Talk:WWE Hall of Fame/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

whoever said rhodes and guerrero were "officially" announced?

No one... it's typical IWC morons assuming that everyone knows just because they read on the internet that some other geek's uncle's friend's pet dog heard Vince McMahon mention their names and the 'Hall of Fame' in the same sentence.

WWE.com announced on Monday 2/12/07 that Dusty Rhodes is the first person in the 2007 Hall Of Fame

---

What's the deal with that moron that keeps adding 'Latino Heat' to Eddie Guerrero's name? It wasn't his in-ring alias.. just a nickname...

Hey, hey, be nice. No need for name calling. Though I do agree, "Latino Heat" doesn't really need to be attached to Guerrero's name. While other wrestlers on the list have their nicknames ("Rowdy" Roddy Piper, "Cowboy" Bob Orton, Bret "The Hitman" Hart), those nicknames are almost always used with that name (most people say "'Rowdy' Roddy Piper" rather than just "Roddy Piper"). Jeff Silvers 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That guy is still doing it.. I think he has a crush on the late Eddie Guerrero...

They added Hulk Hogan and TOny Atlas when they were still wrestling--Unopeneddoor 01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Venue 2007

Taken from J.R's blog Dusty Rhodes belongs in the WWE Hall of Fame and if anything Dusty’s induction on March 31 at the Fox Theatre in Detroit is past due. Tickets for this event go on sale March 3 but I am unaware of the pricing. I know, I have Bar-B-Q and beer drinking buddies coming from Oklahoma, and I have to buy tickets for 8-10 of them because they are big Raw/WWE fans.

Eddie Guerrero as "Latino heat"

I see where everyone is coming from with the debate of Eddie's name including Latino Heat, and even though, it was not his in-ring name when he died, it was his in-ring name for a really long time. I remember growing up, watching him come out with Chyna, and his name was "Latino Heat" not Eddie Guerrero. So, technically, he is Eddie "Latino Heat" Guerrero. Wesayso26 03:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Charlie

Wrong. TJ Spyke 05:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll do this argument one better. Please point to any instance where the ring announcer ever used that in an introduction.Wayman975 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Latino Heat was Eddie's gimmick (and the name of his theme song), but by no means was this his monicker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.239.171 (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

This is possible trivia just wondering if anybody would support me on this but i believe the WWE Smackdown Video Games the legend characters have all become hall of famers in the same year they were put in the game: Jerry Lawler and Dusty Rhodes - 2007 Bret Hart - 2006 --Wally787 06:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Brutus Beefcake, Ted Dibiase, Jake Roberts and Davey Boy Smith (all characters in SD games as well) have not been inducted yet, I would say it's more a coincidence (and that the game draws from likely HOFers in the first place) than actual occurence barring any cited proof that confirms otherwise. Wayman975 14:50, 13 March 2007 (U

One could also note that Shane McMahon, Jim Neidhart, Stone Cold and The Rock are have not been inducted but they are considered legends. They also remove some legends from time to time [André was removed in 07]

Hell, they even consider Shane to be a legend in the first place. They also consider Mick to be a legend in Story mode, but not in Exhibition and such. Zero R 11:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mick was originally intended to be a legend. He was later moved to the regular roster because of his frequent appearances on TV. At this stage, story mode would have been complete. The legends list is really just a "people who are retired but people still want in the game" list anyway. Koberulz 14:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Inducters

I went on WWE.com at 4:23pm (March 22) and it said that it was confirmed that William Shatner would induct Jerry Lawler. Here's the proof. http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/exclusives/shatnerlawler 72.38.234.177 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I went on WWE.com at 1:51pm (March 25) and it said that Bobby Heenan would induct Nick Bockwinkel. Here's the proof. http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/exclusives/heenanbockwinkel 72.38.234.177 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, you don't need to post this here. You could just put the link in the edit summary (just letting you know, you can do it this way if you want). TJ Spyke 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don Muraco has been confirmed by WWE as inducting Mr. Fuji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.207.74 (talk • contribs)

The Hall of Fame commercial said Stone Cold is an inductor, and the visual showed when it said this was Stone Cold sharing a beer with Jim Ross, so I think it's safe to assume that Stone Cold is inducting JR. Virakhvar321 06:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be original research, so that's a no. TJ Spyke 06:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Original Research." Also known as "Thinking Logically."Donco 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also called "followong Wikipedia rules and guidelines". TJ Spyke 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's two links stating that Austin is inducting J.R. - http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/52368/WWE-News:-WM-Press-Conference,-Brock-Angle,-WM23,-Austin,-More.htm and http://rajah.com/base/node/7589 MattSutton1 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither of which are WWE, so don't count. WWE has not announced that Austin will induct Ross, so any edits saying he will will continue being reverted. TJ Spyke 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. I assume it's the same policy that prevents the posting of spoilers on Wiki unless the promotion's already given them away beforehand. Then again, WWE has advertised that Austin will be at the ceremony, and the commercial did heavily imply that he'd be inducting JR (but I do see that "heavily implying" something isn't the same as a confirmation). MattSutton1 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You got it. This is the type of thing that isn't added unless WWE announces it. We know Austin will be an inductor, and it seems obvious that Austin will induct JR, but WWE hasn't actually said he will induct JR. TJ Spyke 03:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Change format to Table?

I was wondering if we should change the format to a table and have the headings be:

• Year
• Inductee
• Inductor
• Date of Birth
• Date of Death (iffy one)
• Notes (This is where you could note their representatives or if the wrestler spent little to no time in the WWE)

Thoughts? -- Scorpion 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you do a test page to show what you think it should look like? TJ Spyke 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can do. I'll do it later tonight or tomorrow. I was thinking two other spots could be Major Promotions (This is also an iffy one, but we could go solely by what is mentioned in the WWE Hall of Famers site) and years active (again, extremely iffy) -- Scorpion 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can see an example here. For the time being, I have made it sortable, but that can easily be taken off. I originally had a "Major promotions" slot, but that could more than easily lead to edit warring. Thoughts? -- Scorpion 23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice, maybe it should be seperate tables for each year though (one for 2005, one for 2006, etc.). TJ Spyke 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I think we should make it one big table because if it is made sortable, then you would be able to easily fins somebody. What do you think of having Date of Birth and Date of Death sections? -- Scorpion 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What if somebody wants to know when and where each HOF ceremony took place though? I'm neutral on the DOB and DOD sections, they don't really help much but they are interesting. TJ Spyke 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just list it afterwards in a section called "Ceremony locations" or something along those lines. -- Scorpion 23:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Inductees Split off?

I have added the table to the page and I was considering adding sources and taking an FL run. However, to do so, the section would have to become its own list page. The section is getting longer and perhaps a split could prove to be useful. I just thought I'd get some opinions on this before doing it. -- Scorpion 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been no objections, so I have moved the section to this page. -- Scorpion 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Benoit Section

Should the Benoit Section be in the article. I know that it is unlikely at this point that he will be inducted but he is not the only one who has a slim chance of being inducted. Granted he is the only alleged Double Murder, but I don't think he deserves a special section in this article, if anything it should be moved to his own article. As we do not know that he won't be added in the future(it's been two weeks since the tragedy), the same sections could be made for Randy Savage, Ultimate Warrior and Bruno Sammartino, who all have major personal problems with McMahon and may never be inducted.--Dravenfrost 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Back 'n forth edits

Pick a premise, please. First you wrote, "Sammartino is the only one mentioned because he is the only one with a source. Find a source, then readd it." Multiple mainstream sources were added, but deleted. Next you wrote, "We could list every single employee that has never been inducted (and there are a lot), but Sammartino has refused it several times and has talked about it even more, so he is a more notable example." But there was no attempt to list every single employee, or anything close to it, so your rhetorical complaint doesn't correspond to the edit. Also, basing an editing stance on Sammartino "refusing [induction] several times" is itself original research (unless a valid source can be found). And one interview doesn't establish that he's "talked about it even more" than the (uncited) number of times he's allegedly rejected it. Next you moved to, "If Savage has publicly spoken out against the Hall of Fame, then something can be added," but this is an absurdity, because that standard would self-define notability; Dave Meltzer or Wade Keller have both publicly criticized the HoF and thus, as eminent figures in wrestling, would both qualify by that criteria. Or, if Doink the Clown were to give two negative interviews, he'd suddenly be twice as notable as Bruno Sammartino.

Also, even while objecting to POV, your most recent reversion presents a series of POV issues: fixating on Sammartino to the exclusion of similar individuals is not neutral; the statement that all inductees must be on good terms with WWE is unproofed; the suggestion that Sammartino is not on good terms with WWE is unproofed; declaring Sammartino to be a notable critic assumes a body of HoF criticism with Sammartino at its head; there's the inference that the opaque HoF criteria is suspect; and there's the unsourced claim that a defined guiding premise for the WWE HoF once existed and has since been altered. Now, you know and I know that each of these points is plausible in its own way. But they're also POV statements. Unremarkable POV statements, yes, but far more POV-heavy than a list of past titleholders who are either in or out, which is an easily-sourced fact. Throwing 's onto your preferred wording only, while repeatedly eliminating other edits/sources is hardly an equitable response.

The "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" guideline also includes the advisory not to "rely upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy." I think you may be skirting this. Please consider this: the idea that Bruno Sammartino should, all by himself, represent the entire field of overqualified wrestlers who have not yet been inducted is a bigger overreach than my edit, and is not neutral. I sincerely look forward to hearing your side, which is surely more nuanced and thoughtful than the cramped Edit Summary spaces have allowed you to be. This seemed like such a nothing little edit when I first made it.208.120.224.54 (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not write anything in the article, and I really don't care what it includes. The reason I reverted you is because your edit was basically a revenge edit, which goes againse WP:POINT. The present wording does not say that Sammartino is the sole representitive, it just says he's a notable critic. The only reason he is included is because he's publicly complained about the Hall of Fame in an interview with a reliable source and that's a good way to mention general criticism of the hall. Other potential inductees have too (such as the Ultimate Warrior) but I couldn't find any reliable sources for them (just dirtsites) If you would like to add criticism from Meltzer or Keller or any other wrestler, then go ahead (nobody ever said that you couldn't). As for you wanting to list former WWE champions, it does go against WP:NPOV. There are many many wrestlers who could make it so if we're going to list Savage, Backlund, Warrior and Sammartino just because one individual thinks they should, then whats to stop another user from adding Ricky Steamboat or Ted DiBiase. Then, what's to stop someone else from adding Max Moon or Brice Pritchard? It's best to not even get into that territory or else half of the article would be a listing of exclusions. Most Hall of Fame articles are like that. If you don't believe me, check out an FA like Hockey Hall of Fame or a GA like Canada's Walk of Fame. The HHOF article only mentions one exemption (Paul Henderson) and that's only because entire books have been devoted to his Hall of Fame cause. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We both agree on the need to avoid "slippery slopes" in Wikipedia articles; I suppose we just disagree on where this slope begins. I don't think Randy Savage leads inevitably to advocates for the Boogeyman and Tugboat. I also think it's NPOV to indicate that there's a Hall of Fame that omits Bruno Sammartino, and cut the topic off there. Citing Sammartino and no one else runs afoul of the "undue weight" standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight).

I've made another edit with direct quotes from both Meltzer and Jim Ross, which I hope will be to your satisfaction.208.120.224.54 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So you complain about the section focusing on Sammartino (when all it does is mention him as a critic, it does not once say that he has been omitted, snubbed or should be in) but all you do to "improve" it is add stuff about Randy Savage and Lou Thesz not being in? Criticism should be general, not "_____ isn't in because [insert rumoured reason]". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly. All I did to 'improve" it is exactly what you suggested: "If you would like to add criticism from Meltzer or Keller or any other wrestler, then go ahead." Apparently a quote from WWE spokesman/Hall of Famer Jim Ross constitutes original research.

You're being disingenuous about the context of the Sammartino quote, too. Read the link-- he's answering in response to this:

Ironically, Sammartino's appearance in Detroit was on the eve of the WWE Hall of Fame induction ceremony. Sammartino is not a member, won't be a member, and has no idea what the Hall of Fame even is.

And it continues:

"They've called plenty of times," Sammartino admitted. "I turn them down every time. [Wiki quotation begins] What's the point to a Hall of Fame? Is it a building I can actually go to?..."

Your standard isn't shared by other Wikipedia pages. The Wikipedia entry for the Baseball Hall of Fame includes entire sections on players who have not been inducted, and players who have been inducted who some people think should not have been. The NFL Hall of Fame page discusses specific players who have not been inducted. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame page includes controversies about acts both in and out. And so on.

A new edit, including quotes from the Associated Press and Scripps Howard News Service, is up. Presumably not for long.208.120.224.54 (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How many of those articles are GAs or FAs? The Hockey Hall of Fame is the only HoF FA and if it included every opinion from every columnist in a reliable source then the article would be 90% criticism, 10% information. By the way, I'm not the one who has reverted you the last two times (solely because I got beaten to it). The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame article does include a criticism section but does not mention a single exclusion. When I said you included criticism, I meant about the Hall of Fame in general, not that you could add pro-Savage statements. You basically want to turn the article into a listing of reasons why Randy Savage and Bruno Sammartino are not inducted, which is not acceptable. There are dozens of wrestlers who have just as much claim to a spot as they do and to keep the article fair you can either mention them all or mention none and wikipedia standards are to go for the latter. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical context

Shouldn't Vince McMahon Sr be listed as founder and promoter of WWWF rather than WWE? The belts are listed that way, shouldn't the company be also? Or is there a reason I'm missing? Tony2Times (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The "inducted by" column

I fought for it's inclusion in the past, but I'm starting to wonder if it's necessary. As recent events have shown, there is a lack of reliable sources for the older ones, and overall, it's not particularily notable. Thoughts? -- 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I see it notable since most inductors talk for a while about the inductee and some are sometimes celebrities, like Sylvester Stallone. But I also agree to remove it because its really not saying anything about the "Hall" itself. --TRUCO 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 inductees

Even though WWE is yet to confirm it, The Von Erich family and Bill Watts will be inducted this year. I don't know if it should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithas (talk • contribs)

Nope, because neither have been confirmed to be inducted. TJ Spyke 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Watts was confirmed on Legends of Wrestling on WWE 24/7 this month. VWG (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There have actually been 18 posthumous inductees with the induction of 5 of the Von Erichs this year. Also, with all of this years inductees, 2009 has set the record for most people inducted in a single year with 13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.211.116 (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the record, that depends on whther you count tag teams together or not. The Von Erichs, for example, are considered to be 1 inductee rather than 5/6 (I don't think it has been confirmed if Chris is included). I supposed if the wording were changed to say the year with most people inducted, then yeah. TJ Spyke 02:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2010 Induction Ceremony

What's the source for the 2010 induction ceremony date?? VWG (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been announced. The induction nor the date. It might not even happen. We don't know.--WillC 11:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

All we know is that a 2010 ceremony will happen. Per the announcing of WrestleMania 26.--₮RUCӨ 14:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tables

Shouldn't the columns for the tag team table match the columns for the other tables? Is there a particular reason that, contrary to the other two tables, Column 2 is "Notes" and Column 3 is "Inducted By?"--ECWAGuru (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

TJ Spyke was wrong

I chose to name this subject, because it's something that TJ Spyke needs to admit. While I was blocked I read the rules, and saw that original research was not allowed (unless for fictional character biographies) but no where in the rules does it say that YouTube is an unreliable source because they are illegally putting up that video. TJ Spyke just made that rule up because he refuses to admit he's wrong. So I propose now we consider whenever TJ Spyke reverts the edit I made, we consider that as vandalisim (I checked the rules here at Wikipedia, that does count as vandalisim). --210.49.251.226 (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE says youtube can't be used as a source, if the material is copyrighted. I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to reference, but if it was a WWE/WWF show, then it is copyrighted, and cannot be used as a source. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, everything WWE shows is copyrighted, every drop of blood, every bead of sweat, and every breath is copyrighted.--Nascarking (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Stu Hart

Wasn't it announced that Stu Hart would be inducted in 2010? Dr Rgne (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Inoki

Creating IGF is not notable and should be removed. It was a non-notable promotion that lasted about a year, barely ran any shows, and actually tried to claim another promotions title (it would be like TNA saying they had the WWE Championship). We don't note other similar things, Terry Funk started his own promotion (called !Bang!, which WWE Diva Gail Kim actually won a title in), as did Dusty Rhodes (called Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling, which his son Goldust won a title in), but we don't note them for the same reason IGF shouldn't be. I find it odd that Scorpion is fighting for this to be in since he is the one always complaining when a notable title like the IC Championship is added in to a wrestlers entry. TJ Spyke 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Warrior

I heard reports that he's going in in 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.159.105 (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The RUMOR (and I stress that it's nothing more than a rumor) is that he had initially accepted an invitation to be inducted but the changed his mind. TJ Spyke 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can i just ask, wheres the great 1, the peoples champ? THE most electrifying man, in sports entertainment. The rock changed wwe when it was going through that transition phase after hogan, i agree the hulkster should obviously be there, but surely so should the rock? 5 times champion? Non undertaker? No hhh? No Warrior? No clue!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.41.113 (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

this is not a forum, but undertaker is still an active wrestler, thus he can't go in. same with hhh. warrior was offered to be inducted, but declined, most likely because of the "Self-destruction" smearjob. lastly, the rock is the biggest joke in wrestling history. he was pushed during a boom period that he had nothing to do with. wherver he went the crowds chanted "rocky sucks", and millions....and millions of anti-rock signs were confiscated, in order to try and make him appear popular. the defining point was when the nwo run him over with a truck, and the crowd cheered... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.49.43 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The gallery

Rather than edit warring, let's discuss this. There aren't a lot of images of the inductees, and adding them along the side allows us to show some of the better ones. All adding a gallery does is allows the page to display 6 more images, most of which are either poor quality or have questionable licensing (ie. I have a hard time believing that the Gorilla Monsoon image is actually free). How does throwing in not particularily good images of Moolah and Mae Young and Greg Valentine "add to the reader's understanding of the subject"? Why not limit to the better images, preferably ones of wresatlers in ring gear, along the side? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul Ellering

Ellering was inducted alongside the Road Warriors, not only when he was mentioned but at the ceremony. I would argue he goes in with the teams as part of the Road Warriors. Tony2Times (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You maybe right, but since he never competed in a match with Hawk and Animal, he just goes in as a manager in the individuals section.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He was a manager, so he wasn't technically a member of the Road Warriors. I can see both sides of the argument, but I think the current method (listing Ellering separately, but mentioning that he was inducted with the team) works best. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism?

there should a subsection pointing out the incredibly negative reactions from longtime wrestling fans that celebrities like Drew Carey, Bob Uecker, and William "The Refridgerator" Perry are in the Hall of Fame, as opposed to actual wrestlers. Especially in the case of Carey, as Tammy Sytch's acceptance speech was edited out, in order to give Carey more time to promote his new show.

another common criticism is that there is no physical hall "Superstar" Billy Graham sold his HOF ring after learning that it's nothing but a publicity stunt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.160.159 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

mil mascaras

mil mascaras is the first inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame's 2012 class

http://www.wwe.com/inside/mil-mascaras-hall-of-fame-announcement

so keep it on the page ok --Wjmdem (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Rock

I heard a rumor and saw on this page about The Rock being inducted into the HOF 2012. If so, where's the source?

Tribal44 (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Tribal44

According to the PWTORCH, this year's "headliner" inductee will be Edge(bwahahaha). It is unlikely Rock would be inducted too, as he would overshadow Edge a bit.

Edge

Please leave Edge's accomplishments as is.

Being the only one to win the WWE, World, I-C, U.S., World Tag Team, and WWE Tag Team titles is noteworthy.

As is being the only one to win the Royal Rumble, Money in the Bank, and King of the Ring.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Being the most successful tag team champion in WWE history is more noteworthy, and who cares about a defunct tournement. why is winning the Rumble, MITB and KOTR notable? It's not like the WWE has ever hyped winning the trio as an accomplishment. They have, however, mentioned his tag team accomplishments countless times. Besides, it's an overview of his accomplishments. Anyone wanting to know more can easily visit the page devoted just to Edge.

Lets use Edge's WWE bio as a guage. It doesn't mention either of those accomplishments. It does, however, mention Edge's tag team prowess, though it doesn't directly mention that he has won more Tag Team titles than anyone else. So, I suppose it could be removed, though I think it's notable and has been mentioned by the WWE many times.. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't want to list them, doesn't mean that the accomplishments didn't happen. And who are you to judge which accomplishments are noteworthy or not? Isn't being a Triple Crown or Grand Slam winner more noteworthy that merely listing how many times one one was an I-C or U.S. Champion? And others in the HoF have their KOTR wins listed in their accomplishments...so why not Edge? And KOTR isn't defunct..it's been held every 2 years since 2006. Agian...what is your beef with mentioning Edge is the only one to win the Rumble/MITB/KOTR? He did something no one else has ever done, so it's worth a sentence. And I'm not writing long bios in everybody's accomplishments...just highlights. Total world titles, Triple Crown/Grand Slam (if applicable) and Rumble/KOTR/MITB wins (if applicable)...what's wrong with that? Vjmlhds 15:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying they didn't happen. I'm just saying that we can't get too in depth here. Because every other blurb limits accomplishments to the most major titles. Look at how short the blurb is for Ric Flair, it doesn't mention a lot of his many accomplishments. Why should Edge's be any different? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, undid your addition of breaking spaces because it made the table rows wider than they had to be. It's also discouraged in tables. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's agree to this--If someone has won multiple World and/or Tag Team titles, let's combine them...it's "shorter and sweeter" to say Hulk Hogan is a combined 12 time World champion, rather than a six-time WWE Champion, and a six-time WCW champion. Also if someone is a Triple Crown or Grand Slam winner, list that. For example, Bret Hart being the first to be a WWF and WCW Triple Crown winner is much more notable than saying he was a three-time I-C Champion. If someone is a TC or GS winner, then you know he's won the I-C/U.S. (depending on the promotion) and Tag Team titles. I never listed every one of everybody's titles, I'm just trying to put it all in a nut shell. Vjmlhds 20:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter if someone has won an Intercontinental Title if they're already a World Champion? When this list was originally compiled, we tried to limit it to just the highest title, plus Rumble victories, barring exceptional circumstances. Bret Hart is a 5 time WWF Champion. Does it matter that he also held a bunch of less important titles? Flair's entry is absolutely perfect: "Two-time WWF Champion, eight-time WCW World Heavyweight Champion, and seven-time NWA World Heavyweight Champion. Recognized by WWE as a sixteen-time World Heavyweight Champion. Flair was the first active WWE wrestler to be inducted in the WWE Hall of Fame." It hits the highs of his career. If his entry is fine with just the basics, why does Edge's entry need to be extremely detailed? Hell, the accomplishments you keep bringing up aren't even mentioned on his WWE bio, so why should we mention them? Also, I don't see why you disagree with listing titles separate. They're different belts, why combine them? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go through every change from this edit and explain why I reverted you.

• There's no need to say "then-World Wrestling Federation's". It's the same company, just under a different name.
• The image of Vince McMahon is fair use. The image of Pete Rose is unnecessary, especially when there are other wrrestlers we can include. Flair hasn't been inducted for a second time yet. As for the rest, images of them at the Hall of Fame are preferable.
• Do not change change "one-time champion" to "former champion". Of course they're former champions. Does that mean that anyone without the word "former" is a current champion?
• There's no need to break the rows up into sentences, since many of the new sentences aren't real sentences.
• Pedro Morales' entry should note that he is a former WWF Champion, since it is the highest tile.
• There's no need to list the ECW title for Don Muraco. When he won it, it was just a regional title, so it was (at the time) lower than the IC Title.
• Who cares if Pete Rose is the first inductee in the celebrity wing?
• How is "12-time combined WWF/E and WCW World Champion" better than "Six-time WWF/E Champion, six-time WCW World Heavyweight Champion"? I strongly oppose combining titles from different companies. The WWE and World Heavyweight Titles is one thing, but the WWE and WCW belts (before WCW folded) were completely different titles and should be kept apart. Same with combining the Women's titles for Sherri Martel.
• Do we really need to note that Bob Orton was Piper's bodyguard? Yes, his entry is vague, but so are the entries for a lot of others. Besides, I think he's most known now for being Randy Orton's father.
• Ric Flair is not actually a 16 time World Champion (real totals: 2 WWE, 10 NWA, 8 WCW). That's just what the WWE bills him as.
• Don't say that The Road Warriors are just "4-time World Tag Team Champions." This isn't boxing. The companies and the belts matter, and each win should be in the proper context (ie. Which title it was).
• There's no need to list every one of Tyson's roles. He's most famous for his role at WM14. Leave it at that.

So please stop blanket reverting me and lets discuss. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• You know, if we're going to have this many problems, perhaps only a very small subset of people should be allowed to edit professional wrestling entries on this website -- far above and beyond current restrictions. We seem to be running into these kinds of problems all over the site in this genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.248.248.210 (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yokozuna

According to PWTorch.com they have announced he is to inducted this year... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.42.204 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Presenters Sourced from Wikipedia-reliable site

A previous edit giving the presenters who will induct the 2012 class was removed for not having what The Powers That Be consider a reliable source. Here's another source which falls within your list as a "website proven reliable", a Mike Johnson article in PWInsider.com, with the same five names (Edge had announced Christian would induct him previously) as the challenged/removed edit: http://www.pwinsider.com/article/66993/who-will-be-inducting-this-years-wwe-hall-of-famers.html?p=1 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.248.248.210 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Do not add speculation for the speakers at the Hall of Fame 2013!

I have been seeing this way too much. Please do not add any speakers for each Hall of Famer in the class of 2013 without sourcing it. Otherwise, it will be assumed that it is speculation and will be promptly deleted. Thanks. Srsrox (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting indefinite semi-protection

Just so everyone knows, I have requested indefinite semi-protection for this page due to consistent and persistent vandalism and constant unsourced speculation, almost all of it coming from IP addresses, not usernames. Let me know what you think if you'd like. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 03:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The request is located here for your info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 03:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I changed the non-standard instance of {{Infobox}} to {{Infobox website}}. This was reverted as "this is not a website". However, it appears that the HoF exist nowhere other than online. Why is that infobox not a better fit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

HOF 94 Date Wrong

The 1994 Hall Of Fame took place on Thursday June 9th, not Saturday June 18th. This needs to be corrected. For verification of this you can check out the June 6, 1994 episode of Raw(it's currently up on the WWE Network). Vince McMahon mentions it on commentary during the Razor Ramon match. It's also mentioned on TheHistoryOfWWE.com, a site that is used as a notable source all over Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.94.198 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pedro Morales

Should this article note that Pedro Morales was not present at the 1995 Hall of Fame Ceremony? He is the only living inductee who did not attend the HOF ceremony to accept his induction. The article indicates that Savio Vega inducted him, but he actually accepted the Hall of Fame induction on Pedro's behalf. Should this article make a note of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammarian10 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Andre's Induction Date

Andre The Giant was inducted into the Hall Of Fame on March 22, 1993, not February 1, 1993. A video package was shown announcing him as the first inductee of the newly created Hall. The February 1, 1993 date is when WWE aired a tribute video to Andre after he passed away the prior week. He was never announced for the Hall Of Fame on that episode. It was the March 22nd episode when they officially announced the creation of the Hall. You can check these episodes out on the WWE Network for verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldSkool01 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)