Talk:List of WWE personnel/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

NXT

Troy McLain teamed with Travis Tyler on NXT and wrestled against The Ascension on the November 7th 2013's episode of NXT. Source: http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2013/1107/567115/wwe-nxt-recap-harper-vs-ohno So Troy McLain is no longer Yet to appear on NXT.

Also on the same episode they mentioned they mentioned that Alexander Rusev fired Sylvester LeFort as his (Rusev's) manager and the blonde woman (who is named Lana) that has appeared ringside during his matches for the past two weeks is Rusev's sole manager. 5.71.46.183 (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

In Accordance to the "rules" Established above, this still needs to be changed and his name on WWE.com is spelt Troy McClain.

Other changes needing to be done include: Judas Devlin, Mickie Keegan and Raquel Diaz need to be in Unassigned. None of the three are on the WWE.com roster. And the belief on Keegan is that he is now just a creative assistant. Not sure what the policy is on that, the last person bumped from the roster but still hired by the company (Alisha Ceraso/Dani) is not on this list.

Also Jojo is now only listed on the NXT filter roster, not on the main one.69.171.176.153 (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Leo Kruger profile is gone, Adam Rose is up. I think we can safely just list Adam Rose. Also not sure how official a source you count twitter but Jody Krisstofferson/Garrett Dylan has been claiming for a while to be back with NXT. Haven't seen an article on a site about it but he does do the usual posting deal most NXT guys do. So there's something to be on the look out for in terms of sources.69.171.176.130 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Batista

WWE has officially announced that Batista is back with the company, and his return date will be January 20, 2014.

Even though he isn't on the WWE.com roster (yet), this is a case where really it's just a formality as the announcement has been made and the return date set.

The roster rule is great for when we're not sure about somebody (like Chris Jericho or RVD for example), but in some select cases there should be exceptions, such as when it's an obvious storyline firing (like Big Show was a couple of months ago), or when WWE clearly states and promotes that a guy is coming back (like now with Batista).

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

WWE clearly stated he will be back. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Just saw the Rumble announcement. Makes more sense to list him now. In my own mind, he's only back whe he's back, but no objections about Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to put an end to any confusion about Batista's status, here's a list of confirmed appearances he has lined up in WWE leading up to WrestleMania. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sin Cara

He is declared inactive, yet he appeared on the latest edition of Raw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.181.159 (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

That was Hunico under the mask, the original Sin Cara has been MIA forever, and will probably be cut soon if the reports are true. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I added a bit in the Note column explaining what's what. Though the only thing you can be less sure of than a masked man is a masked man in wrestling. We're still not totally sure who Shawn Michaels' Knights were. Could be Ai Fujita under there, for all we really know. Reliable sources say it's Arias, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Redlinked?!? Baloney. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of explaining how the guy who used to be the guy is no longer the guy the other guy is, I've just changed Sin Cara's real name. If Wikipedia'd been around in Demolition's day, we'd have done the same to Smash. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of which man is under Sin Cara, that does NOT change the fact that WWE still shows him as Sin Cara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.181.159 (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Sin Cara's not inactive. Just Urive. Arias seems to be the same character this time, not an impostor. For now, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, urive disspeared from wwe roster. S:--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting Urive in unassigned, but his contract apparently expires today. Haven't heard he's gone or resigning, but gone seems most likely, till something clearer comes up. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

New Age Outlaws

I moved the New Age Outlaws to the main roster, as it's become apparent that they just didn't show up like all the other legends on Old School Raw as a one-and-done.

They're now knee deep in the Punk vs Authority storyline, and (without giving too much away from SmackDown) they have business with the Rhodes Brothers as well.

I know...they're not on the WWE.com official roster. But both Billy Gunn and Road Dogg work for WWE anyway in backstage roles, so it's not a question of if they're signed with WWE (they obviously are).

Right now though, they're being used on-air as part of a major storyline, so for the time being anyway, they should be on the main roster.

Vjmlhds user talk:Vjmlhds 16:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it's a good place for them for now. Let's make sure we keep an eye on it so we don't have a repeat of that Jerry Lawler back and forth from a couple years ago haha. Kjscotte34 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll cop to that somewhat. But in the beginning part of 2011 Lawler was wrestling a good bit - numerous Raw matches, feuding with then WWE Champion Miz, a PPV title match against him at Elimination Chamber 2011, and had his silly feud with Michael Cole leading to 3 PPV matches with him (WrestleMania XXVII, Extreme Rules, Over The Limit), so at that time placing him on the main roster was justified. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No need to defend yourself, it was the right move. Just attempting to inject a little bit of humor. You guys all do a great job -- it's why I stay out of the way on here and let you guys handle most of the heavy lifting on this page while I tend to vandalism on the baseball ones. :-) Have a great day and keep up the good work! Kjscotte34 (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh you didn't know?...The Outlaws are now officially on WWE.com's roster.Vjmlhds (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Logan Shulo

On the unassigned table there you can see Logan Shulo, so rub it and link this page Logan Shulo. For any questions, go to my talk page Ikhtiar Hossain (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Article was nominated to deletion, so don't remove the warning. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob Van Dam

WWE released a statement saying RVD was no longer under contract a while ago. Feedback ^☎ 05:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC) http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/301482

• Fair being fair, RVD has been moved to the alumni page on WWE.com, so he's currently not considered part of the roster. So as has been the policy for the last year or so...unless it's an obvious storyline firing (like with Big Show recently) if they're not on the WWE.com roster, then they don't go on the roster here. Vjmlhds (tslk) 00:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we should have a bit of an ignore all rules policy in the case of RVD and keep him on the page. He's clearly still under contract for company, and also tweeted recently that he'll be returning fairly soon. The reason we have the "(inactive)" tag is precisely for reasons such as these: wrestlers who are still contracted, and therefore still part of the WWE personnel, but are taking time off for one reason or another (which is what the source for RVD says: it says that this is temporary and implies that he will be back). — Richard BB 12:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a WWE reference next to the inactive tag stating that this is merely a break for RVD, and not a release. I was unaware of this before. Since this is straight from WWE, and not some guy who knows RVD's uncle's mechanic or something like that, I'll reverse course and say RVD should stay on the list with an inactive tag until he gets back. Although I will say moving him to the alumni page shows WWE is sending mixed signals here. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, only WWE decides who is in the main roster and RVD isn't. But he has a contract, so maybe, the best idea, unassigned people. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I can live with that compromise regarding RVD. He's not officially on the roster, but WWE made it clear he'll be back Vjmlhds (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Where in god's name on that WWE reference does it say Rob Van Dam is still under contract? Unbelievable. I posted a reference above of WWE stating officially that RVD is not under contract. And yet, you go ahead and look at a "He's taking time off" article and assume that means he's under contract? WTF? Feedback ^☎ 12:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why I didn't notice this yet. Feedback's right. I declare horsefeathers. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, man. The edit took off 402 bytes. That's, like, 4:20 backwards. Trippy. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Posted at 00:42. Cosmic, dude. Now I know why I didn't notice this yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

CM Punk

Before anything gets out of hand, let's agree to this...

Unless WWE or CM Punk himself announces he's leaving the company, don't take him off the roster. WWE.com still lists him as part of the roster, so as long as he's there, he's here.

Also don't list him as inactive until we hit the 30 day mark.

Who knows...they may kiss and make up, cut ties completely, or have this whole be revealed as an über-work.

But until something definitive comes out, the staus quo should remain here.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I say überwerk. CM "Corporate Ministry" Punk is revealed to have been the Higher Power all along, and helps Faarooq end the streak at WrestleMania XXX. But yeah, best to not spoil it for readers. As long as he's on WWE.com, he's welcome here. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Monday March 3 is Raw from Chicago...if Punk doesn't appear there, then we can deactivate him, as we'll have passed the 30 day mark. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So what now? Does he remain on the roster or does he get removed?--Mjs1991 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

WWE.com listed him as part of the roster. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

He's apparently going to be under contract until July. We should keep him as is until then, unless something interesting happens.LM2000 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Stephanie McMahon

Since she appears just about every week, should Stephanie McMahon be moved to other on-air personnel?

Probably. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan.

He's been billed as the host of WrestleMania, has done some talking, but hasn't wrestled in a (young) dog's age. He might rematch The Iron Sheik (or someone), but that's pretty farfetched, and nothing indicates he will. So he shouldn't be listed as a male wrestler. I thought this would go without talk, but apparently it's controversial. Discuss. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is don't ASS-U-ME anything. He's on the WWE.com official roster, so the safer route would be to put him on our roster so if/when he gets put in a match, we don't have to go through this again. He may or may not wrestle, but Hulk Hogan is by trade a wrestler, so the more prudent route is to treat him as such. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Brad Maddox, El Torito and Zeb Colter are also wrestlers, and listed on the WWE.com roster. But that's not their current role. "Going through this again" is hardly tedious. It's just a copy/paste if he's announced for a match. If the bolding wasn't clear, that's a big if. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Although he is not currently due to participate directly in the upcoming WrestleMania, Hogan has not ruled out a return to the ring.

"Right now, it's not in the plans," he said on Friday. "But like they say in the WWE, never say never."

He will instead be focused on representing the company and taking part in WWE programming. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Maddox, Torito, and Colter are bit players, so it's apples and oranges, and the article about Hogan proves my point...we don't know if he'll wrestle or not. My whole point is that it's just better to be safe than sorry. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what bit (or big) players have to do with anything. Sometimes Maddox, Torito, and Colter do wrestle, but that's not their primary function. Hogan might wrestle (although he admits it isn't in the plans) but his current role is a nonwrestling one. Hulk's edit is the way to go.LM2000 (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Hogan should be in other on air employees. He is the host, not a wrestler. Maybe, he'll wrestle, but right now he is a no wrestler. WWE says never say never. In that case, even Rene Young or Jerry Soto should be listed as wrestlers. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The way you guys are thinking is merely on WrestleMania, and not long term or long range...just because he has a role for show A, doesn't mean that it'll be that way for show B. Putting Hogan in "other talent" is very narrow-visioned, and leaving too much to chance. By having him on the roster, we're covered if/when he does wrestle, and if he doesn't...then really, so what? Nobody wrestles every single week on every single show. WWE.com lists him as part of their official roster, and that's the important thing. Having him on the main roster here covers more situations than if he's placed in "other talent". Remember, we had a big hullabaloo here a few years ago when The Rock hosted WM 27 about where he should be placed, and look what wound up happening with him. I'm not saying it will happen that way here, but merely saying that history shows it can happen that way, so I'm just saying we should do the safe thing in having Hulk on the roster. If he wrestles - great, if not - no harm-no foul. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Really? You revert with the summary "Don't be presumptious", then reason like this? That must have been a typo, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Listing him in "other talent" presumes he can't/won't wrestle. Listing him on the roster gives us wiggle room (it doesn't mean that he will wrestle, just means that the door is open.) Vjmlhds (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It relays the current info, as reported by reliable sources. That's how Wikipedia works. Otherwise, I could be called Prime Minister of Canada, because I meet the requirements. France could cease to exist, like Kent Brockman once reported. Is it presumptuous to call it a sovereign state? I'm not thinking ahead to WrestleMania or even SmackDown. Just today. If things change, Wikipedia changes. Not before. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't kidding about Scotty on my Talk Page either. Was this a bad call? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The BBC reported that he's not in a wrestling role. Ironically it would be presumptuous to assume he would be wrestling at all. Rocky shouldn't have been listed as a wrestler either after he returned in 2011, until it was confirmed he was going to be part of the active roster. Roles can change, as his did, and when they do we should react accordingly.LM2000 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Well... The male and female wrestler sections are for employees which principal role in the company is to wrestle. Broadcast team is for Broadcast team (captain obvious), referees for referees (of course, capt. obvious again) and Other on air personnel is for employees who don't wrestle and aren't referees or members of the broadcast team. It means, managers, authority figures, valets... Hogan right now, is a Host, isn't a wrestler, so he belongs to on air employees. Second, we know everything can happen in WWE, but isn't a reason to put every semi-retired worker in the wrestler section. In that case, Rene Young, Jerry Soto, Scott Armstrong or even Basil DeVito should be put in wrestlers section, because you don't know when McMahon'll say to his Senior Advisor "c'mon, fight in the ring". third, roles. Cena's role is wrestle, Lawler's role is talk and Colter's role is to appear with Real Americans. But, if Cena comment a match, he will not be a comentator. If Colter wrestle, he will not be a wrestler. If Lawler manage a wrestler, he will not be a manager. RIGHT NOW, Hogan role is the host of WM, a no-wrestling role. Yes, maybe he'll have one match or two, but it is crystalball. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't recognize Basil DeVito if he ran in and hit me with a chair. Would anyone here? Maybe he's El Torito! If we're choosing one thing to assume here, that's my vote. Better than admitting we don't know the bull's name. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Me neither. But remember, in WWE, anything can happen. We saw with Laurinaitis, a retired wrestler and an office man who suddenly "Johnny, tomorrow, you're gonna have a match against John Cena". Also, Dave Kapoor (a creative) appeared as Khali's manager. McMahon can create a storyline with the entire Board of Directors as wrestlers... but TODAY, their role isn't wrestle, and Hogan neither. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. I totally see others agreeing. I don't see anyone reverting. Hulk confused. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I know when I'm licked. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Inactivity

I don't believe I'm really here trying this right now, but here goes.

I've been around and have seen a lot of fuss over this article for about 6 years now. Around 2008 is when this article became one of the most controversial on Wikipedia. Even making the news along the way for being on the top 10 of most controversial subjects. Since I've returned, I noticed one of the biggest conflicts remains what it was years ago...

Inactivity.

I'll try to keep this short and simple. As I look over the article now, years later, much less a fan of wrestling than ever before, I wonder why is inactivity such a big deal to a page where we list employees of the WWE company? It really should not matter how active or inactive anyone is. If they are employed by the company, they are listed here. This isn't a list of "List of active WWE personnel" so why this list continues to note inactivity is a question I'll never be able to answer.

So I'm wondering if anyone else sees where I'm coming from. Ideally, I'd like to see the inactivity bits in the notes section removed. These people are still personnel of the WWE regardless of their activity or inactivity. Removing all of that would save this page a lot of edit warring and time-wasting conversations about "whether or not Wrestler X is inactive because it's been 29 days but someone saw them in the corner of the screen on Raw!!!" - it's all very trivial, not important, and falls under the category of "subjects that are trivial and of importance only to a small population of fans".

Opinions? Thoughts? Gloss • talk 19:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm not really a stickler for the 30 day rule, but I don't argue with those that are. My big thing is people insisting on listing people strictly as "other on-air talent", when they can and/or do wrestle. Case in point - Hulk Hogan. Why do people insist on listing him as "other on-air talent"? Doing so insinuates that they aren't really wrestlers. This is Hulk Hogan we're talking about here. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not the topic of this thread, so please keep that conversation in the above thread to avoid confusion. Gloss • talk 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Regarding the 30 day "inactivity rule", I can take it or leave it, but It's much better than it was, when there was an actual "inactive list" section. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that was a mess. But the factor of activity vs. inactivity remains irrelevant to an employees overall standing as somebody who works for the WWE. Gloss • talk 19:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It might have its roots in the old WWF rule that a champion had to defend his title at least every thirty days. It just seems a good cut-off number. Good to note, to give a reader an idea of who they might see actively wrestling if they tuned in soon. Paints a picture of the current scene. Remember, this is in the context of the active roster section, not personnel in general. An Inactive section would be cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I remember the Inactive section, but it was removed and substituted by the 30 days note. However, I think like Hulk. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're both clearly fans of wrestling and seem to be only looking at this from a wrestling fan's perspective. What I don't think you're understanding is that this is irrelevant to the overall aspect of a contract between a person and a company. You don't see a roster for a sports team listing players as inactive if they're benched 10 games in a row. If you're employed, you're employed. This article is not designed for "giving a reader an idea of who they might see actively wrestling if they tuned in soon." It's an encyclopedia's article on "personnel in WWE." Perhaps inactivity is something a wrestling wikia would explore, but here it causes edit wars left and right and is very trivial. If you both strongly disagree with me, I'll gladly ask for input of other editors that do not edit professional wrestling articles and could also give an outsiders' opinion. Remember, we're not writing these articles for the hardcore fans. We're writing them as a part of an online encyclopedia. Gloss • talk 20:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

However, I think is important when some wrestler suffered an injury or a suspension (drugs, bad behavior). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, because you're a fan and that information is important to you. Does an injury have anything to do with the person's contract with the WWE? Gloss • talk 21:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a look on other articles... basketball teams. We can include their legends to suspensions and injuries. They put a little mark when a player suffered an injury or was suspended. However, I think is important to include it. He is under contract, but he isn't active (basketball players can't play basketball and wrestlers can't perform their simulated matches) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That's fair. But this should only be included when they are injured. Being inactive for 30 days is irrelevant. Gloss • talk 21:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I understood the irrelevance, and agree. It's why I said it's to be understood in the subsection, not the overall personnel context. I can think like a wrestling fan and a real person, and there's a place for both. One can't always totally separate the two, either. A guy can miss a week, or maybe two, and still be in an active feud, drumming up merch sales, Twitter buzz, bonuses. But after 30 days, they're pretty much forgotten (unless they're The Undertaker). So there's some relevance to their legit position in the company ("drawing power", the kids say). Of course, they still get paid whatever bare minimum they signed for. That's not always a lot, though (unless they're The Undertaker).InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so it looks like we have an edit warrior. HHH thinks its "important when some wrestler suffered an injury or a suspension (drugs, bad behavior)". I think what I've said. VJ "can take it or leave it, but It's much better than it was", and is "not really a stickler for the 30 day rule, but I don't argue with those that are". That hardly seems like consensus for Gloss' idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You've yet to bring up one valid reason for inclusion. Let's start with that. Gloss • talk 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing the sources goes against WP:V and removing detail on injuries goes against the general concept of providing information. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please, show me one sports teams roster where they provide detail on the injury INSIDE of the roster list. Gloss • talk 20:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this a sports team? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a roster. Just like a sports team has. So what exactly is the difference? Gloss • talk 20:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I really have to explain the non-competitive nature of professional wrestling, or how the performers aren't arranged into squads? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

(out-dent) This is a list of personnel and is no different from a roster. You've also failed to mention how their inactivity effects their standing as an employee, because noting it so specifically on this article implies that being inactive for 30 days has some bearing on their contract or anything. Gloss • talk 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You've failed to read, because I mentioned it above. No activity means no work, no buzz, no incentive bonuses. They collect their downside guarantee, and, if it's a lengthy layoff, they often return with no creative direction (storyline), which often leads to a release. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If and when they are released, then they should be removed from the page. But just because a pattern has developed over the years where inactivity leads to release doesn't mean it's notable to specifically point out. That kind of information belongs on a wrestling wikia or other fan site, not an online encyclopedia. Gloss • talk 20:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't address the financial points, or the part about painting a picture of what a reader can expect if they watched the programming we're discussing. Or that detailing a reason for absence is educational. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Now can you explain where anyone supported your proposal? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This conversation has gone way too far and I don't care enough to continue fighting over it. I'm going to take this playground off of my watchlist (finally) and let the kids run free. Enjoy, Gloss • talk 20:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hear me out

All I'm trying to do here is paint with broad strokes regarding this article...the narrower the strokes, the more squabbles we get into regarding where someone should be placed.

"Superstar" and "Diva" (2 terms WWE uses frequently) offer far more wiggle room and versatility in the article than the way it was before...remember, at the top of the page it says WWE uses these terms to promote their performers.

All I'm looking to do is try to prevent arguments regarding this article by using more wide ranging terminology. This way we're not pigeon-holing ourselves and nitpicking over technicalities.

Vjmlhds (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all. in case of war edit or conflict, we leave the version BEFORE the conflict. So, if somebody wants to argue, we left the inactive note. So, we still arguin, don't put the Gloss version. About Superstar and Diva...yeah, maybe. We write Tecnicos and Rudos in Chikara. However, I think is better Other on air employees and broadcast team. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

One man's wiggle room is another's vagueness. WWE calls all their talent "Superstars", whether they wrestle or not. I think there's an important distinction between the types. Also a bit jargony to use trademarks to describe them. A bit weird that you leave the distinction for Authority Figures and Managers, and weirder that Vickie isn't there. What basis is there for saying they aren't Superstars? Seems like you're trying to get Hogan in with the wrestlers, through a new convoluted strategy.

In any case, this is a separate issue from the Inactivity thing above, so rather than reverting that back and forth along with this, keep them apart. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No clue what your technical tag is about, but reducing jargon like Divas and Superstars would be one way to make it more understandable. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A proposal

Let me throw this proposal out there to see if this could cure what ails the article...

We simply get rid of the "other on air talent" section, and simply do Male performers (Superstars) and Female performers (Divas)

Like this:

Main Roster

Male performers ("Superstars")

• We list Maddox, Hogan, Teddy Long, and Zeb along with the wrestlers, with their specific role noted in the notes column

Female performers ("Divas")

• Including Vickie G.

Announcers

• Including ring announcers

Referees

• Self-explanatory

This way there's no muss, no fuss, no "maybe he's a wrestler today, but not tomorrow" controversy.

4 sections, nothing more, nothing less, and no nebulous quagmires.

Also, the inactive rule stands, as the current system (at least regarding that) has proven reasonably successful.

What do y'all think?

Vjmlhds (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

First, I still don't see the toxicity of it all. Today and tomorrow are completely different things. As of today, we write things we can presently verify to be true when the reader reads them. When Hogan vs Bundy: The Final Chapter is officially announced, then tomorrow will have become today, and we can tell people Hulk's a wrestler again. It doesn't have to be a nebulous quagmire (cool phrase, though!)

I think it helps readers to quickly and naturally browse by groups, rather than scan an alphabetical list of everyone while looking to the right. Less sexist to differentiate mostly on function, too. Vickie Guerrero is no Natalya, vaginas aside. "Superstar" and "Diva" are less meaningful than plain English terms.

I'm still fine with the usual inactive thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If something isn't broken, isn't necessary to fix it. I don't see the point to include Hogan (an inactive talent), Long (a general manager) and el Torito (a mascot) with the wrestlers. It's fine to separate wrestlers from other on air employees. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Pick one, stick it in me, and call me done. This has caused me too much grief. And no, this isn't the white flag again where I tried to do a backdoor plan B...that obviously blew up in my face, and the above proposal was plan C. There is no plan D. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why El Torito belongs in others, he wrestles plenty. Probably even more than JTG and Curt Hawkins do. 69.171.176.130 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

A bit hard to take his wrestling as seriously as JTG's. Always in six-man tags, used more like a comedy spotmonkey. Different when he wrestled other midgets. That said, I didn't put him there, and he is technically in the matches, unlike Matilda. No objections. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

CJ Parker

Why is the wrestler, CJ Parker incorrectly linked to Pamela Anderson's Baywatch charcter, Casey Jean "C.J." Parker? 2.221.178.117 (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Big E

someone please fix Big E's name under champions its Big E not Biggie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw122339 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Lana

Curious that her name under "Other on-air personnel" isn't highlighted with C.J. Perry under her name Talladega87 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Mystery solved. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Addition Request

Would it be possible to get the birth date/age of the wrestler/performer/person added as an additional column? It would be cool to be able to sort each section by the age of the wrestlers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.242.228 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be cool. Let readers tell the lions from the pups from the dinosaurs. Maybe a column for how long they've worked there, too. All gives context to the list. I suck at tables, sadly. I support someone else doing it if consensus is for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No Way Sometimes less is more...you wanna know how old somebody is, click on their article. It would just gunk up the tables. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The OP seems to want the ability to sort all of them by age, not know a particular age. As for gunk, I see enough whitespace room on the right side, just waiting to be filled with something. Two digits isn't a lot. But no, not trying to change your mind. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

Angelo Dawkins now goes by the name of Gary Gordon and Pierre Marceau goes by the name of Marcus Louis and Cole Andrews was released 207.136.213.243 (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Request was to have their name changed or taken off the roster — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.213.243 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014

Add Rob Van Dam, he returned to WWE on the April 7, 2014 edition of Raw 216.8.143.76 (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time this page has spoiled Rob Van Dam's return for me. If nobody's done it by the time I've seen it myself, I will. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Sing 07:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014

RVD returned last night so he should be back on the roster 207.136.213.243 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Source about a full time return? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

RVD has been re-added to the WWE.com roster, so I went ahead and added him here. Just had to make sure this wasn't a one-time thing with him being on Raw. By adding him to their official roster, WWE has shown that RVD will be around at least for a little while. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sting

On Bleacher Report, I saw that Steve Borden, more well known as Sting, just signed with the company. Can this be put in the unassigned personnel section of this page? 76.220.66.126 (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Normally, Bleacher Report articles are worth as much (not financially) as Wikipedia user pages. But this one clearly quotes the Observer. I'd say it's good enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Added. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There is one disruptive user that keeps removing the mention of that report from the Sting, you might want to pop over there InedibleHulk. STATic message me! 05:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Another dirtsheet is reporting that Meltzer issued a clarification today, saying that while Sting has been given a contract, the contract has not been returned.[1] LM2000 (talk)

Why can't Meltzer get his story straight? That sort of "journalism" is ridiculous. STATic message me! 05:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That was quick. I've twice explained to the Los Angeles Times their Doink mistake, the next day and a few months later. It's still there. Professional journalists admit mistakes all the damn time. In the New York Times piece about Meltzer, they admit they didn't even know where Bret Hart was from, or where Brody was killed. They're still cool. LA's fake. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Best solution...we wait till either WWE.com makes an announcement, or we see Sting come through the curtain on Raw. Otherwise, we're gonna be playing this game until the end of time. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if we do see Sting, we can't be too sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

PWInsider is now reporting that they've come to a deal.[2] Not sure if we ever came to a consensus on whether PWI is reliable for stuff like this, but this report would certainly make sense considering the Warrior Week appearances he's been making on the network.LM2000 (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

That page doesn't load for me, but checking the Google cache, Johnson cites himself from last week as a source. If he'd based last week on Meltzer's premature story, there's an obvious problem. Also, he only says they've "come to terms", meaning the contract is written the way they've agreed. Doesn't mean he's signed it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know (I am the 76. IP Adress user who started this debate), Sting's WWE appearances were on the last WCW Monday Nitro, some Warrior Week interviews on the WWE Network, and a scheduled WWE DVD on Sting. As far as the contact goes, It probably is still waiting to be signed at his house. So technically, it hasn't been signed yet. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarifications?

Wasn't it decided this page's decisions would be based on the WWE.com roster page. If it is then the following would need to be changed accordingly: - Camacho is still given a main roster profile and but is sorted as a NXT superstar as well, even if he currently only seems to appear on NXT, the WWE.com listing would have him listed as main roster. Otherwise should JBL, Jason Albert, William Regal, Xavier Woods,etc all be moved to NXT as well? - Eden (Brandi Rhodes) has been added back to the NXT roster, she should be listed in their table - WWE.com has yet to update Angelo Dawkins profile, so like when Leo Kruger started as Adam Rose yet still had the Leo Kruger profile, both names should be displayed and have the old one deleted upon the official page change. 69.171.176.205 (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I pushed for that decision. Still generally stand by it. But Camacho presents a dilemma. If we list him on the main roster, we'd have to note he's inactive. But that's a half lie, because he's active in NXT. If we say instead he only wrestles in NXT, it begs the question of what he's doing in the main table. When policy stands in the way of facts like that, it's valid to ignore the rule. Unless there's a simpler solution I haven't heard yet.

Regal and Albert may be in the same boat. But JBL and Woods are still quite alive in WWE.

No comments on the other things. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrestler Linked To Wrong Person

Gary Gordon (formerly known as Angelo Dawkins) is currently being linked to a deceased American Master Sergeant by the name of Gary Ivan Gordon who is obviously not the same person as the wrestler. 2.216.238.115 (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Prefall (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

WWE Releases confirmed

Time to move Raquel Diaz, Mason Ryan, Oliver Grey, and Danny Burch off this list and onto the WWE alumni list. 71.161.244.184 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Mike Johnson, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Christian

Christian is out (concussion) since more than 30 days, should be listed as inactive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.129.146 (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Kalisto, Marcus Louis and Tye Dillinger

Kalisto and Marcus Louis both made their NXT TV debuts on this week's NXT episode in a tag team match. The tag team was Kalisto & El Local vs Marcus Louis & Sylvester Lefort, Lefort and Louis were introduced as The Legionnaires.

Tye Dillinger got his first NXT televised win teaming with Jason Jordan defeating Baron Corbin and Sawyer Fulton on April 17th 2014. Also, WWE have an official (because it is was uploaded by WWEFanNation which is WWE's official YouTube Channel name) video on YouTube of Tye Dillinger & Jason Jordan asking for help for a tag team name for themselves.

The problem is WWE haven't updated their NXT roster page to include the above 3 but they have made appearances on the televised NXT episodes that have aired so do they have to wait until WWE update their NXT roster page to include them or do they get included because of them having recent televised matches on NXT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.90.69 (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Louis & Dillinger, along with Bull Dempsey and Veronica Lane now have profiles on wwe.com. Kalisto still does not. Troy McClain has also already wrestled on NXT last year. Camacho is also still listed on both the main roster and developmental roster, so he should be on the main section with "also appears on NXT". Plus i'd also argue El Torito should be on the roster too if Hornswoggle is.69.171.176.49 (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

NXT roster

I don't know if its just me or what but it seems like there are more people on the NXT roster page then on this WWE roster page. If there is someone mind updating so that everyone is on both pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.213.243 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Way too inconsistent

This page is way too inconsistent with which sections people are in and other things. Booker T hasn't wrestled in a couple years now and only does other on-air things. William Regal and Hulk Hogan aren't wrestling at all either. Hunico is no longer listed even though he is still on the WWE.com page yet The Rock is still on there because he is on the WWE page. Camacho was moved to NXT even though he is listed on WWE.com yet people like Tyson Kidd and Curt Hawkins are still on the main roster on here. Ricardo Rodriguez also only seems to wrestle on NXT as well and he should be listed as El Local.Crazy4metallica (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit of a mess. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

We discussed about Hogan a few months ago. He belongs to Other on air personnel. Also, Booker T should be listed in Other on air personnel. Camacho, Back to the main roster. About regal...I don't know. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have moved Regal and Rodriguez to Other on air personnel if anyone has a problem with that let me know here. cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Judas Devlin?

I see he's no longer on the list, did a source emerge to announce his release? If so he's not on the WWE Alumni list either. Just curious if he fell through the cracks?69.171.176.65 (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

He was fired on February. However, he never debuted in the main roster and alumni is for wrestlers who wrestled on the main roster. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

JTG released

Time to add JTG on a WWE alumni article as well. --Stephen"Zap" (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Truly the end of an era :'( LM2000 (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't we just tell them a lie? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Part-timers in WWE

Certain inactive WWE performers who "haven't appeared in over 30 days", such as Brock Lesnar and The Undertaker, can mainly be considered "part-timers", because their current contracts will only have them work a limited number of dates per year. The Undertaker only competes at Wrestlemania, and Brock Lesnar competes at four or so pay-per-view events per year. Should the fact that a WWE talent is a "part-timer" because of his contract only having him working a select number of dates per year or a limited schedule be noted in this list? Jim856796 (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If they're on the WWE.com roster, then they're on this roster. If WWE considers them part of the team, who are we to argue...it's THEIR roster after all. No need to muddy up the waters. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

A separate list would be out of line, but a note seems wise. Lets readers know a certain wrestler isn't injured, buried, suspended or "taken their ball and gone home". Just what they signed up for. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

So instead of merely listing them as inactive when they hit 30 days, they have a note saying "Makes limited appearances", and it stays whether they show up or not. Would that be something that could work? Vjmlhds (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that. Might be better to note how many (or roughly), if we can source it. Technically, every contract nowadays is for some limited number of appearances. If the '80s taught us anything, it's that humans need to sleep in their own beds now and then (and that bulldogs and snakes can't follow scripts). But yeah, if a reader sees it for some wrestlers and not others, it should be a big clue that we mean extremely limited. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And if the 90's taught us anything, it's that rottweilers will sniff each other's butts and pee on the floor at a time when they're supposed to be portrayed as vicious ;) Vjmlhds (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And that a Piranha Death Match is far more deadly for the fish. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

unassigned/nxt roster

There are people on the unassigned roster and yet shown as wrestling nxt house shows, shouldn't they be under nxt if they are technically wrestling in nxt? Even if they haven't been on tv yet.207.136.213.243 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This is WWE Roster. Wrestlers are assigned to NXT if WWE includes him in the NXT Roster. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Are they losing the matches they're wrestling or only beating other "unassigned" wrestlers? If so, you may be looking at a jobber. WWE (the real company) owns them more tightly than they did in the good old days, but as far as the illusion goes, they're not "NXT Superstars". They're just modern day dusty wolves, trying in vain to make a name for themselves against the real lions (like whoever the hell this is supposed to be). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about Eden

There's a lot of content here, and I've been paying less attention lately, so if I missed something right in front of my face, I apologize. From what I gather, Cody Rhodes' real name is Cody Runnels. When he and Brandi were married, which last name did she take? On the roster here, her real name is listed as "Brandi Rhodes." However, "Rhodes" isn't even her husband's real name. Hope I didn't muddle that up too much, it just seems that one set of information contradicts the other. Happy Friday everyone! Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

legend contracts

is there any way someone can add a legends contract section. technically they are under contract even if it is a legends contract right???72.15.25.104 (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

#bunnymania

Yes, it's true...The Bunny is an official member of the WWE.com main roster (with a profile and everything), so leave him here until they remove him there. And if anybody can find out the man behind the mask, please feel free to add it (as long as it's referenced).

Vjmlhds (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's damn true! Oh right...reference. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. He should be added, but he has no linked profile to a Superstar page. Some people say he's being played by Darren Young and maybe Sami Zayn as well. I doubt he is D.Y. because D.Y. does not do aerial moves at all and it could be anyone, really.PeterMan844 (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Source required

A source is needed for Buddy Murphy's real name on the NXT roster. I believe that "Matt Silva" is simply another wrestling name he wrestled under in Australia and not his real name. 144.137.40.224 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9RVS8cjNN0 Fixed :)

Legends

That's by we removed the section long time ago. Do you think we should include the legends/ambassador section? It's really hard to source and every day, somebody includes a former wrestler as legend, like Piper, Foley. Others, like Flair or Hogan, are unsourced. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think they're six-year contracts. Long, anyway. So we don't have to worry too much about day-to-day upkeep. Should definitely depend on a source saying someone's signed a deal. WWE (especially Cole) confuses things by also calling any old wrestler a "WWE legend", even Scott Steiner or Bret Hart. They're good at what they do, but telling the truth is definitely not what they do. We gotta trust the dirtsheets. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Or Twitter. Official Twitter, anyway. Honky Tonk Man seems legit. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The 1-2-3 Kid has sold his soul. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As usual, Kevin Nash doesn't mind shooting straight. Five years, not six. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The power of The Ultimate Warrior is still bound to Earthrealm. His likeness, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is anybody else going to add those? Not Warrior, I suppose. I'll do it eventually, but only eventually. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014

Hulk Hogan should be included on here in some fashion. Probably in the ambassador section. Or somewhere with limited appearances. Hallofhorror2014 (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying he's signed in some fashion? A quick Googling indicates he didn't want a Legends' contract, but people wish he did, or think he might later. WrestleMania XXX was apparently a handshake sort of deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam ^Sing! 22:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sting's status

While Sting isn't on the official WWE.com roster, we do have a legitimate source stating he has signed (for limited appearances) with WWE, and it's obvious he'll be involved in a feud with HHH. The WWE.com roster is a helpful tool, but not the end-all, be-all as there's some kayfabe there, while Wikipedia is more real world.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As always, to include somebody in the main roster, we need a profile. WWE decides who wrestlers are in the main roster and who aren't. Sting aren't. We made the same when Cody Rhodes was fired, when Batista left WWE, Maddox was moved to alumni and Big Show was fired. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, the unassigned section is for people sho isn't assigned, not NXT neither the main roster. Sting isn't in the main roster or NXT, so he is unassigned. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)