This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was MoveDuja► 09:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Support I actually think it should be moved back to 2 Cold Scorpio, but Charlie Skaggs is better than Charlie Skaggs (Flash Funk). TJ Spyke 02:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Support That's his real name, and since he is well known by two different ring names, he should be at his real name. "(Flash Funk)" isn't necessary - Who's gonna type it in the search as "Charlie Skaggs (Flash Funk)"? I mean seriously. --JamesDuggan 04:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say he's well known as Flash Funk. The gimmick bombed the first time, and he hasn't used on TV again yet. TJ Spyke 04:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Support At the very least, get rid of the Flash Funk part of the title. He's a special case in that he's now in the WWF, where he used the Flash Funk moniker more than 2 Cold Scorpio (or just Scorpio), but it's by far not his most well known ring name, and likely never will be. He used 2 Cold Scorpio for a majority of his career in his WCW, ECW and Japan runs. I still think it should just be changed to 2 Cold Scorpio, regardless of what name he will take when he makes on-screen appearances in WWE. Booshakla 18:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Support I support this mainly per same as above. I think it should actually be moved back to Charles Skaggs, but I'll compromise on Charlie Skaggs. The (Flash Funk) is confusing and I believe is against Wikipedia guidelines for the proper name of an article. Seeing as he has used the Flash Funk name less frequently than the 2 Cold Scorpio name, it definitely should not take precedence in titling this article. It would be appropriate to have both Flash Funk and 2 Cold Scorpio redirect to an article titled with his real name. D2001dstanley 02:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe it should be at Charles Skaggs? That wa the original name of the article before it was moved to 2 Cold Scorpio. TJ Spyke 05:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Charlie Skaggs → 2 Cold Scorpio —(Discuss)— This is the name Skaggs has used fairly continuously since 1985. There is some debate over the correct spelling of his real name - some sources say Skaggs, whereas his erstwhile employer uses Scaggs.  A Google search returns 27,400 results for "2 Cold Scorpio" compared to 349 for "Charlie Skaggs". McPhail 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC) —McPhail 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Support as nominator. McPhail 21:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2 Cold Scorpio's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)