Talk:Personas of The Undertaker

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-10. The result of the discussion was keep.

I would agree with all these personas or incarnations, whatever you want to call them, apart from the last two. I feel "American Bad Ass" (May 2000 - December 2001) and "Big Evil" (December 2001 - November 2003) can be separated into two separate personas. Even though they were based around the same Badass human side of the Undertaker, I think majority of 'Taker fans recognise a differentiation between the two. Also, the current persona, which WWE have dubbed "Original Deadman" is more widely known as the "Hybrid" by most Undertaker fans, I feel that is a better name for it rather than "Reincarnation".

I haven't changed anything because I don't feel it is my place to, but thought I would post this information here for the author to take these points on board. -- Luke Edhouse 01:48, 1 April 2006

I think American Badass and Big Evil are the same. All he changed was his hair and his status from face to heel. L2K 03:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the photo

I think the photo with Taker holding the title should be changed because despite that match taking place in the time period Taker used his Lord of Darkness gimmick, in that particular match he resoreted to the Mortician style costume for his match at Wrestlemania 13 thus is inaccurate to state that photo as the Lord of Darkness gimmick in my opinion.

Photos

Photos for every persona should be added. Son of Kong (UTC)

Serious Grammar Problems

I think that says it. It should be cleaned up. L2K 03:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling his eyes

I've been a 'Taker fan for awhile, and this new twist on the character rolls his eyes to show the whites of them in a demonic way. I could be mistaken, but I believe this is new, and nonetheless should be mentioned.--Ben414 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's pretty much done that since the beginning, cept during his American Bad Ass phase I believe.

he is especiaaly noted for doing it early on, such as his title match against hogan and espically during choke holds.

DemonWeb 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC) No he even did it then. --user:Atomic Religione[reply]

ABA & Phenom

The storyline culminating from the American Badass & Phenom is confusing its saying he was buried alive by Randy Orton with help from Kane & Big Show. He got Buried Alive at Survivor Series by Vince with help from Kane. He returned at WM XX. Then he got burned in a casket again this time by Orton & Orton Jr. at No Mercy. He came back from that at Survivor Series after Orton won for Team SmackDown! May someone please fix this?Rollinman 23:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was there is no consensus about whether or not to merge the pages. The Hyb rid 04:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I really think most of the information in this article could easily be merged into The Undertaker's article, hence why I am proposing this merge. Davnel03 10:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Support, Davnel03 10:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support TonyFreakinAlmeida 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, people are already complaining in the Undertaker article that it has become to large. The Personas article does a good job of explaining the personas on it's own and is linked to in The Undertaker article in a subsection. This article is useful and a good read on it's own, but would either get lost in Undertaker's main article or overcomplicate The Undertaker article even more than it already is. Merging essentially means deleting in terms of what people would get out of it. I believe the only reason for actually merging the article is the "fear of having too many articles on wikipedia". Trust me, from someone who went through the entire Undertaker article last night to remove the in-universe tag, this article should not be merged.--Enhanceddownloadbird 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not the reason for me wanting to merge the article. I don't have the fear of having too many articles on Wikipedia. I feel this information is mostly covered in Undertaker's article and some parts would fit nicely into the article. Davnel03 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The article on the Undertaker is already 72 kilobytes long. While merging the articles would have some benefits, the combined article would be incredibly long, which takes away from readability. I don't feel the benefits outweigh the loss. This article is fine on its own, so I think that merging would be a mistake. The Hyb rid 19:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - When articles get too long, spinoffs become necessary, and IMO this is a perfect example. Mshake3 01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - for length reasons. Nikki311 21:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wikipedia shouldn't be so in-depth when it comes to fiction. I'm a big wrestling fan: but I simply don't agree with massive fictional articles. Relevant and important information should be listed in main articles. People could argue many other wrestlers have personas articles as well: Hogan, Kane, Foley and so on... but Wikipedia shouldn't be home to them. There is a wrestling wiki for this type of information. RobJ1981 05:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Hybrid. --Naha|^(talk) 05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hell no! This page is already long enough as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tratare (talk • contribs)
Support - The Undertaker page is pretty big but if it has the personas of the undertaker as well it just saves time and it describes more about him.Robo
Support - I think that a lot of material is covered twice and would be better if merged.212.85.20.99 13:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This information's covered well enough in the article already, first of all. How many places does "Ministry of Darkness Undertaker" really need to be explained? He's an evil cult leader who ended up working for Vince McMahon; what else has to be said? Second of all, there isn't enough distinction between many of the personas to warrant such an article at all. The average WWE fan is going to know the Undertaker as either "the dead man" or "the biker." What's the difference between the first three personas? The clothing? The hairstyle? In action and mannerism, they're very similar characters. Finally, this article sets a dangerous precedent for WP:PW, since it becomes unclear where we can draw the line. Does Hulk Hogan--a far more notable and important figure in wrestling--deserve an article for his personas? Let's see... there's 'Mania I Hogan in white trunks, there's yellow-and-red Hogan, there's Hollywood Hogan, there's Hollywood Hogan in a wig (right around Halloween Havoc '96 when he feuded with Savage), there's all-black "now I get called Terry Bollea periodically" feud-with-the-New-Blood Hogan, there's nWo WWE Hogan, and there's the last yellow-and-red run. And I shudder to think of how an article about Ed Leslie would look. A lot of this is repeated information from the main article (major feuds are summarized in both places), so length isn't as big an issue as you think and much of this information would be unnecessary if a merger took place. LordSousa 19:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, as these are all likely the same person, and may be a duplicate of another voter.

Support, The Druid Slayer This will make reading the undertaker's page easier since all da info is on the page
Support, Booze4lyfe
Support, The Lord of chaos
Support, User:619 is gonna lose at unforgiven

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Merged info from The Undertaker

I went ahead and closed the debate at Talk:The Undertaker and merged the nicknames, music, and taunts to this page. For now, I just listed it at the bottom. I think the best course of action is to incorporate the information under the subheaders of the gimmicks they match up to. I'll leave that job for someone else though, as I'm not exactly sure about most of them. Nikki311 14:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put in his entrance themes!!

I think that says it allSimonKSK (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, why? His entrance themes are listed on his main page (The Undertaker). –L A X 02:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in a list.SimonKSK (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]