Jump to content

Talk:The Shield (professional wrestling): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Guidorulz (talk | contribs)
134 edits
Guidorulz (talk | contribs)
134 edits
Line 94: Line 94:
:Look at the Miz, he apparently turned at least three times since November 2013 when he feuded with Kofi Kingston. Then he fought heel Clay, face Ziggler, heel Fandango? <span style="border:2px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Starship.paint|<font style="color:black;background:yellow;">'''starship.paint'''</font>]]</span> ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|ctrb]]) 13:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:Look at the Miz, he apparently turned at least three times since November 2013 when he feuded with Kofi Kingston. Then he fought heel Clay, face Ziggler, heel Fandango? <span style="border:2px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Starship.paint|<font style="color:black;background:yellow;">'''starship.paint'''</font>]]</span> ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|ctrb]]) 13:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Not to sound condescending but wouldn't an attack by Kane, The New Age Outlaws, Ryback, Curtis Axel, 3MB, and The Real Americans(all heels) require the Shield to be faces?
Not to sound condescending but wouldn't an attack by Kane, The New Age Outlaws, Ryback, Curtis Axel, and The Real Americans(all heels) require the Shield to be faces?

Revision as of 12:36, 22 March 2014

WikiProject iconProfessional wrestling Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThe Shield (professional wrestling) is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Orphaned references in The Shield (professional wrestling)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Shield (professional wrestling)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "FCW":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead dispute

  • Lead 1 supported by AmericanDad86: The Shield is portrayed as a terrorist gang that has no qualms with taking unjust, immoral measures to righting all the many wrongs they believe to be existent in the WWE. Often, the heel stable is seen ambushing, outnumbering, and skillfully exploiting chaos. Garbed in personal armor, each of the group members take on the appearance of riot police. The Shield's trademarked promos are held in electrical rooms in which they hold a hand-held camcorder close up to their faces one by one and express their intentions. As another trademark of the stable, their entrances and exits are typically made by coming through the audience as opposed to using the aisle way. The Shield's catch phrase is "Believe in the Shield!"
  • Lead 2 supported by Starship.paint: The Shield are known for wearing and wrestling in black gear with protective vests, making their way to the ring through the live audience and their first-person hand-held recorded promos.[1][2][3] In the ring, the Shield are also known for their superior teamwork, willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of the team and forcing victories by overwhelming opponents with superior numbers after incapacitating their team-mates.[4][5][6][7]

Starship.paint see WP:LEADCITE. Leads don't need sourcing unless they contain particular controversial information. The information in the lead is common knowledge if you are a wrestling fan. The attire information doesn't need a source as there's a photo directly beside it that supports it. Your revision of the group solely wearing protective vests is incomplete.

The fact that they ambush and terrorize superstars in the WWE doesn't need to be sourced as it's corroborated by the rest of the material within the article, which points to numerous instances in which the Shield has ambushed and outnumbered superstars. For example, the following is sourced within the article:

the Shield soon expanded their ambushes to other faces, such as Tommy Dreamer and Ricardo Rodriguez.[7][8][9] The Shield's attacks were also used to write off wrestlers from television via injury angles, such as Randy Orton and Sin Cara, who were already suffering from legitimate injuries

Excessive citing in the lead is NOT required. And not only that, the changes are senseless. What exactly is a "first-person, handheld promo" or even "recorded promo"? All promos are recorded. These edits make absolutely no sense to anyone skilled in the English language. Essentially what you've done is you've taken the information that was originally there and worded it poorly and intelligibly. The edit is unconstructive. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added the leads before your comment for clarity. I also removed both leads from the article until this is resolved. Firstly I feel a huge problem with Lead 1 is Original Research. It makes claims which I don't think are backed up in any of the articles' sources - so I challenge you, AmericanDad86, to show me the current sources in the article, which backs up...
  • The Shield "is portrayed as a terrorist gang"
  • The Shield "take on the appearance of riot police."
  • The Shield are often "skillfully exploiting chaos".
  • The Shield's "trademarked promos are held in electrical rooms"
You can't just say "The information in the lead is common knowledge if you are a wrestling fan." No, you need sources somewhere, even if not in the lead so those sources need to be in the body, so where are the sources? I will address your problems in my lead in a moment. Starship.paint (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, let's talk about your problems with my lead. Yes, the attire I wrote is partly supported by the pictures in the article, but I feel that an additional text citation does zero harm to the article and adds more credibility to the statement. Yet, you also mention that "Your revision of the group solely wearing protective vests is incomplete." How is it solely protective vests? It's "wearing and wrestling in black gear with protective vests". You imply that I missed something they wore out, so what is it? Black pants? Black singlets? Those fall under black gear. What other "personal armor" do they wear, if we were to cite your lead you support, and what sources can back up the additional "personal armor" items?
  • "The fact that they ambush and terrorize superstars in the WWE doesn't need to be sourced as it's corroborated by the rest of the material within the article" - yes, that is corroborated - no, it is not mentioned in my lead. I was not referring to this when I said there needs to be sources. Instead refer to the four examples I have brought up earlier.
  • Excessive citing in the lead is NOT required. - yes, but what is excessive? I quote seven sources. Each backs up a statement made in Lead 2. Source 1 > Black gear. Source 2 > Crowd Entrance / Protective Vest. Source 3 > First-person promos. Source 4 > Superior Teamwork. Source 5 > Sacrificing for each other. Source 6 and Source 7 > Manner of match victories by overwhelming opponents with superior numbers after incapacitating their team-mates. I've only used more than one source for the last point because there's no point concluding how the Shield wins a match from one match alone, there has to be a wider sample. I could have added a third source for the last point but I did feel, that would be excessive citing. I feel that points 4/5/6 are not explicitly mentioned in any other sources in the article, and to have such clear sources that I can even quote from is valuable.
  • What exactly is a "first-person, handheld promo" or even "recorded promo"? I merely directly quoted a reliable source, as such it would be the most accurate information. What I can infer is that their promos are from a first-person video using a handheld device. I do not find it very hard to understand. We can re-word it to "their promos conducted via hand-held camcorders".
  • Essentially what you've done is you've taken the information that was originally there and worded it poorly and intelligibly. The edit is unconstructive. Poor wording is at best for one sentence, and that was a direct quote from the source. It's so easy to dismiss my edit as nonconstructive, despite the sourcing backing up all the info in lead 2, despite lead 2 bringing up additional information from sources 4/5/6/7, despite the sourcing being archived. WP:LEADCITE: "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Instead you choose Lead 1, which makes many statements which I have yet to be seen backed up by sources. I'd rather have the sources for Wikipedia:Verifiability than have none. Starship.paint (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead 2 is better. Too much OR and wordiness in the first. "Terrorist", "immoral", "unjust" and "skillfully exploiting" are unverifiable judgment calls, and the sentences run on. But no, there shouldn't be citations in the lead. And it should be "The Shield", not "the Shield". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
Starship paint, the edit is to remain as it originally was until the matter has been discussed in full. Please do not unilaterally delete the information within the article until the matter has been discussed in full. Now at present, I have a get-together I need to make with a friend and am unable to read your extended message at the present and will get to it later, but as of right now, the edit is to stay as is until discussed. That's according to Wikipedia policy. Thank you. I'll return tonight to give you my rebuttal as to your post.
InedibleHulk, I'm not sure if you're the best person to provide input on the issue seeing as how you took to uncivil behavior with me that led to an extended dispute not long ago as you had a lesson to learn in that I'm not to be spoken to any kind of way by you. While all opinions are welcome, yours could easily be construed as nothing more than petty spite and vindictiveness. It's my recommendation that you stay out of it. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend anything uncivil. I like how your version says they're heels. And the ring entrance thing is probably worth a mention. But my edit had absolutely nothing to do with this dispute. I just removed a useless Wikilink, like the MoS says. Look before you revert. And have a pleasant get-together. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
You are right InedibleHulk, you are right. My apologies. :D AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this discussion is over, and made the changes. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
I think that your version is better. It explains better what is The Shield and, If you have sources, good. Also, what's wrong with the jargon? It's an encyclopedia, we talk for clever people, not for children. Adult people know what is a " first-person hand-held recorded promo" and if the people don't know, they can find it, but erase it because is "jargon" I see stupid. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You think that his "verion" is better, huh? These same adult people who you describe as finding it understandable to say "first-person hand-held recorded promo" are probably the same individuals to find it understandable to say "verion" and "is jargon I see stupid." AmericanDad86 (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HHH Pedrigree originates from Spanish Wikipedia / Commons. I'd give him some leeway on his spelling. I'm still waiting on your rebuttal which you would give tonight. Also, feel free to propose a replacement for "first-person hand-held promo". And Hulk? Why don't you agree with citations in the lead? These citations are for the characteristics of the Shield which are not as explicitly said in the rest of the sources. If anyone thinks the citations are ugly, Id suggest Bundling citations. I just think that it's better to have the explicit citations saying "The Shield have better teamwork" / "The Shield sacrifice themselves for each other" than not. Starship.paint (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the citations are necessary. The citations means that we don't imagine the article. "Shield have better teamwork" needs a citation, because we can use for every tag team without a citation (every tag team/stable means The Hardys, New Age Outlaws, Santino and Kozlov and Men on a Mission). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is meant to summarize the key points of what's already detailed in the body. Of course we need sources, but those should be (or at least typically are) cited in the body, not the lead. If there's something mentioned in the lead that isn't in the body, it should be added where relevant. I can't click your citations here without a reflist, but I'll look into them and help how I can. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
I've added one of your sources to the bit that says they come through the crowd. I don't think their outfits need a citation, since we have pictures in the article that speak a thousand words. I'll be back later to do the rest, but if you'd like to beat me to it, feel free. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:51, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
Starship.Paint, I've bowed out. You all can do what you will with the section in question. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wortman, James. "Dean Ambrose def. U.S. Champion Kofi Kingston". WWE. Archived from the original on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2013. Representing the black-clad trio whose brutality knows no bounds...
  2. ^ Clapp, John. "The Shield def. Randy Orton, Big Show & Sheamus". WWE. Archived from the original on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2013. Before the opening bell, The Shield made their trademark entrance through the WWE Universe, carving a path through the packed MetLife Stadium floor and its thousands of passionate WWE Universe members. .. ... he ripped off Ambrose's black protective vest ... ... With the victory, meanwhile, "The Hounds of Justice" not only extended their impressive streak as a unit...
  3. ^ "WWE VIDEO: Shield explains Foley attack in handheld promo". Pro Wrestling Torch. Retrieved 24 May 2013. The Shield brought back their gritty, first-person handheld promo on Friday's WWE Smackdown episode.
  4. ^ Benigno, Anthony. "Why hasn't The Shield been beaten yet? They work cohesively". WWE. Archived from the original on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2013.
  5. ^ Benigno, Anthony. "Why hasn't The Shield been beaten yet? One will sacrifice for the good of the group". WWE. Archived from the original on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2013.
  6. ^ Tello, Craig. "The Shield def. John Cena, Ryback & Sheamus". WWE. Archived from the original on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2013. The Shield countered with ruthlessness and their signature "divide and conquer" technique to decimate Sheamus (who was speared through the barricade), and then outnumber their opponents. The sum total of their scheme: Ryback took the crushing final hit and losing pinfall
  7. ^ Benigno, Anthony. "U.S. Champion & WWE Tag Team Champions The Shield def. Team Hell No & Kofi Kingston". WWE. Archived from the original on 24 May 2013. Retrieved 24 May 2013. ... but the numbers game won out yet again when Ambrose and Rollins dispatched Kane's teammates, setting up the demon in red for a match-ending spear from Reigns.

Disbanded?

Is the Shield really disbanded? Not due to disbelief but due to the fact that Rollins walked out but Reigns and Ambrose are still in it. Does it count when there's only 2 members left? And I'm sure they won't really be broken up until either of them faces Rollins in a match. I am willing to be proven wrong about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 13:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, him leaving them does NOT mean the group has been disbanded anyways. That's assuming way too much. What if he was doing tough love? Aren't two people still in the Shield? Where's the credible source that states they're officially disbanded? This needs changing. srsrox BlahBlahBlah... 15:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is out, not even Rollins... yet. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Face turn

I watched the episode of RAW that aired on Monday and I cannot understand why someone would remove the addition of Face turn for The Shield when that's exactly what happened. Jerry Lawler was called into the ring for punishment by Kane but the Shield turned on and attacked him instead of King. How does this not warrant a face turn addition to their page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 13:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's approach this with caution. I would really rather wait until the next Raw is completed, or actually even after WrestleMania. We have to look at this long-term, how do we know that their "turning" is not a temporary thing and that they're not going to turn back before or by WrestleMania? Essentially we need more actions to confirm that they're faces or tweeners long term (also, we need reliable sources to confirm this)
Look at the Miz, he apparently turned at least three times since November 2013 when he feuded with Kofi Kingston. Then he fought heel Clay, face Ziggler, heel Fandango? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound condescending but wouldn't an attack by Kane, The New Age Outlaws, Ryback, Curtis Axel, and The Real Americans(all heels) require the Shield to be faces?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Shield_(professional_wrestling)&oldid=600725612"