Jump to content

Talk:Triple H: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 173: Line 173:


Triple H has had it since late 1999. That idiot rapper "The Game" is never going to win the lawsuit, and he and/or his lawyer apparently didn't bother to do research regarding how long the WWF/WWE has had Triple H trademarked as "The Game". Motorhead even performed that song "The Game" in late 2000-ish. Even if "The Game" had been called that before 2002, judging by the wikipedia article, he was completely incapable of trademarking the name. [[User:AndarielHalo|AndarielHalo]] 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Triple H has had it since late 1999. That idiot rapper "The Game" is never going to win the lawsuit, and he and/or his lawyer apparently didn't bother to do research regarding how long the WWF/WWE has had Triple H trademarked as "The Game". Motorhead even performed that song "The Game" in late 2000-ish. Even if "The Game" had been called that before 2002, judging by the wikipedia article, he was completely incapable of trademarking the name. [[User:AndarielHalo|AndarielHalo]] 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)



I don't see why they can't both be called The Game. It's just a name. Why does the WWE have to be so greedy for money?
I don't see why they can't both be called The Game. It's just a name. Why does the WWE have to be so greedy for money?

Revision as of 05:42, 3 October 2007

 GA on hold — Notes left on talk page.

Archive
Archives

Missing Acting Stuff

Didn't he make 2 or 3 guest appearances on the old USA show 'Pacific Blue'? I know they were small roles, but I do believe he did have speaking lines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.255.193.164 (talk)

Return speculation (please read before adding more)

2007 Return

Someone stated in the article "Currently, the plan as of now is to have Triple H come back to wrestling on the August 13 edition of Raw." Is their any proof of this? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So please do not post spoilers until they are officially announced on either Raw, SmackDown!, and ECW or WWE.com. Thank you. Overlordneo 19:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt like its wwe.com this is a encyclapiedia(im not good at spelling)so its all facts and its been taking off the page so i dont when hes comin back so ya is this true. David57437 — Preceding unsigned comment added by David57437 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter. We can't put information that isn't verifiable. If there's proof to back that up then it should be added. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya true David57437

The WWE has confirmed that he is coming back on SummerSlam, but that might be to get people exicted about it, theres been talk that he might he come back as early as next Raw, at the Garden. 8:09, wednesday, August 8 2007 beatle456

HHH will return at summerslam to face King Booker, since he did NOT make his return at the August 13 edition of RAW. And, he is on the RAW Brand NOT on SD!. 76.110.82.251 02:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

every sayin smackdown

every1 is saying on the article tha he is goin 2 smackdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.132.67 (talk • contribs)

Well, every1 is wrong, and if they have anything 2 say then they should say it here, rather than on the article. Darrenhusted 00:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Darrenhusted on that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

me 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.145.31 (talk • contribs)

He's still part of the RAW roster. No changes have been made. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HHH was traded to SD!, then traded back for four wrestlers, meaning he is four times better than other wrestlers on the roster. I don't think HHH will ever be part of the SD! roster. Darrenhusted 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return

On wwe.com at the bottom it says The return of the game:29 days and has the logo for Summerslam under it so I think this needs to be put into the 2007 part but it wont let me edit it.Bizub4 16:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of WWE.com it says he will return in 29 days check it out yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.98.54 (talk • contribs)

When he returns then we will add it until then it is best leaving it off, as he may injure himself between now and SS. Darrenhusted 20:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that because wwe.com says he will return that we should add it. Just look at Rey's page and they have posted many things about his return. So it's only fair to the public that we realesed the info since WWE has confirmed it.Bizub4 23:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'm off to delete them. Oh, and PS this is not a news site. Darrenhusted 01:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE has confirmed he is comin back at SUMMERSLAM so i think we should be able to put it on David57437

Once he has returned then the sentence "HHH returned at SummerSlam (2007)" will do, until then it's best to leave it blank. Darrenhusted 17:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We know this isn't a news site, I don't see anything news about putting in the article that he'll return at SummerSlam. Why ya'll gotta think so negative like he's gonna "reinjure" himself. THINK POSITIVE!--Hornetman16 (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should put it in. You're saying it's not a news site and we shouldn't post it because something could happen between now and SummerSlam, if that's the case then why do we list matches when they're announced. A match can alter before it happens also, what's the difference Mark handscombe 18:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know why it has been taken off then I don't think you should put it back on. It is left off because the sentence "HHH will return at SummerSlam" or "It has been announced HHH will return at SummerSlam" is a news headline, and unencyclopedic, and this is an encyclopedia. The sentence "HHH retuned at SummerSlam 2007 after six months rehabbing a torn quad muscle" is encyclopedic and can go on the article in three weeks, just incase he doesn't return, or if they panic about ratings and he returns Monday. Darrenhusted 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand what you are saying, Darrenhusted, but that does not address Mark handscombe's quite interesting and relevant comment above. From what I have seen in the past with this project, it has been all-but-policy to insert announced matches into pay-per-view articles long before the matches themselves actually occur (its not like the matches don't change all the time - WWE Punjabi Prison Match disaster anyone?). Maybe I'm missing something, (if so please explain - seriously), but it seems like the project's policy on this type of thing should be one way or the other ..not "its ok for one type of wrestling article to make annoucements but not for another type." I don't really care either way - but this is one thing that seems black and white to me. Again, if I'm missing something - please explain! Thanks :) --Naha|(talk) 21:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like most of the ppl agree we should put HHH will return at summerslam so i think we should put it on okdokyDavid57437August,8 2007

That's not what they mean. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:52, 09 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should add his return to the article, but even if we don't it should at least warrant mention on the Summerslam 2007 article, as it has been announced by WWE. (Sawyer 20:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, well, since none has voiced an objection, I'm gonna go ahead and add it. (Sawyer 09:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I dont think Darrenhusted or what ever his name is, is reading this discussion any further, since he doesn't know what to say about Naha's comment. But since he is the boss, i dont think we have a chance. We have done everything right - we were acting like the policy says, we did not spoiler anything since it was allready announced, we even have an official reference. but all this means nothing, when the boss says no. where is our democracy? Diivoo 17:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed his return from the article? Talk about it here first. We post booked matches on Superstars' articles all the time, and this is no different. (Sawyer 01:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Triple H will return at SummerSlam, the match with him has been officially announced. Since we add the match to the summerslam page, we add this info to this page. Diivoo 09:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can't add matches that haven't yet occurred. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So I think we should remove all the matches from the summerslam page as well, because they also didn't occur yet, do we? Diivoo 15:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A PPV is way different from a wrestler's article. Because at the PPV page you get informed; at the article you read encyclopedic information. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed one of the dumbest things i have ever heard. The return of a wrestler IS encyclopedic and by the way, why is it ok, that there is a note in Rey Mysterios article saying, that he will return at summerslam and here it is not ok? Diivoo 17:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Diivoo you are familiar with the arguments, but also don't seem to understand what "encyclopedic" means. Anything in an article must be in past tense, the statement "HHH is set to return/expected to return at SummerSlam" is not in the past it is in the future, and thus cannot be encyclopedic, once he has returned then the sentence "HHH returned to wrestling at SummerSlam 2007 after seven months of rehabilitation" is fine because it is in the past.

Listing the match at the PPV page does not mean it is listed here becuase the PPV pages list announced matches until the PPV happens then they revert to encyclopedic articles and list what happened. PPV pages should stay blank until the PPV has happened but this leads to vandals adding false information and so the project decided by consensus to add matches to PPV pages but only after they have been announced officially.
There are lines in the sand and you would do best to try and stay within those lines as they have been put there with consensus and not by one person deciding what to do. PPV pages and wrestler bios work with slightly different rules, but once events have happened they work with the same rules.
And to argue that information is on Rey's page so we should add it here does not hold water, if you feel info on Rey's page should not be there then you should delete it, not try to add info here to make both articles incorrect. Darrenhusted 17:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Zerorules, u undid my edit... again... with that nice comment "removed return 'date' (event) AGAIN" - maybe just explain to me, where in the sentence "World Wrestling Entertainment started promoting the return of Triple H on July 2 Monday Night Raw episode." you can find any information on where and when he returns? And in my oppinion, because of the very huge amount of promotion done by wwe (wwe magazine, dozens of different video clips, big promotion on website, ...) this is an information, that should stay here. And if you undo my edit again, at least leave a comment that makes sense. Diivoo 20:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, coming at me isn't going to do you a whole lot. If you read on top of this comment left by Darrenhusted you'll understand why we can't address his return in the article. F.Y.I. I'd sit and read it, for your sake's. And you know what, if I have to undo one of your edits, I'll leave a decent comment for your reading. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my oppinion, the info i added is not news. Its just an info that his return, whenever it happens, was very highly promoted. No comeback in the last few years had such a big amount of promotion, so whats wrong with adding that info to his page? Diivoo 10:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so technically speaking we can do say, what the Chris Jericho page did, and add a section which is about TRIPLE H'S RETURN.

From (date) it has been strongly advertising the return of HHH to the WWE at Summerslam.

This has already happened, the advertising of his return. Therefore I'm going to go and put it on that way :) Encyclopedic ? yes... end of story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Swiftstylez (talk • contribs) 04:04, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

allready did that, several times. it just doesn't matter what you say or do, it will all be undone. Diivoo 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the absolute last time, because this will be moot by Monday, we cannot add the return of any wrestler until they have returned, because the tense will always be future before a return, and articles are written in the past tense. If you do not understand this basic principal then you may want to edit something else. I am not the only editor reverting the "advert" or "return" text. Once HHH returns, and for the fiftieth time, then the sentence "Paul Micheal LeVesque retuned at the pay per view World Wrestling Entertainment event called SummerSlam and beat Booker Tio Huffman by pinfall after a pedigree" will do, until then you may want to ready about what wikipedia is not. Darrenhusted 14:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and for the last time, we are not adressing the return of Triple H here. We just add an info about the big promotion done for his return, which IS encyclopedic, which IS written in the past and which IS NOT news. so i will, for the last time, ADD this info. Diivoo 13:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, then the reason for removing that is simple, it's not notable. Darrenhusted 20:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is... at least until his return. Diivoo 22:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until SummerSlam, then we can add his RETURN. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summerslam is over, Triple H returned, humiliated Vince again, fought Carlito and Benjamin in the past two weeks, and he just won a handicap game against Carlito in UnforgivenHmsrenown 00:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedigree question

Will anybody have a problem if I upload an image of Triple H about to Pedigree Chris Benoit? Since all the controversy occurred. And I don't want to make it seem that I'm a mean person!!! Just want some response!!! --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:15, 07 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's no problem70.161.98.54

I'm sure there are better pedigree pictures - with or without benoit. Diivoo 19:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there freely licensed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who the frimp is Migs?

"Despite the punishment, Migs did have several successes following the MSG Incident." Is that intentional? Volcabbage 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was vandalism. There is a user that always changes the names to "Miggy Pab" for some reason. I guess that one slipped through. - Deep Shadow 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bwa ha, ha. That's too bad. I'm going to call him "Migs" from now on, anyway. Volcabbage 01:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article question

Does anybody think that the article is improving or.......... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little, I'll run through it tomorrow and prune out any crap. Darrenhusted 00:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Because I support of being improved. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Input to the GA Nomination

I’m not going to GA review it (I don't feel qualified) but I will give you guys a quick list of things I know you need to fix before it has a chance, I speak from experience here. And this isn’t an exhaustive list, just my first glance look at it, but it’s a start MPJ-DK 10:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments - they are much appreciated. Davnel03 11:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In The article, HHH's 1st Special move is classified as a Cutter, when it shall be called the "Diamond Cutter" as he called it in the 1990s —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.44.225.21 (talk) 21:18, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Only Dallas Page used the "Diamond" Cutter, for everyone else it is a cutter. Darrenhusted 14:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment re improvement of article

About the signature moves

Indian Deathlock
Neckbreaker slam
Sleeper hold

Are you sure that those three should be listed as Triple H's signature moves? He hardly ever uses the Indian Deathlock, the Neckbreaker Slam is used by most wrestlers of his generation (he doesn't use that too often either, though) and the Sleeper Hold... Well, it is pretty much used by EVERY wrestler every now and then. I suggest all three are removed. TheCursed 21:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Deathlock he used, and pretty much the only one who utilized that in his generation! The other two I totally agree with you. Hmsrenown 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Game"

Who had "The Game" first HHH or The Game (rapper)? I think HHH did, since 2000 (like it says in the article), so does that means The Game can no longer call himself "The Game"? 76.110.82.251 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triple H had "The Game" trademarked first and the wwe has been considering/entering legal action against the game (rapper), I don't know if its been settled though Prem4eva 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Triple H has had it since late 1999. That idiot rapper "The Game" is never going to win the lawsuit, and he and/or his lawyer apparently didn't bother to do research regarding how long the WWF/WWE has had Triple H trademarked as "The Game". Motorhead even performed that song "The Game" in late 2000-ish. Even if "The Game" had been called that before 2002, judging by the wikipedia article, he was completely incapable of trademarking the name. AndarielHalo 01:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I don't see why they can't both be called The Game. It's just a name. Why does the WWE have to be so greedy for money?

chris warren

i will change that --Boutitbenza 69 9 20:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC) did the song -my time =D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.41.114 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Chris Benoit

I believe the photo of HHH predigring Chris Benoit should be removed. It is illegal to sell anything about Benoit show this picture should be remove with a more suitable picture. --203.164.117.186 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Thomas G[reply]

Firstly, it is not illegal to sell anything about Benoit. Secondly, nobody is selling anything here...it is merely a picture. Nikki311 13:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes what Nikki said. WWE and other retailers stopped selling his merchandise because they no longer wanted to be associated with Benoit, not because it is "illegal." --Naha|(talk) 14:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might you have an image of the Pedigree to contribute to Wikipedia? Zenlax 12:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?

Why isn't the article protected? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC) At a guess the protect was for a specific amount of weeks, and that time is over. Darrenhusted 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page is still semi-protected, and has been since July. Why there isn't a notice on the page is beyond me. I'll add one now. The Hybrid 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turn

So has he turned heel after Raw on sep 17th? Y2J RKO 17:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is too soon to tell. Saying he has would be pure speculation at this point. We should wait a couple of weeks before we add it to the article, so we can know for sure. Nikki311 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He Didn't turn heel. JR Called him the "man who walks alone" He just didn't want help 244pupil6

You could easily tell that he wasn't pleased when Paul London and Brian Kendrick came to his aid. Zenlax 19:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: PASS The article does meet all of the prose and Manual of Style criteria.
2. Factually accurate?: HELD There's just a few things here that need to be fixed up for this article to pass. The first paragraph of World Championship Wrestling, the second paragraph of 2002-2003 in WWF/WWE, and all of Acting - Commercials is unreferenced. Drop me a line when this is all fixed up and I should be able to pass it.
3. Broad in coverage?: PASS This article covers the subject in great detail.
4. Neutral point of view?: PASS I'm satisfied that this article is written from a Neutral Point of View.
5. Article stability? PASS The article appears to be stable, and I've noted the tags on the talk page and the pages protection.
6. Images?: PASS This article uses imagery well, and all images are licensed correctly.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Pursey Talk | Contribs 08:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've sourced not only what you asked, but I found additional sources for some of the other information, as well. I hope this is sufficient. Nikki311 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Triple_H&oldid=161958281"