Talk:Seth Rollins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Speedy deletion[edit]

I've added cited references to the articles main points and rewrote some of the article to better establish his notability. I'll keep working on the article for awhile to see if I can add a bit more to the article. 08:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ring of Honor[edit]

This section is almost an exact copy of the 2007 section for the Age of the Fall page. Is there really a need to duplicate so much? Oh and information about who he worked with during that time is not exemplified. Tutenkanem (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)(NJPW)(ROH)(TNA)Ring of Honor the best wrestling on the planet Seth Rollins wasn't always Seth Rollins his actual R.O.H ring name was Tyler Black(Nexus Pure)

Danny Daniels[edit]

Just thought I'd note that the Danny Daniels linked to from this page is a dancer from the 1940s, and not the pro wrestler of the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've unlinked it. There doesn't appear to be an article on the wrestler Danny Daniels on wikipedia. Thanks for the note. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 02:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Sam Robins"[edit]

Fairly sure that's wrong, and that the guy that sent in the report misheard it. I was there last night and he was definitely announced as Seth Rollins. (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The matter's being discussed at WP:PW. Starship.paint (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

MCPW World Heavyweight Championship?[edit]

Where source is there saying that the MCPW Heavyweight Championship is a World Heavyweight Championship? Unless there is a source stating it as so, then it's nothing more then a heavyweight championship. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


I just removed a statement that said he will make his TV debut on this date, please don't add this back there is no source and is pure speculation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dravenbk (talkcontribs) 06:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Name Change[edit]

Shouldn't we make that now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhand (talkcontribs) 10:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

he has changed his name as of recently Nov. 2, 2015

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Tyler BlackSeth Rollins – He no longer performs under "Tyler Black" and is now featured prominently in WWE as "Seth Rollins" Relisted. BDD (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Knut (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it is redirect from Seth Rollins. But it needs to be moved by an admin. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Move to "Colby Lopez" - That's his birth name, isn't it? If he will be both known simultaneously as "Tyler Black" and "Seth Rollins" (i.e. if no consensus to change from one stage name to another), then birth name is preferred. Look at Sean Combs; he was "P Diddy" and "Puff Daddy". Fighting over stage names is pointless. Nevertheless, support original proposal if he's currently no longer referred as "Tyler Black" within last three years by at least one source. --George Ho (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • He's been wrestling exclusively as Seth Rollins, and not Tyler Black, since 24 September 2010. 2010 2011 2012 The Seth Rollins character has appeared in WWE, which is the biggest wrestling organization in the world today and which has international outreach with television shows and pay-per-views. The Tyler Black character wrestled in smaller independent promotions in the United States with much more limited exposure compared to WWE. As for Colby Lopez... "Seth Rollins" on Google News -> 554. "Tyler Black" -> 62. "Colby Lopez" -> 2. Starship.paint (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, we should not be using the least common name and Rollins appears to easily be the most common.-- (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
To be clear I am supporting the move to Seth Rollins and barring that am opposed to Colby Lopez.-- (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support original proposal - If "Tyler Black" is used in limited exposure, then "Seth Rollins" it is. Too bad "Colby Lopez" won't be used, as there are not any big nicknames. --George Ho (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree, the article should be renamed Seth Rollins.Keith Okamoto (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Forgot to vote despite my comment above on 28 Dec. Starship.paint (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The ring name used for globally televised appearances is naturally better known to the wider public than any other ring names. McPhail (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Personally, I think "Tyler Black" sounds better. But that doesn't matter. His WWE name is much more mainstream, and currently accurate. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
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.

The OTHER Seth Rollins[edit]

Hi-just to be up-front, this is my first time posting on Wikipedia, please forgive me if I am unaware of certain guidelines. I am more than willing to learn, please just let me know. I have an issue with this page and entry, as there is another entertainer/musician named Seth Rollins. How do I go about editing or adding the other entertainer to this page? [1]

seth rollins on american idol

thank youSirigotthis (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. You wouldn't add it to this page; instead, you'd have to create a new page – I'd suggest Seth Rollins (singer) or Seth Rollins (musician), if that's what he's known for. Try checking out Wikipedia:Your first article for more info. — Richard BB 13:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Suggested rename[edit]

I see that there is some mixed opinion as to what the section on his career following his betrayal of the Shield should be titled. Might I suggest "Agent of the Authority"? Have a lovely day.-- (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. starship.paint ~ regal 14:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, this article has some information about Rollins's personal life (namely, his friendship with Marek Brave and their opening up a wrestling school) that might be worth including. Peace!-- (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014[edit]

What are you talking about

Can I please edit the pages causes whenever I want to fix up a page it's I never get the change to at all but I can do it on my laptop

IWANTDEANAMBROSE (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

unbolded Architect[edit]

The architect is also a nickname for him, and it should not be in this category

How come all other 3 of his nicknames get bolded but Architect is not bolded? WWE never called him Aerialist so I think Architect would be more notable at this point. Ranze 04:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems that Rollins is still being called both Architect and Aerialist post-Shield, so bolding them. starship.paint ~ regal 06:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The pictures[edit]

Wow, I came here expecting to have to assist in preventing users from adding massive speculation about this story. I never expected I'd have to fight fanboys to get it included. Wikipedia, you've changed. Yes, Wikipedia is not a tabloid, I understand that. But we also don't censor negative stories. And like it or not, this is getting a lot of coverage from sites that normally don't cover wrestling. It's certainly worthy of a mention here (just a mention, nothing more). This is certainly more notable than his nationality and where his real last name comes from. If you're going to enforce the generic "not encyclopaedic" argument, why not show some consistency and remove anything having to do with minor promotions that draw crowds under 100? All those Slammy Awards certainly are "not encyclopaedic", they're just props in WWE storylines that get no real world coverage. (I don't actually think they should be removed, so don't get distracted by this, I'm just showing the massive flaw in your argument) -- Scorpion0422 17:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Lawrence and Upton's photos generated a considerable amount of coverage that lasted weeks/months and became a criminal investigation. Nude leaks generally aren't especially notable incidents, WP:NOTNEWS applies here. If this were to affect his career in some way (as with Eden Chen), which is doubtful as Triple H brushed this off as an unfortunate personal incident in his conference call, or if a criminal investigation was to unfold as it did with the massive 2014 leak or Scarlett Johansson, then I'm all for it to be included. Unlike those, this seems like a story with no lasting notability, that fails WP:10YT.LM2000 (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd prefer it doesn't go in at all, but I've trimmed it down to acceptable weight. Some of those notable leaks I listed above do give lengthy paragraphs to the leaks, but that involves cases like Johansson's, which saw a man convicted, or Edison Chen, who has a whole article on his leak as it effectively ended his career. Upton's incident is far more notable than Rollins' and she only has a sentence dedicated to her leak, I tried my best to trim his down. Obviously more could come out of this story which would make it undoubtedly pass the WP:10YT and change the WP:UNDUE balance. I also want to clarify that when I removed this for "tabloidery" days ago it was when the story first broke and not as many mainstream sources had covered it.LM2000 (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple things. It's interesting that you cite the ten year test on a story that is pretty much Rollins' first general mainstream exposure. I'd argue that most of his pre-WWE stuff and his minor accomplishments and music he used once or twice easily fails that same standard. WP:PW might be the worst project when it comes to articles that fail it, seeing as we have articles on wrestlers who have yet to have any impact, minor c-level ppvs, lists for titles that have only had one or two champions and tag teams that will be forgotten in a year, let alone be remembered 10 years from now. And yet, you think this is where the line should be drawn? And how does NOTNEWS apply here? This isn't editors adding up to the second coverage of a minute event, it's a verifiable and brief statement days after the fact. I agree that recentism is something that should be fought, but we're not talking about an entire article, or even an entire section. Just a couple of sentences, which is more than acceptable. -- Scorpion0422 17:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the notability of the sources covering an event make that event any less routine. The past couple of weeks saw plenty of those same sources cover #CancelWWENetwork as well as Mick Foley's ejection from a chicken wing eating contest, note that neither event is mentioned in the WWE Network and Mick Foley articles. The bizarre events that unfolded on Seth Rollins' twitter on February 9, 2015 made for a hot story for a couple of days afterward but I just cannot see how that will have the same importance ten years from now as it did that night. I do mostly agree that the wikiproject has weird priorities though, we've had a few discussions about that on WT:PW recently.LM2000 (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
i somewhat agree with you but then again everyone has something to say and the things that have bee written have changed because we have found out what really happened or what he really did or said. People just want to inform others about their recently discoveries!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC) 

Curb Stomp[edit]

Is it really necessary to list the previous names of Rollins' signature move? The move has been known as the Curb Stomp for almost all of his WWE tenure as well as his time in FCW, and was only known as Blackout and Peace of Mind for a very short and insignificant amount of time. I understand why those names are included, but it seems a little misleading from an encyclopedic point of view to list them now considering Rollins is a high-profile star and the move has been called the Curb Stomp for virtually all of his run. Dannys-777 (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC) It was banned because e so many people got injured, because head positions were completely wrong causing major injuries!

It does not cause injuries HR Ajay (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of nude photos removed[edit]

I think we should add it back:

Remover said add it like before, apparently someone removed the sources. (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It used to be well sourced, someone removed that version and replaced it with the one I removed in that diff you provided. As I stated in the previous discussion, I do not think the nude photos deserve a mention but at the time the consensus was against me. I will not revert anybody who reinserts the material if it's properly sourced though, but if someone else removes it again then we probably should get a solid consensus on the issue.LM2000 (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


-- (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) He has many names including: the architect, Tyler Black, Seth Rollins, "Justin Bieber" and ect. this section doesn't work JakeDowell (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem was but I think I fixed it.LM2000 (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Seth is 6'0" EXACT! He is billed at 6'5 when the source says 6'1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

His new post-WM31 finisher[edit]

I hate to nitpick, but I should point out that its current description is incorrect. It's currently described as a "modified snap single underhook DDT", but it's not a DDT. It's a snap single underhook front facelock drop. You can tell because Rollins throws his legs out and lands on his stomach when he does the move; if it were a DDT, he'd fall backwards and land on his back. Plus the move seems to target the face of his opponent as opposed to the forehead/cranium, which makes the move more of a facebuster than a DDT. The only source referenced for its current description is a review of the first time he used it, and those reviews are often unreliable for move descriptions such as this. Therefore I propose that we call it a front facelock drop for now, since the move fits that description better than it does for the single underhook DDT description. R0l0p86 (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015[edit]

Seth Rollins billed weight is 217 lbs, not 225 lbs. Crampsy (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Schreibergate 2.0[edit]

Used as reference, any other notable coverage which can be used to strengthen?

Should it be worthwhile to include Seth's tweets defending her prior to this? It seems like this might be related to her posting a pony-Hitler or something on Facebook but I'm not sure if it goes any deeper. Ranze (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)



The NXT Championship should be listed under WWE NXT not WWE it was won in NXT at an NXT show it didn't change hands on Raw or Smackdown it JMichael22 (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

JMichael22 Thanks for opening a discussion. Got any references? Since this has been a contentious point the last few days, references would be helpful. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Sources aren't needed to tell what WWE NXT is its clear to see what it is and to see where the NXT Championship belongs it's a title for NXT defended and won within NXT it's not defended on WWE events JMichael22 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Well obviously the information has been disputed, and I don't think that the "yes it is"/"no it isn't" arguments that have been going back and forth for the last few days are going to be resolved without some clarification in the form of a reliable source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
In the past we have listed WWE NXT separate from WWE because it is a developmental farm similar to Deep South Wrestling, Florida Championship Wrestling and Ohio Valley Wrestling. My opinion is that we should continue to list NXT championships separate from those won of the main WWE roster.LM2000 (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Major difference between NXT and FCW/OVW/Deep South. WWE OWNS NXT - the rest were small independent companies than had a deal with WWE to allow Vince McMahon to use them as developmental territories. WWE owns NXT lock stock and barrel - it's THEIR baby. Also, the NXT Title HAS been defended on regular WWE shows, such as The Beast in the East and Monday Night Raw. Thus to list NXT as it's own entity is incorrect. NXT is part of WWE - not its own company. FCW and the rest were not part of WWE - only small separate companies who worked with WWE. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Observation - So we're still at an impasse here. JMichael22 says "sources aren't needed", yet there still appears to be an inconsistent opinion on the inclusion of this content, and nobody'd been forthcoming with references. Anyone care to promote a compromise? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: There's an ongoing discussion on WT:PW, here. The consensus that emerges there involves the edit war here, as well as several other articles which feature NXT championships. It's not that "sources aren't needed" but there's a pretty big dispute on how to interpret those sources and how we should reflect that on the encyclopedia.LM2000 (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Repeated heading changes[edit]

In the past few days I've noticed a heading keeps getting changed.

Mr. Money in the Bank <!-- Let's keep the header SHORT. --> (2014–2015)


The Authority <!-- Let's keep the header SHORT. --> (2014–2015)

for instance here and here I urge the article regulars to please discuss and figure out what the best heading is, so that we can stop the flip-flopping. (I will note that the date range should be 2014–15 per MOS:DATERANGE.) Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015[edit]

Seth Rollins forfeits his WWE World Heavyweight Title due to injury. Title is now vacant. Survivor Series Tournament will decide the new WWE World Heavyweight Champion. (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2015[edit]

Category:CrossFit athletes (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Article currently does not mention Crossfit anywhere, so you'll have to provide the source for this Cannolis (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Captain Morgan nickname[edit]

@Ozdarka: regarding Special:Diff/692758551 where you reverted the addition of a nickname which included reliably sourced video evidence directly from the WWE of Cena repeatedly calling Rollins this nickname and even Stephanie McMahon acknowledging it, I'm not sure what more you actually need here.

How exactly does a source verify something is a nickname? A nickname is a phrase used to describe someone that isn't actually their name. The ones we note are ones which recur and have exposure, and this did. I forget what CLB stands for, but "Fruity Pebbles" is actually a very good example I'm going to go research right now. Pretty sure the Rock did invent that as a nickname for Cena, and if he did actually call him that, why shouldn't we identify it as a nickname? Ranze (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Wrestlers insult each other all the time. Jericho called Stephanie "trashbag ho" and "slut" a lot. The Rock called Vince McMahon "asshole". Just because they recur doesn't mean they have been adopted by the wrestler. The article sections describing nicknames and moves are to establish the trademarks and intellectual property associated with that wrestler. Wrestler nicknames aren't used like real life nicknames; nicknames for a wrestler are to promote their brand as a product. They're used to make money. This can't be done with intellectual property from breakfast cereal companies like Cpt. Morgan, Fruity Pebbles or Chocolate Little Bits because it's infringement, and disparaging names don't promote the wrestler anyway. Ozdarka (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2015[edit]

There are mistakes that have been made with his career... and with his personal information! there are to many to copy and paste (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC) resources come from him in interviews he has done...

  • Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Since we can't read your mind you are going to have to actually tell us what you are talking about. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrestling Society X[edit]

No mention of him being featured on the short-lived MTV wrestling show, eventhough he's listed as a member on their roster on WSX's Wikipedia page.

The Sting quote is MISLEADING as hell[edit]

If you bother reading the interview, it's very, and I stress very apparent that Sting is referencing Rollins ability to work two matches in the same night and manage a lot of work without faltering as something in which Rollins is the best he's ever seen and why he "has it". The period is: "this guy is the most talented, he has it. (Explanation) He worked two matches here, there, he's involved with this and that and he's doing great etc". It's a far cry about what is suggested with the particular framing of the article ("Rollins is the best ever") if you take it in the original context.

10:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC) (talk)

WWE.COM: How would you describe competing against Seth Rollins?
STING: The biggest pleasure. I'm honored. After 30 years and working with some of the best and some of the greatest, [Rollins] is, I'm telling you, he's got to be the best I've ever worked with. I mean, this guy has it. And I think he's just scratching the surface on what he will do. I've never seen somebody as talented.
That's exactly what Sting said. You're presenting your entirely subjective opinion on what he meant, which has no relevance. B. Mastino (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Claiming it's my opinion? It's Sting's OWN OPINION. It's basic contextual reading. Do I have to stress again that you, again, cut and copy-pasted the other relevant part, or rather THE ENTIRE CONTEXT in which the claim takes place:
WWE.COM: How would you describe competing against Seth Rollins?
STING: The biggest pleasure. I’m honored. After 30 years and working with some of the best and some of the greatest, [Rollins] is, I’m telling you, he’s got to be the best I’ve ever worked with. I mean, this guy has it. And I think he’s just scratching the surface on what he will do. I’ve never seen somebody as talented. He’s working two [matches] on Raw, two [matches] on the pay-per-view, he’s involved in every other segment and it’s physical. He’s got guys coming from every angle. There’s a lot on his plate. He’s carrying a lot, and he’s handling it. He’s proven he can do it. I’m just glad I had a chance to work with him. He’s the kind of guy who could be in there with a broomstick and make something very interesting happen, a match that people would love somehow.
When Sting elaborates upon the what Seth Rollins is so TALENTED ABOUT he mentions how he manages his workload and stops. It's plenty enough to at the very least claim the statement was intended to refer only to that. He does compliment Rollins' again with the broomstick comparison, and that's it.
And if doubts can be cast, than the statement does not belong to Wikipedia. Because it lacks a clear context and is, therefore, misleading just like I said before.
Besides I may argue that The whole fact that I can cast doubt on the claim is proof you YOURSELF are applying your interpretation here. In any way, this is not, let's say, what CM Punk told about Eddie Guerrero, which can clearly by summed up in the sentence "Eddie Guerrero is all-around the most talented wrestler ever to me".
For comparison purposes:
"He is the best wrestler ever: he's better than Ric Flair, he's better than Stone Cold, he's better than me". Claim, then he expands upon the claim by adding some comparisons with those he considers to be, apparently, the very best of the industry.
"He is the most talented I've seen: he's working two matches, there's a lot on his plate and he's handling it". Claim, then he restricts the field of the claim to some aspects of being a worker.
You can see by yourself how different the implications are in both.
Moreover, another point weakening your argument is that this is a transcription of a lot of Sting's words, so the "period" may be misleading. Syntax of the article aside, it's pretty clear he tried to elaborate upon the reasons or "what makes Rollins so talented" by talking about how good he is at managing his workload, which he depicts as a big physical and mental task.
It's enough to infer that Rollins is "the most talented to Sting" in that particular aspect of being a pro-wrestler.
A more befitting report, without perpetrated sensationalism, would be a sober: "Industry veteran Sting has publicly praised Seth Rollins' work".
P.S. Besides, it's unclear if in "the most talented I've ever seen" part he is talking about "all the people he has seen perform" or still referring to "the most talented I've ever seen among the people I've worked with", since he was talking about his direct co-workers one moment before. And you are, again, reporting something which would lead people to automatically assume the first. This carelessness goes against how an informative article should be redacted. (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If Sting had said "I've never seen somebody as talented because he's working two [matches] on Raw, two [matches] on the pay-per-view..." I would agree, but your take on the piece requires reader interpretation. The two emboldened comments from Sting, in my initial response, support what's in the lede of the article. B. Mastino (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact he is elaborating upon his previous statement is evident: there would be barely any logical connection between the two periods otherwise.

I'll try with another example. If I am expressing myself in a non-written form and I say: "He is great. He makes great pizzas", am I saying the guy is "great in everything" and adding that, by the way, he makes great pizzas? Maybe, but it's more likely I'm saying he is great and the fact that he makes great pizzas is the reason why is great, therefore "the greatness lies in his ability to make pizzas"; Guy A is not claiming Guy B "is great" in general, holistically, as a human being (he may be an awesome pizza chef but a dick in his everyday life, right?). And you'd be reporting it here as "Guy A said that Guy B is great": as in... Guy A said Guy B is a great guy. When Guy A was just talking just about pizzas.

Mind you, I'm not saying that reporting the statement is something wrong per se, just that it's really doubtful this is the best way to put it down. It clearly needs to be rewritten in a more suitable fashion, reinforcing the non-ambiguous points: Sting is praising Seth Rollins' work and saying he could create interest around a broomstick. That's the non-ambiguous part; lest you want to report only that, you'd need to create some context around the "most talented" claim but as you can see there's room to doubt you can reach an univocal conclusion. (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Industry veteran Steve 'Sting'" Borden described Rollins as the most talented wrestler he has ever seen, or worked with."
Okay, since Wikipedia is collaborative I'm open to you removing "seen" from this sentence. However, Sting's comment that Rollins has "got to be the best I've ever worked with" is clearly unconnected to the spiel about Rollins doing two matches a night. B. Mastino (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Mine is that it's borderline illogical for Sting to start talking about something unrelated when he is asked about "how he feels about Seth Rollins". I'll try again to bring up the logical progression we have here again.

Starting with "he's the most talented I've ever seen -> he's able to perform well, to manage his workload accordingly when he's got it coming from every angle -> He’s carrying a lot, and he’s handling it. He’s proven he can do it. <- claim, reasoning and conclusion: "therefore, he is talented" ("talent" is, obviously, the ability to do something well enough).

That being said, it won't change the fact it's not really deontologically correct to report a statement that needs contextualization to be properly understood. Tabloids do that for sensationalism, Wikipedia by all means and accounts shouldn't. The point here is that if I had just read the claim on Wikipedia I would've reached a different conclusion than the one I reached by reading the source in its entirity. In any way, I won't edit it. To me the best course of action, since we can't seem to agree, is to leave the last saying in the matter to a supervisor or another editor. I think the most informing way to put it is that "Industry veteran Steve 'Sting'" Borden publicly praised Rollins' talent and in-ring work".

If Sting is talking about Rollins' being the most talented in pro-wrestling -> it's a correct report. If Sting is talking about Rollins' being the most talented in a particular field/ some particular fields of pro-wrestling -> it's still a correct report.

That is if this whole "Sting happened to compliment Seth Rollins in an interview" is worth mentioning in the first place. (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The quote is fine, it's been up for months and nobody has came to the same conclusions you have about its context. Sting is at the top of his field as a pro wrestler, him saying unequivocally that Rollins is the best is lede-worthy. The expanded explanation about why he is the best -- working two matches in one night, multitasking, handling promos well -- could go somewhere else in the article, but the lede is fine the way it is.LM2000 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

... And what's that supposed to mean, pardon me? Perhaps I was the only one who bothered reading the source then?

First off:

- It's doubtful if the thing is worthy of being mentioned. For other wrestlers on the "High-Importance" scale being labeled the "best/most talented/most popular" you have either multiple unequivocal statements (Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan) or official rankings from sources like (see "greatest ever" rankings).

- It's doubtful if it's deontologically FAIR to lead people assume Sting is talking about Rollins' talent as a whole. Hell, it's unclear if he's still talking about everyone he has seen or everyone he has seen among those he has performed with. To me it's crystal-clear that, syntax aside (which is a product of the interviewer and NOT Sting himself), Sting is talking about Rollins being the most "talented in working two matches at the same night, being on top while doing this and that without breaking a sweat". Had he expanded upon his ability to work the match batter than, say, Ric Flair, Ricky Steamboat or AJ Styles, I would've had a confirmation of the claim. Instead he is talking about how PROFESSIONAL Rollins his, and the talent he has in handling his profession well.

- Obvious contextualization issues aside, let's say I would even cast doubt on being a 100% impartial source in this particular case, something which didn't play part in the outcome of that phrase. Sting only faced two people in the WWE. WWE is having Sting telling the public the only active wrestler he has faced in WWE is better than everyone he faced elsewhere. It would be like McDonald's interviewing a top manager and have him say "McDonald's Big Mac, what do you think of it?". Would you report a worker of McDonald's answering McDonald's as good source in assessing the value of its own product in an interview?

Now, if you add all those things, anyone who is a journalist or works in the public industry would realize the claim is worthy for tabloids. May I add that if you're so eager to add something relevant that makes Rollins look good you could at least wait until he pops in a article about the "best in the ring" or something? I mean, right now I'm sure you could quote PWI, Meltzer... or someone. Rollins is first in the PWI 500 2015 for one, he has been in the much-praised WrestleMania 31 angle and the Royal Rumble 2015, he has a load of ****+ matches.

Going back to Sting's interview, there is literally no loss information-wise (see again the "great guy" example and how it would be reported here with the same phrasing) rephrasing it such that you can convey Sting's admiration for Rollins' work, which is unequivocal: "Sting is complimenting Rollins" is the staple of the entire period. You could rephrase that and you'd have a truthful claim anyway. "Industry veteran Sting has praised Seth Rollins' talent and in-ring work"; if you wanted to be more generous and are keen on quoting the interview you could be quoting the "broomstick part" which is more unambiguous and yet still a big compliment.

On a side note and all things considered, I think the best way to put it, since Rollins is in fact a pretty capable worker, would be something along these lines: "Seth Rollins' in-ring work in the WWE has been widely praised by industry veterans such as Sting and Triple H [1] as well as wrestling-related publications *insert reference to WrestleMania 31 reviews praising the Reigns-Lesnar-Rollins angle and or Meltzer's words*. (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Mastino and I just aren't seeing the same obfuscation that you are. Actually, your proposal that we should cut the sentence down to "widely praised" is closer to obfuscation. Sting didn't just praise him, he called him the best he has ever faced. Such quotes aren't unusual in ledes across the encyclopedia, we quote Ric Flair on Kane (wrestler); outside of wrestling various peers of Roger Ebert left no ambiguity when describing his status as the top film critic and a New York Times critic labeled Joan Rivers the funniest woman. I tend to think these are more helpful in gauging the importance of a subject (needed for a good WP:LEAD) than annual rankings that PWI and Meltzer offer... We have a Championships and accomplishments section for that.LM2000 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Now you are misquoting me, of all people: I only used "widely praised" in reference to a hypotethical edit adding both Sting and Triple H praising Rollins, which if anything would make the "hey, y'know folks, Rollins is a pretty awesome wrestler" argument stronger and a little more legitimate by adding another source which reinforces Sting's point of view. I said above that "Sting praised Rollins'" is arguably the ONLY unambiguous part if you want to keep that particular quote, which is still kind of a debatable framing in general. If you wanted to limit yourself to Sting's quote, saying that "Sting praised Rollins' work" is a much more objective claim, given that in-context he claims he is the most talented, but then links Rollins' talent mainly to his ability to manage his work well. Only the "broomstick" part is a direct reference to his in-ring/ storytelling ability. I've made my point abundantly clear, provided clear examples above regarding how this is unorthodox journalism more in line with a dirtsheet than a source of neutral information: you are just promoting a phrase without context which is of little to no value per se just to make Rollins appear good in the intro. Frankly, I'm not surprised this article quality is C. (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

If I may butt in, I agree 62.19. The point is not that it's wrong to report the quote per se, but you are making it sound quite more important and relevant than what it really is.

1. For starters, what's the big deal if Sting said so? I mean, even if he wanted to present Rollins as "the most talented wrestler of all time"? Is it relevant? We all know It surely isn't applied on Wikipedia for every quote of this or that wrestler or this or that actor about a colleague or some third party. I saw Kurt Angle casually saying in an interview that Daniel Bryan, to him, was the most talented wrestler alive some months ago. Cool. Is it reported here? No, and honestly, why should it even be? If Wikipedia started to mention every time a single - notice, single - wrestler says to some journalist "hey, my friend here is the best", biographies of certain people would get cluttered. This to pose the question that "Sting said Rollins is cool" while mentioning him in an interview may be nice, but it sound superfluous and somewhat too pompous for Wikipedia. Because, seriously, from a wrestling fan to another, are you sure Sting or anyone in the business would repeat that with a straight face? Don't misunderstand, Rollins is awesome... but "the most talented ever"? At most it's Sting flattering a young and talented prospect. And it's Sting, someone who faced only two WWE wrestlers so far, in an interview for I don't really see it as much more than publicity. It would be an entirely different matter if there was a general consensus about Rollins' being among the greatest of all time in-ring or outside the ring. Needless to say that most, if not all, veterans would beg to differ.

2. I second his opinion on the true meaning behind the paragraphs. Read it aloud from "he's got to be" and "work to with him", or read it to someone else and ask them "in what is Seth Rollins the most talented to Sting in your opinion": it's clear as day if you analyze the paragraph critically that Sting's idea of "Rollins' as the most talented" is mostly limited to or based on advocating Seth's capacity to put a good show with two good matches in the same night, doing quality work under pressure better than anyone else he's ever worked with. The important part, and the one in which he happens to unequivocally compliment Rollins' performances and not "having a program with Rollins" (which could be what he intended with "work with" in the first place), is when he says he could "create interest around a broomstick". That, of course, is secondary and not related to Rollins being the "greatest performer of all time" according to Borden, which is what any normal reader or pro-wrestling fan would be led to believe - and where the problem lies: it may be quite a liberal interpretation compared to Sting's original intent of saying that Rollins is the most talented in keeping up a high workrate in-ring (still just an aspect of the pro-wrestler's talent, and certainly not an "encompassing" form of a wrestler's talent). Sure, I wouldn't go as far as saying that it would be like adding "Hogan despises black people" in Hogan's intro while quoting the infamous Gawker's sex tape, but context is obviously important and quoting only the "most talented" part here, while, again, not being technically or inherently wrong is removing aforementioned context certainly can't feel "fair either" to anyone thinking critically. A more neutral, less sensationalistic approach with some other quotes to reinforce a more objective "Rollins is a talented wrestler according to veterans" would be most beneficial to the article. There is a loss of significant contextualization otherwise, and it clearly goes against Wikipedia's policies of fairness. See:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

The inclusion of the paragraph itself and its consequent wording may present characteristics of a coatrack, which is again something that Wikipedia should avoid: A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject.

Like I said, it is worth mentioning the wording could pose a problem to a correct understanding: I would have thought that Sting was basing the statement on Rollins' supposed "out-of-everyone's-league", be-all and end-all skills, yet in-context he is just talking about Rollins' being "the most talented" in managing his workload, like eloquently put above. (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course all the IPs agree with each other. Their behavior is identical and that's because there is sockpuppetry going on. All of the IPs used in this thread are traced back to a location near Naples, Italy. Enough with the remarkably lengthy responses, WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on.LM2000 (talk) 04:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh, awesome. You are dismissing everything I've said or that you've read with the fact I'm supposed to be the same guy, bypassing everything? Of course, we surely can't know each other and agree on this fabulous way of reporting informations without creating a context. To sum it up, your counterarguments are...? No one else disagreed so far, so hey, why shouldn't you guys agree too? Give us a break with those lenghty posts proving we may be slightly biased singing Rollins' praises? (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The sentence as written is supported by the source given, and it is properly attributed to the person giving the opinion. No comment on whether it should be in the lede or not.-- (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seth Rollins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016[edit] (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC) seth rollins actual height is 6 ft 2 (1.88 m)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89(T·C) 05:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Slammy Award Error[edit]

Under "Championships and Accomplishments", then under "WWE", it states that he's 2015 Slammy Award winner for Superstar of they year twice, and that he has 10 Slammy awards, when he has 9. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B825:4B80:A0BD:98B5:153A:C91D (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2016[edit]

IGUOUSLY your suggested changes. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined.}}

JOHN CENA67890 (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016[edit]

The sentence that says that seth rollins in one of the three men to win a world championship in roh and wwe needs to include kevin owens since he won a wwwe world championship on 8/29/2016. And was also a roh champion.

2601:4C4:101:7790:20E6:E47E:EB3:ECD3 (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

NOT Done per the discussion on WWE Universal talk page, Universal title is not considered a world title. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 06:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I see @Rebelrick123: removed this just now. I also think it's unnecessary. There's just not enough there for a section like this. Bret Hart criticized him for hurting Cena's noise. He did so twice. Sting praised him for being great, that's already mentioned elsewhere in the article. If the Hart comments are to be mentioned at all, they should be included in the career section, after mentioning the Cena match.LM2000 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have to agree with that, Hart's comments should be mentioned just as Stings were, point/counterpoint per say keeping neutral and not just posting the good. I missed where Stings praise was mentioned already, my bad.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 04:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I know that Lance Storm also mentioned something about Rollins having injured quite a few people but I feel like Brets comments are a reflection of his personal phobia and worry about injuries nd not necessarily unbiased. Rollins is still young and I think we should avoid "Reception" sections to most wrestler when their career is still ongoing. The general concensus can easily shift.★Trekker (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016[edit]

I have a reference for seth rollins NXT Gold Rush Tournament win here

Leo0505 (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not Done Pro wrestling wikia can be written by anyone. See WP:PW/RS for valid sources. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 23:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017[edit] (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017[edit]

Please remove the sections regarding the nude scandal and the breakup because that is unnecessary information to be shared publicly. Regardless of how things occured and how the situation was handled, it is no one's business to acknowledge these parts because at the end of the day, this person is a human being and his private life needs to be respected. Nutmegbuttercup (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as per WP:CENSOR. DRAGON BOOSTER 07:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Seth Rollins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


This move also banned by triple h HR Ajay (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2017 (UTC)