Talk:Major Players

Talk on this page

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Zack_Ryder_and_Curt_Hawkins_Split talk on it.--Zack Ryder Give me a page 23:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Split Pages

I think this is a completely joke! Since Ryder went to ECW, he has been one of the more sucessful young guys on the roster, he changed his gimmick, he's in an angle with Rosa Mendes, he is one contender for Christian's ECW title, HE ENDED TOMMY DREAMER'S CAREER! and he has already accomplished the WWE Tag Team Titles and he was also in a stable with EDGE! If Zack Ryder doesn't deserve a page, so tell me why Tyler Reks, Yoshi Tatsu, Abraham Washington and even some other FCW guys deserve to have one. By: Btaker22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.48.44 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To refer you to the top of the page:

Q: Why hasn't neither Ryder nor Hawkins got their own articles?

A: Hawkins and Ryder have an article. However, they are merged with each other. Tony2Times (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think it is about time this page got split for each. Zack Ryder has had a lot happen since he broke up with Hawkins. Pretty soon this whole page will be more about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.224.235 (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What has he done? A few matches and a title shot. That is two sentences worth of stuff.--WillC 21:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hawkins meanwhile has had a few matches, a title shot and won so how will the page be more about Ryder when he's the less succesful anyway(?) Once the page really deviates, then one or both will receive individual pages. Tony2Times (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryder is LESS successful? Really? Anyway, there are far, far less notable wrestlers than Ryder who have wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.78.3 (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Wikipedia, just give Ryder his own page. Who really cares about Hawkins right now? He hasn't been on television for a YEAR, while Ryder has been making ECW awesomer since he came there earlier this year. WWWYKI. 68.255.76.55 (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

We have guidelines to go by. Can't give either a single page at the moment.--WillC 19:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wait a year people, one of them should be notable by then —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm really starting to think Ryder deserves his own page. The feuds he has had. A title shot. Rosa Mendez. Retiring Tommy Dreamer. Not to mention him throwing up the LI and having his own catch phrase. Supersox (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What feuds? A feud involves two or more wrestlers meeting in a series of promos or backstage events or having several matches which escalate until a blow off match. He's dating Rosa, it's mentioned here. He retired Tommy Dreamer, it's mentioned here. It will come soon if he carries on this track but there's not much of note yet. Tony2Times (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no logical argument for Zack Ryder not having his own page. NONE. He is a singles wrestler now, and has been from quite some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.192.28 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You all need to read the previous discussions on this. There is not enough information to sustain a seperate article. He has one small section of prose which sets him apart from the tag team as a singles wrestler. That has easily fit within this article.--WillC 06:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Woo boy, because there's so much that can be put for Hawkins and Ryder. They were Edge's lackeys, for god's sake. Not much happened! (130.160.207.14 (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)).

You are forgetting their indy work, which in a reliable source standpoint, means just as much.--WillC 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are forgetting that TYLER REKS has a solo Wiki page and he has done less than nothing on the roster! Does any indy geek get a Wiki? Does ZACK SALVATION have a wiki? How does their indy work mean just as much as one of these guys being a major #1 contender on a brand while the other has been unseen for a good year. (130.160.216.29 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

I think Bryan Danielson would be a good example of that. He's far better known for his independent work than since he reported to WWE. HAZardousMATT^toxic 17:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But Tyler Reks was never in a tag team. He has all his information on his page while Ryder and Hawkins both have all their information here. Why is it so hard to understand that if Ryder or Hawkins had their own page it would be exactly the same, if not smaller, than this page. And their indy work (3 years) and WWE tag work (2 years) counts for a heck of a lot more than half a year as a solo wrestler who only got a #1 contender shot at the third-rate brand's title because there was no-one else on the roster to give it to. Tony2Times (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I say if Ryder doesn't get his own page, then this whole page should be deleted. It just makes sense... WWWYKI 68.255.74.42 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't make any sense. This is an encylopedia and we have enough references to sustain a notable article.--WillC 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it Bretta and Croft have there own pages when they are a tag team. But Ryder and Hawkins do not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.224.235 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Because Caylon Croft has been wrestling since 2001 and only started tagging with Trent Baretta in 2009, he's also been a three time tag champ with Tank Toland and one time with The Miz in OVW and as a singles wrestler won the OVW Title, competed in the NWA, ROH and was a TV Title contender for CAPW. Trent Baretta has been wrestling since 2004, wrestling from 2004-2007 in NYWC (coincidentally enough where Hawkins&Ryder came up from) as a singles wrestler winning 2 solo titles and a tag title (not with Croft) alongside appearances in Jersey All Pro and Top Rope among others before joining FCW in 2009 to tag up with Croft. He also took part in the Queen of FCW tourney in drag/disguise. Hawkins and Ryder spent 5 of their 5 and a half years of wrestling together in a tag team in NYWC, JAPW, OVW, DSW and WWE.

Do you even read their articles? Tony2Times (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Even Curt Hawkins deserves his own page now, he's doing great down in FCW. He faced Low Ki aka Kaval in the main event, he's had a couple shots at the FCW title and he's also main eventing a lot of matches. Sure there pages won't be long but Trent Barreta's and Abraham Washington's aren't long either. Chris2038win (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC).

We need to split these pages and that should be that. They are two different people and have gone on to do two different things.Trick man01 (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Curt Hawkins& The Dudebusters Lose Their Titles

I read the results for upcoming FCW Shows and The Dudebusters [Curt Hawkins, Caylen Croft & Trent Barretta] lose the tag titles. I know that future stuff shouldn't be edited in until it happens on TV but I just thought I'd post this to enlighten everyone and also in case I forget to update the Hawkins section.190.59.253.238 (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the rule still is that it's to do with a reliable source and FCW have put out an official press release announcing the title changing hands so I think it's okay. Tony2Times (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Knew this was coming beacuse Baretta and Croft came to ECW.--C23 C23's talk 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

About the little "Why hasn't neither Ryder nor Hawkins got their own articles?" FAQ

Was that written a year ago or something? There's absolutely no reason in the year 2010 that Zack Ryder shouldn't have his own article after spending nearly a year on ECW as a solo performer with many notable changes and events happening that in no way involve Curt Hawkings.76.226.127.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

This has been discussed several times. The consensus is to not split the article.--WillC 05:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I like how almost all of the recent "consensus" has been you and Tony2Times just repeating your weak arguments over and over. This seems like pure bully tactics. Ryder hasn't teamed with Hawkins since 2008. He's had Championship matches, solo feuds and has been partnered with Rosa Mendes to the point of WWE setting up particular photoshoots for the two of them and everything. He was the man selected to retire Tommy Dreamer from ECW, who held the title less than a year ago. Not to mention, Ryder's gimmick has been completely, totally, successfully overhauled from his "Edgehead" persona that he shared with Ryder. He even had his own theme commissioned and made by Jim Johnston that was sold on WWE the Music volume 10. Even if Curt Hawkins arguably does not need his own article at this point, Ryder most certainly does. The constant arguments in favor of him having his own article shows a complete lack of recent "consensus". He has a successful singles push that eclipses his tag team work at this point and it's ridiculous for him to be redirecting to an article about the former tag team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.46.4 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if Curt Hawkins arguably does not need his own article at this point, Ryder most certainly does. Okay, I'm trying to work that out in my head. Anyway, neither of them have done anything that justifies a split page, as 65%-70% of both pages would be the same content. HAZardousMATT^toxic 17:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If I've shown any signs of bullying then I apologise, it may be occasional frustration at most people's lack of argument beyond the point of "but I like him, he should have a page" again and again not reading points already been made. We had one very persistent user bringing up the issue every few days on here and eventually he brought it up at the WP:PW page where I think (and this is just off the top of my head mind) one other person supported a split and nine or so others voted against it. Further, as I/we advised him to do, he wrote an article in a sandbox to prove his case; he constructed this page which proved our point that there would be nothing gained from seperate articles as, if you look, there's so little new content to add that is overwhelmingly a carbon copy and content fork of this article, with the only additions being pointless comments made to fluff up the page. Go read Shelton Benjamin's page which is a Featured Article and I'm pretty sure you won't read a sentence like "Ryder would then go on to pick up wins over the likes of Tyler Reks[28][29], Goldust[30], and Yoshi Tatsu[31] while having competitive matches with Evan Bourne[32], Shelton Benjamin[33][34], and ECW Champion Christian[35]." This sentence exists purely to give the false illusion that there is more to Ryder's career than there is by listing a series of unrelated, unnotable matches and masking "losses" with "competetive". One (singular) Championship match on a brand with only 15 competitors and the longest reigning champion who's taken on most brand members. Heck at least Hawkins has won a title. Tony2Times (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that a lot of your argument is based around WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you're disregarding everything I've said which included project consensus, comparisons to well written articles, debunking of false claims of notability and me pointing out that most people's arguments are based around "I like him". Tony2Times (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How does a loser like Tyler Reks, who is not a notable person, get an article while Zach Ryder doesnt? Jokers the lot of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.168.21 (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That point has been addressed, repeatedly. Also, please try to remain civil. Thank you. HAZardousMATT^toxic 17:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

One idea would be for users to find some interviews either wrestler has done, and use them in the article to show individual notability. Personally, I don't buy the "content fork" argument, I think users are just saying that because they've fought a split for months and now don't want to lose face. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet you buy the "I don't like it" argument? Tony2Times (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The last part of your statement clearly indicates that you don't like Ryder (you know, I despise Randy Orton, but I don't take my hatred of him out on his article, I just avoid it). I'm curious, at what point would you say that the article would warrant a split? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No the past part of my statement indicates that I don't appreciate you disregarding a very relevent piece of policy (content forking) yet reinforcing an unfounded piece of policy (my opinion of Ryder) despite me putting forward a wide array of rationale defending the article on this beast of a talk page. I'd think this article would warrant a split when either or both members of the tag team are actually involved in some form of significant storyline, when there's enough relevent information that 95% of three pages wouldn't be exactly the same. Tony2Times (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You misread my comment, I meant the last part of your statement from 18:58, 2 February 2010, which was before I said anything, so how could it be about me? It really wouldn't be content forking though, because each article would be about the individual subject. I've always seen content forking as being more along the lines of creating a "biography of Hulk Hogan" article on top of the current article. As for your statement that they shouldn't be split until "95% of three pages wouldn't be exactly the same", I think you could reach that now. After all, not all of the tag team information would have to go into individual pages, and it would be possible to make both articles so that they focus more on each individual, rather than the entire team. If anything, I think their tag team portion is given unnecessary weight. Look at the articles for Adam Copeland and Jason Reso (and no, I'm not saying they are comparable in notability). They were around for longer and did a lot more as a team, but their tag team sections are given a few paragraphs each (neither of which are exact recreations of eachother), with the bulk of the detail left to the Edge and Christian article. Why can't that be done here? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You mean the comment about Hawkins having won a title? Which he has. Sorry I didn't know which comment you meant, guess I shouldn't post in two places at once. It's true that when either or both wrestlers have their own article, the information should be reduced, but it's kind of skewing the argument to say they deserve a page because we'll delete material from their tag career just so their singles career looks more weighted. Ryder still hasn't been involved in any significant storyline to write about. He insulted Dreamer, the next week he retired him. Bam, done. He won a title opportunity, the next week he lost. Bam, done. Tony2Times (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

but yet the 2 members of Team 3D each get there own page and they been tag team whole careers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.16.2 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nickname

I added Ryder's nickname of 'The New Heart and Soul Superhero of ECW', but someone removed it. Any reason why? He's been referring to himself as that for weeks now. Savannah has announced him as that, not by choice, but nonetheless I think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.80.128 (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The commentators have been using that name as well, but since most of the editors of this article are determined to reduce anything about Ryder to 'insignificant' I doubt you'll see any changes that reflect his current career on ECW appear on this page unless the guys "in charge" of this public access encyclopedia page deem it worthy of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.119.221 (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How about you all help and add a reliable source with the nickname. One that says it is an official ring name. Afterall this is an encyclopedia and we have to verify information.--WillC 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Will this work? http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/results/ 98.214.80.128 (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A source isn't the issue here, the issue is he's used the nickname for all of three weeks and given ECW is ending in a fortnight, the nickname will surely last all of a month and a bit. It's not a notable nickname, unless he continues to use it after ECW ends to claim that he's the legacy of ECW or some such. The Most Electrifying Man in Sports Entertainment was used for two years, Edgeheads was used for six months, this'll be used for six weeks. Tony2Times (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If length is an issue here, take a look at The Miz's page. He has many nicknames, the majority of which I've never heard, and if they have been used, it was probably Matt 'The Man of 1,000 Nicknames' Striker. He is listed as The Calgary Kid, a name that he went by for a few minutes. Am I missing a WP policy that states length of use as a factor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.80.128 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, The Miz's page has been fixed since I last saw it, but The Calgary Kid still remains. 98.214.80.128 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It was just recently discussed on WP:PW what with Matt 'The Man of 1,000 Nicknames' Striker on commentary that tighter restrictions on nicknames needed to be made otherwise the list would be endless - as you pointed out The Miz's after only 3 years was huge. There was no hard and fast rule put in place for length of use but I'd wager six weeks (possibly less as he didn't say it last night and may not say it again next week) is notable.

The Calgary Kid stays because it was a ring name rather than a nickname. Tony2Times (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Call for a vote

I call for an official vote on whether or not Ryder should have his own article, with arguments on his notability. Those who support putting an end to the redirect seem to far outweigh those who do not, a vote should be necessary if those who don't believe he deserves an article at this point want to hold any claim to having a "consensus" because at the time of me writing this they seem to be outweighed 12 to 3 on this discussion page.69.38.111.89 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not preventing you from invoking a poll, I'd like to mention a relevant portion of wp:vote.

Editors considering an article-related straw poll must remember that polling should be used with care, and should not invoke straw polls prematurely. Note that straw polling cannot serve as a substitute for debate and consensus; that no straw poll is binding on editors who do not agree; and that polling may aggravate rather than resolve existing disputes.

While I don't speak for any of them, I believe most (if not all) of the editors who have been against splitting the page are open to dialogue. HAZardousMATT^toxic 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We did this only a month ago and the consensus was overwhelmingly to keep it the way it is. Tony2Times (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I vote that Ryder gets his own page. I don't know what kind of morons voted last time, but I believe it's time to give Ryder his own page. Maybe when he wins the ECW title before the show closes down? WWWYKI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.176.92 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a miracle seeing as he doesn't have a match for it.--WillC 11:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother calling for a vote - the Wikipedia "editors" have hijacked this page, taken ownership of this article, and have illogically called splitting the two articles "content forking" when anyone with half a brain could can read the description of content forking and interpret that splitting the articles is NOT content forking. While Hawkins and Ryder did begin their careers together, it has been nearly a year since they wrestled together, and the WWE has given each of them significant work since their split. The two articles could exist as related articles and still be well within Wikipedia guidelines. (I guess the so-called editors never bothered to read the entire content forking page they wave like a banner of courage.)

The article, as it stands, reads like a mess. Ray Gordy and Drew Hankison have separate pages in addition to an article about Jesse and Festus - yet there is little content on their solo pages that stands out from their tag team page. Team 3d/Dudleys have their own page and solo pages, yet everything significant they have done in wrestling has been as a team. There is no consistency with the so-called editors and how they have managed this page compared to other pages. Obviously, most Wikipedia users EXPECT to see a separate page for Ryder now that he has been wrestling solo in the WWE for nearly a year. And there is nothing in the guidelines that prevent two pages. The only thing preventing a page split are stubborn editors who have hijacked and taken ownership of the page. Pathetic. --Goosedoggy (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

So should we merge the pages for the Hardys, Edge and Christian, Hulk Hogan and Macho Man, and Bret Hart and Jim Neidhart?

They spent time as tag teams, so I doubt that they have enough in their singles career to distinguish themselves.

Seriously, give Ryder a damn page. Can we agree that he will get a new page once ECW shuts down and he gets drafted to Raw or Smackdown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.194.109 (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

All of them have done enough to justify them having their own bios and tag team articles. Tell me, what has Ryder done? He has been on ECW. Wow! While each you mentioned has held several singles championships and are known for things other than their time as a tag team.--WillC 16:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of Matt Hardy and Neidhart, they've all won multiple World Championships as singles wrestlers. Tony2Times (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What has Matt Hardy done in his singles career that is notable enough to give him his own page? 98.214.80.128 (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

His feud with Edge, his feud with MVP, his feud with his brother, him being the spotlight of ECW, and all the singles titles he has won like the Cruiserweight, US, ECW, European, Hardcore, and all the indy singles titles he has won. Also there are several third party reliable sources which cover his career as a singles wrestler. Now since that has been answered, what has Ryder done that justifies a loan article?--WillC 06:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ryder has retired Tommy Dreamer. That alone should be enough.

He's also been number one contender for the ECW title and had feuds with Shelton Benjamin, Christian, and the Hurricane on top of the aforementioned Dreamer retirement angle.

He's done more as a singles competitor than Neidhart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.118.108 (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

He didn't retire Dreamer. That is a complete storyline and happened just a few weeks ago. Dreamer was given his release. Plus, wasn't important at all really. Those feuds could barely be called feuds. They led to nothing, but tv matches. They are very insignificant and can be summarized up to a few lines, not a complete article. I don't know Neidhart's career, but just because something else exist doesn't mean this should be split. If Ryder should have a page so badly, that shouldn't be your only argument.--WillC 08:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tommy Dreamer is booked to wrestle Shane Douglas next week and wrestled last night. While TV only storylines can be important, ones that last a fortnight aren't usually. Tony2Times (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I get that it's a storyline, but everything in wrestling is a storyline. Sheamus didn't really beat Cena for the WWE championship, a writer and booker determined that he would win it. Are you seriously debating if something's "real" or not to determine if Ryder should have his own page? Should we just put all wrestlers together, since nothing really happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.185.227 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of on the fence about it, because I feel like he's been in singles long enough to perhaps warrant it. The only thing I can do is compare articles on athletes, the NFL for example; some offensive lineman that played for three years have articles that are stubs. In an "apples to apples" comparison, I don't see how Barreta and Croft from ECW warrant having their own articles, but not Ryder. The time has to come sooner rather than later. That being said, if he were to be released, a new article may not be warranted. Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

With ECW being disbanded in one episode's time I think the decision may be soon categorically made. If he goes onto one of the two brands and becomes a featured star he'll deserve a page soon enough enough but if he either goes and becomes lost in the shuffle like the sad case of Evan Bourne where no matches matter or he goes back to FCW then it'll likely stay the way it is. Tony2Times (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Such a Joke

The two have not been together for nearly a year. There are tons of wrestlers out there in Wiki World that have done less than Ryder but have their own pages. 69.243.42.251 (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, bro, seriously?

Zack Ryder needs his page now. He's done the following since his split:

Beaten and therefore retired Tommy Dreamer, the last remaining ECW original.

Challenged Christian several times, including becoming number one contender for the ECW title.

Had feuds with the Hurricane, Shelton Benjamin, Christian, and Tommy Dreamer.

Competed in the 2010 Royal Rumble.

Interfered in the final ECW match.

Competed in the final ECW match on Superstars.

This page is a joke, Wikipedia is a joke. Every person on here who keeps Hawkins and Ryder as one page is a joke. Here's a simple fact: Ryder deserves a page more than anybody in TNA deserves a page, if we're going purely for notability. More people watch Zack Ryder each week than anybody in TNA.

Woo Woo Woo, you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.199.169 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

All of that can be summed up in one paragraph. Plus this TNA comment is very bias and you need to check your facts. There are plenty of reliable sources to sustain enough information to establish notability in TNA wrestlers. TNA pull between 1.6 million and 1.8 million weekly. In most cases their viewership was higher than ECW's, add in the fact TNA beat ECW in each head to head show. If Ryder is so notable, then quit talking about it and show it. Create a account, start a subpage, and make a singles page for Ryder that passes all the criteria for notability. All those feus you mentioned, weren't even feuds. They lasted for two weeks.--WillC 18:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

i think hawkins has done more then ryder....hawkins actually won a title since the split ryder hasn't done a thing