Talk:The Undertaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
Former good article The Undertaker was one of the Everyday life good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.
Comment This article is a frequent target for editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of storyline events, unconfirmed information, rumors, and other content inappropriate to an encyclopedic article. Please make sure to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not, and consider whether your additions to this article will serve to make the article larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar.
COTWnew.png This article was the professional wrestling collaboration of the week between December 9 and December 15, 2007
Please help to continue to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling article.

Contents

[edit] Age

44? Yeah right. Can someone find his real age and not the fake ring age of his alter ego? That's the oldest looking 44 year old on the planet. 01:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.238.45 (talk)

That is his age that's not a ring age no wrestler as far as i know has a ring age that's different then there real age--Dcheagle (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Rumble

He may have a place but he won nothing yet. Then again, would he even manage to win against Edge? (most likely Yes) No one knows until it happens. Edit - Ben Mayo

202.160.45.28 (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Rumble 2009

Undertaker participated in the 2009 Royal rumble coming out at no.16 but the Big Show elimanted him by grabbing undertaker and got him out of the ring when the big show was elimanted already. In Smackdown! The Unddertaker succesfully won a elimantion chamber match at No Way Out for Edge's WWE Champion Undertaker deafaeted Mark Henrey by using his deadly Hells Gate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.51.232 (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really necesary as we too watch smackdown. CFountain (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It isn't neccesary at all, because he didn't win the Rumble, so it's non-notable. SimonKSK 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the rule for adding notable matches some wrestlers have rumble appearance on there page, one notable thing about rumble would be taker and kane working together, I would add that because it seems taker and kane are begining to have a thing going ie undertaker going against randy to give kane a place in elimination chamber, I'm not saying add there are gonna b back together but it could be on the cards soon. But adding rumble and him and kane working together in rr is notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.144.25 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's WP:CRYSTAL SimonKSK 23:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say add that they may be back together I said, add they were working together during the rumble, how's that crystal? Anybody who watched the rumble saw it happen! Simon read peoples posts. Also surely big show eliminating him after he was elimintaed was notable and proved that he was annoyed by the way he acted in the chamber. Both things are a contiuation of what happened last year ie big show fued. Guys get ur acts together and make undertakers page more interesting. Other pages have regular updates and they are nothing compared to mr phenom. Also I think sean vs Jbl and vlad vs the winner ( michaels) for takers wrestlmania streak should be added, this basically shows wrestler are more concerned about beating taker than winning titles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.55.138 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Your saying that Kane and Taker might become a team again. Crystal. Having a thing going would be like a tag team here. SimonKSK 23:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Right let's get something clear. Ok they are not getting together. But if you watched the rumble you would have seen that they were working together during the rumble, you could put something like: undertaker joined the rumble at number 16 he elimintaed X ammount of numbers and during the rumble he and kane glared at each other and worked together showing signs or the kayfabe brother relationship to try and eliminate other wrestlers. One notable wrestler that undertaker eliminated was the bigshow whilst going over the top ropeand being on the edge of the ring and after he eliminate big show, the big show retaliated by pulling taker to the floor and because he had not re entered the ring after eliminating big show he was eliminated. Showing signs of there fued from 2008 and the undertaker preceded to attack the big show after they were both eliminated.

Then continue by saying: after beating mark henry to earn a place in the championship elimination chamber the undertaker entered from the third chamber and focused his attack on the big show for most of the time in there which showed a continuation of there 2008 fued, he eliminated the bigshow and jeff hardy and was down to the final 2 before losing to triple H.

The final addition could be: After sean michaels had been freed from his JBL contracted, jbl informed michaels that his destiny was to beat takers winning streak at WM25. Michaels replied by saying that he was told at the rumble by taker that it can be hell trying to get into heaven and told jbl that it was his destiny to face the undertaker, they agreed to fight for the chance to face taker at WM25. On that weeks smackdown vickie announced that if anyone was going to face her superstars streak it would be a smackdown superstar vladamir kozlov. The folowing Monday sean michaels beat jbl and now it is michael's vs kozlov for a chance to face taker at WM25 asking as nothing goes wrong. This weeks smackdown saw the petential man to face undertaker (kozlov) beat taker in a 1 on 1 match.

I no this is a bit week by week but surely the row to wrestlmania weeks are significant an I'm sure more people will agree with this update than disagree. I believe that the biggest thing this year so far is the hype the takers streak is producing, I no u will say crystal again because we can't garuntee taker making it to WM25 but randy orton may not make it ie potential injuries but he has a spot at WM. So please add these updates after them being cleaned up and worded correctly taker deserves to have his page regulary updated with his constant main event status. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.183.243 (talk) 09:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undertakers Weight

The undertaker may have started off with 299 pounds but he has gained more. In 2006-2007 he wegihed like 303 pounds to 309. Currently he weighs 323 pounds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latino Kidd (talk • contribs) 17:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS? SimonKSK 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
They do not bill the Undertaker by his real weight because they don't want him to look fat. His real weight is in the 320's, and during 06, 07, and some of 08 he was billed as 305 (not sure about before that), but now he is "Billed" as 299.

This is when the "Real weight" and "Billed weight" section of his infobox comes in handy. His real weight probably has no reliable source, but in SVR 08, they some sort of character profile loading screan, and they list 'takes real weight in his, it's an unreliable source, but it's a source.

I am going to add his billed and real weight to the info box, if you disagree, you can get rid of it, it's that simple. Altenhofen (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He definitely did not start off with 299 pounds. He started off with 320 pounds (as Ted Dibiase announced in the Undertaker's WWF debut match) and was later billed as 328, then 305 and finally 299 pounds. JBL had also mentioned that it is the first time that the Undertaker's weight is being announced as lesser than 299 pounds, and the WWE had an article on it called "Leaner and Meaner". His current billed weight stays at 299 pounds. Mayankeagle (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sara

Calaway met his second wife, Sara, at a WWF autograph signing in San Diego, California He eventually married her in a ceremony in St. Petersburg, Florida on July 21, 2000. Mark and Sara have two daughters together: Chasey,(born on November 21, 2002) and Gracie,(born on May 15, 2005) As a wedding gift to Sara, Calaway had his wife's name tattooed onto his throat and has said this is the most painful tattoo he has ever had.

[edit] Vladimir Kozlov

In order for Vladimir Kozlov to get his tittle shot opportunity is to face and beat the Undertaker next friday. This was announced right after he defeated Chavo Guerrero in the casket match on Friday Night Smackdown. If Vladimir Kozlov defeats the Undertaker, he will get a WWE Championship match against Triple H at Survivor Series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.26.69 (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC) This is along time ago.Be in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.34.147 (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Friday Night! one day before No way out

The Undertaker competed in a fatal four way match in smackdown 2/13/09 he hit the tombstone on triple h and was about to win but then got chokeslamed by the big show,then the wwe champion ended the match by spearing the big show. Will the undertaker come out of No way out victorious and exit wrestlemainia 25 as the wwe champion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.74.138 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Get in today....no way out passed!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is this article old????? I mean c mon back at undertakers fued with big show!!! thats old dude..........no way out passed c mon!!!!!!!!!!!! These editors arent doin a very good job.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.79.156 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's week by week. and it's non-notable to his career. SimonKSK 21:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In Serious Need of an Update.

Survivor Series? Is that the most recent WWE Event? I think that we SERIOUSLY NEED TO UPDATE THIS ARTICLE!!! It's 4 months over due. Like for gods sake, he is one of the biggest stars in WWE, and has been for almost 2 decades (2 decades of dominance? Edge has some catching up to do!), so I think We should all pitch in and update the article a bit. Sure, he may not have done much since november, and this has been touched on in his talk page a few times in recent months, but the part of his page for the attitude era is practically filled with hour by hour info, and the recent part of his carear is missing.

Just a thought.

Altenhofen (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't done anything notable so far, except for getting his aased kicked at No Way Out. After WrestleMania XXV, we'll add his win. SimonKSK 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

But in the other articles of the superstars who lost the chamber chamber matches it has been mentioned that they did take part in that match and how were they eliminated seriously dude you need to update this article. And what about the information about the matches which the Undertaker originated, created and the ones that are his specialty. Why was that information removed. if taker did originate those matches than you can't argue with that and it has been mentioned at Taker's fan site and his biography at wwe.com and infact articles of his specialty matches also mentions taker and yet you don't put it up. And when I try to put up hat information than you REMOVE it. Please if there is anything you could do at the very least to this article than please add this information ok. This is serious disrespect towards the Undertaker. Does anyone agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali92shah (talk • contribs) 14:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and the Fact that people are fighting for the right to chalenge the undertaker should be mentioned. Because normally, the Undertaker gets in a huge rivalry with someone and chalenges them. This year, JBL and HBK decided it was there destiny to beat undertaker at Wresltemania, then Vikki said that she was basicly sending Kozlov in to do it instead. It seriously needs updating, IT'S MARCH!!!! Altenhofen 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


definately needs an update when your writing about the 2009 royal rumble you should watch it before posting information. Big show wasnt eliminated by the undertaker. randy orton eliminated him. Big show then pulled undertaker out as he was on the apron and eliminated him. get your info right. if you need a reliable source watch the paperview of the royal rumble 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.99.117 (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


you also need to edit the part about undertakers rivalry with edge. he was stripped of the title prior to judgement day not after. though he won the match at judgement day he didnt get the title because vikie guerrroro said the title cant be won by count out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.99.117 (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citation for Paul Bearer

I'm not sure how to add this in to the section about Paul Bearer's health condition (the last time he was seen) Here is the link I found and hopefully it can be used for the citation.

http://www.wwe.com/superstars/wherearetheynow/paulbearer

Rinbin26 (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Try putting it into Paul Bearer's article SuperSilver901 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] His Destiny

It is offical that the Undertaker will face HBK at wrestlemainia XXV. After HBK defeated the UNDEAFETED vladimir kozlov on raw march 3,2009 and the undetaker also made a bone chilling suprise on raw that night —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.90.233 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's week by week, and a future event. When he wins at WM, we'll add it. SimonKSK 01:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Really?

The Undertaker profile on here has some lazy updaters cause no one wants to do any updates on, a) No Way Out b)matches on SmackDown c) his loss to Koslov, or d) his apperance on Raw. get it done- Steven DeLauder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.53.139 (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Again we are not doing week-by-week updates the next time we will probably update is for the results of Undertaker vs. HBK. --SuperSilver901 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But the reader will notice a LARGE gap from Survivor Series to WM 25, you need to do your jub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.53.139 (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there is a large gap we will update when WM25 is over and what is a "jub"? BTW sign your post --SuperSilver901 20:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

ummmm, ever hear of a god damn mistake?????-Stevem DeLauder(there, happy?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.53.139 (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No,No you sign your post with four tildes(~ ~ ~ ~)(excluding the spaces) --SuperSilver901 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The LEGENDARY Undertaker

Are u serious?? The undertaker is one of the best superstars ever and i know that beacause i have been watching WWE for 8 yrs. and even though i dont watch it anymore i still remember him. Update this article, this article is from Survivor seris a LONG time ago and even though he lost no way out its still worth to put that...comon.....update it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.89.216 (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Has Undertaker turned heel?

Or is he just getting more mic time? 84.71.222.234 (talk) 19:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC) I think it's more of a "this is an epic battle" promo between shawn and taker. He's always been demonic so I guess he's just exerting himself like he always does b4 mania —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.63.157 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he was given more mic-time similar to his lord-of-darkness or ministry-of-darkness days to create a good build-up with Shawn Michaels in a show of mutual respect, different from the regular build-ups which they did for the Undertaker's Wrestlemania matches in the last few years. Mayankeagle (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WTF?????

You FINALLY had an update, and you delete it? What the hell is wrong with you?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.33.179 (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Before hbk beat kozlov the commentators where refering to kozlov as the undefeated Moscow mualer, then before the weeks match with taker they said he was still undefated on smackdown so how about adding the undertaker is the only person on the smackdown roster to beat kozlov in singles competition and the 2nd in wwe behind hbk. Kozlov's undefeated run was in a way like takers streak and epically he beat kozlov a feat no one on SD has done. I no it's week by week but least it fills the gap, people who jump in and out of wrestling will think hey has taker been away and it keeps us all happy to have a few of the deadmans recent achievements/ main events on this page.

Simon if you don't wanna add week by week stuff fair enuf, I will say I'll make a fan page on an external link that will be updated everytime taker is featured on wwe, if you could put a Link on his page to keep fans of wiki an taker happy and that way you won't have to keep declining peoples request for an update. Makes every one happy so if that's what most people want then please reply an I will get to work on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.195 (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undertaker VS Shawn Michaels Feud

Umm Does anyone else think that this HUGE Feud between Shawn Michaels and The Undertaker should be listed? I mean come on these are the Last two Original Raw wrestlers (I know Taker is on Smackdown but i was meaning in reference to first time on TV) and they are both, no bias intedned, the most popular wrestlers in WWE and since they have a match at Wrestlemania I think it should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So many people agree with you mate believe me I've tried to get more updates added but it seems the admin for taker hates him. He was the first smackdown wrestler to beat kozlov. He did well at nwo he was cheated out of the rr and has recently been main eventing on SD with alot of air time and also on raw. The fued with shawn is intense look at the tag match and the messages they are sending ie michael's beating kane and taker beating michael's most recent enemy jbl but for some reason taker doesn't deserve updates I for 1 hate this page and would make a new one but it would probs get deleted. I'm gonna make a fan page with a week by week update for all you fans, based on telavised appearance and updates from wwe.com I'll make sure to add a link in discusion and hope no one deletes it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.207 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, we have to count the 6 World Titles he's racked up, the infamous 16, soon to be 17-0 PERFECT record at WM, the man who made Buried Alive, Inferno, and Hell in a Cell famous!!!!!!! Who dosent know the KOTR Match with Mankind, ill tell ya, NOBODY!!!!!!! Please update his page! He deserves it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.41.71 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We do not list every single match, we do not list every single PPV result, just those that are significant. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undertaker's actual age and date of birth.

People are still reporting a fake date of birth. All of the websites listed on his page say the same date of birth. And all of the events in his career correspond to that same date. Just think about it, if The Underrtake was born in the year 1965, he would have been the WWF champion at the age of 26. Which meant he would have been the youngest champion at that time. Don't you think the WWF would have made a bigger deal about it, or at least have made it public knowledge even after the fact(like they did when Yokozuna won it). It only makes sense that he was older when all of these events took place, especially when numerous magazines and websites publish the 1962 date of birth. I am not vandalizing his page, I am just merely correcting the obvious. Please stop warning me or I will report anyone changing this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juandope (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

- According to an article that appeared in the Houston Chronicle this morning, Undertaker is 44 years old. That means he was born in 1965. You'd think newspaper check for reliable sources when it comes to such information? Wikipedia is a no-no on that end. Believe me. HellFyre —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC).

Yes, the Undertaker was 26 years old when he won his first WWF championship, however it was not mentioned due to his character. The WWF/E had to preserve it, because he was often portrayed as a man who is not alive - therefore a birthday or age did not hold any significance for him. Mayankeagle (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Correcting trainer info

I know that Don Jardine helped train Taker but my husband, Rick Davidson, also trained him but gets little credit for it. I'm not able to correct this information but would appreciate it if someone could do it for me. It would be a great tribute to the memory of Rick. Bigmarkfan (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Greatest Legend of WrestleMania

We should add that the Undertaker was recently voted the Greatest Legend of WrestleMania by WWE.com readers. This is no pretend poll, it was a real survey and it deserves to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.222.68 (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't see that happening. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't ask for your opinion. I know you neer support any initiatives anyone has in this Web site. I am asking for a more general concensus, not just you. Every article in Wikipedia outside the wrestling world contains information regarding significant polls and recognitions. Plymouth, Minnesota has in its very introduction the words "The town was named the Best Place to Live in America by CNN Money." Winston Churchill's article informs the reader about the fact that he was voted the greatest Briton ever. Now, this article's introduction contains pretty insignificant information, such as the fact that he was BOOKED to win the Royal Rumble 2007, and it doesn't say anything about the fact that the WWE.com readers consider him the "Greatest Legend of WrestleMania." Now, you like to say no to everything but you never give a reason why you NEVER like ANYTHING to be included on the article. At least be a good, sensible contributor to the encyclopedia and substantiate your opinions with some arguments. It doesn't hurt, trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.222.68 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TBH it seems pretty notable, I mean it has been stated that the fans are what the wrestling business is all about so and the fact that he was voted and beat Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels and even the Golden Boy Triple H seems pretty notable! I have to say Darrenhusted if you are going to shoot down an idea at least give a reason! This would be perfect for a legacy section which sadly this article doesn't have =( Adster95 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nearly everything on WWE.com is kayfabe, especially polls. How many times has HHH been voted the best whatever? And if an article states that it was voted the best anything in anything then that is not really notable, and my recourse would be to remove that from the other article rather than falling back on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and adding anything trivial to this article. The Winston Churchill thing is another case where a TV company needed to fill airtime so held a poll, the UK has 60m inhabitants, how many voted for him to be called the greatest Briton? Certainly not a majority, only a majority of a minority watching a TV program, and many could have voted multiple times, as it is not like an election where it operates on OPOV. All WWE.com polls are trivial, and to add them goes back on WP:V, WP:N, WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
However one must also keep in mind that the Undertaker's entire career is also kayfabe, inculding his Wrestlemania streak. If we argue that the poll isn't significant because it was made (which Im not very sure) then we can argue about everything related to WWE's Undertaker.--Pgecaj (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You're right his wins and losses are controlled by VKM and are not competitive. However the guidelines for notability already recognise that a pro-wrestler's career is notable, and that all title wins are as well. What I am saying is that if a panel of sports wirters who had nothing to do with WWE sat down and complied a list of who they felt were the greatest and then they named UT as the greatest then maybe that would be worth noting, however the poll was limited to four choices, and if I were going to pick I would say that Eddie Guerrero, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, The Rock and Hulk Hogan have done more for WM than any other wrestlers, but those weren't listed as options, WWE wanted to work the poll so one of their choices came out on top. Plus the poll is open to multiple votes, unlike political polling which only counts single votes. And as you can't change the two worked aspects (the WWE's choice of shortlist and the possibility of vote stacking) then there would be no way to allow this poll. And that is regardless of whether the entire of UT's career is pre-determined. We could argue about everything UT has done, but the IP wasn't looking to exclude UT's career he was looking to get this poll in, and to quote myself, I don't see that happening. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No actually it was a list of

Hulk Hogan: The Rock: Mankind: Ted DiBiase: Big Show: Triple H: Kurt Angle: Andre the Giant Rowdy Roddy Piper: Kane Undertaker: Randy "Macho Man" Savage: Ultimate Warrior: Edge: Yokozuna: Shawn Michaels: Stone Cold Steve Austin: Randy Orton: Chris Jericho: Eddie Guerrero: Bret Hit Man Hart: John Cena: Batista: Jake "The Snake" Roberts JBL And it was a one vote per round proccess! Adster95 11:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

While the WWE have full right to control the results of the voting, there are certain cases where they cannot change the results because the polls are often controlled by third-party organizations (e.g., AT & T for Cyber Sunday text-voting). In case of WWE.com voting, it is upto the WWE as to whether they will allow the fan-voting to reign supreme or change it. Recently, I've noticed that they allow the fan voting to be shown as it is. Why? Because they had earlier announced that the winner of the Greatest Legend of Wrestlemania voting will be announced at the Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony of 2009. But then they did not announce the winner officially on stage because the Undertaker won it (maybe that the commentators mentioned it, at the maximum). Had any other wrestler won the voting, it would've been announced on the stage but it was not announced that the Undertaker has won it to prevent his character and because it would've hurt Shawn Michaels' momentum heading into Wrestlemania (because he had the upper-hand in their rivalry and promos before their match started). That pretty much infers that it was not pre-decided as to who the winner will be, otherwise they would not have said that the winner's name will be announced at the Hall of Fame induction ceremony. Similary, Undertaker had also been voted on WWE.com as the Greatest Superstar in Raw History during the 15th anniversary of Raw. While there is no written proof as to whether the WWE did not rig the voting, there is no written proof that they did rig them. I am of the opinion that we should mention these 2 results along with links to WWE.com. These are not insignificant rankings like the weekly Power 25 but long-time votings based on accomplishments over the past 15 years or more. Mayankeagle (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You include awards given by Wrestling Observer News and Pro Wrestling Illustrated, many of which are voted on by the fans of those publications, and are essentially a poll, i.e. Match of the Year, as the choices are pre-selected and you vote for one of them. It's not like they just happen to get 50,000 votes for 1 match.Superman7515 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The WrestleMania streak

Should the streak have its own section on The Undertaker's page including a list of all of his opponents from 1991-present? I realise that this information is elsewhere in the article, but the streak is now so important to The Undertaker's career that I think it warrants its own section.--Bravo Plantation (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have created this page on my user page take a look at it see if you think it needs work done on it its still work in progress--Dcheagle (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey um Ive been messing around with a posable section About the Streak its on a sub page just follow the link on my page and tell me what you think and point out if there's something I should change all comments welcome.--Dcheagle (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is already a table in the championships and accomplishments section that I think is sufficient. Nikki♥311 04:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that The WrestleMania Streak deserves ether its own page or section not just the table that is in the article as of right now. The main reason being is that the table provides little information about the match's it self only who was in ti and who won. I know it the past that some of you have disagreed with the possible of there being a more in dept section or page about the Streak but i think that something like that deserves to be shown in more then just a table at the bottom of the page. But thats just me please tell me what you thing also i have been working on a possible way to do the section or article its on my user page just take a look and tell me what you think of it.--Dcheagle (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

  • "I still believe that The WrestleMania Streak deserves ether its own page or section not just the table that is in the article as of right now. The main reason being is that the table provides little information about the match's it self only who was in ti and who won." - Wikipedia; the biggest mockery on the planet. The whole subject of wrestling deserves nothing more than a footnote in a decent encyclopaedia and you braindead wankers want more information on a scripted "undefeated streak". 86.147.131.66 (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
First, talk with more respect to fellow posters. Second, his streak is important to the business - its listed as the greatest WWE record at http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/wwerecords/. Third, it is the only thing in wrestling which was listed by The Sun in its list of greatest undefeated streaks in sports - http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/2009/06/01/rafa-nadal-and-sport-s-top-10-winning-streaks-115875-21406739/ Mayankeagle (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hard bump at WM

Is it woth Mentioning he took a hell of a dive at WM? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington95 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No. As of now, no hiatuses have been reported and I have read on several other wrestling websites including Wrestlezone.com that he did not sustain any serious injuries after the match, and was interacting fine with everyone back-stage. That is why he was able to finish the match properly and is likely to be in action soon. Mayankeagle (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes But it has also always been reported that even after his most serious in-ring injuries that he always finishes the match and never seems to show any discomfort Aarow142 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.106.151 (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

True, he never complains. However, he did not have a head/ neck injury after the bump and he did wrestle in a few weekly matches after Wrestlemania, so I don't think the bump at Wrestlemania is worth mentioning. He probably had a hip surgery done during his hiatus as per what several wrestling-websites reported, but I don't know if Wikipedia considers them reliable (although I know that they are true because I moderate an Undertaker fan-website myself www.PhenomForever.com). There is a lot of information I'd like to add this page about his legacy as well like him being the locker-room leader/ mentor to other superstars and the most respected athlete backstage, but some jokers here always finds a way to tell me that the sites I am referring to are unreliable (if I post a link to a superstar's "out-of-character interview on a news channel", they say Youtube is unreliable, which is preposterous because the video and the news channel are still reliable). Mayankeagle (talk) 07:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] O-17

Shouldn´t Taker´s 0-17 streak at WM be in his wrestling accomplishments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.156.24.134 (talk) 08:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the article completely? The Streak table was always there in his wrestling accomplishments since 2007 or even before. It still remains there and somebody else posted the same question above. Please continue related discussions in the same heading instead of starting new ones. Mayankeagle (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He's not 0-17 he's 17-0 thats a big difference.LifeStroke420 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

his name is big philip —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.31.107 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of his 17 nil record, is there any need for the new column that numbers them? It's not MMA and even if the numbers are there, there's really no need for it to have room for draws too. Tony2Times (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] worl

The undertaker began his carrea in 1984 as a wcw wrestler in 1990 he became a world westling federation wrestler was called that until 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.134.110 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WrestleMania 25

Undertaker was injured during his match against HBK--76.107.68.244 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So? Darrenhusted (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Undertaker Debut

The Undertaker Debut in 1984 in WCCW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.42.104.58 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Mark Calaway started wrestling in 1984 why do people keep vandalizing the article first you remove the fact that he originated and mastered alot of matches and now you change his debut gimme a break it is quite clear he made his debut in 1984 check out www.phenomforever.com and go to the info section and click biography and if you bother reading the first two paragraphs it is quite clear Mark/Taker started wrestling in 1984. And now please don't tell me that this source is not reliable. And you guys keep on removing the information like you own this article when you are editors just like us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali92shah (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hindi movie reference

It is mentioned that "His character also influenced the Bollywood film Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi in which Brian Lee (who played the false Undertaker in 1994) starred as the Undertaker.[citation needed]"

Why is any citation needed for this? Anyone who has seen the movie knows it is the Undertaker character which was portrayed in it - the same name, the same attire, the same wrestling moves and style. Those who have not seen it should check out the videos on youtube, and see the pages for Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi and Brian Lee to confirm the same. Mayankeagle (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Because youtube is not a RS, the CN is needed to back up the "influenced" part of the claim. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant. If youtube is not RS then buy the DVD and see it. That's like saying that the fake Undertaker character in the WWF portrayed by Brian Lee was also not influenced by the Undertaker but it was just a coincidence that he resembled him. It was the same character played in the movie, for your information. If there is a "wrestler" in a movie using the same name ("the Undertaker"), the same attire, same look, same wrestling moves (tombstone piledriver, chokeslam, etc) and same style (slashing the cut-throat sign before finishing off the opponent), you would still say that he is not influenced by the Undertaker or that he is not mimicing the Undertaker? How many other wrestlers with the screen-name "The Undertaker" have been there? The link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246729/trivia also confirms that the part was played by a look-alike and Brian Lee's Wikipedia page confirms that he played it. Mayankeagle (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Also check http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_Undertaker_in_the_1996_movie_Khiladiyon_Ka_Khiladi_1996_and_if_so_did_he_speak_Hindi - mentions that Brian Lee was brought to play this role because he played the same role in the WWF. Mayankeagle (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Now will somebody educate me as to why was this information removed? Mayankeagle (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Undertaker's knee surgery

Shouldn't it be noted that The Undertaker will miss up to two months of action due to knee/hip surgery? Danny Boy 420 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, feel free to add it. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is he, he and michaels been gone since WM25??? --Cooly123 (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Injury

Undertaker needs knee surgery and will be out for 2 months shouldn't that be included —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.79.82 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If, and only if you can provide a reliable source for that. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Undertaker Had Hip Surgery After WM25 That is why he was out until Summerslam. (Info From PhenomForever.com)Aarow142 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.106.151 (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I am a moderator of PhenomForever.com but whenever I put any information from our news articles here, they were removed stating that PhenomForever.com is not a reliable source, although the news articles that we put up are from other wrestling sites like wrestlingnewsworld.com, wrestlezone.com, etc. I know through these sources that he had a hip surgery, but would we be allowed to put that information here? Mayankeagle (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undertaker's Finishers

Just wanting to point out that the arm triangle facebuster finisher is wrong. If it is correct, it needs a date on when it has been used, as I have never seen it used as a finisher. Also the citation mentions NOTHING about The Undertaker using an armtriangle facebuster as his finisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.12.206 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a signature move of the Undertaker missing...Snake eyes...there is a Wikipedia page for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.90.229.160 (talk) 19:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Here's what I've heard

Undertaker isn't hurt, according to my Uncle's "cheat sheet" he always takes time off after WrestleMania, and he'll be back at SummerSlam. Is he hurt, taking time off or just gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.31.68 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh who knows, but Wikipedia isn't the place to ask forum-type questions.--Truco 503 02:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

the undertaker is 47 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiesfrew (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have a valid source for his age we will make the change tell then it stays the same.--Dcheagle (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Height

His billed height is 6´10.5" not 6´9.5"

His legit height is 6´8", he described himself as 6´8-6´9" in "This is my yard" and was billed as 6´8" as The Punisher

kind regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Specialist66 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Last outlaw

On the latest ECW Matt Striker referred to Undertaker as "The Last Outlaw, The Undertaker". Should this be added to the nicknames? Numerous Superstars (inculding Big Show and I'm pretty sure Jericho) also called him this. 142.162.38.95 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No he's only been called it once so no it will not be added--Dcheagle (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hell's Gate/Modified Gogoplata

Under the undertaker's move list, it says that the hell's gate submission hold is banned. i am changing this, since this is no longer true. here are the sources: http://www.wwe.com/shows/hellinacell/matches/11798344/preview/ and http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/smackdown/2009/september22-28/11812000 --JereMerr 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)--JereMerr 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes go right ahead and make the changes.--Dcheagle (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotection review

This article has a quite extensive protection log, apparently because of long term vandalism. The last action on the log is quite old however, nearly two years ago, and the last edit protection action (rather than move protection) was even longer ago. I'd like to review this to see if edit semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming the opinions of regular editors I have contacted MZMcBride, the protecting admin. --TS 12:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not the top protecting admin, though I have reduced protection on this article given the length of time since the underlying situation has been evaluated. Let's see what happens. (Any admin is of course free to re-protect if problems re-arise.) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cite problem

For some reason there is a problem with the number two cite. If you go down to the refs it says theres a cite error Ive look at it and I cant for the life of me find the problem so someone with fresh eyes needs to take a look at it and see if they can fix it.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The cite works fine for me. Can you be more specific? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] problem with the nicknames

for some reason or another it has been neglected to place the nickname "dead man" and/or "dead man walking" and recently (within the last 4-5 weeks) he has been reffered to as "snake eyes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voldemort1 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

got a source--Dcheagle (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Deadman has always been there. Snake eyes is one of his moves, dead man walking refers to his opponent. Tony2Times (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sections 1.2.8 (World Heavyweight Champion 2007-2008) and 1.2.9 (Return 2008-present)

I feel that we should merge these 2 sections together under one heading "World Heavyweight champion (2007-present)".

He became the WHC champion in 2009 also, hence his pursuit and victory of the title was not only in 2007/ 2008 but it still continues. Moreover, he has taken time off in all these 3 years and made returns, so we perhaps shouldn't have Return (2008-present) as a section which comes after WHC because he is still the WHC belt-holder. I feel we can altogether drop the "Return" heading because the details of his returns will be provided in the paragraphs anyway, but the broad title can be about his pursuit of the WHC belt because that's what he has been mostly after since 2007 (other feuds like Vickie Guerrero/ Big Show were also resultant of the same, due to his earlier WHC-rivalry with Edge).

Let me know your thoughts. Mayankeagle (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I see somebody has renamed the Return (2008-present) section to "Return & various feuds", however I think we should extend the WHC section to include this because he is still the WHC. Mayankeagle (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, looks like this is done. 122.181.161.153 (talk) 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hell in a Cell

Is this list really necessary? His undefeated streak at WrestleMania is used to sell matches; though he is famous for his Cell matches, I don't think it's up there in the same vein. Also I still don't see why there's a WLD record for his undefeated streak. By its very nature, the Loss and Defeat numbers are obselete. Tony2Times (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree on both counts. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel the list is not required. He has had the maximum impact at Hell in a Cell, no doubt. However, it is not very easily verifiable from the table because of the number of losses. Perhaps a one-liner comment about each match can also be included wherever it is relevant or had an impact on the outcome of the match (e.g., Kane debuted and attacked Undertaker in the match against Shawn Michaels; Undertaker threw Mankind from the top of the cell to the announce-desk, then to the ring below and then choke-slammed him on a ring full of thumb-tacks; Edge disguised as a camerman attacked Undertaker in the match against Batista, etc). Mayankeagle (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WrestleMania 25

Undertaker's last match for a while wasn't at WM it was against the Big Show on Friday Night SmackDown on i think 24-4-09 he lost so that was his last match after WM not against HBK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.35 (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct, however WM25 was his last Major match before returning at Summerslam 2009 and then winning the title at Hell In a Cell 2009--Pookeo9 Talk If you need anything 00:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC) It should still be noted that he still wrestled after WM25 even though he only versed on SmackDown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.35 (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Undertaker"