Talk:The Undertaker

Archives
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Sentence doesn't really make sense

This sentence - "Despite his strong showing against Lex Luger, WCW declined to renew Calaway's contract, and he signed with the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) in late October 1990. " Doesn't really make sense. His "strong showing" was presumably scripted, that shouldn't have had any bearing on whether WCW renewed his contract. Wrestlers are not awarded contracts for winning their matches (they're told which matches they win by whoever writes the script) they're awarded contracts for other reasons. Blankfrackis 02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the script says who wins, but the wrestlers talent and work ethics is what determines how well they do in a match, how believeable it looks, how the fans respond to it. It's also a mistaken belief that just because the finish is agreed upon in advance that every single move in the match is written down like a script-like form. Yes that does happen from time to time but generally the two wrestlers lay out some of the "spots" along the way and then adapt while in the ring. Look at it this way, why do actors win awards for their roles when it's all scripted? it's in their interpretation of the material - it's much the same with wrestlers really. MPJ-DK 01:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Children?

Anyone know the birthdates of his children? And does he have two sons with his ex-wife Jodi Lynn or just one? (MgTurtle 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)).

I do know that he had only 1 child born with Jodi Lynn, born sometime in 1993. he does have kids born with Sara, most recently born in October of 2002. yes sir, thats the extent of what i know! SU121188 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I know he has two daughters with Sara and I believe their first daughter was born in either November or December 2002 (most websites (mostly unreliable) said that the first daughter was born in the same month as Kurt Angle's daughter who was born in December.I believe his son's name is Gunner but 'Taker hasn't said anything about his son so it's basically hersay MgTurtle 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)).

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

The only thing I whould like to say is that the image/text ratio is low, but it doesn't really need an image of him each year.

Passes all the other points (see checklist) I'm passing it.-Flubeca^Talk 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article has been delisted again. For the same reasons as the last time. Please don't nominate it at GAC again until the "in-universe" issues have been corrected and the article meets all of the criteria listed at WP:WIAGA. The discussion for delistment, now in archive, can be found here. Regards, Lara♥Love 13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sara's info

Anyone think that some of Sara's info. should be on this page like her birthday and how the met and stuff or should be recreate her page with sources?(MgTurtle 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)).

She is not notable enough to have her own page. She had one, but it was deleted. You can read the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Calaway. Nikki311 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that she is younger than him or Have her birthday on his page?I don't personally think it matters or it will enhance his page but I thought I'd ask anyway?(MgTurtle 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)).

BIG EVIL

Can someone remove this name from his ring names? It was one of his nicknames (and listed as such) but never a ring name. This page is protected, so I cannot edit this. --Endlessdan 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection

It says on the top of the article that it is semi-protected, but I am unable to make any edits, and my account is more than a year old. Anyone else having this problem, or just me? (Sawyer 09:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

It was semi-protected but it was then changed to full protection. - Deep Shadow 09:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

doesn't matter. Just leave it alone. To many people edit this article and the article is a disgrace. Tratare 04:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

can we assume you mean "too many" people? Or maybe "two many" people? it makes a difference -- use spell check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

How is the article a disgrace? Or is it the people editing it which is a disgrace? Darrenhusted 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I say this article is a disgrace because the amount of information on each of his feuds is excessive. If I want to learn about who the Undertaker is on wikipedia, instead I'll have to go on a 3 hour-long visit back to every last one of his feuds back from 1990 to the present. I doubt anyone with any kind of a life at all, would sit there and do that. Tratare 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC) he will some back to face mark henry

Deleting lots of this article

A lot of the information on this article needs to be deleted. It's a outrageous. Talking about everyone of his feuds is inappropriate. Maybe we can throw in a couple of his best moments and the main parts of his character and what he wears, but to dwell on his feuds... In fact, to go through almost every one of his feuds in order since 1990 is outrageous. This article is outrageous! Tratare 07:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to further pursue this topic, I would advise taking it up with WikiProject:Professional wrestling, as such a massive revamp would be setting a standard for many articles which do the same. Enhanceddownloadbird 07:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discussing it anywhere. I just wanted to say my opinion here, which I've done. This article is a mess. You can choose to do something about it or you can leave it that way and I don't really care if there are other articles like this one. Then there all a mess too. Let me give you an example. Take the show Family Matters (TV series). Look how perfect it is. A section about ongoing themes, a section about the cancellations, a section about comical issues, etc. No section dwelling on one aspect of the show. Let's say we changed it to look like this Undertaker article and discussed each episode from beginning to end. There's no difference and that would be stupid Tratare 10:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As this a previously a GA article I would say that any mass deletion would harm rather than help the article, if I were you I'd take your outrage to a different article, or at least draft a copy in your sandbox before you start trying to chop up this article. Darrenhusted 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its great. You have to think about it: Undertaker has had a long career. Its good to cover it the way it does. This is one of the best articles on wikipedia.BIG Daddy M 14:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your favorite, eh? I think the feces article is better than this one. Tratare 15:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds all too familiar. Anyone else agree? - Deep Shadow 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup; Very. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the article, can we at least try to act civil here, Tratare? Making rude and insulting remarks doesn't help anything. (Sawyer 07:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Photos

You should put a better photograph of the chokeslam like this one you should add it, the link is File:Http://www.wwe.com/superstars/smackdown/undertaker/photographs/otherphotos/TakerChoke811 83x64.jpg

Cleanup/in-universe

I just cleaned up the article a bit. Mostly I combined like citations, removed peacock words and unattributed weaselly phrases, as well as removed some of the continuous linking of names. I also changed the "cleanup" tag to a "in-universe" tag, because the paragraphs about his career are still, well, "in-universe". Anyway, I tried to write this out in my last edit summary, but I accidentally pressed enter before I finished, so basically, I'm just letting everyone know why I changed the tag. Nikki311 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole thing of changing Wrestling articles to real articles is too difficult. The fans will just keep reverting back to in universe story telling as they like to read it. The fact is anyone with half a brain reading it will understand that wrestling is presented in a kayfabe manner anyway and just accept that the names are what the Wrestlers called themselves on the day. That way, we can keep it as it looks without complaints, and understand what is being said. Madslocodemente 04:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Conclusions When writing about fiction, keep the following in mind:

• The principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded: write from a real world perspective;
  • References to the real world are always made when the fiction and reality differ. (i.e. Big Show substitutes for Khali in the GAB Punjabi Prison match)

• Both primary and secondary information are necessary for a real world perspective: maintain a balanced use of both primary and secondary sources;
  • Just look at the sources.

• Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research;
  • No original research, this has been carefully guarded.

• All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources;
  • Sources are reliable. And if the sources aren't enough, get anyone who has watched the shows over the years to verify it for you. The fact the matches happened or the events happened can not be denied, so they are hardly in-universe.

• Readability and comprehensibility: put all information in the context of the original fiction;
  • The context is perfectly fine, though the information can hardly be regarded as fiction. The matches are "real" in terms of the fact they actually happen. The events are real, though the Undertakers' supernatural powers are not.

• Wikipedia's fair-use policy: the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.
  • No problems meeting this criteria as far as I have noticed.

As per this, I suggest the removal of the tag. If someone has a better suited tag, and can make an argument for it then let it be placed. Enhanceddownloadbird 07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the tag does apply. Check Candice Michelle, Bobby Eaton, or John Cena to read a wrestling article that is out of universe. When this article was delisted from being a Good Article, the major concern was the fact that it was still in universe. Mostly, it needs to be made 100% clear that the matches are pre-determined and the storylines are scripted. I'm adding the tag back until these issues are addressed. Nikki311 15:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have compared the articles and ultimately am just as lost as before. The scripted nature of the programming goes under irrelevance to some degree, but the reality is still clearly present. Let's review several examples:

From 1990-1994, Line 3-4: The appearance of Undertaker was modeled after a mortician from old Western movies, with the character being supposedly impervious to pain and possessing supernatural powers, such as teleportation and manipulation of flames and lightning.

• This review of the character takes it out of concept of reality as he was "modeled after" and the character "supposedly being". I fail to see any more efficient way to illustrate that he shoots shoots lightning in a realistic sense unless you want to go into the science behind it, which is irrelevant in this article. It also explains the following event:
  • From 2006-2007, Line 1-2:At the 2006 Royal Rumble, Undertaker returned during Kurt Angle's celebration of his world title defense against Mark Henry. He entered on a horse drawn cart and made his intentions known by destroying the ring with lightning bolts.
• This event happens so much later in the article, but is nevertheless explained. In an encyclopedic article, you cannot assume something about the article without reading the entire thing. Should every example of supernatural power be dragged with the word "kayfabe"? Or should an introduction of his power, as demonstrated above be enough for them all?

From 1990-1994, Paragraph 3, Line 3-4: At the Royal Rumble, Yokozuna sealed Undertaker in the casket with the assistance of several other heel wrestlers, winning the match. The Undertaker's "spirit" appeared from inside the casket on the video screen, warning that he would return.[13] This began Undertaker's first hiatus. In reality, he had a back injury that was getting worse and needed time off.

• Perfect example of what I'm saying. This showed exactly what happened in the storyline, including adding " " around "spirit" so as to add doubt to the statement before revealing the reality in the following line. "In reality," is not in-universe at all.

From 1995-1996, Line 2: At WrestleMania XI, while Undertaker was facing Bundy, Kama Mustafa stole the Undertaker's source of kayfabe power, the urn, and disrespected 'Taker by converting it into a large gold necklace.

• Notice the use of kayfabe in this statement. Do we really need to add that Kama Mustafa kayfabe converted it into a gold necklace as well, or does a second use of kayfabe actually confuse the statement? Or, can we assume the storyline is kayfabe entirely after a single use.

From 1997-1999, Paragraph 2, Line 4-7:During this match, Undertaker's storyline brother Kane made his debut, ripping off the door to the cell and giving Undertaker a Tombstone Piledriver, Undertaker's trademark finisher, allowing Michaels to pin him.[24] During the next few weeks, Paul Bearer and Kane challenged the Undertaker to fight his brother, but these challenges were refused consistently by the Undertaker.

• This is a perfect example of being subtle. Kane is frequently referred to as Undertaker's brother, but it is made clear fairly early that it is only in the storyline. Don't confuse subtlety for lack of reality.

From 2006-2007, Paragraph 3, Line 3-4: Khali was removed from the match, due to elevated liver enzymes, and replaced by ECW Champion Big Show, over whom The Undertaker gained the victory. In the storyline, Teddy Long replaced Khali with Big Show as punishment for an attack on Undertaker shortly before the match

• This is a perfect example of reality before storyline. In this case, the reality of the situation was volunteered before the storyline was revealed. This is certainly not in-universe.

Ultimately, your argument has no basis from what I can see, and the only help you offered was to offer articles with which I saw little to no difference. If I was able to see the article's need for improvement in-universe, I would have worked on the article instead of providing an argument that the article already conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) as per it's conclusions and giving more than a few examples to support my claim. If you would like to dissuade myself and others from this tag, you will have to use more than the fact the article was delisted by one person who said the article need clean-up and providing examples of articles that are GA, but do nothing towards revealing, to at least myself, what needs to be different. The fact is, it can be argued that the article is in-universe until your fingers fall off, but I want examples of how the article fails completely to do so and help in fixing the article that is not in the form of adding tags that go unaddressed for a month. Until someone presents an argument otherwise, I suggest the removal of the tag, and I stand by my earlier comment that if another tag can be placed with a good argument behind it then do so, but the in-universe tag may as well be defunct in this article.Enhanceddownloadbird 19:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you remove the tag or not, I doesn't change the fact that the article is written primarily in-universe. Clearly, I'm having a hard time explaining this. I can refer you to either User:LaraLove or User:MPJ-DK who have both done GA reviews for wrestling articles (MPJ-DK also has experience tweaking an article so that it no longer is "in-universe"). You can also bring it up at WPT:PW, where (hopefully) someone can explain the situation better than me. You can also read the delisting argument here, where experienced GA reviewers insisted that the article was written too "in-universe" and little has changed since then. Actually, that is the second delisting argument, as it has been delisted twice. I can't seem to find the original discussion, but it was a different group of people saying the same thing. For example, the major problem is saying that he won a championship or a match...when in reality he did neither. He was just playing the part. It is more accurate to say that "he was booked to win a title or match", which is what it says in the article examples I provided for you. Moreover, it is essential to note that feuds are not because two wrestlers don't like each other, but it is just an angle or storyline. While you did provide a few examples of where reality is differentiated from fiction in the article, the majority of the article is still "in-universe". It has to be 100% clear that he is a character acting from a script, where titles and matches are not won or lost per talent, but because someone scripted it that way. The last example I can give you is for Kurt Angle, whose article is currently under GA review. I had to take the article "out-of-universe" so the article could pass. You can see how I did that here Nikki311 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the Kurt Angle revision and I believe I understand what you're going for, though I still fail to see how it goes under in-universe. I think perhaps there needs to be a modification of the tag or in-fiction writing style as far as pro-wrestling, but that can be dealt with later. My apologies for any hostility, as I thought we were referring to The Undertaker character itself as being more in-universe than others which I disagreed with as his "supernatural powers" are covered well. I'll bear this kind of writing in mind when making future edits to this and other WP:PW articles. Enhanceddownloadbird 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. :) I'm sorry I didn't explain myself better the first time. I agree that a different tag may be more appropriate for professional wrestling articles. Perhaps one that says something like This article fails to differentiate between real life and kayfabe or something to that effect. However, the in-universe tag is the closest thing we have at the moment. Good luck in your future editing. Nikki311 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the article section by section and edited it in a similar way to what I saw in Kurt Angle's article and I believe the problem has been dealt with, though any more help with any problems that anyone may see would be wonderful. I am thus removing the tag. A full set of edits is available to see here. Enhanceddownloadbird 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job! Nikki311 04:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this issue is the article's title. Why have the text be "out-of-universe" if the article is about a professional wrestling character? And based on the title, it certainly seems that it's about the character and not about the man portraying the character. I know "wrestlers ARE their characters" and everything, but come on. Is this article about a man who works for World Wrestling Entertainment or is it about an undead monster who can survive being buried alive, sealed in a casket and burned, and has the power to conjure lightning, et cetera... 69.7.37.69 09:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker's real age

Taker was born on March 24, 1962 (not 1965). Taker himself has stated this in his own magazine special (early 2003), and in many interviews over the years. Could someone please correct this error?Brennaf 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found on many sites that undertaker is born in 1962. An IGN article in 2003 stated he was 41 so he must have been born in 1962. Should i go ahead and make the change? 11rey619 9:57 pm, 18 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It does NOT state anywhere in the Undertaker special from 2003 that Callaway was born in 1962...What he does say is that in 1985 he was 19 years old when he stepped in the ring with Bruiser Brody...This could have happened in Jan/feb of 1985 which would be just before his 20th birthday...It should be noted that his high school records have him graduating in 1983 which would put him at 18 years old if he was born in 1965.....i believe the 1965 date is correct.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.168.86 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania winning streak

I have a suggestion, so tell me what y'all think. I made a table of The Undertaker's WrestleMania winning streak in my sandbox. I performed a little test to see what it would look like in the article. To see, click here. Here are my thoughts on this: I think the table takes away from the "listy" aspect that the current, ummm, list has. :). Moreover, the table could go under championships and accomplishments b/c more-or-less, that is what it is (a kayfabe accomplishment just like winning a championship belt). Does anybody else like it, and should it be added to the article? Suggestions, please. Nikki311 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that part of his PWI awards are to the left of the table instead of under it, so there are only a few words per line. If you can fix that, then the table should work fine. (Sawyer 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm not sure what you are talking about. On my computer, the table is right justified and the list of championships is left justified (as in two columns), but the table does not cause the text to only have a few words per line (everything still fits normally). Is anyone else having this same problem? Nikki311 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, its fine. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever problem you witnessed, {{Clear}} should be able to fix it. Cheers, The Hybrid 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I figured out something that (I hope) worked. I went ahead and added the table. Does it look alright to everyone? If not, I'll continue to tinker with it until it looks right. Nikki311 01:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good in my browser. Cheers, The Hybrid 04:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

His PWI Top 500 Ranking is Wrong

Hey, simple problem I wanted to point out. This site lists that the Undertakers ranking on the top 500 of the PWI years is 18. If you check the actual list he is actually number 21. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.227.131 (talk) 22:44, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Return of The Undertaker

I have compiled all of the previous topics and organized them in one section, unedited. I see no reason to have this topic covered in so many places on one talk page. Enhanceddownloadbird 01:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Return date questionable

The Undertaker's return I assume is unknown, due to the fact originally the date was set at January 2008 on the WWE Roster page under Inactive talent. Next, the date was changed on that page as November 2007. And on his article, it says he's return October 2007. WE need to find and confirm his actual return date. Thanks TonyWWE 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC) TonyWWE

Where exactly did you read this? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:39, 05 July 2007 (UTC)

When he returns we can put his return date. Darrenhusted 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) He is gonna return at Unforgiven 16th september 2007 look on Phenomforever.com --Shaibani 11:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

His return date has been set by WWE. He returns at Unforgiven 2007. "Undertaker returns to WWE at Unforgiven, live on pay-per-view Sept. 16." - WWE.com - Slovig 00:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Return, September 16, 2007

Adding Taker's return date is reasonable becasue I have a reference, the video played on the August 10th edition of SD![1] the character kept repeating the word "Unforgiven" and she said that "he keeps coming back", and Unforgiven is on September 16, 2007.

So add something like, "On the August 10th edition of Friday Night Smackdown, a vignette aired hyping the return of The Undertaker at Unforgiven to face Mark Henry", or something similar to that.undertaker will be smackdown in person on friday 14th september there is video promo to be aired in a couple of weeks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Truko9308 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I also think the Unforgiven return should be noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.169.189 (talk) 21:47, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

takers return

May it be added that The Undertaker is returning at Unforgiven 2007 not only is he on the poster it has also be confirmed by people such as jim ross so may it be added Deadman lastride666 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not necessarily returning at Unforgiven, it could be added that he plans to return at Unforgiven, but it won't be definent. Take Rey Mysterio for example, he was set to return at the Great American Bash, he was on the posters and everything but couldn't make it back in time. Bm2 21:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

no apperently from what i heard mysterio was set to return at the Great American Bash but he was found taking drugs to they suspended him for an extra month but they didnt havent time to release a new poster so they had to stick with that oen because he was on the RAW tour of mexico i beleive wrestling some matches there.Deadman lastride666 11:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On the August 10 edition of SmackDown!, a vignette hyping The Undertaker's return was shown after Mark Henry (who injured The Undertaker after the Steel Cage match with Batista) defeated a local. The vignette had a repetitive use of the word "Unforgiven". I'm guessing 'Taker will return at Unforgiven and verse Mark Henry. J.C. 03:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest adding to the article about Undertakers return. Even though it may not be for sure it should at least be mensioned that a vignette was shown and that the druid was present at the end of it. [JWM]

How about this? "On the August 3, 2007 edition of SmackDown, Mark Henry cut a promo after a squash match and showed video of his attack on the Undertaker and the druids carrying Taker out, after which he was laughing. In the weeks since then, starting with the August 10 edition of SmackDown, Undertaker vignettes began airing immediately after Henry's video, followed by the appearances of druids and sand. The vignettes have in common mention of Undertaker returning from being buried alive and set on fire, as well as repetitive use of the word "Unforgiven", hinting clearly at an Unforgiven 2007 return for the Undertaker."

Or, a condensed version: "Since the August 10 edition of SmackDown, one week after Mark Henry laughed about "taking out" the Undertaker, ominous vignettes began airing and being followed by druid appearances, all pointing towards Undertaker returning at Unforgiven 2007." 63.3.16.129 03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} I Would Like To Write About The " Druid & Sand" Incident.

The article is semiprotected, so nearly any editor can make changes if appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

On the September 28th edit about him defeating mark henry I was hoping someone would add the information from the WWE mobile video that was sent out after SmackDown! went off air that had The druids come out and carry Mark Henry away. the code to watch the video is:

http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/afterthebell/2007/september22-28/5537050

Will someone please fix this so that those who do not have WWE mobile can know that this occured? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.87.230 (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

SARA Tattoo

Should it be noted that WWE is now photoshopping Taker's "SARA" tattoo in pictures now so it doesn't appear in recent pictures? (eg Unforgiven)-TakerV1

It has to be noted that rumours are spreading that Sara and Taker have split up. He is now apparently dating Michelle McCool, though she is married.

http://www.wrestling-edge.com/wwenews.php?subaction=showfull&id=1191279340&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&

I'm not trying to promote this site, it's just the place where I keep up to date on the news. I reckon we should not edit it in the article yet until there's factual proof. Consider it a "heads up"

-HF —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellFyre (talk • contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

during Survivor Series it was easy to see that the tattoo is in the process of being removed by laser(bleaching out by laser)it is now faded, blurry and the skin around it is lightening to white which are all classic signs of the laser removal process, i don't know WHY it's being removed but it looks like it isLadysian (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted until it's official. And get rid of that Michelle McCool bullshit, she's at least twenty years younger than him! Love, Valkyrie Missile —Preceding comment was added at 08:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture of 'Taker and McCool has been photoshopped - the picture also features Sharmell Huffman, and they don't look quite as 'couple-like' in the unedited file. 80.177.2.156 19:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That being said, the tattoo is definitely not visible anymore. on last nights episode, it was so faded, my friend, who was watching for the first time since the attitude era, asked (didnt he used to have a tattoo of his wife's name on his neck.LessThanClippers (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Druids

the Undertaker's minions/followers the Druids are should somehow be mentioned and highlighted somewhat in this article. But I don't know how. they are an essential part of Undertaker's persona but I've got no clue how to talk about them. Any Ideas anyone?Technobabble1 05:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the undertaker have hepitatis?65.222.238.206 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

• ^ That has nothing to do with the Druids. But if you are referring to the Bob Orton incident, I do not believe Taker himself contracted hepitatis. He was pissed about the incident, but I think he was fine in the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TakerVersion1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think for the druids we just put in that they are Undertaker's followers or protectors in some cases. There isn't really much known about them (his druids) unless someone asks him theirselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.87.230 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I remember hearing names of some wrestlers who portrayed the druids, one of which was Paul Burchill. As for the others, I'll have to root around the ol' internet to find some names. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Martial status

I read that Undertaker is currently dating Michelle McCool, did anyone even know him and Sara were seperated?69.182.102.144 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)JakeDHS07

Yes, I read that too, and it also confused me. I'm wondering whether it's just a rumour... Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture of 'Taker and McCool has been photoshopped - the picture also features Sharmell Huffman, and they don't look quite as 'couple-like' in the unedited file. 80.177.2.156 19:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Arest

I'm pretty sure I saw the Undertaker get arested. Was this just a kayfabe are was it real.Hardcore Hak 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)HardcoreHak

That bang you heard in the distance was my head exploding. Now that that's out of the way, how about you tell me where you heard it? Mshake3 18:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw it at Wrestlemania 15. When they were showing the story between Vince and Taker. And agian for smashing the windows of HHH's limo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardcore Hak (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PWI and WON awards

There's a discussion going on on the wrestling project discussion page regarding the PWI rankings and awards as well as the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards. It started out as a discussion of an edit made to the Hulk Hogan article about including all of his PWI rankings rather than just a select few. Then, the discussion changed really to one about whether or not the PWI and WON honors really should be part of the articles to begin with. I figured I'd give a heads up, see if there are any editors that haven't stated their position that care one way or another. Thus far, the consensus is to do away with them as there's a lack of evidence to suggest that the awards have little to no real influence over wrestling or the careers of wrestlers in and of themselves. Odin's Beard 23:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Undertaker and most of the wrestlers consider him the locker room leader.

Should it be included the fact that Undertaker and many others consider Undertaker the locker room leader on Smackdown?--IHaveADollar 10:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because the Undertaker and others might consider him the "locker room leader" doesn't make it so. I've read the same claims from various internet sites that've said the same thing about Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair and others at various times. Since there is no "offical" top guy back in the locker room, I think its POV to say otherwise.Odin's Beard 13:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Survivor Series

Who keeps removing my update about the Hell in a cell match at Survivor Series? It's for the World Heavweight Championship, which I think makes it rather relevant to this page? NiciVampireHeart 13:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's relevant too. Maybe someone is just messing with you. Oasiyis 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:PW consensus/policy, announced matches that have not yet occurred do not go into articles. It's somewhat of an extension of WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps after the match if he wins the title. Bmg916^Speak 04:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Billed Weight

• On SmackDown! tonight (10/9/07) they billed him at 299 lbs. Should his billed weight be changed? --PandoraX 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

yup PayneXKiller 13:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Shouldn't the top photo be updated, showing one with his current gimmick, as opposed to a gimmick he hasn't had for three years?Taker04 (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rock/Taker

No mention of their winning the championships together. Explain... Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes i agree, the picture should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.135.3 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Triangle Choke

It doesnt really make a Triangle Choke a finishing moves because he only used it one match to make The Great Khali tap out SocialistRevolution (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He has used it before, though it is not a common maneuver for him to use. In addition to making Khali tap, it was most notably used at the No Way Out 2006 as a finisher against Kurt Angle, who reversed it into a jackknife pin. --Enhanceddownloadbird (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Then it should be a signature move instead of a finisher. SocialistRevolution (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It was also used against Angle in a title match on Smackdown in 2002, which ended in a dual pin/submission. Defintly a signature move. Mshake3 (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

^^ That was 2003, not 2002. But yeah its not a finisher just a signature move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickdickdickdike (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

^^^Are you serious, 3 times and its signature over a 15 year pro career?LessThanClippers (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC) ^^^Yes. Its a signature move. He only uses it when he needs too (e.g giving it to angle), the reason he gave it to Angle is because Angle is a submission wrestler so he will trade holds. He did it to Khali because he couldn't lift him (kayfabe) and he did it to bob orton so he would be knocked out, thus letting Taker put him in the casket. It's a signature move, it's just that he only does it when neccesary. 142.162.207.136 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

^^^^No its not a signature move. It just means hes a talented wrestler who knows a move that will help him win in that case. 3 times in 15 years says, he knows the move, its not a signature of the undertaker. Its stuff like this that is cluttering move lists, and the page as a whole.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Angle NWO 06

2. Angle SD 03

3. Khali SD 07

4. Batista CS 07

5. Bob Orton NM 05

Is 5 enough? If not then I dont think that jump over the top rope should be a signature move. I can't even get 5 for that.

1. Kane WM20

2. Kane Inferno UFG 08

3. Michaels GS 97 142.162.207.62 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Henry Mania 22 142.162.207.62 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, even 5 over 20 years is once every 4 years. thats not a signature. IMHO we need to shroten lists like signature moves and nicknames.LessThanClippers (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the move is not a signature nor a finishing move. A signature move is a move used consistently in almost every match. Nikki311 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Erase the High Flying jump over the top rope. we could only come up with 4. 142.162.207.232 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Nikki311 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Taker does use the suicide dive a lot. He's used it in a lot of PPVs, so why would you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.254.166 (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Name some. 142.162.183.13 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Goozle

Two things.

First, I think the chokeslam should be renamed at least "Goozle/Chokeslam" if not: "Goozle (Chokeslam)" It was called the goozle years ago and then Tazz brought the name back when he was on Smackdown.

Second, I think it should be placed as a finisher. While he didn't use it as a finish as often as the Last Ride and Tombstone, he used it Every time against large opponents he could never Tombstone. (Yokozuna, Gonzalez, Vader etc.)

Thoughts?

Fonz469 (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Fonz469

Goozle? Hahahahahahahahahahaha...geif source please? --Kaizer13 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to come up with sources as most of the matches he used it in as a finish weren't PPV matches. They were either televised (Raw) or Home Video matches. One example, though is IHY 5 when he beat Mable in a casket match using the chokeslam/goozle.

It's also hard to come up with examples of the term "goozle" being used for Taker's before Tazz had. But here's one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goozle

I believe it was used more often in the early to mid-90's before just being called a chokelsam then Tazz called it a goozle again. Most notably by Bobby Heenan 76.170.164.161 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Fonz469

The chokeslam is placed in his finishers, and that's where it should stay, agreed. He has defeated many wrestlers with just a chokeslam, from large wrestlers such as Mabel/Viscera/V, to cruiserweights like Gregory Helms. In fact, the chokeslam was his original finisher (before the tombstone was used).

Second, as far as I know, the goozle precedes a chokeslam, and is not actually the chokeslam itself. The goozle is the "choke" in the "chokeslam", if you will. Some people seem to use the two interchangably, but many written play-by-plays of older wrestling matches say: "Goozle... Chokeslam HITS!" or... "Goozle... but the Chokeslam is blocked after a kick to the gut."

As goozle is technically not used as an offensive maneuver, I don't think it is not a signature move per se. Perhaps as a signature taunt. For example; Undertaker had Vickie Guerrero in a goozle while intimidating Edge, but a chokeslam did not follow -- a tombstone followed. Signature taunt? The problem with this is we have to go through everyone who uses a chokeslam and signature taunt a goozle. Is this worth it, really? --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker has been using the tombstone as his finisher from the very start. He used it in matches taped before his Survivor Series debut where he was billed as "Kane the Undertaker". Bngrybt (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. The point being, the chokeslam is indeed a finisher. If you have some time to watch an interesting interview (Over the HIAC match at KOTR), Calaway himself calls it a finishing move. You can watch the interview here for now. At 3:38 he says: And I ended up giving him one of my finishing moves: the chokeslam. He never stopped. The fenced section gave way. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 18:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC) He would love to say thanks to callum sturt horley surrey

Merge proposal

Because this page is so long, I propose that we merge the theme music, nicknames, and signature taunts into the Personas of The Undertaker article. I think it makes more sense there anyway, as some of the taunts, music, and nicknames were only for particular personas. Not only would the merge shorten this page (which is well over the recommended maximum length) but it will cut down on some of the listy aspects of the page. Add # ~~~~ to your vote below. Nikki311 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Nikki311 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support

1. Nikki311 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Cheers, LAX 18:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
5. The Hybrid T/C 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose

• Comments
• I agree completely. This will also deal with the problems the Personas of The Undertaker has had as far as being justified as a separate page. If this comes to pass, I would love to help! Also, if you'd like to mess around with it first, I've copied the articles: The Undertaker and Personas of The Undertaker. I've already made the initial moves. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Well, something certainly needs to be done to the nicknames section. My suggestion would be to cut it down to three. American Bad Ass and Big Evil already have sections on the Personas of The Undertaker page, so they don't need to be mentioned here. I'll admit that I haven't watched wrestling in a long time, but some of those names look pretty obscure. The best pure striker in the history of the game? The most respected athlete in the history of the WWE? Those just seem like descriptions that might have been used. Nicknames would be more like The Deadman. Is there any need for The Phenom AND The Phenom of the WWE? And why are some normal, some bold and some bold and italicized? The very fact that so many of them use "the WWE" makes me think they're just IP edits that don't contribute to anything. Obviously, I'm biased against nickname sections. I think they can be useful, but having no editorial control over what does and doesn't belong has led to ridiculously long and useless lists. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• As for music, what about just linking the section to Music in professional wrestling#U and transferring the information over there? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I must admit that I'm biased against nickname sections, as well. I tend to only include names that can be attributed to a reliable source. However, The Undertaker's page is so high traffic, it would be impossible to cut it down to just three. There's always going to be the person that goes "Well...there's three, so what's the harm in one more?" If they have a source, they should stay, and I think there are more than three with the potential to be sourced. The best bet is to merge them, and then source and cut the list down from there. The same goes with music. It is kind of standard on all the wrestling pages, so if it was removed, it would be added back in 5 seconds. If we show these users (drive by-ers and IPs) that there is another Undertaker-themed article with the info, I think it might be more acceptable and reduce the potential for edit wars. Nikki311 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The debate was open for five days with no opposes. The debate is now closed. Nikki311 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain the change to his filmography section

Why has this been changed to a poorly presented paragraph? 202.12.233.21 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs are preferred by GA and FA reviewers over lists (especially short lists). If you think it it poorly presented, perhaps you would like to suggest a way to fix it? Nikki311 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Booked to defeat, booked to win, booked, booked booked

This article over uses the term. Not only that, but it makes it written in passive prose, instead of saying, he defeated hogan, he was booked to defeat hogan. It is adding unnecessary length to the article. I think we all know that pro-wrestling matches are works, and can get past that, and still make this article a better article. Since I am new to editing PW articles, I want opinions before I start cleaning it up.LessThanClippers (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It has to be made clear that wrestling is not real in the article and that events are staged. It must be written out of universe. However, replacing some of the "booked" with other terms isn't a bad idea. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As Gavyn said, it has to be made 100% clear that all wrestling is scripted to have a chance at passing a Good Article review. I know it is weird at first, but just like any other form of writing, after awhile, it becomes second nature to see it that way. Another option is to say "As part of his latest push, he won the championship." I have no problem if you want to change some of the former to the latter to mix it up a bit, but the article must stay written "out-of-universe". Nikki311 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another option is adding "kayfabe before a word that without it would make it sound real. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there away to adress it once in an article? I mean, since all pw is scripted, is there a way to adress it once? I've read many articles on here that say, he won the title at backlash, or defeated so and so, without saying it is a work each time. Every match in WWE is a work (outside of Brawl for All) I took the following sentence from the HHH article, rated GA, by the way...

Triple H dropped the WWE Championship to Vince McMahon on the September 16, 1999 edition of SmackDown! before regaining it at Unforgiven in a Six-Pack Challenge that included Davey Boy Smith, Big Show, Kane, The Rock, and Mankind. He defeated Stone Cold Steve Austin at No Mercy 1999 before dropping the title to The Big Show at Survivor Series 1999.LessThanClippers (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to address it all at once? Not really. All of the GAs are written "out-of-universe". The sentence you pulled from HHH's article uses the word "dropped", which means that a wrestler agrees to lose a title to another wrestler. That is another option for writing "out-of-universe". Also, HHH's article also uses the word "booked". Nikki311 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and although dropped is a term that means they agree to it, dropped also, in sports terms, just means losing the match, so maybe there it just sounds a little better. I definitely will go through and change the wording some though, its very stagnant in this article. LessThanClippers (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kayfabe

Since I'm still new at this, I just want to make sure before I go ahead and make this change. Shouldn't "kayfabe" only be linked once? It currently is linked every time it appears in the article. I can quickly fix this if I am correct. Thanks. LessThanClippers (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The rule is that it should be linked the first time it appears under each header. If it is linked more that once in a section, go ahead and remove it. Nikki311 18:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks. Is that the same rule for all links?LessThanClippers (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Nikki311 18:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, it's once per section? I thought it was once per prose sections of the article (meaning you could link again in Personal life or championships. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's once under each header/sub-header. If you link something in under one header, you can link it again under another. Say you link WWE under 1997-1999, you can link it again under Championships and accomplishments, and again under Personal life. Does that answer the question? Nikki311 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly helps me, thanks Nikki LessThanClippers (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Nikki. I've been here eleven months and misinterpreted that rule. Lol. Well, live and learn. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WCW

Does anyone have information regarding the storylines (not just who he feuded with, but what the plots were) or maybe a little more about the persona? I think that would really help this article. I'll do some research, but I really have never seen any.LessThanClippers (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Curtailing nickname list

In an effort to curtail nickname lists, and clean up the ridiculous length of this article, I am reccomending the following changes... Keep The Phenom, The Deadman, and 'Taker bold as they are currently used and most common. Keep The American Bad Ass and Big Evil, unbolded, as they are out of date or rarely used anymore. remove, Grim Reaper and Reaper, without sourcing, I really can't ever really remember that as a nickname. Remove Booger Red, even though it is sourced, it is a 1 time comment, and is not a true nickname, its more an issue of trivia, and should probably be removed. However, it might make for interesting extra info in the prose. Remove Red Devil, Demon of Death Valley and Lord of Darkness, no mention in article and no sourcing.

Any comments?LessThanClippers (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Tomorrow, I plan to close the above Merge proposal and move them all to the Personas of The Undertaker article anyway. That'll cut down on length. Nikki311 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Booger Red was used for a short while after Wrestlemania X8, not just once from what I've been able to gather. It is, however, notable, because it is a nickname that management asked to be removed. I think it would be censorship to remove it. It is a sourced nickname, why would we change our rules on sourcing nicknames as soon as we started? --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The question wasn't sourcing, it was notability. If it only lasted a very short time, then it probably isn't that notable. However, now with a little more understanding, I do find it notable. I also think, however, that addidng this information to the prose would be helpful.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just a quick note about sourcing: youtube can't be used as a source because of copyright issues. Also, when adding citations, it is best to use a citation template. Nikki311 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, I made two sets of edits with Youtube. How do we distinguish between what's still under copyright though? These are defunct promotions, couldn't they be free use now? --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not certain. Perhaps posting a quick message at WPT:PW would be best to answer that question. It's been mentioned there a couple of times, so I know at least a couple of people 100% know the rules on youtube and copyrights. Nikki311 13:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If it once was copyright, it will remain copyright untill it is released under a free licence, or expires into the public domain which is in a very long time (I think 100 years after the death of the creator, but even if it's 50 years, the answer is "way too long"). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Spivey and Skyscrapers

This page lists Undertaker teaming with Spivey in the WCW days and going by the name The Skyscrapers. Spivey's page lists The Skyscrapers as Spivey and Sid Vicious. With neither being sourced, was wondering if anyone had any of this info. I can research it once I get home (have limited internet at the office)LessThanClippers (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual Skyscrapers article notes it in several places that UT replaced Vicious after an injury; he competed in a PPV match against the Road Warriors. When Spivey suddenly left WCW, he was in turn replaced by a masked Mike Enos, but the team disbanded shortly after when Calaway went to singles and after Lex Luger's US Title.Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)