Jump to content

Talk:Major Players

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Major Brothers)

Ryder deserves his own page.

[edit]

Zack Ryder has done enough to deserve his own page.

Zack Ryder has done enough to deserve his own page.

Prove it please.--WillC 01:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to be "proved." The tag team of Hawkins and Ryder hasn't existed for a year, and Ryder has worked as a singles wrestler since. There is NO logical argument against him having his own article. Zero. Nada. Zip. Asking for "proof" is pointless.
Leroy Kincaide has been wrestling as a singles wrestler for 9 years and he doesn't have his own article. Not everything gets its own page on Wiki, have some sense of scope. Tony2Times (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who the hell is Leroy Kincaide? Is he in any way comparable to a member of the WWE?

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Zack+Ryder

He has 113 results. Over 100 = Notable. It's more than The Great Khali, Ezekiel Jackson or hell even Domino, who all have their own articles. If he had an article their would be plenty of sources to make him notable. It'd be like Domino's article, It'd give a brief paragraph about his time with developmental, a few paragraphs about his tag team, until when he split up, and then it would be a paragraph or two about his singles career. If Slam Master J, Domino, Luke Gallows, even Trent Baretta can have his own article why can't Zack Ryder and Curt Hawkins?

Because Trent Barreta spent 5 years as a singles wrestler winning four titles as Plazma; Luke Gallows feuded with Kane which culminated in a PPV match (Ryder was on a PPV for about 15 seconds when Punk owned him at the Rumble where about 40 guys appear) and tagged with Jesse and has been part of SmackDown's focus and main events frequently and at PPVs along with two singles titles; Cliff Compton wrestled for eight years before tagging with Deuce and Slam Master J wrestled in NWA Wildside which is a somewhat notable indy, wrestled in Pro Wrestling Noah which is a big deal - if Jesse had just been in the Daltons, Jesse&Festus and had done a year of nothingness in his current Slam Masta gimmick he too would have no individual page believe me. Tony2Times (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep asking why Zack Ryder deserves his own article, why doesn't he deserve his own article? That's a better question. Alone for a year, former tag team champion, ended Tommy Dreamer's career, competed for the ECW Championship, made a Royal Rumble appearance WITHOUT Curt Hawkins..What has Domino done without Deuce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Final Flash (talk • contribs) 02:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read upwards. Tony2Times (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading all of that when you can just tl; dr it with "Bla bla bla i don't wanna!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Final Flash (talk • contribs) 20:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't wanna read it all then don't write anything which could me summed up with "blah blah blah I wanna". Tony2Times (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's stop going off topic and talking about wanting to read or not. Besides the whole page is talking about the same exact thing, "Zack Ryder should have his own article! *reason *reason *reason*" Then: "No, I don't want to." Rinse and repeat. I give up, have your way, gotta keep Wikipedia's record of biasness and unfair rules alive right?

No it's "I want him to have his article *reason reason*", "He doesn't need his own article *reason reason*". Tony2Times (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know why it would bother you if Zack Ryder and Curt Hawkins got their own article, I doubt that it would make anybody upset or anything, and they are both notable enough, they've been alone over a year with Zack Ryder having some success on Raw and ECW and Curt Hawkins having success in FCW. What has Zack Ryder done to not deserve his own article?

There is no sense arguing. Wikipedia editors have taken ownership of this page and have held onto it as a show of their power over the casual Wikipedia user. No matter that the arguments from the usual suspects - that means you, Tony and Will - have never held water, and the editors keep changing the rules.

In the past I have heard that Ryder doesn't deserve his own page because he "hasn't done anything" as a solo wrestler. Of course, that is a subjective criteria created by the editors. Ryder has, for about a year now, wrestled dozens of solo matches on national television, and in front of live audiences of over 10K. Yet second-rate indy wrestlers like Prince Nana and Sara Del Ray have their own pages, despite that Ryder, as a solo wrestler, has wrestled in front of more fans this past year than those other two have in their whole careers combined. This would be like giving a page to every AA baseball player out there, but not to a major leaguer.

And one editor in the past - it may have been Tony but I cannot recall - stated on this board that when Zack Ryder competed in a PPV match then he would have "done enough" to warrant his own page. Well guess what? Ryder appeared as an entrant in the 2010 Royal Rumble, and the editors are still fighting against Ryder having his own page.

And the funny thing is, the whole idea of two articles being "content forking" is in itself subjective and up for interpretation. As clearly stated on the Wikipedia page on content forking:

"Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France; this does not make it a fork."

So, depending on how you interpret the content forking policy, Ryder and Hawkins could have two separate entries and still be within Wikipedia guidelines. It just depends on how the editors interpret it. There are three separate pages for Team 3D/Dudleys - one for each wrestler and one for the team - despite that the content is pretty much the same on all three pages. Neither Dudley has a significant achievement as a solo wrestler.

It looks like Ryder will need to have a significant achievement - winning a tag title with a different partner, winning a solo title, or having a PPV match - before the editors will loosen the chains here. Just remember to check back here when he does, and call these over-zealous editors out on it. Although Hawkins did join another stable, and win tag titles with another group (in FCW) and still, no separate pages. --Goosedoggy (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony - if Zack Ryder doesn't need his own article, then explain to me why Brother Ray and Brother Devon do. Please explain to me what Sara Del Ray has done to "earn" her own Wikipedia page. Joey Ryan? In fact, please direct me to the list of criteria a wrestler needs to meet to "earn" a Wikipedia page.

Just because you are a frequent editor doesn't mean you are the judge and jury of who "needs" their own Wikipedia page. But I will tell you WHY the page does NEED to be split. It's because the page reads as a mess when you get to the split of the two teams. This is where the real content forking is. There is significant amount of information on each wrestler AFTER their split. And each have had separate achievements - a valet, and several televised feuds, including Tommy Dreamer's "retirement" for Ryder, and a tag title with a different team for Hawkins.

So Tony, I ask you, what criteria does Ryder (or Hawkins for that matter) need to meet to "earn" their own pages, and what is the basis for this criteria? --Goosedoggy (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony - big ups for at least being open to the idea of splitting, per your comments on the discussion page. I think you are beginning to see the light - and the ridiculousness of this whole discussion. --Goosedoggy (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split into three articles

[edit]

I just put up the split template, as I think both Hawkins and Ryder should get their own separate pages. The current page should be for when the two were a tag team. I think it's kind-of odd that two wrestlers share a Wikipedia page, regardless of their notability or not. Jgera5 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Briscoe Brothers, Cryme Tyme, The Young Bucks; it's not that weird, it's just that their careers are all but carbon copies of one another so until there's been enough storylines to distinguish them it's a bit redundant. There would be nothing on a Zack Ryder only article that you couldn't find here. Tony2Times (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but Ryder and Hawkins are about as far from carbon copies as you can get right now.

Ryder is on TV, wrestling nearly every week, and had a lengthy run near the top of ECW. He retired Tommy Dreamer.

Hawkins is in FCW, which is not on TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.135.242.14 (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Their articles and careers and carbon copies, not their character. Ryder is on Superstars some weeks wrestling a different person with no semblence of storyline to note (imagine how long Shawn Michaels' article would be if we just listed every match he's been in) and FCW is on TV. Tony2Times (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Zack has done enough in my book but ignore me i've just contributed to WP:PW for almost 11 months.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 22:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time has nothing to do here as an editor, and if it did, Tony and I combined have about 3 or 4 years on you. As is, a split would be pointless.--WillC 06:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides which Curtis there are things I would like done differently about the project, but my 2 years editing doesn't give me seniority, consensus does. Tony2Times (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I was just kinda mad at someone so I put that. But seriously Zack has been alone for awhile. I'll leve it at that.--The guy dubbed Curtis23 Curtis23's talk Curtis23's Contributions 20:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Curt Hawkins here would be fine, but Zack Ryder definitely needs his own page. He's been solo for over a year now and has established his own style, persona and storylines. He's been on three separate brands and has done a substantial amount since the end of the tag team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.26.131.177 (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We kinda need some proof to get the pages split and if Zack is split Curt should be to because in some ways he has been more successful as he has won the FCW Tag Title.Curtis23's Usalions 22:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Hawkins has done more to be reputable than Zack Ryder. He's had a FCW Heavyweight Title opportunity, he's held the FCW Tag Titles in a completely new stable, actually feuded with people for more than two weeks. Zack has just been floating around, being shoved wherever WWE needed him to job and then when he had a story going, just cancel it quickly. 190.59.17.71 (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, Hawkins and Ryder at first had very similar profiles as they teamed together most of their lives, so up until say, 2009 it would make sense to have only one page. But now they have differing status, character, brand and match specialism and Ryder in particular has really gone for it and become quite and imposing mid-carder. While Hawkins is teaming with Archer and won the FCW Tag team Championships. If anyone was not aware they teamed up they would be completely befuddled as to why they are together. I suggest Wikipedia does what they did for Deuce N' Domino. Each had there own page but they also had a page for them as a tag team.

In conclusion, I don't feel we should split this page but more rather change Hawkins and Ryders individual pages so they are not redirections but actual profiles. The two are two of my favourite wrestlers and I hope they get their own page like Striker has mentioned before on Smackdown!. Thanks for reading.

--Danbj001 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

This article is vandalised way too much I think it's time we go to semi-protection for this page. If anyone could do it for me that would be greatly appreciated.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I know what to do.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't Get It

[edit]

Hawkins and Ryder don't have their own page, yet for some odd reason The Naturals do. Both Stevens and Douglas are way less notable than even Hawkins. IndoorSoccerFan (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former multi-time NWA World Tag Team Champions are certainly more notable.--WillC 01:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Back in 1975 they would have been. The NWA is such a joke. The watered down state it is in could not even outdo ECW in the 1990s. Let's get real. IndoorSoccerFan (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter, this isn't about the naturals or the NWA anyway. If Ryder and Hawkins deserve single pages prove it. Not opinion like with the NWA thing, show actually reasoning for them needing single pages.--WillC 04:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been proven that Zack Ryder and Curt Hawkins deserve their own articles. Why should two superstars who have just about nothing to do with each other anymore (which it's been that way for over a year now) have to share an article when one is a Raw superstar who has feuded with the likes of veterans such as Shelton Benjamin and Tommy Dreamer and competed for the ECW Title, while Curt Hawkins is officially no longer on the active roster (His profile got removed from WWE.com making him officially a member of the FCW roster). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.161.83.36 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will - please detail to me the "proof" that you would require that would be sufficient to allow a page split of Hawkins and Ryder. You can't just say "prove it" without telling us what proof you are looking for. Personally, I think the evidence I have stated above is MORE than enough to warrant page splits. We have a main page that is off topic (a page on a tag team shouldn't have so much information about the teams solo efforts), significant solo achievements over the last year (Hawkins winning a tag title with a different team, Ryder appearing in the Royal Rumble, retiring Tommy Dreamer, and being in several televised angles), and pretty much everyone except you and Tony saying that they both deserve their own page.

Saying that Ryder and Hawkins "do not need" their own page is not fact - it is a subjective opinion held by you and a few other editors. My reasoning for them needing their own pages is quite clear. However, you may be of the OPINION that it is not. And if that is your opinion, I want clear reasoning as to WHY and as to WHAT CRITERIA would need to be met for you to say "OK I think this page should be split".

Please don't berate others because they express their opinions and not supposed facts, because there are no facts to be dealt with here. The decision to not split this page is not factually based whatsoever. It is wholly based on opinion.

But if you want some "fact" - the FACT is that the NWA has about 1/20th the viewership and following of the WWE. So saying that being a 7-time NWA champion is "significant" is very subjective. I would argue that one victory on WWE Superstars is more significant than 10 championship reigns in the NWA. It's like trying to compare Rookie League baseball with the majors - it simply is not an apples to apples comparison.

--Goosedoggy (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Trent Baretta and Caylon Croft get their own page, Zack Ryder should get his own page, come on guys, honestly, this is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.44.174 (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to WT:PW where a discussion is held if you want your answers. At the moment the majority is in favor of not spliting.--WillC 04:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's you and the other admins who don't want to split it, about 98% of normal editors want a split. -- Final Flash —Preceding unsigned comment added by Final Flash (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Mr Flash. Will, there are no answers on the discussion page, just the same gobbledygook that we see here. There is no way to "prove" that the pages should be split, because there is no criteria. It is all subjective. The current Hawkins and Ryder article is poorly written and reads disjointed - and that is directly attributed to the admins refusing to split the pages. Is all of this just a big power play for the Wikipedia admins? I know you think that notion is ridiculous - but this is exactly the way you are coming across. You guys are so playing the heels here.

All I ask is for the naysayers to think about this. Do you think that, the way both of their careers are going, that eventually there will be cause for a split of the two topics? If so, then what is the point of preventing a split now? Especially when it is obvious that Wikipedia readers are expecting that each have their own page, and keeping the pages divided causes a constant source for controversy. --Goosedoggy (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning that he was in the battle royal

[edit]

Whoever keeps removing the text that says he came in 2nd place in the dark match battle royal at WM 26, look around. It's in ever single article. Why is it Mike Knox's for example but not Zack Ryder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Final Flash (talk • contribs) 10:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Because this isn't the article for Zack Ryder's single career - it's for their team history - singles career goes at Zack Ryder.  MPJ -DK  15:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Zack Ryder doesn't have his own talk page, the discussion button redirects here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Final Flash (talk • contribs) 20:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now ddon't go taking words of my mouth. I put that on the Zack Ryder article, and it got removed, so I clicked the discussion button and it led here. But now that I see there is a discussion page solely for Zack Ryder I'll ask it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Final Flash (talk • contribs) 00:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder. 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) 16:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Major_Players&oldid=1257594580"