Talk:List of WWE personnel

Archives
Archive 1 (October 2005 - May 2006) Archive 2 (June 2006 - Mid-July 2006) Archive 3 (Mid-July 2006 - Mid-November 2006) Archive 4 (Late-November 2006 - Mid-May 2007) Archive 5 (Mid-May 2007 - Mid-September 2007)

Active Talent

Not that its that important, but I keep adding "Active" to the Male Wrestlers and Female Wrestlers sections, because just writing "Male" or "Female" is too general (it doenst exclude inactive talent). So I believe Active should go before each. Lex94 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I Agree.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspensions

With the recent rash of WWE suspensions, I'd like to point out that WWE has only asserted any sense of verifiability starting in November. That means that by that time, we can add a suspended list. After all, right now, for all we know, these "outgoing due to suspension explanation" storylines may have been what was originally intended. Although I find whatever counterargument to this as plausible, the fact is that this doesn't cut the mustard at Wikipedia. If one of the suspended came out and openly say that they are suspended, then we can add it right now, but who will fess up to this? Besides, we do not know whether the suspension terms start following the announcement date, the date of the next live event, the date of the next TV taping, or the end of the next TV airing, or whether existing suspensions (seeing that one is rumoured to be 60 days, which would mean their term would end at least at the start of November) will be made public at that date. Furthermore, WWE has not stated that, when announcing who has been suspended, whether other information (such as length of term or existence of previous suspensions for whatever reason) will be divulged. For all we know, it could be a form statement whenever a superstar has been suspended (like those that they have whenever someone is released).

Back on topic: WP:V is very hard to get in the world of PW. November 1 may be the day that all of us will be waiting for - just so we can inject some of it. Then again, we will not have nearly enough - that's the nature of the business. The day that the Entertainment releases boxed sets with DVD extras such as writer interviews and candid non-kayfabe interviews from persons involved in storylines is probably the day when we can get a good article out of any professional wrestler (I'll use Hardys-E&C match from No Mercy 1999 as an example, as such a "backstage expose" had aired on Heat for some weeks, IIRC).

I'm just going to op-ed for the next bit, but hear me out: it seems that running a wrestling promotion today is prohibitively expensive, and it might be something that not even WWE can afford. Think about it: ideally you'd like WWE to adhere to strict WADA guidelines, right? Where everyone is checked after every show (live event, TV, and PPV) and where the first suspension (ie. the two-year ban) is likely to end your career due to a complete and total burial in storylines (if the humiliation of being caught isn't bad enough), to account for a release (which would face you into obscurity), which leads to industry blacklisting (if you could find a way to return) and severe ring rust (if you did find a way to return)? Putting the "sports" in "sports entertainment" is getting costly...

Finally, anyone think that the greatest beneficiary of this whole situation (with the drug-related suspensions, not the recent industry downturn and scrutiny) is CM Punk? It seems that he's one of the guys who will be in WWE for the rest of their career (ie. time filler/utility player roles like Benoit and Guerrero in their times, or the Hardys today), not to mention that the guys "higher up on the card" have been dropping like flies means that in both short-and-long-terms he's going to get top billing (we'd like to think that it would be inevitable that he'd win some major accomplishment that will cause Styles or preferably JR to completely mark out, like a big Mania win or MitB/Rumble/KotR/etc). After all, for however "shoddily defined" the WP has been, it fits well with his lifestyle, and he benefits from anyone on the ECW roster (possibly SD, but Raw is a distinct possibility around Mania time) who does not do likewise.

kelvSYC 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You read it wrong, suspensions given AFTER November 1st will be made public. This recent round of suspensions will never be made public, so we must use our best judgement. Doppy88 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Or we could not use our judgement at all so we don't violate WP:NOR. The Hybrid 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should not change the page until wwe announces somethingCowboycaleb 03:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowboycaleb1 (talk • contribs)

We shouldn't be announcing a suspension for anyone, except maybe on their main articles when we get confirmation. There is a slight possiblity that announcments will be made on or after November 1, but by then the suspensions will be over for the majority of them. — Moe ε 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Like someone said before, any suspension made after Nov 01, 2007, will be publicly announced by WWE. Until their is confirmation that they were actually suspended, we should not be speculating. --Zii_XFS 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What kind of "confirmation" are you people looking for? Have you not yet realized that the WWE will NOT be releasing the names of the 11 superstars suspended? And that the Nov. 1st date has NOTHING to do with these 11 suspensions? Doppy88 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We understand that. That is exactly why we cannot list names in the article. WP:NOR says that we cannot speculate, or, "use our best judgment", as you put it. Without official confirmation, which we've pointed out, and you've just pointed out will never be given, we are absolutely forbidden from saying that certain superstars are suspended for violating the wellness policy due to the risk of us being wrong. Saying it without an official source and being incorrect is libel, meaning it could get Wikipedia sued. We cannot use our best judgment because doing so a legal risk, so we will just have to ignore that fact that some of the wrestlers currently inactive are suspended. Is it fair that we have to? No, it isn't. Could we be accurate in our guesses? Yes, we probably could. Does this mean anything to a judge in a court of law? No, it means absolutely nothing. Now do you understand? The Hybrid 01:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore on the suspensions

I think it can be confirmed that Mr. Kennedy, Umaga, William Regal, Charlie Haas, and King Booker are all suspended. I think we should leave the on the active list, but write next to their name (possibly suspended). We should write that because considering WWE has not announced it, those superstars were not present at all during the South Africa. Also, some of their characters have been played off. King Booker didn't even appear on RAW this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.218.83 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, unless WWE announces it, we can't post on it. After November 1st, we will never have to have this discussion again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zii XFS (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

no we wont, the November 1st thing Effects all FUTURE suspensions not previous ones. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

There seems to be a lot of arguing over what sources are deemed "reliable", especially by user Moe Epsilon. Fact of the matter is this, sources like Wrestling Observer, PW Insider, Rajah, and 411Mania have proven in the past to be reliable and typically do not provide much false information. On the occasion that information is provided that is proven false later on, it is usually retracted in a timely manner. These have been the ONLY sources for signings of new superstars and developmental talent, so we can't honestly say that WWE.com is our only source, or even a reliable source as oftentimes they are in kayfabe. If a character was "fired" on television, WWE.com would report that as fact, despite it being strictly part of the storylines. These wrestling fansites are truthfully the BEST source for information and have proven to be useful for YEARS. So why the arguments over stuff like that? Dahumorist 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because nothing is confirmed. Proven reliable in the past doesn't mean it's reliable now, it violates WP:BLP given the names have not been outed except for leaks which are unconfirmed. Readd them again and I'll see that the page is fully protected from no editing except for administrators. — Moe ε 05:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But fact of the matter is WWE.com is NOT a reliable source. It doesn't report all injuries, suspensions, hires, or even releases. The only thing we have to go on are these other sites. Perhaps these people should have waited until this week to see who has been "myseriously" written out of storylines to truly "confirm" their absence from television. But chill out, man. Nothing is ruined here. Nobody is getting hurt. Don't take these things so personally. Dahumorist 05:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling rumor sites are not more reliable than WWE.com, although they are just as reliable as WWE.com. In regards to the suspensions, this is being picked up in serious news media as well as those sites, and secondary reports will always be more reliable than rumor sites like Observer and 411mania. Secondary reports state no names are confirmed, and unless you can provide one, the information won't be added. End of discussion. Violating WP:BLP is a very serious issue that deals with slander and libel, and saying someone was prescribed steroids and suspended from WWE is more serious than you're making it out to be. — Moe ε 03:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold on there, slugger. I never said anything about saying that these people should be listed as inactive for the reason of wellness policy. I was just saying that we should not be disregarding the wrestling fansites on a regular basis, as (as i've already mentioned) they provide much needed information in the ways of new hires, etc. Once again, I gotta say, chill out, bro. Loosen your tie. Geez... Dahumorist 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandman

{{editprotected}} A note to any admins or whoever can still edit the page, The Sandman was released today, http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/sandmanreleased , so when anyone gets a chance, please remove him. Thank you. --Zii_XFS 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Sandman should be removed from this list. — Moe ε 00:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article's not protected. --MZMcBride 10:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I Quit

you cant Keyfabe lose,he did lose (Chavo) He Keyfabe quit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardcore Holly on Raw?

He wrestled a match on Heat this week. Does that mean he's on Raw now? --61.68.57.102 12:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

no its just that smackdown has no sister program with ECW having the Velocity slot.Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 12:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

CM Punk's name.

I know it's just a minor detail, but are we referring to his name as 'CM' being his first name, and 'Punk' the last? Because I think that CM Punk as a whole is more of a stage/ring name and should be alphabetized as such, between Burke and Dreamer.. anyone else agree? Miztahrogers 10:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Gavyn Sykes 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony Chimel and Justin Roberts

The last few weeks Tony Chimel has been ring announcing on ECW and Justin Roberts on Smackdown. Should the change be noted on here? Don.-.J 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Next to Theadore Long's name under inactive talent, could you put kayfabe there. For a moment I thought he had genuinly had a heart attack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.117.139 (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave Taylor

When was the last time he appeared on television? I can only remember in July, but I'm not too sure. should he be moved to the Inactive list? 76.21.249.103 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter on television time. He is still wrestling on house shows so he should still be considered an active member of the Smackdown roster.Soopafred 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Champions

I Think we need to acknowledge the champions in the roster, e.g, beside John Cenas name, write in italics "Current WWE Champion", whoever agrees with me, plz reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.9.8 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We've acknowledged that in two previous posts. the champions are on their brand's page, there is no need to them to be on the roster page. 24.191.218.83 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Krissy Vaine

can someone add Krissy Vaine to the smackdown roster she debuts this friday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.233.105 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When it airs, it'll get added. It could be any other blonde anyway. Miztahrogers 08:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL violations

I'm tired of coming to this article and finding violations of WP:CRYSTAL here. If anyone adds spoilers, and I'm there to revert it, I'm handing out {{test}} templates, because it's ridiculous. If you see "returning on", "returning in", "debuting on", or any kind of violation of the sort, revert it please. — Moe ε 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

John Morrison and Chris Masters

I was at a Smackdown/ECW house show last night in Hammond Indiana and both Chris Masters and John Morrison were in action. Should they be moved back to the active roster, or do they have to appear on television first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.85.4 (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to verify this, please? — Moe ε 14:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

they need to appear on T.V before they become active again.Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link, http://www.wrestleview.com/news2006/1191267817.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.85.4 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

HBK

HBK is back he was on raw this week and kicked ortans head off put him on the active list also if HBK is back doesnt that mean that DX is back together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.129.190 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

don't add DX back to the stables list until they re-unite on tv. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 09:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they never officially disbanded. We should probably add them back, but with some kind of disclaimer. The Hybrid T/C 10:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, they seem disbanded to me, I would say wait until they officially re-unite on TV (per the sake of WP:V). Their run was supposed to end soon after Trips got injured anyway I think. Bmg916^Speak 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BMG. Two injuries (or even) one would signify a disband, in my opinion. We have no idea if they'll reunite again or not (hopefully not). Gavyn Sykes 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as he hasn't actually wrestled yet should he be added to the other on screen talent as Bryan Alvarez said on his radio show he isn't yet cleared to wrestle. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 17:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I Think we should on raw this week HBK was doing the DX chops that would say to me that DX are alive and kicking

he didn't do any chops, waasn't wearing any DX logo's DX is dead for now. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

he did so after he kicked ortan he started to do them them

well during Triple H's second match with Ortan at No Mercy, right before he fell down for the 10 count, he leaned back on the ropes and did the DX crotch chop. 24.191.218.83 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Any and all requests to place DX on the stables will be removed. They are not officially back together. Unless it is televised or they make an appearance at a house show together as DX, it's not going to be added. — Moe ε 04:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue, but my response is the breakup was never official. The most convincing argument to not put them on the page is that HBK is not yet cleared to wrestle, so they can't be an active stable, even if they are still considered together. Due to that I won't argue, but Moe, I'm afraid that I completely disagree with your argument. The Hybrid T/C 06:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can classify as any break-up of any stable offical unless you see them compete against eachother. Do teams that don't appear together on-screen for a month considered a non-offical break-up? The term unofficial is really ambiguous. Not on-screen together is really the only way to measure that. — Moe ε 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He is going to wrestle hes in the list for for the wwe champ match

They never officially broke up because 1st Triple H and they HBK were injured including an exteded overlapping period, on monda they were not seen together at all, as for HHH doing the crotch chops, he ALWAYS does them as a face, ever since the 1st incarnation of DX.Skitzo 09:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Candice Michelle

she needs to be listed under M for Michelle as on TV that is her surname, please stop moving her back to C for Candice. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Stables and Tag Teams

It is really getting annoying with the recent changes to the Stables and Tag Team section. The stable names are being shuffled around. Some people think the stable should be listed according to the last name of the second person, others say it's the first letter of the stable's name. I say with the stables, we list them alphabetically according to the first letter of the name that the stable is called on TV. So for example, Smackdown should have their tag teams and stables in this order:

Brothers of Destruction (Kane and Undertaker)
Deuce N' Domino with Cherry
Jesse and Fetus
Matt Hardy and MVP
The Major Brothers 24.191.218.83 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first of all... haha you said "fetus". Secondly. I don't understand why (in the example of Hardy/MVP) we would alphabetize by the M in Matt. We don't alphabetize by first names generally and "Matt Hardy and MVP" certainly isn't their tag team name. The way things were organized previously was:

1. list tag teams without tag team names alphabetically, by last name of first member of team. Of course, sometimes a team would typically have their onscreen name normally alphabetically backwards (i.e. Jesse & Festus) so we'd attempt to go by that.
Then 2. alphabetize tag teams with tag team names

So the correct listing would be:
Deuce N' Domino w/Cherry
Matt Hardy and MVP
Jesse and Festus
Brothers of Destruction (Kane and Undertaker)
The Major Brothers

Of course, there would be further debate over whether or not "Deuce N' Domino" is a tag team name etc. etc. Basically there is no right way and pretty much no wrong way. (well, except alphabetizing by M in Matt Hardy :-D )Dahumorist 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Candice Michelle

I personally don't think that Michelle is her surname. It's an extension of her first name, meaning on screen her first name is "Candice Michelle" not just Candice. Michelle sounds really awkward as a surname, no matter how you look at it. Any thoughts on how this should be listed? There seems to be some dispute. Gavyn Sykes 23:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's treated as a surname or not, but we add whatever they're name is, and she is called on-air as "Candice Michelle", and her real name in parentheses. It's really irrelevant to if it is or not and no change can occur over such a trivial thing. — Moe ε 04:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

if it was an extension of her 1st name it could be Candice-Michelle, the space indicates its her surname. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 08:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's def not a surname. It never has been treated as one and it's not an actual surname, so why would we assume it is? Dahumorist 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

it is an actual surname, in fact it was HER actual surname until she got married.Skitzo 09:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

According to her article her full name is Candice Michelle Beckman-Ehrlich. That would mean her maiden name was Beckman. Ehrlich was added upon her marriage. Michelle was never her last name. Gavyn Sykes 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ron Simmons 2

Shouldn't Ron Simmons be on the active RAW roster, he's been wrestling since September now. He wrestled on Heat 2 weeks straight, appeared on RAW with the rest of the roster on Oct 9. Soo, can we change that?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.234.212 (talk • contribs)

I agree that it should be.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 13:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Archives

should we adjust the archives frequency for this page? as the list is increadably long and some topics haven't been touched for a long time. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 21:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we wshould.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Krissy Vaine Released Rumors

I think that the information provided that Krissy Vaine has left by various popular wrestling websites are false, simply because they have no proof. IF indeed she left then we have to wait next week when Torrie Wilson comes back from doing some promotional work and see if it continues the storyline, if in the spoilers of NEXT WEEK do not include Krissy Vaine then the rumors are true but otherwise is just a speculation, it is not 100% confirmed. Therefore her name should remain in the list until we see what happens next week Art 281 03:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that despite every report mentioning her release, they also mentioned the release of Ryen O'Reilly, who you don't deem necessary to keep on the roster page. Regardless, WWE typically doesn't announce developmental releases on their website. Krissy Vaine has only appeared on television twice, neither time was her name mentioned. Chances are WWE.com won't even mention it, as they haven't already. Why are these things continually battled on this board. I can't remember the last time I read about a release that wasn't true. It must have been years! Dahumorist 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

dirt sites can not be trusted.i remember a few months ago when there was a rumor that ric flair had quit a lot of people were wanting to take him off the roster.and in stead he was put on the inactive list.same this when wwe superstarts were suspended for drugs. since no liginimat site could be trusted they were put on the inactive list. the same should be done with Krissy Vaine.SpeedyC1 15:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

except she is a developmental talent. The Ric Flair situation is WAY different. There were ALSO numerous reports that he HADN'T left WWE. At this point, nobody is sure. I have yet to see a single report indicating that Krissy Vaine is still with WWE. The drug policy thing was different as well; those guys were all going to be listed under inactive anyway. It was just a debate as to what to write next to their name. Find ONE mention anywhere on the internet that may indicate Krissy Vaine hasn't left the company and maybe there'd be a reason to side with you. I read an interview with her and Ryan O'Reilly stating the fact that they had left. Here [1] Dahumorist 16:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Y2J

Y2J is returning to raw at cyber sunday should we put him back on the raw roster list —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dxrule96 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have source for that? Gavyn Sykes 03:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Source or not it can't be added till it happens cause it's a spoiler.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 03:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

if they announce he has signed a contract then yes we can add him, but they wont because they want it to be a supprise so people will buy the next PPV.Skitzo 08:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

of course, what you said makes no sense. if he's a surprise, and they DON'T advertise his return, then why would someone buy the ppv to see his return? Doesn't matter. The writers are idiots anyway. Dahumorist 16:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

because they would advertise that the person behind the "save us" videos will be revealed or something similar.Skitzo 17:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Michelle McCool

As of late it appears dat michelle is now the valet of Chuck Palumbo so dat should b added 2 her page and on the roster page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.233.105 (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Kristal Marshall

I think it's safe to say that she is now inactive along with Teddy Long. Any other opinions? 24.191.218.83 12:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

probably so, its also rumoured she will be moving to RAW soon as she is the real life girlfriend of Bobby Lashley. Skitzo 17:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

so should we move her to the inactive list? 24.191.218.83 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple sources have her listed as released, but until the WWE confirms it, I don't think she should be taken off completely. Her name has been deleted a number of times so far. Josborne2382 02:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Teddy Hart

SpeedyC1 he has been released, F4W is second only to the wrestling observer in reliability, STOP readding him to the roster as he is no longer employed and WWE won't comment as he was ONLY under developmental contract and they NEVER do. Skitzo 20:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Seconded, SpeedyC1 is starting to get annoying. WWE never comments on releases for developmental talent, the ONLY source is wrestling websites and people within the company. If you need that much verification, check the FCW website in a few weeks and see if he's there or not, and then readd him. Until then, stop being a nuisance. ThisGuy62 21:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

that is bogus they have announced when devepmental talent has been released. see here.SpeedyC1 04:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

okay, speedy, mad props. You are right. but they USUALLY do not. There have been a number of developmental releases since Shantelle Taylor's and NONE of them have been mentioned on WWE.com.Dahumorist 04:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anastacia Rose

Could someone please create a page for the new smackdown backstage interviewer i know a few things about her,her full name is Anastacia Rose McPherson and she was a contestant on the Reality show The Pussycat Dolls:Present which premiered on March 6th,2007.She was the 5th contestant eliminated and she was eliminated on episode 6.She debuted on smackdown on October 12th,2007.So if anyone would like to create her page i would be happy to help.When i find out anymore info bout anastacia i'll add it 2 this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk • contribs) 10:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Jeter and Katie Lea

i would like to address this before this becomes an issue. maybe of you have read/will read that the two ovw superstars have worked wwe house shows recently. that may be true, but neither one of them can be added to the smackdown or ecw roster pages until they appear on television. Hardyboyz27 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Roster Merger

As seen on WWE.com the SmackDown & ECW rosters are now one. I suggest making the SmackDown roster section say SmackDown!/ECW and include all the ECW and SmackDown superstars in that one section. I'd do it myself but I don't have the time right now.JakeDHS07 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)JakeDHS07

We need to wait for confirmation during ECW tonight. The story on WWE.com was very vague and nothing was definate. Gavyn Sykes 23:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If there are Smackdown superstars on ECW tonight, or the topic is mentioned, we will be able to combine rosters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyboyz27 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

lets wait and see rumor has it that ecw's contract with sci-fi ends at the end of the year. they probly won't combine the rosters completly until then.SpeedyC1 19:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

as far as iunderstand it they will still have seperate rosters its just they will all compete on both sows so no need to merge the rosters.Skitzo 22:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Booker & Sharmell

Beside both King Booker & Queen SHarmell, i suggest putting "expecting release on 27th of October" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

buddy it was already announced that they we're being released. but then again you bring up a good point in that they are still currently imployed, and should remain under inactive talent until oct 27. Hardyboyz27 23:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris Masters

I've read on numerous sites that he injured his right shoulder and will be out for up to three months. should we acknowledge that? 24.191.218.14 02:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's photo proof of Master's injury Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 02:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Featured List

Can this article be nominated for featured lists? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 02:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should nominate it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lex94 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Should Diva Search Final 2 Eve and Brooke be added to On Air Talent?????

I think the diva search final 2 Eve Torres and Brooke Gilbertson should be added to On Air Talent for raw since they appeared on raw on october 22nd and the winner will be anounced at either Cyber Sunday this weekend or on Raw october 29th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk • contribs) 05:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wat show roster should diva search winner Eve Torres be added to?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk • contribs) 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kristal Marshall's Release

Okay, her name has been deleted and put back several times now, and I am not about to get involved in an edit war. Other sites have reported on her release, even her own <yspace has "alluded" to her release (she did not specifically come out and say it like Doppy88 said she did). I also did not appreciate the "get over it" comment that Doppy88 directed towards me (oh, and Doppy88 I did not touch Matt Hardy's name, I just didn't notice that it had been removed as well). Wikipedia guidelines say to use verifiable sources when entering content, correct? Well, since her employer, WWE, nor her has said it in any written form, then how can it be put as definite? That is why people keep putting her back on the inactive roster because there is no verifiable proof that she has been released, except for what is on fan sites, and even though they may be correct most of the time, it is still just heresay. I am backing out of this now before it gets out of hand, cause this could keep continuing. I think a consensus needs to be reached here on the talk pages as to remover her from the roster. My view is that until it can be attributed to a reputible and verifiable source (i.e. WWE or Kristal herself) then she should stay on the inactive roster list. If someone has a link to where she specifically states she was released or is no longer employed, then that is a different story. I am going to put her back this time, but after this, I am not going to touch it. Thanks! Josborne2382 03:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the reason Doppy88 used as to the proof of her release is that she said it on her website. Here is the only statement on her Myspace page (her only offical page), the one that wrestling sites are reporting:

¢¾MiSs KrIs¢¾ [sic] is Thankful to all the fans For The Support as soon as i feel better i will Post a Blog...

I am sorry, but I don't see anywhere in that statement that she is no longer employed with the WWE. Honestly the only proof that I have been able to find is that her profile has been removed from wwe.com, but that doesn't mean anything. Do I think she was released? Yes, but I have no proof that she was. Does anyone? Thanks again! Josborne2382 04:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Her profile has been removed from wwe.com, i know her name has been removed from this article but i thought it may have just been someone who removed it without source seeing as it says she is currently employed on her article and her name isnt on the alumni page. Don.-.J 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many people keep taking her name off this list, and other people keep putting it back on. Josborne2382 20:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

i think that she should stay on the roster until an official word is give from either wwe or her.SpeedyC1 21:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

she is no longer listed on the smackdown roster page i think we can take that as proof she is no longer employed, as there is no story of an injury and she hasn't reported to developmental.Skitzo 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No page does not mean released, It means she is not on air talent on RAW, SMACKDOWN or ECWAladdin Zane 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also they still have plenty of stuff about her on the website, for instance her entrance video is still in the entrance video section.| Kristal entrance video on WWE.com

Yes, but they also have Marcus Cor Von's entrance video there. A-Dust 12:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the dirt sheets aren't necessarily reliable for other things such as storylines, they are usually reliable for matters such as this, and we have actually used them as sources for this particular article in the past. Seeing as a precedent has been set that we allow the dirtsheets as sources for this article, and all of them are reporting she's been released, and people are posting comments on her myspace with their apologies and well wishes about her being released, I think it's safe to say we can confirm she's been released. What other proof is there? Wait 6 months and after she no longer appears on WWE or developmental programming? That's a little ridiculous. WWE.com is slow to take down entrance videos, as evidenced by the fact Marcus Cor Von's is still up there. Bmg916^Speak 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If they are good enough to be used for Developmental territory releases, they are good enough to be used for the main roster. That's my opinion. Gavyn Sykes 19:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Article protected for 3 days

To end the lame edit war. Please use the break to reach consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good call. You should kinda be expecting this whole Jericho situation though. I have a little bird who tells me of some guy's return on tonight's RAW. But hey, and your bird can sing. --Kaizer13 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This protection was actually due to the Kristal Marshall situation, which is being worked out. If you'd like to comment on it, please, do so. Thanks. Bmg916^Speak 19:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise for Kristal Marshall

SpeedyC1 and myself have worked together and reached a possible compromise regarding the Kristal Marshall situation. We agree that the way her article is now is fine, since it does not explicitly say she was released and is vague enough since her status is disputed here on the wiki. As for this article, we believe that the following can satisfy all sides until some sort of official announcement is made: We list Kristal under inactive talent, but with the description of employment status with the company (legit) unknown. until we get an official word from either her or WWE. Thoughts? Bmg916^Speak 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the perfect compromise to me. I fully support it. Gavyn Sykes 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great to me as well. Good going! Josborne2382 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to drag this out any longer. If WWE.com hasn't stated her release yet, they never will. As for Kristal, who knows how long it will take her to release a "statement." Her release can be verified right here on her OFFICIAL website: http://www.kristal-marshall.net/ "She also says when the time is right she will be putting out an official statement on her release." The webmaster is in direct contact with Kristal therefore it is verifiable. Sorry if I offended you Josborne, but my comment was not directed specifically to you, but for everyone who had been re-adding her throughout the week after all the information had been posted many times from many sources. Doppy88 21:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, I didn't take offense to the comment as much as I found the attitude surprising, but edits and reedits can be frustrating so it's no problem. As far as the statement on her website (and I know people are going to say I am reading to much into it, but..) saying someone is going to put out a statement on their release and the person actually being released are two different things. For example, her "official" release date from the company may not be until, say, November 15th (just an example) and if we just come right out and say she was released, then it could be considered slanderous. Look at Booker T as an example for that. His offical release date from the company was later than the announced date. I think for now we are safer (and more factually accurate) if we put the above proposed change. Thanks! Josborne2382 22:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Doppy88 Go to the site you provided, it provides a link to her myspace page, that myspace page says it is her official myspace page and then states if you want to go to her official website to click the image, when you click the image it does NOT go back to the original site, It goes to a different site. Thus meaning if you truly believe the site you provided, then you believe the myspace page it provides, and if you believe the myspace page it proves the original one you provided is in fact NOT her OFFICIAL site. With that being said there is no proof which is real, so you can't believe any of them.Aladdin Zane 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Official website or not argument aside, we can't agree on whether we have confirmation she was released or not. This is why the above proposed compromise was brought to the table. I would like to request we comment on said compromise as opposed to whether or not she was released and whether or not we have proof. These arguments are exactly why the above compromise was put together by people on both sides of the argument. So, if we can, let's stick to commenting on that instead of continuing the arguments for definitely one side or the other, thanks! Bmg916^Speak 15:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose her name be put in "inactive" and tagged with "current status unknown" and this be used in any further times it is needed with other wresters as well. Until wwe admits release or the wrester shows up in another federationAladdin Zane 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's basically what the compromise is now, except we say "current employment status unknown", since the employment status is what's in question. I don't see a huge difference between saying status and employment status. Thoughts? Bmg916^Speak 15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I havent looked at it on the page today, LoL, I been to busy proving kristal-marshall.net is a fake. Let me chack it real quick. brbAladdin Zane 15:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not how it is worded now, her name is not on the page at all. I think she should be listed under Smackdown/inactive talent: with current status unknown as the reasonAladdin Zane 16:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The specific compromise proposed as stated above is this: We list Kristal under inactive talent, but with the description of employment status with the company (legit) unknown. until we get an official word from either her or WWE. It's not listed now because the page is locked from editing due to the rv warring over this topic. One it is unlocked the proposed compromise, if agreed upon, would go on the page. Bmg916^Speak 16:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kelly kelly,Brooke and Layla

Should kelly,brooke and layla be added under ecw female wrestler seeing as they occasionally wrestle in diva battle royals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk • contribs) 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

DX

Noe DX are back together put them on tag team list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.103.232 (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If u read wwe.com properly u would have read dat DX is reuniting 4 one night only nxt week on raw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk • contribs) 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless they appear together on every show they shouldn't be added back, theres no gurentee they'll even come out to the DX music.Skitzo 10:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

They are just alluding to DX coming back. If you listened carefully to RAW, they alluded it was DX coming back. It actually is Chris Jericho making his (2nd coming) if you saw the lil teasers, Chris was supposed to come back at Cyber Sunday but the USA network pressured the WWE to hold of his return until a RAW show.Aladdin Zane 12:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OWV Diva Serena

I would like to know why Serena is not on the OVW roster under Female wrestlers because i know for a fact she is still in OVW cos she recently had a title match against OVW Women's Champion Roucka.Here's a link to her biopage http://www.ovwrestling.com/Superstars/Divas/serena.htm.

Unless she's under contract she doesn't belong on this page, OVW is not exclusive t people under WWE contract.Skitzo 08:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Some wrestlers in OVW are there with hopes of being signed by the WWE, Knowing that there is no guarantee. Others are signed. If she isn't signed to the WWE itself. She doesn't belong here, She belongs on OVW pageAladdin Zane 16:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr Hollywood

Who is Mr Hollywood? i've never heard of him or seen him on raw.So y is he on the raw roster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk • contribs) 05:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Layla and Kelly

stop adding them as wrestlers they are not full time wrestlers so leave them in other on-sreen talent with the tag occasional wreslters. Skitzo 21:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Divas missing on wwe.com

Some people have noticed that the diva pages have been removed from wwe.com. No one can be sure why, maybe its some sort of glitch, or they have decided to redo all of the diva pages. But they are still employed by WWE so they should stay in this article. Don.-.J 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Cole probably f***ed up again. Skitzo 00:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Cole has nothing to do with the actual programming of the website. And missing divas wouldn't be a glitch. They were probably temporarily taken down until a re-design can be put up. Bmg916^Speak 00:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

yes i realise that, i was being flippant.Skitzo 10:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The divas are probably off to remove Brooke and Kristal from the website WWEBoffin0101 16:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

They were already off before the rest came off. And this conversation is starting to get forum-like, so I am going to suggest we stop now. Bmg916^Speak 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hornswoggle

HORNSWOGGLE IS NO LONGER ON SMACKDOWN. WHEN HE ENTERS THE RING AND HIS NAME COMES UP, HE HAS A RAW SIGN NOW, NOT A SMACKDOWN ONE. GET HIM ON THE RAW ROSTER.

Please don't shout. According to WWE.com he is still on the SmackDown roster. But we do denote in this article that he appears on Raw as well. Bmg916^Speak 17:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Chris jehrico

has anyone picked up the latest wwe magazine. there i a rumor going around that chris jehrico is on the cover.Bleek25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleek25 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I heard that it will be out soon...I was at a bookstore yesterday and they still had the December issue with Cena Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs) 00:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

it has been confirmed he is on the cover, however until he appears on TV or ppv he still shouldn't be added.Skitzo 11:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The magazine came out. And since WWE Magazine is a reliable source I think we should add him. It's not a spoiler anymore. Bmg916^Speak 12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

leave him off until he debuts, as we don't yet know which show he will be on.-- Skitzo (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

we can assign him to unassigned talent. -- 24.191.218.83 (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it'll ever be added. Seems like nothing can be used as a verifiable source anymore. ---- Kaizer13 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is actually no source that says anything about Jericho's status. Yes, the magazine suggests that he will be working for them, but has WWE/Jericho made an announcement saying he is definitely employed by WWE? No. Has he appeared on WWE television? No. Has WWE mentioned Jericho in its programming on television or online? No. Does any reliable source list him as being on the roster? No. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I added him to unassigned talent, both F4W and the Wrestling Observe have said he will debut either at Survivor Series or on the Following RAW, they would not of put him on the magazine if he were not under contract to them.Skitzo (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it would be obvious that he'll be on RAW since RAW...is...Jericho! >_>

Someone needs to add him to the roster page!

Already been done. Please sign and date your posts by using four "~" Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Massaro

her reason for being inactive is changed on the roster everyday. we need to decide on what to put next to her name. i suggest "currently (kayfabe) suspended". other suggestions? Hardyboyz27 (talk) 01:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

i assume nobody cares? then we'll just leave it at, "currently inactive" 24.191.218.83 (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

it will stay inactive until she is able to appear in wwe live event again. besides, she's still under contract.12.127.178.158 22:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardy/Triple H Tag Team

they had one match together, and are facing each other at armageddon so would we call them a tag team? NiciVampireHeart 16:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

No, one tag team match isn't enough to qualify for that, IMO. Gavyn Sykes 16:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

inactive superstars.

there is absolutely no way to know when a superstar will return to the roster. please do not add a return date or time next to the inactive superstar's name. there is no way of knowing. the only thing that should be next to their name is the reason for being inactive. Hardyboyz27 12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Beulah McGillicutty

She has not appered on WWE television in over a year and there is no source to confirm she is still employed by the WWE. Bencey (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sunny

Sunny's got to be removed from the "Inactive Talent" section, cos she's not RETURNING as such on Monday Night, she's just making a guest appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excessbaggage80 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Smackdowns GM

since when has Teddy Long been demoted to Assistant GM? Vickie was HIS assistant then Acting-GM during his "heart attack"Skitzo (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Teddy said on this week's sd that he's the assistant GM NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Edge called Long the "Assistant General Mananger." Plus it says he's now the Assistant GM on WWE.com. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Recently, Truco9311 has been adding a citation for everyone's being on the list. Is this really necessary? Hezekiah957 (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Alex Roggio suggested we make it a featured list on WPT:PW, so adding refs will do that.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If that is what it takes then it is better off not a featured list. Doppy88 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Being rigorous about verifiability is never a bad thing. Removing refs encourages people to add difficult-to-verify entries. I'm reverting.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Fat Man. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it most certaintly is a bad thing if it is done to an outrageous degree. Doppy88 (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Doppy, do not edit war; I think you might be a new editor, so I won't accuse you of being disruptive just yet. Be aware that this is not a vote. It's policy; familiarize yourself with it. Everything on Wikipedia must be attributed to a 3rd party source. Without the individual citations, it becomes impossible to tell which entires have been verified. Please back up your opinions with policy, or just stop this behavior.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what a FL has to have "REFERENCES" "CITATIONS", THIS ARTICLE IS NOT DONE YET!!, ME &ALEX are working on this.--TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Truco9311,at whom--and why--are you yelling?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not yelling, I am emphasizing the status of the article, and I am directing this to all and especially you "fat man", do not revert the citations until you have approval to do so. As I see it you and Doppy are users who arent familiar with the WP:PW. TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Truco9311, read my comments very, very carefully. There is no bigger supporter of what you're trying to do than I; I was scolding Doppy for removing the citations. I'm here to help out--regardless of my project status (I tend not to join many of them).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally you and Skitzo ought to be very careful about this idea of WikiProject Pro Wrestlig needing to "approve" any major changes to article. WP:PW does not own this article, though its members' contributions are certainly valued. Anyone can make bold additions any article, as long as they are in line with policy. And as I said before, I like what you're trying to do.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

the problem is developmental roster changes are often hard to verify, especially as some people won't accept the Wrestling Observer web site/newspaper as a source, yet it tends to be the most credible independent news source available. BTW who approved adding them? i certainly wasn't asked, they are not necessary for the article Skitzo (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone needs to officially approve the addition of the notes--Truco9311 was merely being bold, and his actions are in line with policy. If certain facts are "hard to verify" and there is considerable controversy about whether the source you're including is reliable, then perhaps those entries should be removed altogether. Deleting all the references just confuses the matter.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fat Man: From the very beginning of that article: " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" The information you are providing references for is not challengeable, it is common knowledge. I see no one challenging something they can view on their TV every week and if you actually edited this article on a regular basis you would see no one comes here to challenge that information, such as if Triple H is indeed on the Raw roster. All of this is unneeded and simply clutters up the article. If you want to reference some of the developmental superstars with links verifying they have signed a contract go ahead, but what's been done so far is just ridiculous. I'm sure no one here that edits this article on a daily basis would want to sacrifice the look of the article for some "featured list" standing. Doppy88 (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok im sorry "Fat Man" but I see on the history edit of the article, you edited the article and now i see "Doppy" did most of the reverting. SO Doppy, if you want to challenge this project on making this list a FL go to WPT:PW#WWE Roster and list your concern. But do not revert my citations until members of the WP:PW agree to do so. Cheers!TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the choice should be in the hands of some project, but instead the editors of this article who work hard to keep it accurate every day. Doppy88 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok if you want to put it that way, then, me and User:Alex Roggio are the ones who will make the choice.TrUcO9311 (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's silly. Any volunter can help make decisions, as long as they're following guidelines and policies. See WP:OWN.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

ROFL and what gives you that authority? I simply suggest we wait until the other editors of this article voice their opinion on this issue. Doppy88 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes thats true, but if you see Doppy's comment he wants the ones "who work hard to keep it accurate every day" to make the choice, and hypethitically, me and Alex are working hard on this. If you want to see alex's contributions see here his sandboxTrUcO9311 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Doppy, the look of the article IS supposed to be sacrificed for FL. The rankings of articles (B, GA, A, FA, etc. ) have their own criteria and to promote the article, it must abide by it. Unfortunately, you believe that a little number at the end of each name is ridiculous and "UGLY", but the criteria for each and every one of the rankings (even B class) says that all must be sourced. And Featured Lists and Featured Articles exemplify Wikipedia's best work.... and I believe EVERYONE (except you) would like for this article (and every other list) to become WIKIPEDIA'S BEST WORK. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 19:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Alex and Doppy, I honestly don't think the references do that much to harm the format and readability of the list. I have seen prose (non-list) articles that have references every other word, and that indeed makes it very difficult to read. But adding a tiny, hyperlinked number to then end of every line of a long list still allows for a very clean format, in my view. If aesthtetics are the main reason you're complaining about rigorous sourcing, I don't think you're making a strong argument.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

this is a stupid idea. all it is doing is adding junk to an already good pageDavnel03 (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)