Talk:The Undertaker/Archive 2

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

Middle name

According to The Undertaker's birth info on ancestry.com, "William" is his middle name. Should this be added in the next edit?

Correct me if I am wrong

It says kennedy cost him 2 title shots but didnt Batista cost the undertaker his title shot on the second one?

Yes and no, Kennedy attacked Batista, which led to Batista attacking Kennedy, thus in a manner, that was Kennedy costing Undertaker his second attempt at a title shot. (MTX 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Can sum1 add a trivia to undertaker saying that his world champonship win is his first title in 5 years upon winning the WWE championship in 2002

Kane The Undertaker?

Why is that under his nicknames in his stat box?

Because for a few weeks after he came to the WWF he was called Kane the Undertaker on WWF TV by Mooney and Okerland. That was the real name but it just got cut down to The Undertaker by the time Royal Rumble came arround.(Silent Jay 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Yea, I don't really get why the whole Kane thing is added either. I mean, it was something that wasn't aired and no one even knows about. The company doesn't even care about it as they never put it anywhere. Twentyboy 07:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

He was announced at his TV debut as "Kane, the Undertaker", as was just stated above, Twentyboy. And WWE doesn't talk about Katie Vick, so why should we talk about that, by your logic. -Darryl Hamlin 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

His debut and first match (I think on Superstars) both listed him as "Kane the Undertaker".

If you had any knowledge then you would read the article and u would see his debut and first match was at Survivor Series —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Legendary One (talkcontribs) 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Hr debuted as Cain The Undertaker and became the Undertaker after that. 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Championships

Undertaker did not win the WCW Tag Team Championships in WCW. He won them with Kane, while in WWE, during the Invasion angle, before the titles were unified. Stop adding it to a seperate section for a promotion his championship partner never wrestled for. -Darryl Hamlin 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Tag the Criticisums section

I'v noticed that the Criticism section is quite biased toward The Undertaker. I don't knoow how to tag it for haveing disputed neutrality so can someone do that for me?-Terminator Storm

undertaker/badass

I think the half Undertaker/half Badass gimmick is ruining the Undertaker, not to mention the lack of appearances. Because he's sort of doing both, I don't think fans know whether to be scared or act like their at a roll'n roll'n concert. I liked him as the Undertaker, but that was back when I thought he was scary in the 90s. I don't have a problem with his badass side, btu I think he should stick to one or another because it's just confusing to me. Oh well, he's probably rich as it gets the way the company praises them like he's God so I suppose it doesn't really matter to him. I just have a problem getting the whole 90s Undertaker vibe when he pulls off his top and raises his arm, then pulls it back on and falls to one knee worshipping the urn and Paul bearer that aren't there. That's another thing, Paul Bearer with all the faces throughout the entrace, pulling off of the coat, using the power of the urn was a big part of that whole character. I think he should just give up on being the Undertaker because he isnt' scarying anyone anymore. That character was a good one that was meant to be scary, not changed into all sorts of rockers. I know you wrestling fans who are crazy about him are going to have a tizzy over my remarks. I'll just ignore them. Twentyboy 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is not for talking about the person/character, it is to discuss what should be done to the article. Also, ignoring critics is not the Wiki atitude. THL 07:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Article

I think it is a complete show of disrespect that the Undertaker cannot have his article as his ring name. He's wrestles under that name for 16 years. Someone needs to do something. --Mikedk9109 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Twentyboy 11:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture sucks

This new picture of the Undertaker in the ring sucks. Get a decent pic 65.31.99.71 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding Weekly Events

If anyone sees the warning on the edit page it says to not add week by week events. But that doesn't seem to stop anyone.Jayorz12 12:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


It isn't stopping or going to stop anyone. If wikipedia members don't add it, random people will. Therefore, wikipedia people might as well add it or edit it to make it tolerable, then slowly dissipate it into a summary later. At the end of the year, it's very likely that someone (possibly me, who knows) will scrap the whole 2006 section and revamp it as more summary, less week-to-week. I also expect a fusion of several sections of years (similar to the first few sections) when Undertaker retires and no 'news' is added.

The real problem is that random people watch a show with a wrestler in it, then immediately report it to wikipedia like its going to make them famous. Then regular editers will trim it and make it fit to make them happy. Then both sides will briefly have an edit war until both sides are happy with "size vs. information". The article will then be a happy place for a while until the next appearance. The next problem is when somebody says "do not add week-by-week events", then deletes the "happy place", and we have to start all over in the "size vs. information" edit war. More often then not, this results in a LONGER article. Every time, and I mean EVERY, the Kennedy and Khali followed suit when this happened and got longer.

Not attacking anybody, just telling it how I've observed it. Enhanceddownloadbird 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


lol Actually, I think Enhanceddownloadbird has described the issue with articles like this one far better than I've ever seen it described. Scrapping the 2006 section seems like overkill though and besides I don't think it would work - right after it was deleted a while ago someone just went and added a line saying that the Undertaker was currently feuding with Kennedy. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
well, what I meant when I said "scrap the 2006 section" was a complete redo, just in summary form, more storylike... but it still isn't as bad as it was. everything used to have a date attached to it, for instance Enhanceddownloadbird 19:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. Summary style is good, but it shouldn't have too much of a story tone as it should be grounded in real-life events. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. Duja 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Mark CalawayThe UndertakerRationale: The Undertaker has been known under this ring name for over 15 years. I highly doubt he will be going to another promotion that would cause him to change his ring name. Mark Calaway brings up 93,700 resluts on Google, while The Undertaker brings up 2,780,000. I think its disrespectful that he cannot have it under his own name but The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Triple H, Shawn Michaels can. The list goes on and on why this article should be under his ring name. --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 19:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support: Per my nomination reasons. --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 19:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't see any reason why not. As it is, I'm sure people type it in as such anyway, only to be directed here. SteveLamacq43 00:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Oh, I think it should be moved to the Undertaker and fast. He didn't get famous known as Mark Calaway. He got famous known as the Undertaker The Gayboy 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nom --THL 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I don't see a reason WHY to. If anything maybe the articles should be separated since one could say The Undertaker is seperate from Mark Calaway, but this article should be about the person, not the character. In fact the complex history should be edited slightly down in my opinion. Who in their right minds would read all of that? This issue has been brought up before. 207.144.168.13 05:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per norm BionicWilliam 19:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support He's been only known as The Undertaker for almost 16 years and and what almost everyone knows him as. TJ Spyke 21:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination and precedent of The Rock. Oppose. Further research (including higher up on this page) shows that there is strong precedent against using ring names, and that, if anything, The Rock should be moved to Dwayne Johnson. This move was also already proposed and it failed. Croctotheface 22:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It didn't really fail, there was non consensus. Also, the main reason many wrestlers articles are under their real name is because they were known under several ring names. Mark Calaway is known almost exclusively as The Undertaker. TJ Spyke 23:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - As a casual professional wrestling fan, I would not know to look under "Calaway" for the Undertaker. He is clearly better known by his common ring name. If, in the future, Calaway accomplishes something notable using his real-life name (such as becoming a United States senator), then the article should be renamed. Also note that other articles for people who commonly used pseudonyms, such as Stan Lee, Judy Garland, and George Eliot, are listed under the pseudonyms and not the people's original names. Therefore, moving the page to a commonly-used pseudonym has precedent in Wikipedia. (Don't ask why I chose Lee, Garland, and Eliot as examples of pseudonyms.) George J. Bendo 14:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the Undertaker is a fictional character, Mark Calaway is a real person. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per nom --Wally787 23:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I don't really want to get bogged down in this, but I'll put in one more reply because TJ replied to me: beyond that, whatever happens happens, and that's fine with me. I agree that the name fits. Initially, I thought the move was a good one. However, after I read a bit more, I think that it makes a lot more sense to leave the article and redirect where they are. If someone types "The Undertaker" into the search field, they'll get here, so the change would not make the article any easier to find. Beyond that, my feeling is that the article is about the man, not the wrestling character. A true article on the Undertaker would not acknowledge Calaway's life outside of wrestling. The way I see it is this: if, somehow, Mark Calaway inexplicably stopped wrestling as the Undertaker tomorrow, nobody would want to make the move. I also more or less agree with Jtalledo and TuckDogg in the first RfM. Croctotheface 23:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • From what I have read, even the other wrestlers call him "Taker" when talking to him (as in real life). TJ Spyke 23:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm going to break my rule about leaving the discussion just this once for this reply. Other wrestlers refer to Mick Foley as "Cactus" and "Jack" as well; it's fairly common. The bottom line for me is that the man and the character are different. This matter isn't clearcut, though, and you don't have to agree. Croctotheface 00:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I bet most people type in The Undertaker and get re-directed here. You think this article is about the man? There is a ton more information on The Undertaker than Mark Calaway. Thats what the personal info section is for, and the rest is for his character, The Undertaker. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  00:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, not this again. Let's get this straight:
  • Undertaker - mystical entity, possibly undead, who has powers of teleportation, maybe superhuman strength, an inhuman threshold of tolerance to pain, the power to summon lightning, the cold and who knows what other elements at will.
  • Mark Calaway - Texas native who used to wrestle under different gimmick names, looks badass but is assuredly a living human being.
Mark Calaway is not the same as The Undertaker. As a matter of fact, there's such a huge gap between the man and the gimmick that changing the article name to his gimmick name isn't right. There's no doubt he's better known as "The Undertaker", but Jason Alexander is probably best known as George Costanza, but moving his article to that name would be equally absurd as moving Mark Calaway to the Undertaker. Sarah Michelle Gellar is closely associated with Buffy Summers, but moving one article to the other name isn't right either. Also, "what they want to be called" is equally irrelevant - I'm sure that Howard Stern would like to be indexed under "The King of All Media" but what he would like to be called doesn't pertain to the naming scheme used on Wikipedia.
Regarding what people type in, it doesn't matter that they get redirected here from what that type, redirects are cheap. I bet a lot of people type in Panda looking for Giant Panda, but it's a lot more complicated than that.
As for the article's focus on the Undertaker, that's a problem with this article's style. It should be focused more on a real life perspective of Calaway's career, as opposed to an "in universe" perspective. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). --Jtalledo (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move

Thanks to all the people who supported this move. Now the articles name is correct. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Can somebody get a bot to change all of the "Mark Calaway" links to "The Undertaker"? I went through and fixed a bunch of redirects, but there are like 50 pages that link to "Mark Calaway". TJ Spyke 00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pin?

Is the name of The undertakers pin known as the crucifix pin after tombstone piledriver and is it a signiture move?--Wally787 23:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, and yes. A crucifix pin is where the wrestler wraps their opponent's arms, one with their own arms, one with their own legs, then fall back, pinning the opponent's shoulders to the mat, and keeping them from using their arms to assist a kick-out. Undertaker's signature pin does not have a name to my knowledge, though it is often called the "Darkness Pin" in WWE wrestling video games. -Darryl Hamlin 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Tis true that the pin has no official name other than what video games have dubbed it as the "Darkness Pin". Kane has a similar pin that he has referred to as the Crsifiction Pin which isn't really a crucifiction pin by wrestling standards. He just calls it that because it looks similar to a person being held down to be crucified on a cross. --Charles-Joseph 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hanging

At some point, The Undertaker hung a guy in a Cage Match or something like that... (seen in the clip shown to Randy Orton during their feud) I'd like to know who's the guy that 'Taker hung.24.37.96.171 00:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It was Big Boss Man (Ray Traylor) at Wresltemania XV in 1999 in a Hell in a Cell match, ironically Traylor died a few years later, but I don't think that the hanging had anything to do with that (I hope not anyway..) Undertaker2134 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Traylor died of heart problems, it had nothing to do with the "hanging" he recieved at WM XV. TJ Spyke 06:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That hanging had to be one of the worst thought up elements of a Hell in a Cell match ever, they could have at least put him on the shelf for a couple of months not have him return the next night on RAW! The Legendary One 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Info on Mark Calaway should be deleted out of this article and used in a Mark Calaway article

Now I'm happy with the situation and don't mean to propose a change because I'm sure this has been debated and decided by contributors wiser than myself. But I just began to wonder that why exactly are the gimmicks portrayed by wrestlers and the wrestlers themselves described under the same article? The analogy between wrestlers and actors was brought up by some when the Mark Calaway -> Undertaker move was discussed, and while the line between a wrestler and his gimmick is a bit more blurred than between an actor and his character, it is true that the whole story of Han Solo is not found under Harrison Ford.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arto Kekkonen (talkcontribs) .

I agree! There should be two pages. One for Mark Calaway and one for the Undertaker. Mark is famous enough from the Undertaker gimmick to have people interested in who he actually is. There's a lot of information on Mark Calaway that could make a large article. All the info about his different wrestling characters, his movies, how he played basketball in highschool, his wife, kids, motorcycles, his divorce, his substance abuse problem and depression issues back in 1994 when he was on break, etc. All this has to do with Mark Calway himself. The Calaway info should not be under the gimmick character. There is a lot more information about him than what's on this Undertaker page. The info on Mark isn't a lot because this article already takes up way too much room about the Undertaker gimmick. The Calaway info just doesn't belong in this article. Great point Arto. Lonelyboy 07:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also because many actors could play one character for example. James Bond but i don't think there would ever be another person playing The Undertaker. DXRAW 07:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Actually, another person HAS played the Undertaker gimmick and that was at the 1994 Summer Slam. We might as well stick that guy's name under this page as Brian Lee also played the Undertaker. After all, for those few months in 94', he was known as the Undertaker just like Mark Calaway. Don't get me wrong. of course the character truly belongs to Mark Calaway, but even when you look on Brian Lee's page, you'll see in the heading box that he too is also known as the Undertaker. A third person might decide to play the Undertaker gimmick in the future. Who knows?! Yet another reason why that info on Mark needs to be put into a separate article. Mark Calaway is a totally different person from the Undertaker whose also Brian Lee. That is why there was so much issue when this page was known as Mark Calaway when all it's about is the Undertaker Lonelyboy 07:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That was just a work, Just like Evil Kane. DXRAW 07:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Mark Calaway. This article was moved from Mark Calaway to The Undertaker because he is better known under that name, and Wikipedia has a policy that says the popular name should be used. Despite the article name, this article is about Mark Calaway in the same way Triple H is about Paul Levesque. -- THLCCD 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is not about Mark Calaway. Can't you read? The majority of this article is about the Undertaker gimmick, not about Mark Calaway. There's a small bit about Mark Calaway at the bottom of the page. Regardless if it was a work or not DXRAW, you said you don't think anyone else would ever play the Undertaker gimmick, and Brian Lee has. The info on Mark Calaway needs to be removed to a separate article. 65.31.99.71 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be? Nothing needs to be done. This article was about Mark Calaway before it was about the Undertaker, and it still is. The name of the article means nothing; this is the article about Mark Calaway and The Undertaker. No, for emphasis NO, wrestlers get an article for their gimmick and them in real life. The two ALWAYS go together, and that isn't going to change. The fact that most of the article is about the Undertaker is actually a mistake that needs to be fixed. This article should have a balance, not be split. -- THLCCD 13:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The name of this article is the Undertaker so it should all be about the Undertaker gimmick. The Batman gimmick isn't about the people who played batman, but just batman Lonelyboy 19:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While I do agree a separation between characters and actors is valuable, it should be noted that articles such as "The Undertaker", "Triple H", and any other instance where the gimmick is the name of the article do not feature characters and actors.

There is a fine line of separation between actors and pro-wrestlers, and in a single word it's kayfabe. Simply put, for the duration of the characters existence, a wrestler is made to be the gimmick. Even at press conferences, Calaway takes on the Undertaker role. That is NOT true for actors at their movie premieres. But consider this, if Calaway left WWE, and joined TNA (for example), and got a new gimmick, it's very likely that the article name would go BACK to Calaway OR take on his new gimmick's name. It's this kind of debate that left me neutral in the name change vote, as it really can go either way.Enhanceddownloadbird 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I now understand why there was so much debate about moving this article; crap like this would happen. Batman doesn't count because more than one person has played the character over the years. Triple H is also about Paul Levesque, note that the controversy section is mostly about Paul's marriage, where as Hunter is divorced from her. Also, an article on Hunter wouldn’t mention Paul's daughter. This article is about Mark Calaway and the Undertaker; it is named the Undertaker because that is the most well known name for Calaway; not because it is supposed to be about Undertaker only. This article would be moved back to Mark Calaway before it would be split into two articles. -- THLCCD 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the last time I will say this. There is so much debate because there needs to be 2 articles. One on Mark and one on the Undertaker. This article should only focus on the Undertaker gimmick and not have equal information about Mark Calaway and Undertaker as you said Hybrid, because that much info on Mark Calaway isn't really appropriate for the gimmick. Triple H isn't scary or mysterious so you can throw in any personal life info on his article. That does not apply here. The Undertaker gimmick is meant to be scary and mysterious and shouldn't have all this equal information on Mark Calaway's personal life about kids, divorces, family, and all that in it. Putting a scary gimmick with all that stuff just ruins the gimmick and makes for a poor article. The Mark Calaway info would just kind of take away from the Undertaker gimmick. The Mark Calaway info needs just to be removed and put into it's own damn article as I said. Lonelyboy 09:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to make the Undertaker seem scary, and as such it shouldn't be altered for that reason. The article isn't about the damn gimmick! The article is about the wrestler himself. However, it turns out that we already have an article about the different gimmicks. See Personas of The Undertaker. Now, if you want a good article about the gimmicks, there you go; edit until your heart's content. However, this article is about Mark Calaway, and is named The Undertaker simply because that is the name he is known by to the masses. -- THLCCD 11:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm! Interesting! I didn't know such a page existed. Is there a link to it in this article? I believe if more people knew about that page, this page wouldn't have been changed to the Undertaker. That page basically has the Undertaker gimmick on it. This page is basically a 2nd Undertaker page with way too much Undertaker info and should focus all about Mark Calaway as well as be called Mark Calaway. Lonelyboy 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't check about the link before typing this. If there isn't one, I'll add it. There is a Wikipedia policy requiring that the popular name for a person be used for the title, and Mark Calaway's popular name is the Undertaker. That is why this article was moved. This article will stay the way it is to comply with Wikipedia policy. The reason an article on Mark Calaway has to have many things about the Undertaker is because every time the Undertaker walks out to the ring, Calaway is walking out to the ring. Everything Taker does, Calaway does. -- THLCCD 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably the only reason this article is named The Undertaker is because if you went up to any random person, and asked them if they knew who Mark Calaway was, they would say The Undertaker. The Undertaker is best-known professionally as this name. Like what Hybrid said, Calaway and The Undertaker are one in the same. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm done. We don't agree and I guess that's it Lonelyboy 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of having two seperate articles and how exactly do you separate Mark Calaway from the Undertaker persona? Aside from the "supernatural" aspects of the Undertaker gimmick, it's virtually impossible to go through picking and choosing how much of Calaway's personality is weaved into the character's fabric and how much isn't. Also, what exactly would you write for the Undertaker's "history" since the character didn't exist prior to 1990? His entire history would consist of everything that's already in this article. Odin's Beard 01:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that Mark Calaway is nothing like his Undertaker gimmick. Mark Calaway is a totally different person if you look up information about him anywhere. Everyone knows that. Lonelyboy 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's over. That sock has had his IP banned. See User:Twentyboy. -- THLRCCD 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, how can it be obvious? The "life" of the Undertaker is so tangled with Mark Calaway that it's next to impossible to seperate the two, aside from the various "supernatural" aspects, on a personal level without personally knowing Mark Calaway. Trying to seperate Mark Calaway from the Undertaker in a seperate article would be saying that we know everything about who Mark Calaway is as a human being and the fact is that we don't. Of course he's not exactly like the Undertaker character, but no editor on Wikipedia can go through here and say, "Well this, this this and this is all Calaway, but this and this is all Undertaker". In some ways, it'd be like separating Clark Kent and Superman. Odin's Beard 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

THL The Hybrid, your remark is not on topic. It has something to do with a feud you're involved in and should not be on this page. Please stay on topic and stop bringing personal feuding into this. Your remark is to be based on info to help out the article, info that is apart of the argument going on in this portion of the page. Nothing else. Please be aware of that. 64.149.204.158 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was mentioning that in order to bring his discussion to an end. The only person still trying to get the articles separated has been blocked. That is relevant to this conversation and this talk page. If comments continue to pour into an ended conversation, that takes up room on this page and makes an archive necessary sooner. I was simply trying to save room on this page. Cheers, -- THLR 22:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The orbital eye injury

Was the whole orbital eye injury from King Mabel and Yokozuna actually a real injury the Undertaker suffered? Did they accidentally actually hop on his face? Was the mask a way of covering up a band-aid or sitches that he had because it didn't fit his gimmick character? Lonelyboy 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a legit injury that King Mabel caused when he performed a clumsy legdrop and broke the Taker's eye orbit.Halbared 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

LoL! I never knew that! Thank you for letting me know. I'm glad he did that though because I liked the grey-mask. I wish the Undertaker got that back. Lonelyboy 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't Mable who broke the Undertaker's eye socket, it was Yokozuna. He broke it while performing his Banzai like drop off the top rope. Yokozuna accidentally sat on Taker's eye socket crushing it. There are a few WWE videos that have that information in it, as well as commentators stating that it was Yokozuna who crushed his eye. One video is "Undertaker - History of The Tombstone" during the match with Yokozuna if you listen you'll hear King say it to McMahon that it was Yokozuna who broke his eye and not Mable. --Charles-Joseph 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mabel broke it in kayfabe. VelvetKevorkian 07:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

New nicknames

Undertaker is now commonly referred to 'The Phenom' or 'The Dead Man'. Can those be added to the template? Of them, the first one is pronounced 'fi-naam'. Saurabh Sardeshpande 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is for ring names only, so nicknames cannot be added to it. Cheers, -- THL 15:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ringnames can count as nicknames the deadman, buddy but nicknames do not count as ringnames 153.18.17.22 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why is "American Badass" in there? 65.189.210.173 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark Calaway: date of birth

I know that this topic has probably been argued countless times, but when searching the web, I recieve a lot of information suggesting that The Undertaker's birth date was in 1962. What age do wrestling journalists say he is? According to Texas birth records, he was indeed born on 24 March, 1965. --88.104.30.49 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

'62 is wrong, the cited source for '65 being used is the best one available, but if you have access to the bith records, that'd be a lot better. SteveLamacq43 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see these birth records or any respectable online source. A fansite is hardly a reputable source. Thanks. MackyMackn 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry.com lists Mark William Calaway as being born on 24 march, 1965 in Houston, Harris County, Texas. I limited my search to the US, then to Texas (one of the few states where you have complete access to the archives), and I gave 1965 as the suspected birth year. Ancestry.com is a good source to cite, so if anyone reading this knows how to properly do so, they will be improving the quality of this page greatly.


Nickname

On Raw this past week (Feb. 5th) Jim Ross was referring to the Undertaker as 'The Deadman of Death Valley.' J.R. will probably begin to use it a lot (as well as the likes of Cole and Styles) and I definitely think that should be added as a nickname.

It sounded like demon to me. Anyway we aren't allowed to assume that he will start using that. Assumptions are unencyclopedic. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 03:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The first match i saw undertaker in was against big bubba in a louisville street match no holds barred. Bubba kicked undertakers ass in less than 5 minutes. Everybody was so disappointed it didnt last longer, the promoter was Fred Ward in Macon,GA

This is a talk page about the article, not a forum. If your going to chat about the undertaker at least add something meaningful.

BURIED ALIVE MATCH AT MANIA 23

can someone tell me where thet got that from look at the bottom end at 2007 it says

On the March 2nd edition of Smackdown, Undertaker announced his Wrestlemania match will be a Buried Alive Match.

now this hasent even been put into question yet so could we please take this down because there was a rumour that it was gonna be hiac (hell in a cell) but that didnt get put up also taker didnt say it was going to be buried alive he was stating that bastisa's life was going to be a living hell and that grave section was his way of saying that batista's title reign will end at wrestlemania IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BURIED ALIVE MATCH BECAUSE IT HASENT EVEN BEEN PLACED ON THE TABLE YET!!!Deadman lastride666 16:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


1) You're right, it's obvious speculation

2) Be more calm about....way calmer about it.

3) I removed it. Bmg916 Speak to Me 16:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm, I like Kool-Aid. It tastes good, -- The Hybrid 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the speculation. After seeing the segment, i suspected that it meant that the match would be Buried Alive since i did not see any rumors of what the match would be. But i will say that it would have made sense that it could have been that since we haven't seen such a match since the Undertaker-Vince M match back in 2003. Psp900 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! Don't put rumors. There shouldn't even be a storyline section on this page

About the challenge to Batista

There seems to have been some debate about whether No Way Out and the challenge to Batista are notable and/or in violation of the speculative match guideline.

On a lesser importance, to me at any rate, is the No Way Out match. It passes notability guidelines (and whoever doesn't think so needs to get out of WP:PW articles and look at the inconspicuous tidbits all over the site as a whole), but was a crappy match. That's my opinion, but considering over the past year the Undertaker has not been in the main event PPV scene (since Armageddon 2005/No Way Out 2006 I believe, but don't hold that against me if I'm wrong) this seems notable in his career. Also count the fact he was teamed with a world champ facing a world champ. Or heck, even the fact it's one of the only physical altercations between himself and Batista in the whole feud. Something makes it notable. I don't care if you hated it or loved it, notability isn't about that.

On a more important debate, I'd appreciate leaving in the challenge to Batista. It has become common knowledge that the winner of the Royal Rumble gets to challenge for the title, and that is what I'd like to include. The definition of what I'm looking for is not "He is scheduled to face Batista at WrestleMania 23", but rather, "As a result of his Royal Rumble win, The Undertaker challenged Batista for the world title." In addition to the fact I believe the event itself is significant (looking at the start of 2006, the Undertaker challenging Kurt Angle is a significant event, even if it was more elaborate), I believe having this in there would help stop vandalism (even though the article is semi-protected off and on). The fact is that the challenge is important, whether the match happens or not (even more important if it doesn't). As such, the match itself should not be talked about until the event, and neither the match nor the challenge should be placed in the WrestleMania section until the event has occurred.

Comments welcome. Everything above was written as my own opinion towards the matter and your opinions are completely welcome and desired. I apologize if any hostility has come across as that is not my intention. --Enhanceddownloadbird 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, and that is very well written. I don't believe the NWO match was notable because as far as his overall career is concerned, I feel its only but a blip and nothing really stood out about it. The WrestleMania match will/should definitely be added after WrestleMania. Unfortunately I see adding anything about him and Batista at this point referencing WM23 in some way, which just opens up a whole can of worms on every article about WrestleMania or a wrestler who will be wrestling at WrestleMania. Bmg916 Speak to Me 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

14 wrestlemania opponents

He has had 14 opponents at WM because Atrain and big show both count as opponents. Kane was twice but Big Show and Atrain make it up. Wrestlinglover420—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestlinglover420 (talkcontribs)

Trivia

I recently edited this page twice to include information on a song I found on Limewire. It was entitled "Undertakers ECW Entrance Music *RARE*" The song was basically Awake by Godsmack and had several of Undertakers catch phrases from his American Badass days inserted into it. For some reason it keeps getting deleted and I wanna know why. ImmortalKaine 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because a song that the source of which is unknown, and was more than likely made by a fan, is not notable for an encyclopedia article as it pertains to The Undertaker's actual life and career. Bmg916 Speak to Me 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for answering my question. I'm ImmortalKaine BTW, just forgot to log in 70.49.207.65 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Cheers, Bmg916Speak to Me 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it important if we add to his article that he's beaten all Evolution members at WrestleMania? Zerorules677 7:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ECW Theme

ImmortalKaine here again, haven't logged in yet, but I RAR'd the song and uploaded it. It's been virus scanned, 100% clean. It's really a good song so download it and take a listen if you wish. Not sure if it's fake yet, sounds too good quality to be fake.

70.49.207.65 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I had to delete your link, sorry, possible copyright vios (since it is basically the Godsmack song "Awake"). BTW, some fake songs can be good quality, it's not hard if you know what you're doing and have the right software. For an advertising class in early 2005 I created a TV commercial for at that time, the upcoming World Baseball Classic. The teacher said that it could be taken straight from the classroom, put on tv, and no one would know the difference. Bmg916Speak to Me 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Dont care if you delete it, I've already posted it on like 50 sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.207.65 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
You mean sites on Wiki, or independent sites? Bmg916Speak to MeLeave Your Mark 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Birth Year

According to his IMDB he's born in 1962 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elif4ziggan (talkcontribs) 07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

if you had read above at the beginning it clearly states he was born in 1965 mlola 4/6/0767.191.59.213 22:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker defeating The Ultimate Warrior and Randy Savage

I cannot seemed to find the event where The Undertaker had defeated The Ultimate Warrior and Randy Savage on two separate occations. Somebody find it for me.Angel 850 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, did it to anything notable for his career? If not, then it doesn't go in the article. Bmg916SpeakSign 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Just for the fact it's being asked about means it's notable. Though for the life of me, I don't know on which occasions this would have been. Maybe you forget that the reason people come to wikipedia is to find out some of the most random things about something. For instance, Angel 850 came to the article to find out when a particular match (that was considered significant to the reader) took place, and couldn't find it. In this instance, wikipedia failed it's readers. Now if it was something that happened on a non-PPV 15 years ago, it probably isn't well documented, and can be excused, but this is my argument for notability of the small things in practice. Enhanceddownloadbird 19:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Ultimate Warrior was undefeated during his championship reign (on TV and PPV), if UT beat UW then it was a house show, and I don't think house show victories are notable. Darrenhusted 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon researching the matter, Rampage 1991 was the only time Undertaker and Ultimate Warrior met on tv. This match ended via disqualification when Undertaker used the urn after Warrior kicked out of the tombstone then tried to put him in a body bag before Warrior clotheslined him and escaped.

Every other encounter was a house show starting at Auburn Hills, MI, April 13, 1991. The two met at 12 more house shows with Undertaker losing by disqualification after using the urn as a weapon. The two then had a body bag match, which Warrior also won after hitting Undertaker with the urn. The match with Undertaker losing by disqualification was done quite a few more times after that with the bodybag match occasionally being inserted in it's place. Edmonton, Alberta, July 9, 1991 saw Warrior actually pin Undertaker. WrestleFest 91, St. Louis, MO on July 14, 1991 saw Warrior defeat Undertaker in a casket match.

After alternating some more bodybag and disqualification matches, all in the same fashion, Portland, ME, July 30 saw Randy Savage pin Undertaker as a substitute for Ultimate Warrior. The next time this match was done, Moncton, New Brunswick, Summer 1991, The Undertaker won the match against Randy Savage as he substituted for Ultimate Warrior. Another rematch was at the next house show, but Savage would win that match was well.

The matches would rotate from there until Long Beach, CA, September 1, when Ultimate Warrior teamed with LOD to take on Undertaker with the Nasty Boys. The next few house shows saw Sid Justice substitute for Warrior in defeating Undertaker in casket matches and bodybag matches. Then Roddy Piper would act as the substitute in defeating Undertaker before Sid Justice resumed the role.

Shortly after, Undertaker began feuding with Jim Duggan in house shows and didn't seem to face Ultimate Warrior or a substitute from there on out essentially finishing the year with that and several other matches, included tag teaming with Jake Roberts until 1992. I hope this helps, the bold above is probably what you're looking for, since Undertaker didn't win many house shows that year. But being a house show, it wouldn't be in this article. Enhanceddownloadbird 23:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

taker at wrestlemania

undertaker is now the first person ever to win the wwe and world heavyweight championship at a wrestlemania shoudlnt that be added to the wrestlemania legacy? Deadman lastride666 09:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't that Triple H? Zerorules677 7:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

either way the answer is no, because it amounts to original research. Bmg916SpeakSign 14:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Triple H,HBK & other WWE Superstars won [WWE Championship]] and World Heavyweight Championship.

Takua X

THE UNDERTAKER HAS DEFEATED THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR

I was watching the WWE No Mercy 2004 PPV a couple of days ago and right before the main-event started (The Undertaker vs. JBL in a Last Ride Match for the WWE Championship) the ring announcers Michael Cole and Tazz said that the Undertaker is probably the greatest superstar in the history of the WWE and continued giving a brief list of legends he has defeated. Only a couple of seconds before 'Taker's music was stopped and the bell rung, Tazz mentioned that he has beaten Hulk Hogan, THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR and then alongside M. Cole continued the list. Since the official WWE announcer said so, I guess it HAS to be right... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.218.49.232 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

That was good thinking saying that The Undertaker is the ONLY superstar to have ever won both the WWE Championship and SmackDown's World Heavyweight Championship at WrestleMania. This needs to be added in the article if that's not already there. Furthermore, isn't he the only yo have won both titles ever since the Brand Extension as a member of both brands? Kurt Angle won both championships as a SmackDown superstar, but I believe (well, I'm not sure...) that 'Taker won the WWE Undisputed Championship from Hulk Hogan in 2002 as a Raw superstar. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 88.218.49.232 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Note: Can you please sign your posts Govvy 09:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We already know, the above posts discuss his victory at a house show, however it was not on TV or PPV, and the WWE also say that Pat Patterson won the IC title in a tournament in Rio, and that Umaga is over 400lbs. Even if is was mentioned once on a PPV three years ago does not make it notable, because house show results aren't notable. Darrenhusted 09:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Date of Birth

I Know Undertaker was born in 1962?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.201.165 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

No he wasn't, that is wrong. According to his High School, and there official website, he graduated in 1983 at the age of 18, which would mean he was born in 1965. Anywhere you see 1962 is wrong and taking a guess without any reliable source. Bmg916SpeakSign 14:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I just searched the Texas Birth Records using VitalSearch, and found Mark William Calway was born on March 24, 1965 in Harris County, Texas, it sucks I can't cite this as a source though since one needs a username and password to access the records. The website I used is here though. Bmg916SpeakSign 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

nicknames (again)

when has 'taker been referred to as 'The Conscience of WWE'- i for one have never heard it Cradle666 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Cole calls him that on a semi-regular basis. The Hybrid 23:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)