Talk:William Regal

Not fired

Although William Regal played by Darren Matthews lost his match versus the Green Bay loudmouth, Mr. Kennedy it was never clear what he had lost. Before the match the screen personality Mr. McMahon said if Kennedy lost the match he would be fired however the threat to Regal was presumed. Mr. Kennedy asked for the match to determine who the real King of the Ring was after Regal had won it a few weeks earlier. It's worth noting it was not an 'offial' 'I quit match'. Presumably he lost the match due to the fact he had breached a rule in his contract but similar to Jeff Hardy in the fact he had to drop his title which in Matthew's case was the general manager role. Matthew's could have lost three things: 1.BEING AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE WWE ROSTER. 2. LOSING HIS GENERAL MANAGER ROLE. 3. LOSING HIS KING OF THE RING TITLE. Although prior to him being suspended it was noted Regal was going to focus more on wrestling. It could be pure coincidence that the next day he was banned for breaching his contract. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.181 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Face or Heel

In some parts of this article Regal is announced as a heel but sometimes he's announced as a face. I think he is a bit like John Cena really they both make jokes yet the crowd still find a reason to berate them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.51.181 (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Somebody really needs to change this picture. Bam123456789 (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

File:William-Regal-Entrance,-RLA-Melb-10.11.2007.jpg What about this. Bam123456789 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The current picture has a much clearer view of his face. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Age

According to an interview on the Sun that Darren Matthews just did, he is not 42, but rather 39 closing in on 40. [1] Nightmare SE (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Name

Should the article's name be changed to William Regal?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone?

RandySavageFTW (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Bring this up at WT:PW, maybe people'll respond. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Never mind, you already did. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved. He competed as Lord Steven Regal for a long time and gained fame under the name. For people with multiple well-known ring names, the consensus at WP:PW has been to stick with real names. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Coverage links

Removed a link to the WWE's coverage for RAW in regards to the May 19th match because this is not a link to a static page, the page dynamically changes each week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robblatt (talk • contribs) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Name change

Darren Matthews

Resolved

Should the article's name be changed to William Regal? No one replied on its talk page.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a large section at the top of the page discussing multiple moves it should probabally be moved there. --76.66.181.154 (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He has also been known as Stephen Regal and Stephen William Regal and Lord Regal. And he has published a book as Darren Matthews. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And Lord Steven Regal. But William Regal is his best known name.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Again he is very well known in England by his real name, The article shows his has hand multiple in-ring names and by all purposes you should stick to his real then when this happens. Govvy (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Gained fame under the ring name Lord Steven Regal and held the WCW Television Championship four times under this name. Too well-known as Lord Steven to claim that William is better known. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to note: William Regal has over 300,000 more Google results than Darren Matthews. And Lord Steven Regal has more than both.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Google does things by webbots scrolling websites for names, it will count the number of times it finds the name and the number of websites doesn't come into that equation. I would suggest not to depend of google for a hit hit count and just use common sense. Govvy (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and he's won the European Championship four times as well under the name William Regal. There's also King of the Ring, Tag Titles, etc.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons stated above, he has written a book under the name Darren Matthews, so we are in the same boat as Edge, and which stage name would you pick, he has won championships under different names. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above and his title wins as Stephen Regal. --Endless Dan 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - WWE.com refers to him as Matthews out of kayfabe here and now is probably not the best time to do it. D.M.N. (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per GaryColemanFan. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 Not done King iMatthew 2008 19:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

His Current Theme

Is his current theme actually named "Gladiators"? There's no reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Btw4392 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No it is not his current theme. His current "Born Naughty" theme is a generic theme written by Jim Johnson with the title not being released. I have tried in the past adding Generic Theme, as was recommonded during a project discussion, but it was removed. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Darren Matthews/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

I have to say that this article is just not ready, it has several major issues.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   See further

   B. MoS compliance:

   See further

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   See further

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   See further

   C. No original research:

   With problems in both Verifiable & Cited it's hard to say yes here

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   It does cover the major aspects both work & private

   B. Focused:

   See further

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Looks neutral enough

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Just looking at the last 50 edits for the page there are quite a few reverting going on, I'm not convinced it's stable. Also there are close to 200 edits this year alone, another strike against it.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Looks fine

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Looks fine

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I've found too many problems with this article to pass it, even too many to put on hold I feel. Have a look at the comments, address the various issues, take your time to make sure you've gotten it all right and then submit it again, it's not a bad article overall but it has issues that keeps it from being a good article.

In some sections I just had too many comments to make it work in the review template so I split them into sections below.

Prose quality

I have several issues here, some general, some specific these are just what I came up with before my brain said "no mas!"

• Do not use contractions in the text
• "Bill Dundee served as his manager under the name Sir William, and he won the Television Title four times." - hmmm I read it like Sir William won the Television title four times? This sentence is a mess with Run-on sentence issues.
• in the Commissioner (2000–2001) it's stated that he was a villain, then "self-proclaimed" then he became a villain again - doesn't make sense, never stated that he turned face or why
• Intercontinental and Tag Team Championship rivalries (2002–2005) section: Maybe explain why he needed sugery? it'd be nice to know if it was a nose job or for medical reasons or what.
• same as above: "every member of The Un-Americans lost their matches, causing the group to separate later in the night and break away into separate groups." could stand to be reworded.
• same as above: "regained the titles twenty-four hours later, thanks to an impromptu match set up by Chief Morley after Regal and Storm had put Bubba through a table." Comma issues makes the sentence clunky.
• Raw General Manager (2007–2008):"On the August 6 edition of Raw, Regal became the new General Manager", maybe the qualifier "Permanent" would have helped here.

MOS Compliance

Lead: I'd like to see consistency, it's either all sourced or not sourced at all IMO.

Layout: Generally okay, althought it wouldn't hurt to have left adjusted one or two of the pictures to give it a more dynamic flow.

Jargon: I see you've tried to go the "hero/villain" route with face/Heel - you weren't consistent as I saw the term used once or twice. Other words such as squash & job are used but not explained what they mean in this context, which can be an issue since both "Squash" and "job" have totally different means in wrestling than in general. The concept "tag team" could have used a link first time it's used, just to be nice.

Words to Avoid: Looks to be okay.

Fiction: Here is the clincher - 90% of the wrestling section is written totally "in universe" with the major problems being: Titles & matches are won and lost, never is it hinted at that it's not technically a competitive contest. Feuds are presented as real, personal and not the scripted storylines that they really are. It doesn't have to say "SCRIPTED STORYLINE" every single time but it'd be nice that it didn't actually look like Regal developed a genuine friendship with Eugene etc. His roles as General Manager, not once is it explained that it's an on-screen role and that he doesn't actually hold an executive position at WWE. I could go on but I think by now you're getting the picture.

List Incorporation: Complies to the WP:PW MOS so that's fine.

Verifiable

Big problem here, the majority of the sources, I'd estimate about 66% of them are Primary sources, in other words the WWE writing about the WWE, it needs to be reliable secondary sources - especially since the subject is still alive. the occasional WWE.com source would slide but not to the degree it's used here. While the book is generally an okay source it is also a primary source, Matthews on Matthews, and as such I'm a little reluctant to accept it as a source for the controversy over his match with Goldberg and why he was fired. It's potentially biased and it'd be good to have a second independent source back it up if possible.

Cited

A lot of stuff is cited and cited correctly with inline citations and everything, but there are places where there's nothing - bupkis. List of examples I stumbled upon (not a total list)

• Early career section: No sources on the part that's actually about his career.
• World Championship Wrestling (Second run; 1999–2000): No sources at all
• Commissioner (2000–2001): I don't see a source on his time in MCW or the Benoit match being the reason he was called up to the WWF full time.
• Commissioner (2000–2001): I'm having a hard time seeing how much ref [3] covers of Matthews part in the invasion angle, clairfy here please?
• Intercontinental and Tag Team Championship rivalries (2002–2005) his first IC run and the use of Brass knucks isn't sourced at all.
• Section on Eugene just cites the title win, not his change from heel to face or anything else.
• No sources from REgal & Tajiri winning in Japan to the end of the section
• Rivalries with Scotty 2 Hotty and Paul Burchill (2005–2006): ONE source in the entire section??
• King Booker's Court; reunion with Dave Taylor (2006–2007): Again a little light on the sources for such a long section.
• Raw General Manager (2007–2008): liberal use of [24], sometimes twice in a sentence? don't generally repeat a citation in back to back sentences and definitly not within the same sentence.
• same as above: "He later turned face for one night only while on a European tour, by facing Randy Orton in a match to try and show him some respect." his intentions and such need a source, especially since it's presented as Matthew's own idea and not part of the storyline.

Focused

This is a most definite fail here, his WCW days gets hardly ANY coverage in fact a 5 year period gets less text than "Rivalries with Scotty 2 Hotty and Paul Burchill (2005–2006)". His latter WWE sections go way overboard at times resorting to "week to week" recaps instead of reducing it to the major points of a storyline/feud/angle - It could benefit from more summary, less week to week recap. detail overload in the wrestling sections from "Intercontinental and Tag Team Championship rivalries (2002–2005)" and forward.

Oh and - maybe have a uniform rating of the article? I see "Start" and I see "C". Shouldn't it also be "B" rated before you go for GA??

Hope this is helpful. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Move

• [[:{{{Darren Matthews}}}]] → [[:{{{William Regal}}}]] —([[Talk:{{{Darren Matthews}}}#Requested move|Discuss]])— {{{Reason}}} i feel that he is more know as william regal as i checked google and 508,000 hits for regal came compared to 345,000 for darren matthews i suggest we move this to WILLIAM REGAL. BigPadresDUDE (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)</~~~~

sorry about the templete im new at this stuff BigPadresDUDE (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed template as it is not historical. Also although william regal does have more hits on google, he was also well known as steven regal in WCW. See the request to move and ultimate opposition above in the talk. Eddie6705 (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Roundtable Faction (Present)

Nothing is mentioned about Regals new Roundtable faction, with Kozlov and Ezekiel Jackson?