rome Renee Young Rob Schamberger Sebastian Hackl Scott Stanford Tom Philips Tony Chimel

WWE Network Christian - Co-host of The Edge and Christian Show Edge - 2012 Hall of Famer, Co-host of The Edge and Christian Show Jeff Tremaine - Host of Swerved Noelle Foley - Co-host of Holy Foley! Seth Green - Host of Camp WWE Stone Cold Steve Austin - 2009 Hall of Famer, Host of Steve Austin's Broken Skull Challenge, Host of Redneck Island, Host of Stone Cold Podcast

NXT

Male Wrestlers Adrian Jaoude Akam Alexander Wolfe Andrade Almas Angelo Dawkins Austin Aries Bobby Roode Bronson Matthews Buddy Murphy Cezar Bonini Dash Wilder - NXT Tag Team Champion Elias Samson - (Inactive: Fractured Left Ankle) Eric Young Hideo Itami Nick Miller No Way Jose Oney Lorcan Rezar Samoa Joe - (Inactive: Dislocated Mandible) Sawyer Fulton Scott Dawson - NXT Tag Team Champion Shane Thorne Shinsuke Nakamura - NXT Champion Steve Cutler Tye Dillinger Welsey Blake

Female Wrestlers Aliyah Asuka - NXT Women's Champion Billie Kay Daria Berenato Ember Moon Liv Morgan Mandy Rose Nikki Cross Peyton Royce

Other On-Air Personnel Paul Ellering - Mangaer of Authors of Pain, 2011 Hall of Famer William Regal - NXT General Manager

Not Done Not clear what you are wanting done. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 18:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Shelton Benjamin

So we are going keep Shelton up for 5-6 months on SmackDown while he is injured even though Shelton hasn't returned to WWE and that is no guarantee that WWE will still assign him to SmackDown when he does return? (WWE could assign Shelton to Raw when does he return for we know despite the fact there was a SmackDown promo for Shelton on the week before he was originally scheduled to return and well, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) And there is has been various news about Shelton this year regarding WWE.

August 7th: Shelton said he wouldn't be returned at this time. https://twitter.com/Sheltyb803/status/762254398198198276

August 12th: Benjamin said on the Ross Report that his planned return to ‪‎WWE‬ has been put on hold due to a full tear of his rotator cuff and that a WWE physician who informed him of the severity of his shoulder injury and told him that he would definitely require surgery. He was told the recovery time for the injury is 6 months. He says WWE will certainly be on his radar once again after his recovery concludes.

September 8th: Benjamin revealed on Twitter that he underwent surgery. https://twitter.com/Sheltyb803/status/773691724996546560

September 15th: Shelton Benjamin would be unable to make his WWE return on Smackdown due to necessary surgery. It should be noted, however, that Shelton is still expected to make his WWE return after rehabbing from surgery in about 6 months (Various wrestling news websites)

Shelton Benjamin keeps being added and removed for the List of WWE Personnel so my question is where do we stand on Shelton Benjamin? - 2.220.226.242 (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Tony Nese

Both Tony Nese and Drew Gulak have been added to the Superstars page of WWE.com - under the Raw filter - so it's probably safe to add Nese (Gulak is already on there) to the list of Raw personnel.

On a similar note, Ciampa and Gargano are still only listed under the NXT - and there's been no talk of them being on Raw - so I'd suggest putting them back in the list of NXT personnel until they show up on Raw. IanPCP (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Dan Matha to NXT TV roster?

Dan Matha debutted on last week's NXT TV show and he was scheduled for a match on that week's episode (before Samoa Joe attacked Matha and laid out him out) should we move him from the NXT House Show roster to the NXT TV roster? - 2.220.70.66 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Standards for adding to the roster

There seems to be a lot of confusion as when it comes to adding people to the roster.

I believe the standard is to only add them to a brand if they appear on the official website under that brand (with a link to their profile page required to properly verify it.) Dukebox (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

We've been through this before - the "official roster" is useful, but not the end all-be all due to kayfabe (like for example when guys get "fired"). There is no set in stone "standard" for when to add guys. In this case, the Spirit Squad guys and Ellsworth are clearly involved in storylines on SmackDown, thus are currently featured players on the show, and should be on the current roster. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
But they're obviously not part of the roster, they're freelancers. They will only appear on tv for a week or two and then leave. You might as well add every Strowman jobber if that's case. If they were permanent members of the roster than obviously they would have their own page on the site, just like eric young and alexander wolfe have a few hours ago.Dukebox (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Goldberg, the Spirit Squad, and Ellsworth are all involved in storylines - they are all a part of the show. Strowman's jobber of the week is a completely different deal, as those are one-and-dones. Goldberg and Brock Lesnar will be fighting at Survivor Series in the main event, the Spirit Squad were brought in by Miz to be goons vs Ziggler and now are beginning to feud with Slater & Rhyno, and even Ellsworth has gained a cult following, has appeared on SD a number of times, and will be fighting for the World Title next week. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is that claims must be backed up by reliable sources. I think in this case we need reliable sources that someone has either signed a long term contract with WWE, or there are definite plans for then to be part of the WWE roster long-term. By long-term I mean for at least a few months, not just for one storyline. The profile pages are one such source, but we could have other sources. In the case of the spirit squad, we have no source that they will appear again. We can't assume there is a feud with Slater & Rhyno without a source. Similarly, without a source otherwise, we only know Ellsworth will appear next week. We have fairly clear evidence ([2]) that Goldberg will appear on Raw leading up to a rematch with Lesnar, but not behind that, so I don't think he belongs on the roster. Silverfish (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Plus doing this is required for adding to the NXT roster (see the comment at the beginning of the NXT section) so I have no idea for what reason this is not done for the main roster. We should not be adding things without proper sources.Dukebox (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


As far the WWE profile pages go yes; Daria, Nikki Cross and Steve Cutler don't have them on WWE's website when one uses the NXT or All filter. In Steve Cutler's case he also doesn't have his own Wikipedia page (Most of the NXT House Show roster don't have their own Wikipedia pages. Akam [Sunny Dhinsa] is the only one listed on the NXT TV roster on List of WWE personnel without their own Wikipedia page).

Akira Tozawa and Jack Gallagher haven't debutted on the main roster so they should remain as Unassigned Personnel until they do. Also, neither have a profile for the Raw brand on WWE's website.

Ariya Daivari debutted on the October 10th 2016 episode of Raw so he should remain on Raw. Yet he keeps be removed from Raw and placed in Unassigned Personnel. Ariya Daivari does have a WWE profile on the Raw brand on WWE's website.

Daria (debutted in the 6 women tag team match on NXT TV on August 17th 2016), Nikki Cross (debutted in the 6 women tag team match on NXT TV on August 17th 2016 and Cross returned as part of NXT's Sanity stable) and Dan Martha (debutted last week and got attacked by Samoa Joe) have already debutted on NXT TV. So there is confusement on why are 3 of them are being listed on the NXT House Show roster instead of the NXT TV roster.

Ciampa and Gargano (aka DIY) are still on NXT as they are currently in a storyline with The Revival over the NXT Tag Team Championships but Ciampa and Gargano have yet to debut on Raw so in my opinion they should stay on NXT until they (Ciampa and Gargano) officially debut on the main roster for Raw. They have their WWE profiles on NXT on WWE's webite but not on Raw.

Where do we stand on Shelton Benjamin seeing he isn't likely to return until 2017? Are we going keep Shelton listed up throughout the rest of 2016 on SmackDown (instead of Unassigned Personnel) while he is injured even though Shelton hasn't returned to WWE and that is no guarantee that WWE will still assign him to SmackDown when he does return? (WWE could assign Shelton to Raw when does he return for we know despite the fact there was a SmackDown promo for Shelton on the week before he was originally scheduled to return and well, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) Also, Shelton doesn't have a WWE profile on SmackDown or Current on WWE's website.

Should we include Roderick Strong on NXT despite the fact he has no profile on WWE? (Even though WWE has said he has debutted http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt/article/roderick-strong-nxt-debut) - 2.220.70.66 (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the criteria is simple. Sources. We need one source about the wrestler signing a contract with the promotion (WWE, TNA). It's different from sporadic appearences (ex, James Storm in NXT, Argenis one apearence in TNA). About the brand, WWE. As fas as I know, Benjamin stills part of SmackDown, no matter he is inactive. Tozawa and Gallagher were announced as part of RAW Cruiserweight Division. It's WWE the one who assigns their wrestlers to each brand. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Akira Tozawa, Jack Gallagher and Naom Dar were announced being as taking part in the Cruiserweight Division on Raw according to a PWInsider (In that same PWInsider article it lists Johnny Gargano and Tommaso Ciampa though as we have seen so far these two are have yet to be promoted from NXT and are still in a NXT storyline with The Revival) article but Tozawa is still wrestling in Japan's Dragon Gate promotion and he needs to finish there before he can debut on WWE's main roster for Raw. In a tweet by O2 Academy Brixton (they are an UK arena) which links to a YouTube by Progress Wrestling it mentioned that Gallagher said goodbye to Progress Wrestling (along with Ciampa and Tommy End) at Progress Wrestling's Chapter 36 We're Gonna To Need a Bigger Room...Again show so if Gallagher has finished his independent wrestling dates then he should be able to debut on Raw soon. According to Daily Record's website (which is the online edition of Scotland's favourite newspapers, the Daily Record and Sunday Mail), Dar has finished wrestling for Scotland's Pro Wrestling Elite promotion so again if Dar has finished his independent wrestling dates then he should be able to debut on Raw soon. The most likely reason why WWE hasn't assigned them to Raw yet is because WWE is allowing them finish their dates with other promotions first before they exclusively wrestle for WWE. - 2.220.70.66 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The Undertaker

The Undertaker is being advertised for the November 15 SmackDown Live episode on both WWE.COM and on Mohegan Sun Arena at Casey Plaza's website for the 900th episode of SmackDown Live. Should he be moved to SmackDown Live or remain in Unassigned personnel until November 15th? - 2.220.70.66 (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Bill Goldberg

I've removed Goldberg again, as we have no source that he has a contract, or indication that he is considered part of the roster (I'm thinking on WWE.com, which lists "superstars" by roster, and currently lists him in the Alumni section). I don't think it makes sense to say someone is a part of the roster unless they have a long-term contract, i.e. not just promoting a single match. This also seems to agree with the consensus above. Silverfish (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

James Ellsworth

He is not listed as a superstar on WWE.com, WWE shop has a shirt for him as part of the storyline with Ambrose and Styles. He shouldn't be listed until he has been added to the Superstars page mainly because it is unclear if this is just a short time deal or permanent. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 04:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree.LM2000 (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I Agree --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The "official roster" has never been the end-all be-all for deciding who goes on the Wikipedia roster. Remember, guys get taken off the WWE.com roster for kayfabe reasons all the time, even though it's quite obvious that they are still with WWE. Gotta use some common sense here...Wikipedia is real world, WWE.com is kayfabe. Real world - Ellsworth and the Spirit Squad have been SmackDown mainstays for the last month. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, we need sources about Spirit Squad and James signing a contract with WWE. Until then, they deon't belong to WWE roster.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
According to Wrestling News, Ellsworth and the Spirit Squad are working under "per date agreements" with WWE, which when translated into plain English means that while not under full contract, there is an agreement where they work X dates for X amount of money, with a full contract possible down the road. So while not a full time contract, this shows that short term deals are in place. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
1, unreliable source. 2 "Spirit Squad are not under contract to WWE" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the Spirit Squad and James Ellsworth should not be listed until an official announcement of signings. DantODB (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
If we went sorely by WWE storylines then James Ellsworth (Ambrose vs Styles storyline), Kenny and Mikey (Miz vs Dolph storyline) being on SmackDown weekly (which is the one thing that these 3 have against Mosh and Thrasher whom made an one time return in the SmackDown Tag Team Championship tournament) would be added based on that however Wikipedia is based on sources so Wikipedia requires reliable sources (see WP:PS) of them being signing with the WWE. - 2.220.70.66 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Here's an article from PWInsider showing that WWE is working on getting Ellsworth signed full time. I think this should pass all the smell tests to add Ellsworth to the roster. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Working on." That means they haven't yet. As of a couple days ago, they had no interest in doing it, but the fact that his shirt outsold Goldberg's caused them to reconsider. That being said, let's not forget WP:CRYSTAL please. Just because they're interested in signing him, it doesn't mean they will. Kjscotte34 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
WP:Crystal would be if I were just speculating - I have a reliable source saying that a contract is on the table, so we're getting there. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
No. The source says WWE is working on a contract, not that James signed a contract with WWE. Today, James isn't part of WWE. He can reject the offer --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I've removed James Ellsworth again. 411mania only says he has "likely" signed a contract, PWInsider says he is "in the process of" signing a contract. James's Facebook page only says he is not taking bookings "at this time". His comment on twitter seems ambiguous. I think we shouldn't add him as personnel until we have a reliable source that says he is (not might be, or is working on it) under contract with WWE. Silverfish (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
WAAAAAY too rigid here...it almost looks like you're looking for excuses to leave him off just because you want him off. Wikipedia has always used stuff from PWInsider to verify things. What do you want...for him to write it in blood? Gotta ease up here. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
If he is a member of the roster WWE would list him, like they just have with the spirit squad. I think that would be more reliable than trusting dubious dirt sheet rumours. We don't take celebrity rumours from gossip mags as fact and neither should we do this on this article. Besides, it seems that the overwhelming consensus on this talk page is to wait for them to be listed on the official site so that is the standard we should follow. Dukebox (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... from the horse's mouth?? Here... Tabercil (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That is the sort of thing I was asking for, a source that actually says he is under contract, whereas PWInsider previously only said they were working on a contract. We should add a link to his WWE roster page and/or independent sources (not just appointing his announcement), when they appear. Silverfish (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2016

I've notice that Shelton Benjamin is not on the WWE Smackdown Live! roster. He has a signed contract with Smackdown Live but he is suffering a torn rotator cuff injury. He needs to be added to the roster so people won't freak out. UlternateGamer (talk) 08:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

205 live a separate brand or part of Raw

Could I ask Vjmlhds to address the arguments for listing 205 Live under the Raw heading. As DantODB points out, all the 205 wrestlers are listed under Raw on the wwe.com page, as well as under 205 Live. This seems to mean if it is a brand, it is a sub-brand of Raw. Also, Raw regularly features cruiserweights from 205 Live, but Smackdown does not, and the cruiserweights have been featured on Raw brand PPVs but not Smackdown PPVs. Finally, the cruiserweight division was (keyfabe) on the line at Survivor Series, which makes no sense if 205 Live is a 4th brand. I think a single ambiguous twitter post is not enough to contradict this. Silverfish (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

[3] Here's an interview with HHH by ESPN, where he talks about developing all of these different brands within WWE for guys to be a part of - naming specifically NXT, 205 Live, and the upcoming UK brand]. [4] And here's an article from the Mirror (UK newspaper) where HHH talks about how the plan is for 205 Live is to be it's own touring brand (a la NXT)]. So with the separate listing on WWE.com, it's own ring ropes, and HHH himself saying that 205 Live is gonna run it's own shows in the near future (along with Vince's tweet) the idea that 205 Live is it's own entity isn't WP:OR..there's some legitimacy to it. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

As this has been an on going dispute for awhile now, I'm going to say what I said last time. 205 is a sub brand, the cruiserweight title is a RAW title and has been since it was brought back. The ring ropes mean nothing as they have always changed the ropes to purple for the matches long before 205. Until they stop having them on RAW or stop saying the title is a RAW title then 205 is a sub brand,that's why they are listed like they are on WWE.com. HHH also has a bad habit of saying the women's division is a brand too which it is not. Yes I've reverted it back to Dan, if this keeps up I'll get an admin to lock it down. Enough is enough discuss and stop warring Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 00:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Another thing, 205 has no GM or Commissioner, RAW has Foley and Steph,SmackDown has Daniel and Shane, and NXT has Regal. Sooooooo Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 01:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually...that's a very good point that I didn't consider. Steph/Foley are still the de-facto authority figures, thus the connection to Raw. I will now concede that 205 Live is a sub-brand of Raw. However, if 205 Live does get it's own commissioner/GM, then we can call it it's own brand as it will be (kayfabe wise) independently run. Can we agree to those terms so if/when the time comes, we are all on the same page? Vjmlhds (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a "sub-brand" as Chris points out but I don't know how to reflect that here.LM2000 (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Isn't "sub-brand" original research? I'm digging out sources (Vince's tweet, HHH's Mirror article) that flat out call 205 a "Brand" - This "sub-brand" stuff is just you guys coming up with a term out of thin air. If anything, YOU GUYS need to come up with something that says 205 is just a sub-brand of Raw. Your ideas are less based in fact and more like "This is the way we want it, because we said so". At least I'm digging and scratching finding references to back up my point of view...all you all are doing is bloviating with this "sub-brand" stuff. And I also find it odd that you all are trying to read HHH's mind as to "what a brand means". Hive mind has horrible effects on people. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Silverfish One point - Survivor Series happened before 205 Live debuted, so that argument holds no water. WWE.com also didn't have a separate 205 listing until after 205 Live debuted. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

If you really wanna get technical it's not a sub brand but a SHOW just like Superstars or main event or heat, only difference it's to showcase the cruiserweights. I referred to it as a sub brand just to keep from getting a second argument going but whatever. Vince's Twitter isn't reliable because WWE staff tweet from it not always Vince, HHH also calls Women's division a brand, yet don't have their own show, he has called the Legends a brand, yet they don't have a show, hmmm seems like everything is a brand now. Technically there is ONE brand WWE, the rest are shows, but I digress. 205 has no GM or Commissioner, the Title is a RAW title, Cruiserweights are listed for RAW and 205 on WWE.com. 205 is just a show to showcase the cruiserweight division because they ARE RAW BRAND that's why at Survivor Series if SmackDown won the title match the Title and cruiserweight division would go to SmackDown or did you forget that stipulation? So yes the argument does hold water, you just can't accept that people don't agree with you. Your the only one fighting with everyone to make them a brand and edit warring with users over it, which if it continues is gonna end up getting you blocked or ANI'd again and the Article locked. I suggest you step away and take a break because this is getting us nowhere. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 03:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

WarMachineWildThing Who are you you to tell me what to do...you are not better than me...you do not threaten me...Why don't you do what I tell YOU to do instead of acting like YOU are the boss of ME...you have no authority over me. Don't talk to me in a condescending tone. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't talking to you in anyway at all first off, secondly I simply suggested you step away and take a break. I didn't tell you to do anything. You clearly have a serious issue with people not agreeing with you which is what got you taken to ANI lastime. You want to make this a war and personal with every user go right ahead because that's what you are doing and your gonna find yourself at ANI again. But you go right ahead and keep making more enemies over something stupid. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 04:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I believe it is not a brand. I also put forth the example of Alicia Fox appearing on 205 Live by association with Cedric Alexander, supporting the notion that 205 Live is a show with cruiserweight competition as opposed to its own brand. DantODB 04:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Even more valid point DantODB, didn't even think about that.I also see it looks like we are gonna have to have another discussion about this on the WWE 205 Live article itself at some point as well. Since someone has has put this brand stuff on there too. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 04:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Gran Metalik's real name in 205 live roster list

His real name is known : [1] Máscara Dorada.

23.91.235.152 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

According to the Article Máscara Dorada's real name has not been officially documented. So that's not his real name, but the name he's known best by. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 22:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Máscara Dorada, which is just Spanish for "golden mask", is not a real name, just Gran Metalik's previous ring name in his native Mexico. His real name is unrevealed, as is something of a tradition for luchadores. oknazevad (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Máscara Dorada". Wikipedia. Retrieved December 18, 2016.

McMahon Family

I invite everybody in the usual peanut gallery to take a look at the McMahon family section I have made in the article, and tell me if you like it or not. I find it odd that DantODB always seems to take issue with anything I try to do, so I'd like others to chime in.

Vjmlhds (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with DantODB - it's a non-issue. The McMahon family is prominent, yes. But they are not so prominent that they should be the first dang thing you see on looking at the list. Fold them back into the rest of the article. Tabercil (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Tabercil I see your point to a degree. I've shuffled things around to where the family still has it's own section, but more towards the bottom of the article (before the WWE Corporate/Board of Directors section). Vjmlhds (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe that it is appropriate to move them back and forth (whenever necessary) to make the article a living, breathing embodiment of the current roles they play on television as well as the roles they have on the company. There shouldn't be any reason why Stephanie McMahon isn't listed in the same section as Mick Foley. It would only create confusion as opposed to make it more accurate. DantODB 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

DantODB Mick Foley is merely an on-air character on Raw..Stephanie McMahon is CBO, meaning she is the head public relations person for the company, so she is doing that, serving on the board of directors, and doing all kinds of corporate work IN ADDITION to her on air role. The McMahons all have a million different jobs and responsibilities in the company. Kevin Owens' job is to wrestle, Paul Heayman's job is to be a manager, Mick Foley and Daniel Bryan's jobs are on-air GMs...they are where they need to be. The McMahons run the whole pop stand - and oh yeah have on-air gigs as well...major difference. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The whole reason I put the McMahons in their own section so that they wouldn't be pigeon holed in one particular spot, so that we wouldn't have to constantly change things around all the time. Putting them in their own catch-all section allows for all the bases to be covered, reducing the need to have to do all kinds of editing. Life (and Wikipedia) is easier the more stability you have. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Now let's wait for other people to voice theirs. Until then, there shouldn't be any reason why the edit should stand, seeing that the previous version of the article was working fine. DantODB 22:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, the moving names back and forth isn't anything new. We move names back and forth, even past the McMahons, when necessary. An instance to this would be when Paul Heyman's contract was up. He was removed from this page and added back when he signed a new deal, despite Brock Lesnar having been signed and kept on the page the whole time. Also, I understand that your point all of this time was for Triple H to be moved to the Raw male wrestler section because the show has been the teasing of a Triple H-Seth Rollins rivalry. Speaking of teasing, SmackDown has also been teasing a Miz-Daniel Bryan feud as well, so should we move Bryan to the male wrestler section? Negative, simply because it hasn't happened yet. Adding and removing content is detrimental to accuracy. There's no way around it. That's my piece. DantODB 22:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Let the current version stand so people can see for themselves...if they don't like it, it can always go back. It's like a restaurant...how will people know if the food is good unless they can taste it themselves. Same applies here...how will people know if my idea is any good unless they can see it for themselves? Vjmlhds (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hence, the talk page. DantODB 22:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
DantODB BUT HOW WILL PEOPLE KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE UNLESS THEY CAN SEE IT FOR THEMSELVES?!? How do you know if something is going to work or not unless people can see it for themselves and make their choice? You truly don't get it. I will accept if consensus doesn't like my idea, BUT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE IT FIRST SO THEY KNOW WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT IT How would courts work if one side couldn't present their evidence? Gotta think a little bit. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, I invite any and all editors to see my idea for the McMahons having their own section and give their input...if consensus wants it removed, then fine, but I do deserve a chance for people to actually see my idea before it gets unilaterally yanked by one dissenting opinion - how will people know if something is any good or not unless they can see it? I think that is fair...let people see it and decide if they like it, and I'll accept the outcome regardless, but I am owed a chance to see if it will work. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Neutral I've looked at both ways, yes I went through the history and honestly I'm good with either way, I see DantODB's points and I see Vjmlhds's points which are both very valid points. I know that doesn't help with a consensus here but both old and new look fine to me so right now I have to say I'm neutral on it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 22:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could get more editors to weigh in on this. DantODB 23:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

The score is 1 in favor, 1 opposed, and 2 non-issue/neutral. Let it play out before people get all revert-happy. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
2 opposed. Don't forget Tabercil. DantODB 01:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, when I said non-issue, I meant that the McMahons didn't need their own section. I didn't mean it as in your edit is a non-issue. Don't get it twisted. So it's 1 in favor, 2 opposed and 1 neutral. DantODB 01:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I hate to see this bickering over what seems to be a somewhat petty issue. In the end I could go either way, but if forced I'd say a McMahon family section isn't warranted. I feel that DantODB's version is best for now and we shuffle folks around as their on-air/job title changes. InFlamester20 (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your opinion. I would like to get as many eyes on this as possible. DantODB (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral on the issue itself, leaning towards a separate section because the McMahons (and HHH) have such significant off-air roles as well as their on air ones (in contrast to say, Kevin Dunn) that they're in a pretty unique position.
That said, "leave it up so others can see what it looks like" isn't how it works. Copy the preferred version to your sandbox and leave a link here, or link to the diffs of this article if you want people to compare them. But the article goes back to the prior state until consensus is reached. oknazevad (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue is resolved at this point, but thank you for stating your opinion! DantODB 21:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Mikey, Kenny, La Luchadora

What's the motivation here? Kenny and Mikey are doing independents since last being seen on Smackdown and La Luchadora is pure speculation on if it will be revealed as Deonna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.210.15 (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

205 Live

I know that per the consensus, 205 Live isn't its own brand and that it is now sectioned directly under the female competitors on Raw. Should we keep the footnote saying that it is a part of Raw when it is already under it on the article? DantODB 21:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to keep it there. It may keep others from trying to move it to its own section again. Just my 2 cents. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 21:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. You can't just assume that people automatically "get it". 205 Live/The CW division is part of Raw, that happens to also have their own show on the side. My note just makes it clear for the uninitiated. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
A little ironic that the last person that attempted this was Vjmlhds per this edit. DantODB 22:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
And I have since learned my lesson...no need to reopen old wounds. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Unassigned personnel

Is there a way to make separate sections for Unassigned Personnel of notoriety (i.e. The Undertaker, The Rock, Tyson Kidd, Rosa Mendes, etc.) and the ones that have signed a contract and have yet to debut? It just doesn't seem right that The Undertaker is listed as "Mark Calaway (The Undertaker)", especially since he is currently on television, but just isn't assigned to a brand. I understand that there is no "Ring Name" column because most the individuals who have yet to make their debut also have yet to be assigned a ring name, but maybe there should be separate categories/sections to avoid this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellar420 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

WWE UK

Question:

Since (according to Meltzer) all of the UK tournament guys are signed to one-year deals (which one can assume run through 2017), wouldn't the prudent thing to do here be to list all these guys in their own UK section?

As HHH has pointed out, the whole point behind the UK tournament/championship is to have a UK based brand/weekly show, so I think it would be a good idea to list these guys in their own UK section on the article.

But I want to see what the rest of the peanut gallery thinks before we go through such a big edit.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)~

On today's NXT TV Tapings for February 2017 they had Pete Dunne, Mark Andrews, Tyler Bate (Bate was also on the February 1st 2017 episode of NXT in a match against Oney Lorcan) and Trent Seven from the UK tournament on the tapings. The WWE UK Championship is on the line on the taping of the Feb 15th episode. So what I can gather from this NXT TV Tapings information is that is possible that the WWE UK Championship will get defended on NXT TV shows (and NXT Takeovers) until at least whenever the UK tournament guys get their own WWE Network show. Which raises the question should Pete Dunne, Mark Andrews, Tyler Bate and Trent Seven be put in the NXT TV section, the NXT House Show section or left in Unassigned list section? - 2A02:C7D:C84:9900:254C:9696:BF94:E597 (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

NXT roster

If I recall; the consensus is to only move wrestlers to the main NXT section when they have a Superstar page on wwe.com; by this logic, surely Kassius Ohno should be in the house show roster? He is yet to appear on television, and is yet to have a Superstar page on the WWE website. If he deserves inclusion on the main NXT roster, surely Killian Dain - who has had ample TV time - deserves to be in that section too? IanPCP (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Another thing, what source do we have for listing the Sihra brothers in NXT? WWE.com lists them as 205 Live wrestlers (but not Raw) so surely they should go back to the 205 Live section, with an "inactive, not appeared in 30 days" comment? IanPCP (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

But also Mikey and Kenny aren't signed and aren't on Smackdown yet there they are. Remove them first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.210.15 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Both Kenny and Mikey have Superstars pages on WWE.com listing them as members of the Smackdown roster; hence them both still being listed on the page. http://www.wwe.com/superstars/kenny http://www.wwe.com/superstars/mikey IanPCP (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Ken Doanes twitter @kenndoane has his biography listing him as a free agent wrestler. and Mike Mondo's @mikemondo83 lists him as a former wwe superstar. Just because a clearical error on WWE website doesn't mean we have to keep it on here. What say you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.119.159 (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I say that WWE.com is more reliable than individual Twitter accounts per WP:PW/RS. JTP (talk • contribs) 20:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

What a joke. How is some random dude in an office more reliable than THE ACTUAL PERSON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.119.159 (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


WWE.com lists the Shira Brothers as 205 Live wrestlers yes, but when one looks at the news in Gurv and Harv superstar profiles they have NXT news as their most recent news (e.g the videos called "How do WWE Performance Center recruits from around the world celebrate the holidays" and "Happy holidays from the WWE Performance Center's international standouts" are in their profiles under Latest News) and considering that have had 1 match on NXT (Dusty Rhodes Tag Team Classic) and 1 match on 205 Live (vs Tony Nese & Drew Gulak) so the believe is that WWE considers them to be both NXT and 205 Live wrestlers even though the brothers hadn't wrestled on either show since the first 205 Live show though with Shane Thorne and Austin Aries both being injured it is more likely that the Bollywood Boyz could show up more often on NXT as the new #2 Active BabyFace Tag Team (#1 is DIY of course). Heel Tag Teams; there is The Revival (#1 Heel Tag Team on NXT), Authors of Pain (#2 despite them being the NXT Tag Team Champions and undefeated) and Sanity (#3).

Killian Dain as we know is part of Sanity where he replaced Swayer Fulton in the faction but he has not been added to NXT filter on WWE's website. Samoa Joe hasn't been moved to Raw filter yet but we saw Joe on Raw this week. Corey Graves is still listed on the NXT filter, Nigel McGuinness and Percy Watson haven't been added to the NXT filter.

The real problem is that whoever runs the Superstars page on WWE's website takes ages to add profiles to the NXT filter. (e.g The Authors of Pain debutted on NXT TV in June 2016 but their profiles were not added to WWE website's until October 2016.) - 2A02:C7D:C84:9900:254C:9696:BF94:E597 (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

That's all well and good, so we need a new consensus on how we all agree to edit the page. We either use wwe.com as the be-all-and-end-all or we don't; but we need to be consistent. IanPCP (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

WWE.com should of course not be the be all end all for wikipedia. They aren't ever consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.119.159 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Shelton Benjamin (again, sorry!)

Not to drudge up an old topic; but does anyone have a credible source that - as of February 2017 - Shelton Benjamin is actually under a WWE contract? Yes, we all saw the video announcing his return, and yes, we all know he was subsequently injured; but is there anything to suggest he still has a deal today? IanPCP (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I think maybe he should be listed in the "Unassigned Personnel" section, along with the number of other wrestlers who have signed but yet to debut. I definitely do not think that he should be listed on the current SmackDown roster. Bobharris1989 (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It's been 6 months...I think it's safe to say that ship has sailed. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We can't have Shelton endlessly listed on SmackDown on the List of WWE personnel as: 1 We don't know when Shelton will fully recover from his injury. 2. We don't know if Shelton will show up in WWE in 2017 after injury stopped him from returning in 2016. 3. There is no guarantee that Shelton can't get a return video (Should Shelton return to WWE in 2017) announcing him being on Raw in 2017 even he had return video for SmackDown in 2016 thus WWE 3 Month Ruling his 2016 return. - 2A02:C7D:C84:9900:7D35:25E3:B352:5877 (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Maryse

Moving Maryse to the wrestler section, as it's clear she will be involved in a feud with Nikki Bella.

The plan for WrestleMania 33 is Mr and Mrs Miz vs Mr and (may as well be) Mrs Cena.

And with the events that went down on SmackDown Live tonight, we are very clearly headed in that direction.

Vjmlhds (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

No. See the word "speculation" in the title of the linked article? We don't make changes based on speculation, rumor or original analysis of recent storyline events. That does not fly. Just like your attempts at moving Shane were based solely on rumor. We wait for announcements. And what's the friggin rush anyway? There's no deadline, Wikipedia is not the news, and one match for a valet does not make anyone a full time wrestler regardless of anything else. oknazevad (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oknazevad Who is "we?" Is there a mouse in your pocket? I love how Wiki editors take it upon themselves to speak for everybody. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
We as in the consensus that developed Wikipedia guidelines. Enough with the damn temper tantrum. oknazevad (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oknazevad YOU do not talk to ME in that tone of voice YOU are not better than ME. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

As oknazevad and DanteODB said, 1 the match it's just a rumour (1.5, the source isn't reliable) 2, it's just like Lana. One match at WM isn't enough for a move to wrestlers section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree Lana has actually wrestled a good bit since WM...upwards of about 20 matches from WM 32 to present - just saying. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with Oknazevad; there are a set of guidelines for Wikipedia that editors of this page seem to forget sometimes. IanPCP (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I second that. I swear to God that I have to type WP:CRYSTAL for this page more than any other one on Wikipedia. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia guidelines (and 5 bucks) will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with keeping Maryse in the other on-air section as per reasons stated above. DantODB (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

new "Free Agent" sub-section under "Main Roster" section

Firstly let me say that I think that the Main Roster section, with its vary sub-sections, is very well done. I especially like the fact that the Cruiserweight Division is listed separately from the rest of the Raw men's roster to make it much easier to look at.

I would like to propose adding a third main sub-section (besides Raw and SmackDown) simply titled "Free Agents", with the purpose being to list the few superstars that are officially on the main roster, but are not officially assigned to either brand. Specifically, three superstars (being Undertaker, Tamina, and Tyson Kidd), would be listed under this section, with the notes column indicating why each are free agents (i.e. injury, appearing on both shows, etc.). I know that Undertaker is here listed on Raw, and Tamina on SmackDown, both of which I believe are erroneous (and please correct me if I'm wrong on that), so I would place them in this Free Agent section. Also, Tyson Kidd is listed under Unassigned Personnel, but said list seems to be primarily people who have not ever been on the WWE Main Roster, so I would propose that Kidd be moved to this new Free Agent section. (As a side note, I know that The Rock is listed under the Unassigned section too; I'm not sure if maybe he should be listed under the Legends section instead, but I'll let others decide on that.)

I'm willing to create this new sub-section myself, but I want to make sure I get feedback on it first. Thanks all. Bobharris1989 (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

No - The "Unassigned" section works just fine...besides, there are numerous reports out that Tamina is going to SD, while Taker vs Reigns is looking to be a big WrestleMatch, meaning Taker's business will be on Raw (at least until WM 33 anyway). So no need for a "free agent" section...would just be redundant with the similar "unassigned" section already established. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Keeping Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards in mind, do you have a fully factual and verifiable source that says, 100% for sure, that Tamina is going to be on SmackDown, and that Undertaker is formally on Raw? Totally regardless of making a new section or not, if there is nothing in writing that can reliably say either of the above things, then Tamina and Undertaker should be not be listed on the Raw or SmackDown rosters on this page. Bobharris1989 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Undertaker is not a Raw superstar even though he will be doing "business" on Raw. He said he is not brand affiliated so a free agent section would actually be pretty great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.119.159 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and make the following changes:
1. Create new Free Agent section under Main Roster
2. Move The Undertaker and Tamina into this new section, from Raw and SmackDown respectively, since neither is officially assigned to those brands.
3. Move The Rock and Tyson Kidd into this new section, from Unassigned Personnel. This is to make the notable distinction between these two, and all the other wrestlers listed in that section who are not under the Main Roster umbrella.
I ask you to please not just undo these changes, as creating a new section in an article is not just some easy thing to do, and more importantly because these changes are absolutely valid and accurate. If you disagree with one of these changes, please respond on here to start a discussion, and please come prepared with reliable resources. Nothing I do here should be undone unless there is a verifiable source that says something otherwise. Bobharris1989 (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I like it. It's neat, well done, and has a good explanation for why it's there. Just keep an eye on things -- rumor has it that Tamina will be a Smackdown superstar, so when it is announced, she'll have to come off. Kjscotte34 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose as per the fact that the unassigned personnel section consists of free agents. It does not matter whether they have been recently signed or if they are injured or if they are competing on various brands. The point of the existing section is that it holds all of the names that aren't signed to any of the brands. We never know when new signees are going to NXT or straight to the main roster, so why should they be separated from existing Superstars that are not assigned? DantODB (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well I think there should be some sort of distinction between Main Roster wrestlers who are Free Agents, and newly signed people that haven't ever appeared yet. I would maintain strongly that there should be two separate lists, one listed with the Main Roster like I had, and the other being Unassigned Personnel (which could even be renamed to something else like "Signed but yet to debut" to make the separate lists non-redundant).
With this said, somebody has to please remove the Undertaker and Tamina from the Raw and SmackDown Rosters respectively, they do not belong there, period. My new section seemed to be a very sensical place to put them, but if that's not the answer, okay, but they shouldn't be listed where they are either.
P.S. I really do wish that my section wasn't just outright removed without some discussion to it like this. Like I said, it's no cake walk to just add a new table like that, and I also wouldn't want to just revert a revert to bring it back, as I've always found that to be poor Wiki-Etiquette. Bobharris1989 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas. If anything, this article needs to be streamlined - FEWER sections. It's soon getting to the point where every one is gonna have their own section. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with that. How about the Unassigned Personnel section is entirely removed? And then is replaced by the Free Agent section and only contains the names of wrestlers (i.e. four) who have already been on the WWE Main Roster? Much of that section are wrestlers who do no have their own Wiki articles about them, implying that they are non-notable and perhaps shouldn't be listed in this article anyways. Bobharris1989 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
That's just swapping one section for another. Streamlining means leaner and meaner. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
True, but it would be swapping out a section of 22 for a section of 4, so it still would be streamlining it to a degree. Bobharris1989 (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Tamina

Why is Tamina listed under Smackdown? Surely any suggestion that she'll be returning to the SD brand is just speculation? IMO she should be in Unassigned until she re-debuts on TV (or brand-specific promo videos air for her re-debut). IanPCP (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Tamina is wrestling on SD house shows. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
She was previously wrestling on RAW house shows though. Surely nothing is official until she's back on TV? Being on house shows doesn't neccesarily mean a wrestler is assigned to a specific brand. Liv Morgan did some main roster house shows a while back but she's definitely not a main roster talent IanPCP (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect - She has wrestled exclusively on SD since returning from injury. She never wrestled on Raw house shows...last time she wrestled pre-injury was prior to the brand split being reactivated. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, I am mistaken. I still don't feel that appearances on house shows count towards brand assignment though. IanPCP (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
House shows count just the same as TV...if people are paying money to an event, it counts. Not like they "don't exist" Gotta lose the smark "house shows don't count" mentality. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with being a "smark" or otherwise (and, given that you're someone who doesn't like being talked down to, I'd suggest cutting that out). The way WWE presents its product, they don't treat house shows as canon. A wrestler can be announced as "débuting next week" having already made house show appearances; for instance. Surely if house shows counted as much as TV appearances, we wouldn't have separate subdivisions in the NXT portion of the page? IanPCP (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Did not intend to talk down to you...just that that sentiment on house shows permiates many wrestling websites which are viewed as "smarky", which is why I used thae term. They do treat house shows as canon in that they recognize house show title changes when they do occur, so it's not like they never acknowledge them. And I'm a proponent of losing the NXT house show roster section, as most of those folks are just bodies used to fill out the NXT "B" shows. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll accept that you didn't mean to talk down to me. My point about house shows is that they're only canon when WWE wants them to be and, otherwise, are dismissed. As for the NXT house show section, I actually meant combining that and the TV Roster section; but that's another debate for another day! IanPCP (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I would say that, if Tamina is competing only on SmackDown-specific house shows, in order for her to accurately continue to be listed on the SmackDown roster, then the notes column should indicate that she is currently only appearing in house shows but has yet to formally come back on SmackDown itself. It's either that, or she should be removed from being listed on the roster completely. It has to be one or the other; as it's listed in the article now, with no note indicating her current status, it is incorrect. Bobharris1989 (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Legends/ Ambassadors

Sting - Steve Borden Sr. should be listed in the Ambassador/ Legends table, as he is now a WWE Hall Famer/ Legends

>adding a time stamp to this old section so that the bot will auto-remove it in 30 days. Bobharris1989 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Streamlining

Here's how you streamline things:

1. Remove the "other personnel" section, and just divide each of the 3 brands (Raw, SD, NXT) into "Male" and "Female" personnel - with a little note saying all should be considered wrestlers unless specifically noted.

2. Remove the NXT "House show" rosters...those people are merely bodies to fill the low level house shows, and frequently go in and out...no earthly need for them to be listed.

3. Put the McMahons in their own section, and combine the Executive Officers and Senior Management sections into one Front Office section.

We would remove so many headaches this way, we would get rid of so many arguments this way. Less is more. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I partly agree and party disagree.
1. I do not like the idea of removing the other personnel section. I actually really like how the Main Roster section as a whole is laid out. It looks nice and I don't think should be changed. I know there is some debate about certain things, but I think that's what this talk page should be for, to iron things out. In the end, who is on what sub-list should be very straightforward.
2. I do agree that the NXT Live Event rosters should be removed. Most (if not all) are non-notable in WWE as a whole. If a wrestler doesn't appear on TV, they shouldn't be on this list. And I would forward this sentiment to the Unassigned Personnel section. Maybe that list should also be removed, and if (and only if) an individual wrestler does make a TV appearance/debut, should they then we written in on here.
3. As far as everything else, I do think that all the lists of non-wrestlers maybe should be streamlined in some way, but I can't say what specifically. To be consistent with how I've seen other lists on Wikipedia be handled, maybe only individuals who have a Wiki page about them should be listed, i.e. any name which you cannot actually click on is a name that maybe should be taken out altogether. Bobharris1989 (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
On the Raw, SD, and NXT sections you do away with the "other personnel" section and just divide them up into male and female personnel. You denote certain names with an asterisk (*) to indicate a part-time/occasional wrestler, and two asterisks (**) to denote a definite non-wrestler (no asterisks mean full time wrestler). This would cut WAY down on the constant bickering. Lose the NXT house show rosters. I'd also consolidate all of the producers into 1 section. All the front office types should just be listed into one section. The only new section I would add in is for the McMahons specifically, as they are their own uniquely special entity within WWE. All unlinked names should removed (with the exception if they were to somehow win a title, then you have to list them - as champions are automatically included on the roster). Vjmlhds (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Specifically to your point about the constant bickering, I don't think that changing things around in the page itself is a good fix, primarily because a Wikipedia article shouldn't be altered to appease a few parties who can't come to an agreement about some of its content. That's absolutely not the point of Wikipedia at all. When it comes to things like this, something is either a 100% fact, or it's not. The bickering is caused by one person/group being correct about a fact, and one person/group being incorrect but stubbornly insisting that they are correct. Now how this can be fixed, I don't know, other then the powers that be locking editing on this page and forcing users to present something tangible to change something. Either way, I do not think that we should be consolidating sections of content just to stop bickering between parties that can never agree. It completely devalues the point of the article, not to mention how much harder it would be for somebody to read this without its very nicely put-together sub-sections. Bobharris1989 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Point 1, oppose. I don't know why are you so obssesed with Other Personnel section. I don't see why we should remove it except because you want. Do you want to include some managers into the wrestlers section. We can also include brodcast members and referees into one huge section because... why not? Point 2, agree. Point 3, Oppose. This was proposed before. I don't know why do you want to give the McMahon Family a special treatment in the roster pages. This format has worked well of over a decade and no one had problems with the Other personnel section. Also, I'll appreciate if you talk about this major change in the wikiproject talk page. It's not just WWE Roster, is every wrestling roster in Wikipedia changed because you have something weird with the mcmahon family. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I am strongly against removing the NXT House Show section; unless the talents are moved to different sections. Notable or not, this is supposed to be a list of WWE personnel and these talents are contracted talents, which makes them "WWE personnel". IanPCP (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Oppose to all of the proposals. First of all, the point of different sections within a brand is to create a distinction between roles of personnel, regardless of their wrestling background. Secondly, there needs to be a distinction between the NXT TV roster and the house show roster. Thirdly, I also disagree with putting the McMahons in their own section because their roles are set in stone, which means that having their own section would be redundant. The only difference with them is they wrestle every now and then. Move them into the wrestler section if they ever become full-time competitors or if they lose their on-air power. Other than that, they're good where they are. DantODB (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Final comment and challenge

Firstly, I’ll say quickly that I am formally giving up my attempts to create that new Free Agent section. The longtime editors of this page do not want it, and therefore it shall not be. So, I have cut my losses and will move on.
With that said, I do just have some honest comments I want to share, before I do leave this Talk page forever. I have only been watching this page for about a week, and I got myself up to speed about this page’s notoriety for Edit Wars over the years. I just wish to say the following: As a WWE fan, it seems like it should be so very simple as to which wrestler should be listed under which section in this article, and the fact that there is ever any debate at all just blows my mind, quite frankly. It honestly feels like most of the debate here is intentionally manufactured, for the sole purpose to keep up this page’s Edit Wars infamy. Now, if I hit the nail on the head, and the Wiki-kayfabe police are about to knock down my door, then I guess I’ll know that I figured it all out… But in all seriousness, whether all the debate over the years is manufactured, totally legit, or a combo of both, I want to challenge all the longtime editors (and de facto caretakers) of this page to stop all this debate. Instead of this page having notoriety for all the wrong reasons, this page should be a bastion of what a fluidly-evolving encyclopedia article should look like. I want this to be a page that all wrestling fans can go to, with confidence, for the unquestionable up-to-date list of WWE Personnel that they could take with them to the bank. Right now, this article is not 100% accurate (for example: The Undertaker is not assigned to Raw, for the umpteenth time, so somebody, please, move him!), so I ask you to please get it up to speed, and please then maintain it from then on. Where a wrestler should be listed really is truly simple; it should not be up for debate at all. They either are assigned someplace or they aren’t, and people that insist a wrestler should be listed someplace that they are not assigned really need to stop it. That is my honest challenge to you all.
And with that, I bid you all adieu. Good luck with this article, and with all your other Wiki-escapades. Bobharris1989 (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Truthfully, the biggest problem on this article is that some editors fancy themselves as the Wiki police, and any little change turns into a knockdown drag out brawl. I think they act this way because in the fantasy land of Wikipedia, they can hide behind their keyboards and act like big shots, because in the real world they've got nothing and get kicked around. They've turned what should be a fun little hobby into a teeth pulling experience. People these days just needlessly have 6-foot steel rods up their backsides, and go right into instant outrage mode over things that are really NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Truthfully Vjmlhds, when I wrote "and people that insist a wrestler should be listed someplace that they are not assigned really need to stop it", that was directed at you. All of the edits I've seen you attempt to make here in my short week watching are based completely on unsubstantiated rumors. You honestly need to stop attempting these illegitimate edits, because those are the things that are causing problems. You vilify your fellow editors in your comment here, but really your fellow editors are trying to do the right thing and keep this page free of those unsubstantiated rumors that you keep bringing back. No, Maryse should not be listed among the female wrestlers. Even if she does come back and wrestle at Mania one time, she should not be listed there. And no, the Other Personnel sections should not be removed just so you get your way in the end. And that's just one example of many things that you insisted be changed that had to be stopped/undone. I'm going to be honest, just based off of what I've seen, I do think that you, Vjmlhds, should be blocked from editing this page. Go ahead and accuse me of having a rod stuck in my behind, go ahead and threaten me on my personal talk page again, but at the end of the day you are the one that has consistently been in the wrong, and I'd like to see something finally be done about it... Bobharris1989 (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Never threatened you, Bobharris1989 - just left a warning about destructive editing...big difference. And you are proving my point. Why do you want me blocked Bob...because I disagree with you? Because I threw out some ideas? Listen to yourself - over dramatic much? Is someone not listed the way YOU want them gonna cause you this much emotional distress? I'm not wrong, you are. BTW, it took you about 50 minutes to revert me...proves my point laid out in the edit summary. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I have come to the following conclusion, only further validated by this most recent comment: Every time something is said against Vjmlhds or one of his comments, he never actually addresses the concerns brought up, and instead somehow twists it around to say something bad about the other person. In addition, the edit made to the article this morning was done intentionally just to get a rise out of others, knowing that the edit itself was not legit. And on top of that, there seems to be a history of leaving comments on personal talk pages that are both unwelcome and invalid. So my conclusion is, Vjmlhds is an internet troll. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. He is a troll, and it's about time somebody called him out on it.
I strongly encourage all the editors on this page to treat users like this as the trolls that they are, and do whatever it is necessary to remove them from this page. As a WWE fan, I do care about the integrity of this article. So long as trolls are continued to be allowed to edit it, it will never have that integrity we are striving for.
And with that, I actually will be leaving for good now. Since I know Vjmlhds's response to this comment will be another contorted attempt to bring me down but not address legit concerns, as that is what trolls do, I know that it won't be anything remotely worth replying to. Thank you all, and goodbye.
P.S. I did notice on another user's talk page that Vjmlhds left a totally invalid, unwelcome, and rather intimidating comment. When that user removed those comments, Vjmlhds reverted that removal. Honestly, who does that? Who reverts a user's owns edits on that user's own talk page? Just to bring back the intimidating comment... It's ridiculous, and frankly there is no other conclusion to reach other then that these are the actions of a true troll, period. Bobharris1989 (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Bobharris1989 If I'm a troll, you are a millennial snowflake that gets his feelings hurt way too easy. Your sermonizing about article integrity is pure pablum (this is WWE we're talking about). Who do you think you are that you have some sort of righteous moral high ground. I wish my biggest concern in life is how wrestlers are listed on Wikipedia. You don't want to edit here, then don't, but don't you dare think I'm gonna allow a comment like being called a troll to stand. Remember, don't pick a fight with the devil if you don't want to be stuck by the pitchfork. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's the thing, guys and girls. This is ridiculous. BobHarris -- I think your contributions have been great this past week. VJ -- where do I start here. You work hard on this article, you do, and I'd be willing to say your contributions are much more positive than negative. That being said -- you really need to read up on WP:OWN and WP:CRYSTAL. Let's not forget, you once nominated this page for deletion because you weren't getting your way. You left a highly personal and threatening message on a talk page a couple days ago that could have been grounds for a block had someone decided to pursue it. You also have a long history of adding sections to this article and then edit warring when there is a disagreement. It was nice to have some fresh blood in here pitching out new ideas, and you bullied the man out. Take a deep breath, look at it, and realize we're all on the same side here. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No Kjscotte34, we're not. And I never bullied anyone out, they just don't want to participate anymore...that's not on me, that's on them. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes. You have a really bad behaviour with other users [5] [6] [7] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
HHH Pedrigree Not bad beahvior - just standing up for myself and letting other editors know that they shouldn't run around and act all high and mighty...you talk to me respectfully, I'll talk to you respectfully. You talk to me as if I'm some sort of child in need of scolding, I'm gonna fight back. Simple as that. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I think an editor that says that we are not all on the same side is troubling, because at the end of the day, we are all unequivocally trying to maintain the accuracy of the information presented in this article. To assume that another editor isn't does not adhere to Wikipedia standards. DantODB (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Hate to burst your little fairy tale bubble DantODB, but we're not all on the same side. I know this will come as a shock to the hive-mind that has permeated Wikipedia, but not everyone has the same viewpoints, and some people (the horror!) actually dare to think differently than the herd. And spare me WP:AGF...you show it to me, and I'll show it to you. And tripping over yourself to revert every edit I make and giving holier than thou soliloquies isn't showing me good faith...it's brow beating. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Great. You keep on doing you. DantODB (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
DantODB Darn tooting I'll keep on doing me - Why wouldn't I? 1 Vjmldhs is worth 10 DantODBs everyday of the week, and twice on Sunday. Any more smart aleck remarks? Vjmlhds (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: No, that's all I got. :) DantODB (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll save this conversation. It would be nice the next time you start an edit war, according to you, one more slip, and I'm permanently gone...no do-overs, no nothing. No more edit warring...if even the slightest dispute comes about, I'll play by the book to get it resolved One month afert that you had another edit war, your behaviour made BobHarris quit wikipedia, [8] [9] [10] insulted other users and say we're not in the same side... that's not playing by the book --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree Nobody put a gun to Bob Harris' head and made him quit...he quit on his own accord. I only lashed out at Bob and Dant after making snide remarks towards me (Bob calling me a troll, and Dant with his smart aleck remark) I'm sorry, but we AREN'T on the same side...at the end of the day, everyone is an island unto themselves. And this "I'll save this conversation" stuff almost sounds like blackmail. Not a road you want to go down. And regarding "the book"...I go by the book, but I will also defend myself if needed.Vjmlhds (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


@Bobharris1989: Thank you for all of your contributions! Hope to see you back here soon! DantODB (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow VJ, just wow. Perhaps you need to add WP:PERSONAL to your reading list as well. When I say we're all on the same side, I mean it generally. We all want an accurate article. There may be some of us who split hairs and go to deep with the information, but at least he or she is looking for it to be accurate. VJ is worth 10 Dant's? Seriously? I am sitting here making the best attempt I can to play peacemaker. You scold an editor for giving "holier than though soliloquies" and then proceed to give one yourself...within the same sentence!!!! Take a breath, count to ten, and relax. You do excellent work on this article most of the time, and I would hate for that to go to waste. Kjscotte34 (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Kjscotte34 A reading list? What is this...6th grade summer vacation? I don't need a refresher on Wiki policy (most of which is bureaucratic babble) - what I need is not to be talked to like I'm in middle school. There's an awful lot of Wiki-elitism around here...just remember at the end of the day, being a Wikipedia editor and $1.50 will get you a newspaper. The "10 Dants" stuff was just a retort to a snotty remark from Dant. The only way to show that you aren't going to be a pushover is to fight back. You want to be a peacemaker? Tell the editors who think they are God's gift to get off my back. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Shane/HHH/Lana

All three of these folks should be listed as wrestlers.

HHH always wrestles on major shows, and is pushed as an attraction - not just me saying it, the data proves it

Shane McMahon wrestles on major PPV events - not just my opinion...the data proves it.

Lana has wrestled a good number of matches since last year's Wrestlemania. Granted, it's mostly live events and NXT, but she is wrestling, and the data proves it.

To say none of these people are wrestlers is a bogus argument and a gross understatement of the facts. Do they wrestle each and every week - no, but HHH and Shane wrestle when it matters most (big PPVs), and Lana works on her craft away from the camera.

The pure facts bear out what I have been saying all along.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

stop. This edits were reverted by many users. Wrestle at major shows isnt a reason. Shane was described by many sources as non wrestler and he is working as commisoner. Lana is working as manager. This will be the third edit war you started this month. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
HHH Pedrigree Why don't YOU stop? Who do you think you are that you can scold me? You are not better than Me. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
other users reverted this edition. Lana and shane arent wrestlers. Shane is a comissioner, lana is a manager.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
HHH Pedrigree Says you. I disagree. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No one is saying that they do not know how to wrestle. The way they are listed in the article reflect their CURRENT roles in the company, just like how Austin Aries is listed under the broadcast team. Should we list him as well as JoJo under the wrestler sections because they know how to wrestle, fully aware that that is not their CURRENT role in the company? Additionally, The data presented is flawed. Yes, they are entirely accurate. However, Shane McMahon has only wrestled two matches in the last year; Triple H's has not wrestled in almost a year, mostly appearing as an on-air authority figure; Lana wrestles at NXT house shows, should we list her as a manager under Raw and wrestler under the NXT house show roster? Nope. Main roster role takes priority. DantODB (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
BS all the way. The data is perfect - nothing that I present is flawed. The only reason I don't change it back is that I don't wanna give the trigger happy administrators a chance to block me - they live to block people because they can (and hide behind BS such as "protecting the integrity of Wikipedia"...do any of these admins really think they're THAT noble?) I can't help it if people would rather be wrong just to prove a point and then gang up on someone who dares stand up to them. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

HHH wrestling a bunch in March

Well, it's just been announced that HHH will be working some house shows in March (reference found in the main article). So with that, the clear feud with Rollins on Raw, and Rollins returning tonight to probably set up the likely WM 33 match, I think any doubts on where HHH should be placed have been put to bed (at least until after WM 33). Vjmlhds Vjmlhds 20:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Competing in two live events does not constitute a role change. Besides, what Rollins' appearance tonight entails is speculation. DantODB (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to do a compromise...if Rollins does what is expected and challenges HHH to a match at Mania, then I would think that would be sufficient, as HHH's role would have changed from mere authority figure to active participant in a feud. That would then give HHH 3 confirmed matches on his upcoming docket. As someone likes telling me all the time, Wikipedia is a fluid, evolving entity that always is changing to reflect the current situation. Well, if even after new information and circumstances emerge, it would be hypocritical to not allow Wiki to be edited to reflect the current situation at hand. I'll leave things be until after Raw, but if everything falls into place as expected, then I have no doubt that I would be in the right to put HHH back in the wrestler's section. And please don't cry edit war...I made an edit with a reference to back me up, and made only 1 reversion - that does not an edit war make. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
No one mentioned edit warring, but it's good that you're keeping yourself in check. Having two upcoming matches lined up does not constitute a change in on-air role. If your argument stands, it would mean that Lana belonged in the female wrestler section when it was announced that she would be wrestling at two NXT live events late last year, which is incorrect. Seeing that the Triple H-Wrestlemania season story has been happening for a few years now, there's no indication that he will leave his on-air role to be a full time competitor afterwards either. DantODB (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
DantODB I know how some people are - don't give them a chance to complain. Regarding the HHH-Mania thing, isn't it you that is always on my back about how Wikipedia should reflect things as they are right now, and not down the road? Assuming HHH-Rollins is indeed a thing, that would make HHH a current in-ring competitor for at least the next month (with 3 matches confirmed and possibly more to follow between now and WM 33). So that would mean that HHH's role would be that of a wrestler from now until at least WM 33. I'm only doing things the way you insist I do them...reflecting the present and not down the road. Your sudden wish to look long term would indicate either you changed your mind, or simply you just wanting to be a yin to my yang just to give me a hard time (which would be hypocritical if that's the case) Can't have it both ways. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
And even as we speak, HHH is adding more matches on his plate...so that's 3 for sure, 1 likely at Mania, and who knows what else. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I never said that we should look at it in a sense of longevity. I happen to agree with everything that you said I have been saying. It is true that we need to reflect the present. And the present says that there's no televised match for Triple H at this moment, only three live events, meaning that there's no change in on-air role for him. He still stands as an authority figure. This is the same argument I have been putting forth this whole time, citing examples such as Lana and Shane McMahon. Shane is in the same boat that we are all assuming Triple H is going to be getting on. It's just that I still disagree that he should be listed under the wrestler section because it just so happens that that's not his on-air role. The same goes for Triple H. DantODB (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, it would be great if we could get more editors to weigh in on this. DantODB (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC).

HHH is wrestling on a minimum of 3 house shows leading up to Mania (where it is VERY clear he will be wrestling Seth Rollins, especially after tonight's Raw). Wrestling is wrestling. NOBODY wrestles on TV each and every week, so "televised matches" don't matter (when was the last time Goldberg, Lesnar, or Taker wrestled on TV?...that argument doesn't wash) HHH has a clear itinerary ahead of him for the next 6 weeks at minimum. Absolutely NO LOGICAL reason to move him back other than being stubborn. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Except for the fact that all of the people you mentioned have on-air roles as competitors, whereas Triple H is an authority figure. This is shaky grounds because that argument constitutes that whenever a non-wrestling figure has a scheduled match then it constitutes a move to the wrestler section at that time. So, what, do we move them back to other on-air personnel after they complete in their scheduled match? There has to be a substantial evidence that his on-air role is going to shift from an authority figure to a competitor, and frankly, I have not seen that. The title of the section says it all. OTHER ON-AIR PERSONNEL. Television roles take priority over live events role. DantODB (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC).
Cut the crap, will you...Wikipedia has ALWAYS moved people to the main roster when they have matches ahead of them...for God's sake - look at the previous arguments you had a few weeks back when I suggested moving the McMahons to their own section. These are YOUR OWN WORDS from December 30 (go back through the history to see it yourself)...and I quote "I believe it is important to move them back and forth (whenever necessary) to make the article a living breathing embodiment of the current roles they play on television", and I quote again "Moving names back and forth isn't anything new. We move names back and forth, even past the McMmahons, when necessary" HHH is not an authority figure on TV...his role is an adversary of Seth Rollins. All of HHH's TV appearances since August (when he helped KO win the Universal Title) have been involving Seth Rollins (costing him the title in the 4-way match, confronting him on NXT, siccing Joe on him a few weeks back, and confronting him again tonight). That's not being an authority figure...that's gunning after one man in particular due to a personal grudge. You have absolutely no basis for any of your arguments other than simply wanting an edit war with me (going right on my heels reverting me each time I edit). I only edited after having clear information to verify why I did what I did. You didn't want me moving the McMahons to their own section because of a "living breathing embodiment of the encyclopedia" suggests movement being necessary when needed...so now when it's needed, you again are giving me a hard time, this time wanting the status quo. It's getting to the point where I say right, you say left...I say up, you say down...I say black, you say white. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing...not a way to run a railroad. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
That's really funny that you put a direct quote from me just now. If you cared to read the argument that I stated beforehand, you would see that my stance has not changed. I specifically said and I quote, "the current roles they play on television." I don't see Triple H switching from an authority figure to a competitor. The Wrestlemania match has not even been officially announced. And once it is, what indication is there that there is going to be a shift in his role? Just some things to think about. DantODB (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Oknazevad You're a regular member of the peanut gallery around here. You be the tie breaker, and what you say goes (with no muss and no fuss). Should HHH be moved into the wrestler section or not, given that he has a bunch of house show matches lined up in March, and that HHH-Rollins is virtually a lock for WrestleMania 33? Vjmlhds (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Or we could get more than one editor to weigh in since this discussion has been going on for a while. I'm going to be reaching out to editors to weigh in. You could do the same if you'd like. DantODB (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The last thing we need is too many cooks in the kitchen...then it never ends. The quickest way to end a dispute between 2 editors is simply to have a third break the tie - otherwise it just keeps going on and on and on and on and on....Vjmlhds (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
We should aim for all editors to voice opinions at all times, especially during times of disagreement. This case should be no different. If they choose not to comment then that's all right as well. An article should be a collaboration between all editors. DantODB (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
And that's how we get stalemates. What's the cut off? In real life, if 2 people have a beef, a 3rd usually settles things...why should Wiki be any different...it's just us bickering - get a third voice in here, let them decide it, and whatever happens, happens. Otherwise it never ends. Vjmlhds (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Except for the fact that the article does not belong to you or me. As I said, it should be a collaboration. What if a consensus is reached between three editors and a fourth frequenter comes in and has the same exact dispute? We need to make sure all voices are heard before reaching a consensus. Hence, the talk page. DantODB (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Leave him where he is, there is no point in moving him everytime he decides to wrestle just to move him back in a month or whatever, it's a waste of time. His main position isnt wrestling. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 06:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I wanted a tie breaker, and I got one...HHH stays where he is. Done deal. See...not that hard. Vjmlhds (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Great. Let's do this first the next time we want to make bold edits, shall we? DantODB (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, whether an edit is "bold" or not is in the eye of the beholder...everybody has their own definition. You shouldn't have to ask before you make an edit (otherwise you just paralyze yourself), but if 2 editors have a beef, getting a tie breaker is the best cure. I lost, but that's OK, because I asked nicely for a tie breaker, and I got one...all you can ask for. Vjmlhds (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Unassigned personnel section proposal

I was wondering, and it's just a thought, since those in the Unassigned personnel section are currently in and/or coming to the WWE Performance Center, maybe instead of placing "Has signed contract" we mark them with "Performance Center recruit" since WWE's been calling them that in some of their videos that come from the Performance Center. I know it's a long shot, but it could be helpful to know where they are currently. We can still keep the "yet to debut" part as well as they're still training.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Shelton Benjamin

Shelton Benjamin has returned to the SmackDown brand on the List of WWE personnel I see despite having no return promos since 2016. If Shelton should be anywhere on the page it be in the Unassigned Personnel section.

There is no guarantee that WWE will still assign him to SmackDown when he does return. (WWE could assign Shelton to Raw when does he return for we know despite the fact there was a SmackDown promo for Shelton on the week before he was originally scheduled to return and well, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) Also, Shelton doesn't have a WWE profile on SmackDown or Current on WWE's website.

Therefore we can't have Shelton endlessly listed on SmackDown on the List of WWE personnel as: 1 We don't know when Shelton will fully recover from his injury. 2. We don't know if Shelton will show up in WWE in 2017 after injury stopped him from returning in 2016. 3. There is no guarantee that Shelton can't get a return video (Should Shelton return to WWE in 2017) announcing him being on Raw in 2017 even he had return video for SmackDown in 2016 thus WWE 3 Month Ruling his 2016 return for SmackDown. - 2A02:C7D:C84:9900:A102:E46:2A9D:8A70 (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Shelton was promoted as being a Smackdown Superstar. Then, injury happened. Until something says otherwise, he is a Smackdown superstar. We don't know that he'd be moved to Raw -- we have to keep WP:CRYSTAL in mind. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Drew McIntyre has resigned with WWE on the NXT roster

Drew McIntyre made his first WWE-related appearance since departing in 2014 at NXT TakeOver: Orlando on April 1st, 2017. He was shown seated among fans in the crowd and mentioned on air by the broadcast team. It was later confirmed by an exclusive interview with ESPN that he has re-signed with WWE to the NXT roster. ESPN is a reliable mainstream website. - 2A02:C7D:C84:9900:5983:5D54:F2C5:243C (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-signed* Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 22:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Oney Lorcan

Was he confirmed as part of the 205 live roster? On WWE.com he is still listed as an NXT superstar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.119.159 (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on this though? He was on 205 WM week but has been on NXT the last two weeks and WWE.com lists him as an NXT talent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.119.159 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say he should be an NXT talent for the reasons you've given. In fact, I'll change the article now unless someone else already has UPDATE someone already has IanPCP (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Mauro Ranallo

Mauro Ranallo's illness is not unknown. Why is it listed as such? Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

There's been no public "official" mention of why he is out, other than "illness" IanPCP (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on UK wrestler section

Instead of having them in the NXT section since they are only wrestling there as a spotlight on the division while they wait for their own show what if you add them and all the others under contract in their own WWE UK section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.119.159 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

They announced TV Tapings today....Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.119.159 (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Not only have TV tapings been announced, but on 205 Live yesterday (4th April) they brought out Andrews, Dunne, Seven, Wolfgang and Bate; and the announcers mentioned the upcoming UK series. If we aren't adding a UK section yet - which is understandable as the series doesn't exist yet - is it worth adding these five talents (well, the other four as Bate is there already) to the Unassigned section? IanPCP (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Out of those five talents only Wolfgang (255 lb) and and Trent Seven (216 lb) are over the 205 limit but Tyler Bate, Pete Dunne and Mark Andrews qualify as cruiserweights. Technically, the five talents are unassigned until the upcoming UK series starts yet they have been making appearances on the NXT TV show (Wolfgang had a vignette telling us that he would be making his NXT soon) in February 2017 but the five talents are also still working in other wrestling promotions on the UK scene. Interestingly, the WWEUK Championship was defended in Progress Wrestling. - 2A02:C7D:C84:9900:69ED:45FA:284E:AD95 (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

UK Series tapings

Tapings have started for the upcoming UK series (one taping tonight, a second tomorrow), featuring the 5 talents already listed in Unassigned Personnel (Andrews, Bate, Seven, Dunne, Wolfgang) as well as Tyson T-Bone, Joseph Connors, James Drake, Saxon Huxley, Sam Gradwell, and Dan Moloney. Is it worth creating a separate section for these guys now? IanPCP (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

If you have sources that state that WWE have signed Tyson, Joseph, James, Saxon, Sam and Dan, then put a UK roster up. If you don't, we keep it as is.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on List of WWE personnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Jack Gallagher

His ring name is Gentleman Jack Gallagher and should be updated. Ron234 (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

John Cena: unassigned personnel

The whole concept of being "Raw" or "Smackdown" is completely kayfabe so, with Cena being a "free agent", he belongs in the Unassigned Personnel section as - for the purposes of storylines - he is neither Raw or SD. IanPCP (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2017

From Unassigned Personnel, Alvin Abitz & Isabel Lahela should be removed Alvin Abitz: https://www.instagram.com/p/BTnU7ApAhAT/

Isabel Lahela http://squaredcirclesirens.com/update-on-isabel-lahela-and-wwe/ Tripleb2k1 16:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Not Done Non reliable sources. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 17:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Move Mark Henry

On the latest episode of Table for 3 on the WWE Network, Mark Henry revealed that he is transitioning to a Backstage role as a talent scout. Should we move him to the Backstage personnel section?--Keith Okamoto (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Change

Akria Tozawa Crusierweight Championship Alex00120 (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2017

Alex00120 (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nihlus kryik (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Should we add Shun Yamaguchi to List of WWE Personnel?

Should we add Shun Yamaguchi to List of WWE Personnel under the Broadcast section?

Every time there is a Main Roster PPV we see Shun Yamaguchi (Shunsuke "Shun" Yamaguchi is the brother of Mr. Wally Yamaguchi-San from Kaientai. - Source: X-Pac sitting at the Japanese Commentary Team table alongside the well-known and beloved former WWE wrestler Funaki (Funaki's Wikipedia's article notes that Funaki is one half of WWE's Japanese Commentary Team but doesn't note Funaki's Japanese Commentary Team partner) and for example the team were shown at SummerSlam 2017 at Sasha vs Alexa point of SummerSlam between Sasha's entrance and Alexa's entrance)

I expect he is different person to the Japanese baseball player (the only Shun Yamaguchi that comes up when searching for Shun Yamaguchi on Wikipedia) of the same name.

The foreign commentary teams shown at Summerslam 2017 were:

German Commentary Team (They were shown before Cena vs Corbin began): Calvin Knie & Carsten Schaefer

Portuguese Commntary Team (They were shown at Sasha vs Alexa between Sasha's entrance and Alexa's entrance): Marco Alfaro & Roberto Figueroa

Russian Commentary Team (They were shown at Sasha vs Alexa between Sasha's entrance and Alexa's entrance): Moti Margolin & Zhan Pomerantsev

Japanese Commentary Team (They were shown at Sasha vs Alexa between Sasha's entrance and Alexa's entrance): Funaki & Shun Yamaguchi

Hindi Commentary Team (They were shown at Sasha vs Alexa between Sasha's entrance and Alexa's entrance): Obaid Kadwani & Shez Sardar

French Commentary Team (They were shown at Sasha vs Alexa between Sasha's entrance and Alexa's entrance): Christophe Agius & Philippe Chereau

Mandarian Commentary Team (They were shown at Sasha vs Alexa between Sasha's entrance and Alexa's entrance): Meng Ai & Sean Deng

Spanish Commentary Team (They were shown before Cena vs Corbin began): Jerry Soto, Marcelo Rodríguez Carlos Cabrera
- 2A02:C7D:C28:4B00:1863:8862:8A68:92EF (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The Great Khali

Is he on Smackdown though?

Since it's apparent he's going to be part of Mahal's goon squad, then I'd say so. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.28.225 (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2017

2A02:C7D:BEFA:B900:456:2B6E:FB29:175C (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC) hello shane mcmahon i what to  smackdown live next tuesday draft Picks is ethan carter brain kendrick  christians cages matt morgan with bobby roode frankie Kazarian
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK Discuss 13:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Conners

Has anyone actually got a source that he's signed to a deal? The only UK guys who ever get featured on WWE TV are Dunne, Bate, Andrews, Seven and Wolfgang. IanPCP (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

So... no one has a source then? I'm considering removing Conners unless someone says otherwise IanPCP (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_WWE_personnel/Archive_21&oldid=1154157751"