Talk:List of WWE personnel

A.W

A.W should not be on the section of the list of wrestlers. Considering he has not been competing. He s only used for backstage and sometimes in ring roles.

FCW Releases

The official FCW website has removed the profiles of

Cable Jones, Devin Allen, Fadh Rakman, Rhys Ali, and Ron Myers

JR is not the senior VP of talent relations

JR is listed as Senior VP of talent relations in the article; he has not, however, held this role in many years.

OK...let's find consensus

Well let's get some consensus on some basic things so we can get this thing unlocked.

The boys in The Shield should not be labeled as "developmental", and Johnny Curtis should be known as Fandango since that's who he's wrestling as.

I vote that's this is how these guys should be listed.

Vjmlhds 03:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

[1] source for Curtis being Fandango. STATic message me! 04:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That source says he wrestled as "Simply" Johnny Curtis. It's also reader-submitted. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't you guys just use "Johnny Curtis / Fandango"? While Fandango has appeared in vignettes and house shows... he hasn't debuted on television. The last we saw of Curtis, he was still being called Curtis (backed up by source http://www.wwe.com/superstars/johnnycurtis). So list both names until Fandango actually debuts. Simple, conflict solved. Starship.paint (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I didn't mean to imply I don't want him called Fandango. Just pointing out the contradiction. Not to be a dick, either. Just for clarity's sake. Personally, I don't even know who Johnny Curtis/Fandango is, and have absolutely no preference for a name. Whatever is verifiable, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Instead of repeating myself, see above. Not seeing the point of having two sections for one question. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's Seth Rollins' profile in the "WWE Superstars" section of WWE.com. Here's Ambrose. Here's Reigns. Compare this to the redirect of any other similar URL with a developmental wrestler's name. If we use these profiles to verify the status of every other "Superstar" on the list (and we do), this seems a no-brainer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, no comment on the other points, but your "see above" is exactly what I was talking about above when I said you're conducting original research. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit. But this is a talk page. I was using it to try to explain some things to an objecting editor, not to add or remove anything. Original research is only a crime if used as justification for editing an article. My hands are clean in the edit war itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll see that most of the regular editors of this artice (myself, STATic, IncredibleHulk, Keith Okamoto) are in agreement about most topics, and have repeatedly brought forth references backing us up. It's one editor in particular (WWEJobber) that no matter how much the rest of us ask politely and no matter how many references we show, insists on doing things his way and just overall has a "my way or the highway" approach to this article. I could understand if we were all sniping at each other, but as I said, we're usually in agreement with each other regarding how to edit the article, and it's really just one editor who doesn't want to work with us. We usually find consensus/common ground. Thus I ask ask with the utmost of respect that the lock be opened. Vjmlhds 15:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear: being "in agreement" is not enough. You must be in agreement that is concordant with policy. WP:CONLIM explains that local consensus cannot override site-wide policy. And policy requires verifiability, collaboration, and consensus building. What I see is both "sides" making assertions without reference to sources. I sometimes see references to past agreements, but no one ever actually links to those, and those "agreements" I've seen, like the discussion up in "End the nonsense" above, has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Again, let me be clear: for creative works, the only time you may refer directly to the creative work (the "text" of the shows) is to site unequivocal facts. If you are interpreting in any way (that is, deciding the "status" of the various characters), then you need independent third party sources. If those sources do not exist, then you cannot label the people either way (which may, for example, in this case, mean leaving off the "developmental" part).

As far as dropping the protection, I can promise you I won't be dropping it until such time as you all prove that you can come to policy-compliant consensus, more than once. If you want to ask an uninvolved admin to drop the protection, you can make a request at WP:RFUP. But I'm absolutely not going to do it myself now, because I see a long-term problem here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave three sources verifying the three disputed wrestlers are listed on WWE's official main roster, and so should be here. It's a stretch to say this requires interpretation, or cannot be "verified by any educated person with access to the source, but without further, specialized knowledge". Yes, I also pointed to a past discussion, but that doesn't negate my policy-based point. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am kind of new here, but I'd like to add my 2 cents to this discussion. I understand both POVs and, yes, The Shield guys are on the main roster. It is a thing that don't need further explanation or even be discussed. The guys are ready to make a big impact and to be the next best hot thing in the business. But what I understand about WWEJobber arguments (you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that even working on the main roster and being on PPV, they (and referee Rod Zapata too) are still under developmental contract (as can be seen here) and he simply put a note about this fact. He didn't move them back to the developmental roster section or other disruptive kinds of thing. Dean just made his debut on NXT during last week tapings. Seth still has his championship rematch against Big E Langston. The Shild stormed on NXT as part of a storyline. Searching the article history, I could observe that this kind of note was used before. He was right in the cited examples and there are others such as Mason Ryan and Michael McGuilicutty (this one being a Tag Team champion with David Otunga) during their New Nexus tenure; Trent Barreta, Tyler Reks, Yoshi Tatsu and Sheamus during their time on ECW; and many more. My opinion is that it is an important information and should be noted there. The guy could be a pain, but he is right in this case, and it will not hurt to put this note there. Nomelck (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A note would be fine, if backed up by a source. Unsourced stuff, especially contentious stuff, can be removed from Wikipedia. The link you provide doesn't indicate any of the wrestlers on that page have WWE developmental contracts or standard contracts, only that they wrestle for NXT (and so probably have some type of WWE contract, unless, like OVW and HWA, NXT also has their own guys). If the note said "Also wrestles for NXT" or something similar, it would be fine, with that source. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you be alright with this note, WWEJobber, instead of mentioning contracts? I think we'd all like it if we could reach a compromise and get this page unlocked. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone could wrestle for NXT. NXT is a TV show. It does not mean the same thing. Daniel Bryan, Johnny Curtis, Michael McGuilicutty, Percy Watson, Derrick Bateman, Big Show, Tyson Kidd, Justin Gabriel, Jinder Mahal, Heath Slater, Drew McIntyre, The Usos, Kane, all wrestle for NXT. Some of them have storylines in the show. So the prerrogative that "The Shield guys are still listed on the roster because they are in the middle of a storyline" is not correct. They are listed because they are part of the developmental roster yet. But now thay are part of the main roster too. Just like the Nexus when main evented Summerslam. It is not an uncommon thing to happen. WWEJobber (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not logical. Bryan, Curtis etc, yes, they appear on NXT, but they are "main roster" now. They're not listed on the NXT roster page. It doesn't matter if they guest-star in NXT. You can't compare them to the Shield... because the key difference is that only the Shield can compare to itself because they appear on both WWE and NXT pages. Are you denying that the Shield are not in the middle of storylines? Rollins is still NXT Champion on television, Reigns is still playing the rich throughbred gimmick and Ambrose hasn't even debuted. How can you remove Seth Rollins from the developmental roster page when to viewers of NXT TV, he's still NXT Champion? He's not part of the Shield yet, even on the recent 12/12/12 NXT. It's also not logical for Rollins for example to be under TWO contracts, main roster and developmental. Starship.paint (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

But all the things you said are exactly everything that I ever said about it. So do you agree with me now? And they are not under two contracts. This I never said. They are under developmental contract. Just this. They are not full main roster yet. It is simple. WWEJobber (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, then. Find a reliable source. Even a sketchy source would be better than nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

[Reliable source 1] [Reliable source 2] [Reliable source 3] [Reliable source 4] [Reliable source 5] WWEJobber (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been clearer. Please provide a source stating that any (or all) of these guys is working on a developmental contract or is not a part of the main WWE roster. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why should I provide a source stating that the guys are not a part of the main roster if they clearly are? I did not understand. WWEJobber (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Five days ago, you said "They are not full main roster yet." Did I misunderstand you? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

They are part of the main roster but they are not full main roster members yet because they are still under developmental contract. What is the difficulty in understanding here? WWEJobber (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand that you think they're on a developmental contract and that you believe this means they are not "full" main roster. But if you'd like to note either of these claims in the article, you'll need a source making the claim, or it's original research. You've been around Wikipedia for a while, you know how this works. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think or believe in anything. I have already posted the sources that indicates that the guys are still in the training facility while working with the main roster. WWEJobber (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Those sources show he's on the NXT roster. They say nothing about contracts or whether this means he's not "full main roster". Jumping to conclusions is original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The NXT facility roster (student) not the NXT program roster (wrestler). It is not a conclusion of mine nor original research. WWEJobber (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

So where does it say these are students, or distinguish between a "facility roster" and a "program roster"? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because http://www.nxtwrestling.com/ is the facility official website. The TV program one is http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt WWEJobber (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Is everybody in NXT working on a WWE contract?

A comment above got me thinking on this, and Google sucks (or I suck at Googling). Is everyone on the show contracted to WWE, or are there pure NXT wrestlers, who are paid by someone entirely different (Skinner, perhaps)? I know that NXT is different from OVW, HWA and DSW (where guys worked without anything to do with WWE) in that it's owned by WWE, but is it that different? Does anyone have a source saying one thing or the other? Should the "Developmental roster" section be renamed "NXT roster", until this is clearer? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider this Gavin Reid fellow. Unlike many other NXT wrestlers, he doesn't seem to have any presence on WWE.com. Is this because he's strictly a NXT guy, or does WWE have another reason to ignore him like this? Same with Angelo Dawkins. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those who are competing in NXT as wrestlers are signed to WWE's developmental contract, as they can't appear straight to the main roster because they aren't ready for tv yet. They are trained into the WWE style of wrestling by trainers, some of whom were WWE Superstars themselves. Most who appear in developmental don't make it to the main roster mostly because they don't have what WWE wants in a in-ring competitor. Some are demoted to being referees(Maddox & Zapata), while others moved to creative or other on-air roles(Pierce & Saxton). The few who make it to the main roster have their contracts upgraded to main roster status, the process usually takes a few weeks/months before the transfer's complete. Before and during the transfer process, the new talent compete in dark matches during tv tapings and compete at live events to test their skills in front of a live crowd and producers to develop a background story for the gimmick the talent is using. I hope that clears up most of the confusion, IH. Keith Okamoto (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a great explanation, and I think something like that would be very helpful in Farm_team#Professional_wrestling or the NXT article. But I've been a wrestling geek for 25 years, and am generally familiar with the system. And I know there were guys in OVW who worked alongside the WWF prospects, but were paid by Jim Cornette and had nothing at all to do with the WWF. I suspect NXT is different, since WWE owns it, rather than works with it, but just wanted some confirmation that NXT is purely a WWE training ground and not also a traditional promotion. Keirn can't book anyone not under WWE contract, without permission, even for house shows? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're listed on http://www.wwe.com/superstars, you're "main roster".. because it's WWE.com. Referees (like Brad Maddox) seem to be an exception. If you're listed on http://www.fcwwrestling.info/NXT-Wrestling-Superstars.html or http://www.fcwwrestling.info/NXT-Wrestling-Divas.html, you're in the developmental roster... because it's NXT Wrestling, the renamed FCW, which is WWE's developmental territory. If you're listed on both, like the Shield, main roster should take precedence. Note, by "main roster" I mean WWE television or PPVs, not house shows, not dark matches. Starship.paint (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Is everybody in NXT working on a WWE contract?" The answer would be yes, because NXT is owned by WWE - see the WWE logo in the middle of the NXT logo at the top of the NXT website and " © 2012 WWE, Inc. All Rights Reserved." at the bottom of the page. However, as I have talked about above, there must be two kinds of contracts, one "main roster/television/PPV" contract for John Cena, and one developmental contract for Gavin Reid, as evidenced by his absence from WWE television programming and WWE.com. Source for the existence of developmental contracts... [2] Starship.paint (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. Of course, I know developmental contracts exist. I was asking if anybody had a source saying that each and every wrestler in NXT had one, or that it's a mix of developmental WWE wrestlers and guys who are paid directly by NXT and have no intention or hope of joining WWE in the future. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, a standard WWE contract doesn't mean someone will necessarily wrestle on TV or PPVs. They have to basically do whatever WWE wants, whether it's win at WrestleMania, job on NXT or kiss Hornswoggle at house shows and autograph signings. The main difference from developmental contracts is the money and job security. Sure, a guy like Cena or Punk probably has a special clause or two in their contract, but there's nothing stopping WWE from sending most guys to NXT on their regular contracts, and paying them the regular downside guarantee. But since WWE's paying them, they generally like to get their money's worth by using them on TV. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Everybody listed on NXT Wrestling roster has a WWE developmental contract (superstars, divas and referees). Some of them (like Gavin Reid and Angelo Dawkins) are just not ready yet like others that came from another big promotion (Xavier Woods, Kassius Ohno and Adrian Neville that came from TNA, ROH and Dragon Gate/Evolve) or others that are receiving training since FCW (like Big E Langston). And there are the wrestlers that even under developmental contracts are given the chance to work on the main roster (like The Shield guys and Rod Zapata). And all members of the Administration Staff are WWE employees (even the developmental's President Steve Keirn). It is just simple as that. I hope it had helped. WWEJobber (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but what I really want is a source confirming or denying it. Do you remember where you heard/read this? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In the old FCW website (before it was converted to the NXT Wrestling name) and on the FCW TV shows. But why a developmental territory website would list non-developmental wrestlers? WWEJobber (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Because they'd still be wrestling for that promotion, even if they weren't training for a WWE career. All the older devolpmental promotions did it. Not so unreasonable to think NXT might. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"And there are the wrestlers that even under developmental contracts are given the chance to work on the main roster (like The Shield guys and Rod Zapata)." - definitely needs to be sourced. Note that the Shield guys are already listed on the WWE.com page alongside Cena, Punk etc., so an easy inference is that they already have full "main roster" contracts. About Zapata, I don't recall WWE.com listing referees. A logical reason why the Shield have not been removed from the NXT page is that there are still episodes of NXT that have been taped but not aired regarding the Shield, so they are still going to appear on NXT for the time being until their storylines are wrapped up (Seth still NXT Champion on the TV show) Starship.paint (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact it is not just the case of episodes that have not been aired yet because they probably will tape more episodes with them because Seth still have his rematch agains Langston. Unfortunately the new NXT Wrestling website do not have the Alumni section that the old FCW website had to denote when a wrestler's developmental contract ends and he gains full main roster status. WWEJobber (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So let's get all of this wrapped up in a nutshell so we can get this thing unlocked.

The Shield boys should be listed on the main roster, as they're on the WWE.com roster page. For the sake of compromise, I'll concede to a small note saying that they also work in NXT. The term "developmental" to me means that they're not ready for the main roster...at worst, The Shield boys are in middle ground.

They're obviously ready enough for the main roster, but they may still be working out some small kinks, so they also work in NXT.

If we can all agree to this, hopefully the powers that be will unlock this thing. Optimally, we need to have this thing unlocked by Sunday night to be ready for any title changes that may happen at TLC. Vjmlhds 19:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Vjmhlds, are you not listening to what I write, or deliberately ignoring it? "the term 'developmental' to me means..." is irrelevant. InedibleHulk is on the right track (thank you, by the way): we need sources. I cannot stress this enough. You have all got stop talking about what you think, about what you interpret. One last time: WP:CONSENSUS cannot override site-wide policy. This is not about you all coming to an agreement about what makes sense. It's about finding sources that support one side or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not deleberatley ignoring anything. Here are the sources...[3]...this is the WWE roster page from their website, where the three men in question (Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns, Dean Ambrose) are listed. This is proof that they are indeed part of the main WWE roster. Here is the roster page from NXT, WWE's developmental territory...[4]...this shows that the three men in question are also still part of that as well. So I go back to my proposed soulution above...list the 3 men on the main roster, with a small note saying they also appear on NXT. I have provided sources to support both elements of this proposal. Vjmlhds 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the problem here. Everyone is making confusion between NXT Wrestling (the developmental facility formerly known as FCW) and NXT (the TV show). The roster on NXT Wrestling official page is not the TV show roster. It is the facility roster. The developmental wrestlers. The ones that are still receiving training. The farm's students. The facility official website. The TV program official website. It is very simple. WWEJobber (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have a solution to this. I've asked before if the developmental roster section should be split between the TV visible roster and the live event/training roster, but was rejected and added the notes, starting this disaster. I'll take the blame for this mess, but I still think the developmental roster should be split. Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if divided this will not add anything to the Shield guys. The developmental are still debuting on NXT one by one week after week. WWEJobber (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How about just re-naming the section the NXT roster? That way, The Shield are included since they still have profiles on the NXT Wrestling website and the other who haven't appeared on NXT TV won't be left out? Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That would make things much easier (and reduce Wikipedia's server load by a whopping 10 bytes). The problem seems to be with the implied associations between contracts and rosters. By removing the word "developmental", we make it much clearer that this is simply about rosters, not contracts. Rosters are easy to verify, contract details are not. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll support this idea. It makes sense, and takes away ambiguity. Vjmlhds 14:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It does not make any sense. NXT is a TV show. NXT Wrestling is a facility. You are getting confused since WWE renamed FCW. WWEJobber (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

NXT is also a common short-form for NXT Wrestling. Would you prefer we called it "NXT Wrestling roster"? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course I prefer, but what will you do with the five guys discussed here? Double-list them? WWEJobber (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, list them in the main roster, with a note saying they also work on NXT (or in NXT Wrestling, whichever you like). The Shield guys, anyway. Langston doesn't seem to be on WWE.com's main roster. Who's the fifth guy again? InedibleHulk (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There was a note but there was people disagreeing with it. But "also working on NXT" does not mean a thing because all the main roster guys could work on NXT (even on the farm's live events). The note should explain that they are still training on NXT Wrestling facility therefore under developmental contract yet even wrestling on the main roster. The 5th guy is referee Rod Zapata. WWEJobber (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, anyone could wrestle on NXT. And if they do, they should also get a note. You'll need a source for "still training" and "developmental contract", and you don't seem to have one. That they're listed on NXT's roster is verifiable, so whether anyone disagrees or not is a moot point. Not sure how we'd verify where a referee works, since WWE doesn't seem to even acknowledge ref's names lately. That's still open for debate, I guess, but consensus and policy are pretty clear on the others. Let's get this page unlocked. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already posted the official sources in he section above. They are still listed under the farm students section. WWEJobber (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Now what?....

OK...so now what do we do with Big E Langston?

He comes in, and whoops up on the "franchise" player John Cena during the main event on Raw.

Does this mean he's still developmental?

What is the breaking point when guys stop being developmental?

I would think that it would be like MLB...once a guy gets called up, he's not a minor leaguer anymore.

We have to have a line of demarcation on when we can consider guys main roster, and whether or not they're still developmental.

When did Wade Barrett, Brodus Clay, AJ Lee, Damien Sandow, Ryback, and on and on become "officially" main roster and no longer developmental?

When do The Shield boys stop being "developmental"?

There has to be a point where the umbilical cord gets cut.

Vjmlhds 04:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, how about adding a roster section called "Rookie roster"? It will show who's on the main roster, but still appears in NXT Wrestling for either more training, working on mic skills, etc.. We can even put the main roster wrestlers who appear mostly on WWE NXT in there like Derrick Bateman and Percy Watson. Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems like it would invite even more disagreement and speculation about who belongs where, especially if a main roster guy works an NXT show or two. Is he/she there for training, there to train others, wrapping up a storyline or just adding name value to a card? We probably won't know for sure. Simplest way is to follow the lead of WWE.com. If someone's on their main roster ("Superstars") page, they belong on ours. If they aren't, but are on the NXT site's roster, they go in our NXT/Developmental (whichever we call it). If they're not listed in either roster, they don't belong here. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I have a hard time understanding...for the longest time, when somebody got called up from developmental, he was put on the main roster with no fuss. First we had a little note saying "Also works in FCW (now NXT)". Then we put a note at the top of the page saying that main roster personnel can also wrestle in NXT..again, no fuss. Guys like Clay, Sandow, Ryback, and Cesaro were added immediately once they made their debuts, but why is it that the Shield boys are causing such a fuss? We had a good system going here, and now because of stubborness by a select editor, the whole works are gunked up. It almost feels like the article is being held hostage by 1 person. That isn't right. Vjmlhds 18:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cire web

Please fix the Template:Cire web to {{Cite web. Thanks. mabdul 17:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

JTG

The list states JTG is inactive, however he was in a match with Brodus Clay at this weeks Raw event.--Mjs1991 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he also beat David Otunga in a dark match at the TLC PPV on Sunday. Here's a source for both. Please remove the "inactive" note from the notes column. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A new idea.

After a conversation with User:Qwyrxian, he gave me an idea that I really wish I would have thought of myself.

Since there are no sources that concretely say if such-and-such wrestler is "developmental" or not, then NOBODY should be listed as "developmental".

Either they go on the main roster or the NXT roster.

We already have the note at the top of the page saying wrestlers from the main roster may also appear on NXT, so in cases like the Shield or Big E Langston for example, there would be no need to say "also appears on NXT" as that is covered.

As to how to list wrestlers -- If they're on WWE.com's main roster, they're automatic. And guys like Brock Lesnar or the Rock, who aren't listed on WWE.com's "official roster" (for storyline reasons), but are actually under contract are included.

And if guys are scheduled to make appearances and have matches and whatnot lined up in advance, it would be fair to assume they're under contract.

Likewise if a wrestler is on NXT's roster page on their website, he gets listed on the NXT roster section.

If a wrestler is on both, the main roster takes precedence.

HOPEFULLY, we can get some traction here.

Vjmlhds 01:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but not a new one. I've said basically the same thing in a couple of the other similar sections you started. So yeah, I agree. Not keen on assuming wrestlers have contracts just because they have a match coming up. The Rock's advertised for the Rumble, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's currently under contract or on the roster. Could be a one-night deal, effective on that date only. Verifiability is still key. If someone is not on either website's roster page, or doesn't have another source saying they work for WWE, they don't belong here. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well here are 2 sources that back up both Rock and Brock being under contract with WWE. The Rock's Agenda Brock's Status The article about the Rock shows he has multiple appearances lined up with WWE leading up to the Royal Rumble and through to Wrestlemania. This should indicate that at minimum he has at least a short term contract.

Likewise if a wrestler is on NXT's roster page on their website, he gets listed on the NXT roster section.

If a wrestler is on both, the main roster takes precedence.

What is the difference from this to what had been done all this time? The fact is that the wrestlers that still are farm students should have a note as always have been done (listed on the main roster section or not). The big problem is that when the FCW website was renamed NXT Wrestling they removed the Alumni section (that always indicated when they graduate and was always used as a parameter in this article). But even without it we always recognized that the wrestlers were still students while they were not removed from the facility roster section. WWEJobber (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Bleacher Report technically isn't a reliable source, but those sources for Rock and Brock are good enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is Jobber, that there is no definite, concrete way of knowing whether someone is still "developmental" or not. In other words there is no source that says wrestler X is still officially viewed by WWE as "developmental talent". There's too much grey area. So (after some consulting from Qwyrxian) the best way to go is simply not labeling anybody as "developmental". And with the note at the top of the page, there's no need to individiually point out each wrestler who may still also work in NXT while also a part of the main roster. Vjmlhds 17:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I found this little tidbit Call up Policy What this means in a nutshell is that when somebody gets called up from NXT, that there are plans in place for how they're going to be used. Basically if you see them on Raw or Smackdown, then there's a reason for them to be there, and they're gonna be part of the show (and thus part of the roster). Hopefully, this will put to bed a lot of grey areas. Vjmlhds 18:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Being used on Raw and/or Smackdown does not mean that a wrestler cannot still be a student in their developmental facility. Hope this will put to bed a lot of grey areas. WWEJobber (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Going Forward

I'm hopeful that with the article I just posted above. It can provide a template as to how to proceed when we see NXT guys being called up from this point on.

So let's add everything up:

1. We have sources indicating Rock and Brock Lesnar are under some sort of WWE contract, so they can go on the roster.

2. We have a guideline to go by so we know what to do when an NXT wrestler gets called up.

3. We have a note at the top of the page to cover all instances when a wrestler is listed on both the main roster and the NXT roster.

4. And since there are no sources specifically saying what wrestlers are developmental, then nobody gets listed as such.

5. We have a main roster section and an NXT roster section, and guys get listed there accordingly--once an NXT guy appears on WWE main programming, then he goes to the main roster as per their call-up policy which is referenced above.

Let's se if we can find onsensus here with these proposals, so we can get this thing unlocked.

Vjmlhds 19:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Still fine by me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Even with BL and DJ being just alumni with contracts to appear at some shows and do some matches, they are important to storylines, so it is okay if they are listed in the main roster section. But there are sources indicating that a wresler is still a student in their developmental facility: the official facility website. It is a nice guideline to go by. It is okay if a wrestler gets called up to the main roster he get listed as such, but is necessary at least a note indicating that he still is under the farm wings. WWEJobber (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both guidelines. I say we might want to take action soon. By the way I really need to get a WP account.209.213.145.236 (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I see mostly agreement here, but not quite: WWEJobber, what are the conditions (i.e., sources) under which we would "note...that [a wrestler] is stil under the farm wings"? How would you know when such a note is needed, and how would you know when it should be removed? Note, as always, to base your answers on sources, not your own personal impression.

If this one last point can be resolved (note that I don't necessarily mean that WWEJobber's condition should be included, just that I think we can use a little more time to talk about it) then the page can be unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. This will for sure make the page a whole lot better and end the confusion. Keith Okamoto (talk) 03:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the "farm wings" scenario...in the article I referenced earlier on, it layed out the conditions for which guys would be called up. Mainly that wrestlers WWE feels are ready for the main roster would have their characters and storylines ready to go, so that once they arrived, they could immediately get in the mix. Also, at the top of the page of the Wiki entry in question, there is a little note that says wrestlers on the main roster may also appear on NXT. That note is there as a one size fits all umbrella to cover all situations where wrestlers appear both on the main roster and on NXT so it wouldn't be necessary to list individual case where it applies. The whole point of the developmental territory is to prep guys for the main roster (like a minor leauge baseball team for an MLB team). Once the "big leauge team" (i.e. WWE in this case) thinks you're ready, they establish a character and storyline, and once that's in place, you get called up. Just like baseball, once you're with the big club, you aren't considered "minor leauge/developmental". That's not my "definition" of anything, that's how WWE views it, with a reference to back it up. Vjmlhds 03:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.209.213.145.236 (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian the fact is that the farm has an official website indicating when a wrestler is still a student. It was always used as a guideline here is this article since 2009 if I am not wrong. Before it was rebranded we had the Alumni section that indicated when a wrestler was not anymore participating in the developmental facility. Now that the section does not exist anymore the wrestler profile is simply removed (like Brad Maddox and referee Justin King for example). I think that since the facility changed its name a lot of people get confused. Vjmlhds seems to be one of them. Look at this comment of him: at the top of the page of the Wiki entry in question, there is a little note that says wrestlers on the main roster may also appear on NXT.. This note is okay, there is nothing wrong about it, but this talks about the TV show. We are not talking about the program here. We are talking about the farm previously known as Florida Championship Wrestling. A little note stating that a wrestler is still under the facility wings (even participating on important angles with the main roster) will not harm anyone. It will just improve this article more and more. WWEJobber (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not confused by anything. NXT Wrestling is the name of WWE's developmental/"farm" league, and those wrestlers are featured on their own TV show titled NXT. Now if maybe the note at the top of the page were to say "...also appear in NXT Wrestling", would that clear things up? One other thing to consider...the NXT weekly TV show usually tapes numerous weeks worth of programming at a time (and here's a source detailing a typical TV taping schedule--NXT Taping Schedule) So while all of these programs may be still airing with certain talent, the decision to call guys up to the main roster could easily occur before these NXT episodes have ben played out (remember, WWE broadcasts Raw live every week, and all of their other weekly programming is taped for broadcast that week). Again it all goes back to this simple basic concept -- NXT Wrestling is the developmental territory for WWE to prep younger wrestlers for the main roster. WWE has a process for deciding how and when guys get called up. Once everything in the process goes through, guys start working on the main roster and appearing on the main TV shows. Once guys are called up, they go from developmental to main talent...that's what "getting called up" is all about to start with. There is no source anywhere that concretely states WWE still views X and Y wrestlers as developmental even after they've been called up. And simply still appearing on the "facility roster" isn't a concrete source. There's too much ambiguity and room for intereptation. There is a concrete source detailing that when a guys gets called up, certain criteria must be meant, and when said wrestler is called up it's because he's expected to be a contributor to the main product. Vjmlhds 16:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If when they bring up wrestlers turn them just main roster why debut Big E Langston on Raw just 10 days after he got hold of NXT Championship belt? Why put the belt on someone that is not developmental anymore? And why debut Dean Ambrose in a NXT storyline just after he debuted on Raw if it makes him main roster? Appearing on the facility roster is a concrete (and official) source and there is no ambiguity for interpretation in this. WWEJobber (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Putting a certain belt on someone doesn't mean anything about whether they are still "developmental" or not. For one thing, Big E Langaston is now on WWE.com's official roster, so he gets included on the main roster. And for another (and I don't know how many times I have to explain it) there is no source anywhere that says that WWE still views certain wrestlers as developmental even after they have been called up to the main roster. That is what this whole bruhaha is all about to start with. Nothing out there says "even though so-and-so is now part of the main roster, WWE still views them as a developmental student". Labeling wrestlers as developmental even after being called up to the main roster is purely up to interpretation, and if there are no sources to concretely back up the assertion, it doesn't belong in the article. Being still on the "facility roster" even after being moved to the main roster doesn't mean anything. It could be as simple as WWE not getting around to updating the NXT website. Again, a note at the top of the article saying "wrestlers on the main roster may also wrestle in NXT Wrestling" should be sufficient enough to cover any and all situations. Labeling certain wrestlers as developmental even after they've been called up just leads to disputes, because it's contradictory. They're one or the other. When a city's police department hires rookie cops who graduated from the police acadamy, do they say "even though so-and-so officers are now part of the force, Such-and-Such City still views them as acadamy cadets"? When an MLB team recalls a minor league player up to the parent club, do they say "even though so-and-so is on the major league roster, the Such-and-Such Whatchamycallits still views him as a minor league player"? I was once a student driver who had to learn how to drive. But then I took (and passed) my tests, and got my license. The state of Ohio doesn't say that "even though Vjmlhds has his license, he is still considered a student driver". You can't be both a cadet and a police officer, you can't be both a minor league and major league baseball player, you can't be both a student driver and a licensed driver, and you can't be both a "developmental student" and someone who appears on national primetime TV who is expected to help deliver ratings. Be it driving a car, the police force, baseball, or WWE, you start at one level in order to graduate to the next level. And once you're at the second level, you're no longer considered still at the first level, (especially when there's no source that explicitly says so). Vjmlhds 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You wrote a lot of things that are not even related to the discussion and boldfacing words will not change your suppositions into facts. It could be as simple as WWE not getting around to updating the NXT website. The NXT Wrestling website was updated at least three times since the Shield guys debut. Again, a note at the top of the article saying "wrestlers on the main roster may also wrestle in NXT Wrestling" should be sufficient enough to cover any and all situations. In fact not. It does not even make any sense. Why would Kane or Daniel Bryan, for example, wrestle in the developmental facility? They could wrestle on NXT TV show, but in the farm? A main roster guy could go there and give some tips, but why would they wrestle there? In the developmental territory we just have the Administration Staff and the students (wrestlers and referees). The facility official website lists all of them. They just do not list the Alumni anymore. They now just remove them from the roster page. If they are not removed they are still students. WWEJobber (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Jobber, the NXT facility, and the NXT show are (when you get right down to it) one and the same...it's all under the same roof -- WWE. The TV show is merely a platform for them to perform on and show their wares. Trying to seperate them is really splitting the tiniest of hairs. If WWE thinks they're good enough for the bright lights, they promote them to the main roster. You're trying to make a simple concept complicated by insisting on adding unecessary qualifiers. I made comparisons to driving/police work/baseball to try to prove a point that at some point, you go from developmental wrestler/cadet/minor leaguer/student driver to main roster wrestler/cop/major leaguer/licensed driver. And I repeat again that there is no source out there that just straight out says that WWE still views such-and-such wrestlers as developmental even though they are on the main roster. Anything else can be left to interpretation, and if there's any ambiguity at all, it can't go into the article. Vjmlhds 15:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

the NXT facility, and the NXT show are (when you get right down to it) one and the same They are not. WWEJobber (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

In its current form it is the same thing. That is like saying the FCW TV show was a completely different entity then the former facility. The note at the top of the page should do the job and Rollins, Ambrose, Reigns and Langston since he now has a superstar page should all be listed with the main roster which always takes precident. The only reason their still listed on the website is due to the tape delay of NXT Wrestling episodes so they need to have it advertised they'll still appear. Especially since Rollins is still considered the champion if you did not read spoilers. However per WP:SPOILERS that does not matter and they should all be listed on the main roster. Unless you would Jobber would like to provide a reliable third party source that says they still are more NXT wrestlers then WWE superstars? STATic message me! 16:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is like saying the FCW TV show was a completely different entity then the former facility. NXT existed before the farm changed its name. Rollins, Ambrose, Reigns and Langston (...) should all be listed with the main roster which always takes precident. I never said anything different. The only reason their still listed on the website is due to the tape delay of NXT Wrestling episodes so they need to have it advertised they'll still appear. Would you like to provide a reliable third party source about it or it is just an original research of you? Especially since Rollins is still considered the champion if you did not read spoilers. So why does the website list Big E Langston as champion? WWEJobber (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

NXT existed before the farm changed its name. Never said otherwise. I never said anything different. Then what are you arguing about? Also you do not need to cite the sky is blue. Or do you not understand how taped shows and advertisement work? Because I would be happy to explain to you. STATic message me! 20:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not arguing about anything. I think that who are not understand anything here is you. WWEJobber (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly WWEJobber, you're outnumbered. If you're going to say something, please let it be something WORTH discussion or change. You're the only obstacle in between us and our goal of unlocking this page. Sorry, just telling the truth. Try to quote me now, why don't you?209.213.145.236 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's settle down a second. It would appear that the majority of us are in agreement. The fact of the matter is that there is no source out there that says with no doubts that WWE still views certain wrestlers as developmental even after being called up. Anything else that was brought up leaves room for dispute, and when in doubt, don't include it in the article. It is apparent that we have a consensus. It isn't unanimous, but there is only one holdout amongst about a half dozen or so voices that are in support. Let's let Wiki top men look at everything and then make their decision. Vjmlhds 00:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Mysterio/Sin Cara inactivity; tag teams/stables

Sorry if I'm intruding your conversation here, but whenever you get the chance, you might want to list Rey Mysterio & Sin Cara as inactive with neck and knee injuries, respectively. Also, on a completely different note, with the tag team "renaissance" that has been seen lately, we should put a section under Main roster and NXT roster showing tag teams and stables, but only those that have been cemented as such, to at least try to avoid further arguments. Please reply. Thanks.209.213.155.16 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

According to this, Sin Cara is healing a knee injury, but Mysterio has a family issue, no injury. As for the teams, I don't think that's appropriate. This article is a "real world" list of contractors and employees, and things like teams and championships are more WP:INUNIVERSE. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If championships are out of question, why leave holders of championships listed on the article?209.213.145.236 (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say either was out of the question, just more in-universe. Championships are slightly more real world, in my opinion, since a champion (at least a world champion) acquires real responsibilities and benefits with the belt, along with storyline glory and whatnot. And there's already a notes column where it can tidily be noted. The tag team thing just seems a bit too "fake" and irrelevant here, especially for a whole table. Back in the day, tag teams at least drove together, but now everyone flies and buses with everyone. That's not to say I'd be opposed to seeing a List of WWE Tag Teams or List of WWE stables article. This info would be totally relevant there. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A List of professional wrestling tag teams with a WWE section would be better, now that I think of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A seperate article about tag teams would be a great idea. Include a U.S. section (WWE, TNA, ROH) a Japan section (NJPW, AJPW, Noah), and a Mexico section (AAA, CMLL). Vjmlhds 18:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For a start, anyway. Australian and European wrestling is still chugging along. But yeah, in relative obscurity. I probably won't create the article, in any case. Just a suggestion that I'd support. Can IPs create articles? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am okay with the creation of the list, but in a separate article, not this one. WWEJobber (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I like it. When many things seem to be too kayfabe, we should see if its good enough to be an article, just an idea. By the way, you also mentioned championships, would you mind explaining to me why contenderships would be too un-notable if champions are notable enough? Keep up the good work. Please reply and thanks.209.213.145.236 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Contenderships are very abstract, and can be let too much to interepretation (this guy is # 1 contender, this guy is #2...no this guy is #1, and that guy is #2...and on and on). With a championship, there's a belt that clearly defines that this guy is this, and this guy is that. Vjmlhds 03:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but wouldn't it be simple enough to say that the #1 contender is just next in line to officially compete for the title, #2 next and so on? Please reply. Thanks.209.213.145.236 (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If we start listing contenders, we're gonna have arguements over who is #1, #2, and so forth, and the last thing this article needs is something else for people to have a dispute about. With championships, there is no debate...you either have a belt or you don't. Vjmlhds 07:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Could we possibly put them simply as just "contender" without putting a number behind it?209.213.145.236 (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, that opens up too many cans of worms with editors arguing who is and isn't a contender. Look at it this way, if you're wrestling for WWE (or any company), you're automatically a contender because at any time you can be thrown into a title match. So there's no need to list guys specifically as contenders..if you can lace your boots and step into the ring, you're a contender. That's as simple as I can put it. Vjmlhds 16:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to aggravate you or anything, and I do understand that there are surprise championship matches, but by contender I meant a competitor that will face for a championship as a known fact; a predetermined one, therefore. Just giving ideas, that's all.209.213.145.236 (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I smell what you're cooking, but I'm looking at this from a Wikipedia point of view. Anything that could start an edit war is something I'd really like to avoid. Let's worry about getting this page unlocked first, and then when the dust has settled, we can come back to this. Vjmlhds 18:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.209.213.145.236 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It was confirmed on SuperSmackdown that Rey Mysterio suffered a neck injury and Sin Cara suffered a knee injury, and Sin Cara noted on Twitter that his knee surgery was successful, but im unsure if Rey's is just a storyline, or if it the real deal, like Sin Cara's surgery. JobbersAreCool (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It's only a storyline injury. It was used as an out to allow Rey some time off to attend to personal business. Here's the reference - Rey's absence Vjmlhds 00:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-Signing

Please note that Nick Rogers has been re-signed to a contract, but the NXT website is not going to list him due to the fact that he is going to get called up soon, and he was only released before because it was at his request, and he was healing knee and fibula surgeries, and should be listed under unassigned personnel on the page, because he is back to developmental soon, then the main roster when they think he has finished all his story lines and rivalries. His Twitter page is still @WWENickRogers and has a few pictures saying Reinstate The Whistle, posing with fans. JobbersAreCool (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

He has not been re-signed. WWEJobber (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes he was, his Twitter handle never changed, and his bio says he is an NXT star. JobbersAreCool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

He has not. Stop with this. WWEJobber (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if he has or not, but his Twitter handle/account is no sort of proof. If and when he's listed on either the WWE or NXT roster, he can be added here. If there's some other source backing up the "signed, but they're not listing him" claim, let's see it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

CHRISTMAS TRUCE

I propose a Christmas truce from 12:00 AM to 12:00 AM, CT in which arguments temporarily cease and we can talk about editorial creativity or subjects that we haven't hade the time to discuss but are worthy of our attention. We shall resume the war on December 26 at 12:00 AM, CT. This could help ensure a merrier Christmas for all of the frequent editors of this article. Can we agree?209.213.145.236 (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)