Talk:Triple H

Smackdown

It should be mentioned that since being drafted to Smackdown, Triple H has successfully defended the title against Edge and will defend against Great Khali. Shortman81 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. That is non-notable week-by-week and fails WP:N and WP:RECENTISM Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

His win over Cena at Night of Champions should be in there, considering they built up the damn thing for 6 months(Royal Rumble till NOC) and that they were wrestlemania main event oponents at one time and it was his first match as a member of Smackdown.

Its not notable to include; It would just seem as trivial. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be noted about his wins at summerslam, unforgiven and the great american bash 2008. Why shouldn't it wikipedia is about facts and he only has one sentence there in the move to smackdown 2008-present part dont you think its a little empty. -keaundre dawn 02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)User:Keaundre24|Keaundre24keaundre dawn 02:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been 6 damn months and no one has change and left it the same thing since his move to smackdwon! Some highlights are like Summerslam, his feud with Jeff Hardy and Vladimir Kozlov, and his Unforgiven victory in the championship scamble. You should mention the people he has beat the the title and that he has teamed up with shawn michaels 1 or 2 times since it. (User: Lukas Vanelanotte).--LukasVandelanotte (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

2008

Incomplete?

Where are his feuds of 2008 with Cena, Edge, MVP, Khali, Benjamin, Hardy and Kozlov? Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 11:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think to these people, what you said was either completely not notable at all for Triple H's overall career or maybe that they are so busy that they have no time to edit the page. 121.120.95.81 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really notable to his overall career, most of them at least. His match with Cena should be in, as should his rention in the scramble match. Hardy and Kozlov should be added when the feud concludes. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There should be some kind of update because the last one was at the draft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.145.98 (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Move to Smackdown (2008-present)

Since his move to Smackdown! Triple H has defeated Jeff Hardy, The Great Khali, Edge, The Big Show, MVP and may other superstars all to retain the WWE Championship.

If we add every time he defeated someone to retain the title, the article would be 27x as long. We should only add defenses when they are a part of a major storyline, are unique in some way, or if he loses the title. Nikki♥311 20:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For example, if Triple H were to lose the belt to either Hardy or Koslov at Survivor Series, the feud would be notable to add in, so the information about the title defenses against that person could also be added in as an explanation of the feud. Nikki♥311 20:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Move to Smackdown! (2008-present) 2

{{editsemiprotected}} Since his move to Smaackdown! Triple H has been victorious at The Great American Bash,Summerslam, Unforgiven, No Mercy and Cyber Sunday retaining the WWE Championship. In late 2008, he entered a feud with Jeff Hardy & Vladamir Kozlov both gunning to the WWE title. --LukasVandelanotte (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read my reply to your above post? Nikki♥311 00:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Move To Smackdown (2008-present) 3

Shouldn't we mention that Edge came in half-way through the match which is why he lost? Here's a simple edit:

Triple H ultimately lost his title to Edge, who came out when his wife, Vikki Guerrero announced that he returned to the WWE. Jeff Hardy then came out and knocked Triple H, and Vladimir Kozlov out with a steel chair. When trying to swing at Edge, he was speared and Edge covered Triple H for the win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tttt1872 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, there only needs to have a summary of what happened, not a replay. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And to summarise the match would be to include that it began as a singles match and became a triple threat. Not all that detail but that Edge was there for only a minute and that he was hit with a chair are notable factors. Tony2Times (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

raw

tripple h wwas in raw all except 2009 now he has jioned smackdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.51.49 (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but what are you trying to say? It's in the article. ayematthew @ 14:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit To Move To Smackdown: 2008-Present

Why don't we have that he will be participating in the Royal Rumble 2009? Also, he's now feuded with Smackdown GM Vickie Guerrero,and also publicly showed nude pictures of her on Smackdown. You we could also maybe state that he interfered with the Big Show vs. MVP match, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tttt1872 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all non-notable and week by week info. Simon \\ KSK ^{Yes we can!} 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Spinebuster

Isn't it called the "Double-A Spinebuster" like what JR says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.82.113 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the orginial name of a spinebuster, not his spinebuster. Simon^KSK 22:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Entrance Themes Missing

There are quite a few entrance themes missing from this section. "Higher Brain Pattern" -- Used while with the Corporate Ministry "Cerebral Assassin" -- Used when we discovered he was the one behind Austin's hit and run. Why aren't these two themes there? Charles-Joseph (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for these themes? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

New section required?

certainly some sort of "Criticisms" section is required in the article? Few people in Professional Wrestling history have been despised for their backstage abuses of power. As I type this Mr Levesque has just "won" his 13th World Heavyweight Championship! That's 11 more than Bruno Sammartino! That seems unlikely unless he were the target of much criticism(some deserved, some perhaps not so). 41.245.179.185 (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a crass comparison to make. Everyone's home boy The Rock won nine world titles in three years on the world title scene, seven times more than Sammartino. It's a different era for world titles. Not that the criticism isn't out there, but it would be better to compare him to someone who has been on the world title leagues for as long as him, who is roughly the same age as him and most importantly in the same era as him. And of course find some reliable sources. Tony2Times (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thor

If no one has heard apparently Paul Michael Levesque (Triple H) will be playing the part of thor in the next installment of movies leading up to the forming of the first Avengers movie... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.14.18 (talk) 07:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give the source for this. If not, they will just remove it. So get to it, whoever you are. 60.51.158.245 (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is all just speculation. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Update

Why isn't his current fued with Orton listed? I mean COme on its big enough for Him to "break into" Orton's House why isn't it on the page!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Its considered week-by-week. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea but Now Orton has Handcuffed HHH and kissed Stephanie while she was unconsious. I think this should be updated!

No, because its still week-by-week. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon Reading the Page On When to update per Wiki Rules it does not say that we can't go week by week if its important. and this is the biggest fued HHH has been in all year so There for it should be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.185.144.155 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not saying much, it's pretty much the ONLY feud Triple H has been in this year (it started before Royal Rumble). TJ Spyke 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nephews and nieces names?

Is it really necessary to name all his nephews and neices in the personal life section? I don't think so, I think we should err on the side of giving them their privacy. However, maybe I'm missing some reason to include them, so please discuss it here if you disagree with me. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say leave the names out unless the nephew or niece meets the general notability and biography criterias. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)]]

The third generation of McMahons have been announced on WWE TV, and used in promos by the parents. It is also normal to mention the names of children in bios. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition, random example here are the names of Eddie and Vickie Guerreros children. Darrenhusted (talk)

Just a further comment regarding my opinion, I knew I had seen it stated earlier in the WP:BLP policy, but it took me a while to find it. It's here: Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_names. See this quote in particular: "Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger."

The names I have issue with are not Levesque's children, these are nephews and nieces. They are not celebrities, their names are not vital to knowing who Levesque is. If you wish to state it such that "Levesque also has several neices and nephews." that would be acceptable to me as a compromise. I just strongly feel we should err on the side of privacy of names of non-celebrities, even if other news media doesn't do so. Especially in the case of Lynn's kids, she's not a celebrity herself, so I think her kids' names definitely should be kept out. I can see some leeway with Shane's kids, but I still feel that the names are not necessary in this article. They would be more acceptable in Shane's article, as they're actually his kids.Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Also, can we agree to leave the names out until this discussion is finished, rather than edit warring? Let's wait 24 hours or so and see where consensus lies. If necessary we can go to WP:3O to get further input from uninvolved editors. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} Except that consensus has been to keep the names, you need consensus to remove them, and they are mentioned on every McMahon page, not just HHH. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Two additional points. Darrenhusted states at my talk page that consensus is to leave the names in. I disagree; consensus at this discussion so far is two to keep the children's names out (myself and User:Briguy52748) and one to keep the names in, that being Darrenhusted. Furthermore, to Darrenhusted, you're talking about sons and daughters, I'm talking about nephews and nieces. These are two different things. I have no objection to Shane's children being mentioned on Shane's page. I object to distant relations (being nephews and nieces) being named on this page. Please show me where other articles have people's nephews and nieces listed on their page, because that would be a better argument against my stance here, in my opinion. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, I have linked this at WP:3O, so hopefully we can get an uninvolved editor's opinion on the matter. If that doesn't work, I'll link it at WP:RFC, as I think there needs to be a consensus of more than 2 or 3 on this. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the date of birth has been there since the day they were born, and is referenced by WWE itself, means that the consensus has been to keep them. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Go back and reread what I wrote above please; you keep mentioning his daughters but I'm not even discussing them. My question is regarding whether his nieces and nephews names need to be mentioned, not his children. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Raven on this one. Children's names should be included, but I see no reason to include neices and nephews. Thanks, Genius101^Guestbook 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Shane McMahon appeared with his son Deacon in the opening promo of WrestleMania XX. The theme was "Where it all beings... Again". So The PPV opened with Vince, Shane, and Shane's newborn son Deacon (who presumably will eventually run the company in several decades), so privacy is not an issue here. We mention family members in other articles (like Honky Tonk Man's page mentions that he is Jerry Lawler's cousin). Eddie Guerrero's page mentions his nephew Chavo Jr. (in fact, most of the Guerrero articles mention them all). Bret Hart's page mentions two of his nephews (Teddy Hart and Harry Smith) and niece (Natayla). There may be others, but those are off the top of my head. TJ Spyke 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Came from Third opinion page: What's the usefulness of keeping the names of the extended relatives? Seems like a bad idea, infringes on privacy, no value for the reader, and most of all infringes BLP. Unrelated: Here's something to read.--Asdfg12345 02:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

About TJ Spyke's remarks: I think that's okay, and if the nephews or nieces are mentioned in some appropriate context where it is normal to mention them, then there is not an issue, right? but if it was just a random mention with no context, or a list, it seems it would be better to avoid gratuitously providing that information.--Asdfg12345 02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would feel that Shane's son being mentioned is okay in Shane's article; but what's the usefulness of mentioning it here? This article about Triple H gains nothing from knowing his nieces and nephews names. As for User:TJ Spyke's examples of other relatives being mentioned in Wikipedia pages, Jerry Lawler, Chavo Jr. and Bret Hart's nephews and nieces are all wrestlers; they're not minor children, they are notable as such. The nieces and nephews of Triple H, however, are not notable celebrities, they're just kids.

Also in response to Asdfg's question, the context of Triple H's nieces and nephews being listed didn't really exist, other than, "He's an uncle too: these are his nieces and nephews. You can see a diff here which shows how they were mentioned, here I had no idea I'd get such a pushback in removing them, as I thought it was a pretty minor thing to have in the article, and therefore a trivial thing to remove. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• sighs*... I have to agree with Raven1977. Remove the nieces and nephews, they are not notable, at least not here. Raaggio 22:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, Another thing to consider here is that in the case of the other wrestling families mentioned, the children are notable independently of the family. Is Lynn? No. Are her kids? No. I definitely think her kids names should be removed. They aren't celebrities, and neither is their mother, and they having nothing do with the wrestling business whatsoever. Also, Triple H isn't even blood related to Shane's sons. I have no problem with Shane's sons being listed on Stephanie McMahon's page and her kids on Shane's page because it is a family business. However, Shane's kids really don't have much to do with Triple H. Nikki♥311 01:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys wanted a third guy to vote? well, if you ask me, id say that they have children, and sex, and age and all that, same with nieces and nephews, but leave there names out of it, its gonna be hard enough for them growing up being harrased... etc.--Dr. Pizza (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Kind of hard when WWE themselves announced the births (and their names) right on their website. TJ Spyke 00:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Of Lynn's kids? Nikki♥311 02:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if you do have names and details announced elsewhere are they relevant in any way? Do the appear in any wrestling event? are they notorious in their own right in any fashion? Until they do something or are involved in something (say a custody dispute, for instance) I think it suffices to say that he has nephews and that's it. 83.174.61.58 (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Move To Smackdown (2008-present) 4(Triple h def John cena)

Triple H's clean defeat of john cena in 2008 should be noted.I saw the argument against,which was that some title defenses in 2008 were not "notable".Clearly defeating john cena is very NOTE WORTHY. john cena is booked very strongly and very rarely has been defeated in a 1-1 on match.Its quite disapointing that the person who moderates this article is making strange excuses to add a simple 9 characters to the tag line of title defenses for triple h in his 2008 title reign.

1-its notable 2-adding cenas name is only 9 characters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.191.121.84 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nobody is "moderating" this article. The article is semi-protected because it's a frequent target for vandalism, which means that IP addresses and accounts that haven't been confirmed yet can't edit at the moment. Any responses you see to suggestions on the talk page are usually just from other editors who have the article on their watchlist and those with accounts are trying to make decisions on whether to add the suggestions based on their understanding of Wikipedia policies. That being said, it's hard to say which match is or isn't notable, but having looked at the sentence you're talking about, I don't think any of the names he defended the title against are really needed, so Cenas isn't necessary either. If you feel strongly enough on the matter, perhaps a source which states the importance of the defense against Cena would help those of us who disagree see your side of things. Raven1977^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 16:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

HHH win at WM25

Is it notable that its his first win at WM since WM19 Supermike (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Its seems POVish. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

8 Time WWE Champion - Most in WWE History

Triple H is an 8 time WWE Champion. He has held the belt more times than anybody else in the history of the WWE. Shouldnt this be put in the introduction and not way down the page? Being the WWE Champion more times than anybody else in the history of the WWE is amazing and more acknowledgment should be placed on this. When the day comes that Raw and Smackdown are merged again they will drop the World Championship and only the WWE Championship will remain.(Im new here, trying to figure my way around) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior82 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

What ever happened to the controversy section that was on this page? I remember there being one, but I could be mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not mistaken, but the controversy section was too controversial. Ahem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.145.221 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not Inactive

while triple h is not showing up on the LIVE raw shown on TV he is being promoted for house shows in july and it's being promoted that he will face orton and batista in a triple treat match at a raw event sourses? watch smackdown it promotes them there 82.21.192.131 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)