Talk:The Undertaker/Archive 6

Billed Weight

• On SmackDown! tonight (10/9/07) they billed him at 299 lbs. Should his billed weight be changed? --PandoraX 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

yup PayneXKiller 13:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Shouldn't the top photo be updated, showing one with his current gimmick, as opposed to a gimmick he hasn't had for three years?Taker04 (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rock/Taker

No mention of their winning the championships together. Explain... Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Guest Book} 23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes i agree, the picture should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.135.3 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Triangle Choke

It doesnt really make a Triangle Choke a finishing moves because he only used it one match to make The Great Khali tap out SocialistRevolution (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He has used it before, though it is not a common maneuver for him to use. In addition to making Khali tap, it was most notably used at the No Way Out 2006 as a finisher against Kurt Angle, who reversed it into a jackknife pin. --Enhanceddownloadbird (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Then it should be a signature move instead of a finisher. SocialistRevolution (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It was also used against Angle in a title match on Smackdown in 2002, which ended in a dual pin/submission. Defintly a signature move. Mshake3 (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

^^ That was 2003, not 2002. But yeah its not a finisher just a signature move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickdickdickdike (talk • contribs) 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

^^^Are you serious, 3 times and its signature over a 15 year pro career?LessThanClippers (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC) ^^^Yes. Its a signature move. He only uses it when he needs too (e.g giving it to angle), the reason he gave it to Angle is because Angle is a submission wrestler so he will trade holds. He did it to Khali because he couldn't lift him (kayfabe) and he did it to bob orton so he would be knocked out, thus letting Taker put him in the casket. It's a signature move, it's just that he only does it when neccesary. 142.162.207.136 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

^^^^No its not a signature move. It just means hes a talented wrestler who knows a move that will help him win in that case. 3 times in 15 years says, he knows the move, its not a signature of the undertaker. Its stuff like this that is cluttering move lists, and the page as a whole.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Angle NWO 06

2. Angle SD 03

3. Khali SD 07

4. Batista CS 07

5. Bob Orton NM 05

Is 5 enough? If not then I dont think that jump over the top rope should be a signature move. I can't even get 5 for that.

1. Kane WM20

2. Kane Inferno UFG 08

3. Michaels GS 97 142.162.207.62 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Henry Mania 22 142.162.207.62 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, even 5 over 20 years is once every 4 years. thats not a signature. IMHO we need to shroten lists like signature moves and nicknames.LessThanClippers (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the move is not a signature nor a finishing move. A signature move is a move used consistently in almost every match. Nikki311 23:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Erase the High Flying jump over the top rope. we could only come up with 4. 142.162.207.232 (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. Nikki311 19:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Taker does use the suicide dive a lot. He's used it in a lot of PPVs, so why would you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.254.166 (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Name some. 142.162.183.13 (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This new markation of the Triangle choke - occasionally, bothers me. How is it signature, if its used that rare? OIk, yeah the buried alive match is rare, and a signature. But when i think triangle choke I don't think taker, and vice versa. I am proposing the removal of triangle choke completely, for reasons stated in my comments above.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I had removed it, but apparently someone added it back. I've removed it again. Nikki311 21:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as funny as it sounds, after watching a lot of his newer matches, I am gonna say, I think the triangle choke is a signature of his now.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC) (I know I kNow I Know)

It should be noted a finisher, he's been relying on it to finish his opponents alot recently. Also, while listing the people who have fallen victim to the maneuver, you neglected to mention Big Show. Even WWE emphasised on the move, saying how The Undertaker is looking leaner and incorporating a more technical aspect into his wrestling. They even went as far as to note the move in upper case letters, "Triangle Choke". As for Khali, note the only other thing to make him submit was Cena's STFU, a finishing move. In response to this, I don't see how that would make it any less of a finisher. ^Dlae│_here 16:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to keep things clean, it wasn't me who added it as a finisher. I moved it up a few spaces on the 'Signature moves' list once, but that's it. ^Dlae│_here 16:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the triangle choke was also used in a Double Jeopardy match against Luther Reigns and Mark Jindrak, forcing Jindrak to sumbit, it was also used in the elimination chamber against bastista, but he avoided every attempt, so it's used a little more than you'd think. Armedhamster (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Goozle

Two things.

First, I think the chokeslam should be renamed at least "Goozle/Chokeslam" if not: "Goozle (Chokeslam)" It was called the goozle years ago and then Tazz brought the name back when he was on Smackdown.

Second, I think it should be placed as a finisher. While he didn't use it as a finish as often as the Last Ride and Tombstone, he used it Every time against large opponents he could never Tombstone. (Yokozuna, Gonzalez, Vader etc.)

Thoughts?

Fonz469 (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Fonz469

Goozle? Hahahahahahahahahahaha...geif source please? --Kaizer13 (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to come up with sources as most of the matches he used it in as a finish weren't PPV matches. They were either televised (Raw) or Home Video matches. One example, though is IHY 5 when he beat Mable in a casket match using the chokeslam/goozle.

It's also hard to come up with examples of the term "goozle" being used for Taker's before Tazz had. But here's one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goozle

I believe it was used more often in the early to mid-90's before just being called a chokelsam then Tazz called it a goozle again. Most notably by Bobby Heenan 76.170.164.161 (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Fonz469

The chokeslam is placed in his finishers, and that's where it should stay, agreed. He has defeated many wrestlers with just a chokeslam, from large wrestlers such as Mabel/Viscera/V, to cruiserweights like Gregory Helms. In fact, the chokeslam was his original finisher (before the tombstone was used).

Second, as far as I know, the goozle precedes a chokeslam, and is not actually the chokeslam itself. The goozle is the "choke" in the "chokeslam", if you will. Some people seem to use the two interchangably, but many written play-by-plays of older wrestling matches say: "Goozle... Chokeslam HITS!" or... "Goozle... but the Chokeslam is blocked after a kick to the gut."

As goozle is technically not used as an offensive maneuver, I don't think it is not a signature move per se. Perhaps as a signature taunt. For example; Undertaker had Vickie Guerrero in a goozle while intimidating Edge, but a chokeslam did not follow -- a tombstone followed. Signature taunt? The problem with this is we have to go through everyone who uses a chokeslam and signature taunt a goozle. Is this worth it, really? --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker has been using the tombstone as his finisher from the very start. He used it in matches taped before his Survivor Series debut where he was billed as "Kane the Undertaker". Bngrybt (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. The point being, the chokeslam is indeed a finisher. If you have some time to watch an interesting interview (Over the HIAC match at KOTR), Calaway himself calls it a finishing move. You can watch the interview here for now. At 3:38 he says: And I ended up giving him one of my finishing moves: the chokeslam. He never stopped. The fenced section gave way. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 18:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC) He would love to say thanks to callum sturt horley surrey

Merge proposal

Because this page is so long, I propose that we merge the theme music, nicknames, and signature taunts into the Personas of The Undertaker article. I think it makes more sense there anyway, as some of the taunts, music, and nicknames were only for particular personas. Not only would the merge shorten this page (which is well over the recommended maximum length) but it will cut down on some of the listy aspects of the page. Add # ~~~~ to your vote below. Nikki311 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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 merge. Nikki311 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support

1. Nikki311 13:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Cheers, LAX 18:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
5. The Hybrid T/C 02:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose

• Comments
• I agree completely. This will also deal with the problems the Personas of The Undertaker has had as far as being justified as a separate page. If this comes to pass, I would love to help! Also, if you'd like to mess around with it first, I've copied the articles: The Undertaker and Personas of The Undertaker. I've already made the initial moves. --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• Well, something certainly needs to be done to the nicknames section. My suggestion would be to cut it down to three. American Bad Ass and Big Evil already have sections on the Personas of The Undertaker page, so they don't need to be mentioned here. I'll admit that I haven't watched wrestling in a long time, but some of those names look pretty obscure. The best pure striker in the history of the game? The most respected athlete in the history of the WWE? Those just seem like descriptions that might have been used. Nicknames would be more like The Deadman. Is there any need for The Phenom AND The Phenom of the WWE? And why are some normal, some bold and some bold and italicized? The very fact that so many of them use "the WWE" makes me think they're just IP edits that don't contribute to anything. Obviously, I'm biased against nickname sections. I think they can be useful, but having no editorial control over what does and doesn't belong has led to ridiculously long and useless lists. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
• As for music, what about just linking the section to Music in professional wrestling#U and transferring the information over there? GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I must admit that I'm biased against nickname sections, as well. I tend to only include names that can be attributed to a reliable source. However, The Undertaker's page is so high traffic, it would be impossible to cut it down to just three. There's always going to be the person that goes "Well...there's three, so what's the harm in one more?" If they have a source, they should stay, and I think there are more than three with the potential to be sourced. The best bet is to merge them, and then source and cut the list down from there. The same goes with music. It is kind of standard on all the wrestling pages, so if it was removed, it would be added back in 5 seconds. If we show these users (drive by-ers and IPs) that there is another Undertaker-themed article with the info, I think it might be more acceptable and reduce the potential for edit wars. Nikki311 00:14, 10 December 2007 (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.

The debate was open for five days with no opposes. The debate is now closed. Nikki311 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Explain the change to his filmography section

Why has this been changed to a poorly presented paragraph? 202.12.233.21 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs are preferred by GA and FA reviewers over lists (especially short lists). If you think it it poorly presented, perhaps you would like to suggest a way to fix it? Nikki311 21:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Booked to defeat, booked to win, booked, booked booked

This article over uses the term. Not only that, but it makes it written in passive prose, instead of saying, he defeated hogan, he was booked to defeat hogan. It is adding unnecessary length to the article. I think we all know that pro-wrestling matches are works, and can get past that, and still make this article a better article. Since I am new to editing PW articles, I want opinions before I start cleaning it up.LessThanClippers (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It has to be made clear that wrestling is not real in the article and that events are staged. It must be written out of universe. However, replacing some of the "booked" with other terms isn't a bad idea. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

As Gavyn said, it has to be made 100% clear that all wrestling is scripted to have a chance at passing a Good Article review. I know it is weird at first, but just like any other form of writing, after awhile, it becomes second nature to see it that way. Another option is to say "As part of his latest push, he won the championship." I have no problem if you want to change some of the former to the latter to mix it up a bit, but the article must stay written "out-of-universe". Nikki311 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another option is adding "kayfabe before a word that without it would make it sound real. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there away to adress it once in an article? I mean, since all pw is scripted, is there a way to adress it once? I've read many articles on here that say, he won the title at backlash, or defeated so and so, without saying it is a work each time. Every match in WWE is a work (outside of Brawl for All) I took the following sentence from the HHH article, rated GA, by the way...

Triple H dropped the WWE Championship to Vince McMahon on the September 16, 1999 edition of SmackDown! before regaining it at Unforgiven in a Six-Pack Challenge that included Davey Boy Smith, Big Show, Kane, The Rock, and Mankind. He defeated Stone Cold Steve Austin at No Mercy 1999 before dropping the title to The Big Show at Survivor Series 1999.LessThanClippers (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to address it all at once? Not really. All of the GAs are written "out-of-universe". The sentence you pulled from HHH's article uses the word "dropped", which means that a wrestler agrees to lose a title to another wrestler. That is another option for writing "out-of-universe". Also, HHH's article also uses the word "booked". Nikki311 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and although dropped is a term that means they agree to it, dropped also, in sports terms, just means losing the match, so maybe there it just sounds a little better. I definitely will go through and change the wording some though, its very stagnant in this article. LessThanClippers (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Kayfabe

Since I'm still new at this, I just want to make sure before I go ahead and make this change. Shouldn't "kayfabe" only be linked once? It currently is linked every time it appears in the article. I can quickly fix this if I am correct. Thanks. LessThanClippers (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The rule is that it should be linked the first time it appears under each header. If it is linked more that once in a section, go ahead and remove it. Nikki311 18:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, thanks. Is that the same rule for all links?LessThanClippers (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Nikki311 18:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, it's once per section? I thought it was once per prose sections of the article (meaning you could link again in Personal life or championships. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's once under each header/sub-header. If you link something in under one header, you can link it again under another. Say you link WWE under 1997-1999, you can link it again under Championships and accomplishments, and again under Personal life. Does that answer the question? Nikki311 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly helps me, thanks Nikki LessThanClippers (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Nikki. I've been here eleven months and misinterpreted that rule. Lol. Well, live and learn. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WCW

Does anyone have information regarding the storylines (not just who he feuded with, but what the plots were) or maybe a little more about the persona? I think that would really help this article. I'll do some research, but I really have never seen any.LessThanClippers (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Curtailing nickname list

In an effort to curtail nickname lists, and clean up the ridiculous length of this article, I am reccomending the following changes... Keep The Phenom, The Deadman, and 'Taker bold as they are currently used and most common. Keep The American Bad Ass and Big Evil, unbolded, as they are out of date or rarely used anymore. remove, Grim Reaper and Reaper, without sourcing, I really can't ever really remember that as a nickname. Remove Booger Red, even though it is sourced, it is a 1 time comment, and is not a true nickname, its more an issue of trivia, and should probably be removed. However, it might make for interesting extra info in the prose. Remove Red Devil, Demon of Death Valley and Lord of Darkness, no mention in article and no sourcing.

Any comments?LessThanClippers (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Tomorrow, I plan to close the above Merge proposal and move them all to the Personas of The Undertaker article anyway. That'll cut down on length. Nikki311 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Booger Red was used for a short while after Wrestlemania X8, not just once from what I've been able to gather. It is, however, notable, because it is a nickname that management asked to be removed. I think it would be censorship to remove it. It is a sourced nickname, why would we change our rules on sourcing nicknames as soon as we started? --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 00:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The question wasn't sourcing, it was notability. If it only lasted a very short time, then it probably isn't that notable. However, now with a little more understanding, I do find it notable. I also think, however, that addidng this information to the prose would be helpful.LessThanClippers (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Just a quick note about sourcing: youtube can't be used as a source because of copyright issues. Also, when adding citations, it is best to use a citation template. Nikki311 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, I made two sets of edits with Youtube. How do we distinguish between what's still under copyright though? These are defunct promotions, couldn't they be free use now? --EnhancedDownloadBird ^(Upload) - 03:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not certain. Perhaps posting a quick message at WPT:PW would be best to answer that question. It's been mentioned there a couple of times, so I know at least a couple of people 100% know the rules on youtube and copyrights. Nikki311 13:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If it once was copyright, it will remain copyright untill it is released under a free licence, or expires into the public domain which is in a very long time (I think 100 years after the death of the creator, but even if it's 50 years, the answer is "way too long"). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Spivey and Skyscrapers

This page lists Undertaker teaming with Spivey in the WCW days and going by the name The Skyscrapers. Spivey's page lists The Skyscrapers as Spivey and Sid Vicious. With neither being sourced, was wondering if anyone had any of this info. I can research it once I get home (have limited internet at the office)LessThanClippers (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual Skyscrapers article notes it in several places that UT replaced Vicious after an injury; he competed in a PPV match against the Road Warriors. When Spivey suddenly left WCW, he was in turn replaced by a masked Mike Enos, but the team disbanded shortly after when Calaway went to singles and after Lex Luger's US Title.Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks....LessThanClippers (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WCW and Early Career Sections

I doubt there is much mroe info out there. Should we remove the expansion tags? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2008

Does 2008 really need its own section at this time. IO don't see a signifigant change in his persona/path, so I would rather incorporate this into 2006-2008 until such time it is necessary. Thoughts?LessThanClippers (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Undertaker - WCW years

While Dangerous Danny Spivey was a member of The Skyscrapers, the greatesy level of success came when it was Mean Mark and Sid Vicious. I can't give specifics - but I do recall that they were my favorite tag team at that time (surpassing Road Warriors - which was a major accomplishment) - and won the Belt at least once. Sorry to embellish - but this profile of The Skyscrapers could not be devoid of Sid Vicious. Upward (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)upward and he was a freak of nature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.170.145 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Spolier Alert: Does anyone know the name of the modified triangle choke he did???

Does anyone know the name of the choke The Undertaker put on Big Daddy V on Smackdown. If you do can someone add it to his finishers list. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add it to the list of finishers. Using a move 1 time does not make it a signature move. LessThanClippers (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll probably find out next week or the week after what it actually was. It'll probably be something he ends up using on the big guys or something. Arrowny (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a desperation modified triangle chokethat was a one-time use to give Undertaker the duke. If he uses it tonight in the tag match, then maybe we can consider including it. Otherwise, no. Lemon Demon (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The move was a modified Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu hold called the Gogoplata. I added it to his finishers, since he used it tonight after chokeslamming Mark Henry during the tag match, instead of just going for the pin, which suggests that it's going to be a permanent part of his arsenal. Hope it's all right. :) SanjuroHayashida (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a signature move, not a finisher. Cheers, LAX 04:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I kinda disagree, since WWE.com was hyping it as "a mysterious new finisher that took down the 500-pound mastadon and left him bleeding", it should be left as a signature move for now. If he finishes a couple more matches with it, I really think it should be added as a finisher. SanjuroHayashida (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, tough one. I suggest we wait a little while. It is looking more likely to be his next signature/finishing move. Oh, and keep a tally of how many times it's used. Now it's at 2. Lemon Demon (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess is he will start using it for his larger opponents since he tends to wrestle giants a lot. He's pretty strong as it is, but its gotta be hard to do the tombstone and last ride on 400 to 500 lb guys, especially since hes not a young guy anymore68.164.85.197 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

He used it on Edge at Wrestlemania XXIV to win the World Heavyweight Championship for a second time. //\\ AirbusA346 //\\ (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

He also has used it on Matt Stryker before. Armedhamster (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The new chokehold is a gogoplata —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.212.70.122 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Request edit

2007-2008 section, second paragraph:

On the January 4, 2008 Edition of SmackDown! The Undertaker competed in a Beat the Clock challenge for the number one contention for the World Heavyweight Championship at the Royal Rumble against Mark Henry with Matt Striker as the Special Guest Referee The Undertaker had 6 Minutes and 2 Seconds to beat Mark Henry with 15 Seconds left on the clock The Undertaker performed a chokeslam and Striker began the count and stopped before the 3-count was completed and ran out The Undertakers time and removed his chances at competing for the World Heavyweight Championship.

As you can see, it's very poorly written. I'd rewrite it myself so that it wasn't some gigantic, endless mess of words, but the article is protected, and I don't have an account. 67.142.130.42 (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell, that was horribly written. I've cleaned it up and fixed and added wikilinks as well. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, pause for breath! Thanks for editing that mass of words! Lemon Demon (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

WWF Debut

He is incorrectly listed as "Kane the Underatker, it was Cain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.44.9 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Which move was it?

Before we get into an edit war over this, we should try and establish which move it is: Gogoplata or modified Triangle Choke? P.S. Leave Triangle Choke as a signature move as he does not finish his matches with it (including Big Daddy V and Mark Henry), this move was different. Lemon Demon (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a gogoplata. If you look at the article, you'll see very many similarities between that and the move the Undertaker is using, maybe with one or two minor modifications with how it's applied. Not only that, this video on Google Video of the gogoplata also shows the similarities. SanjuroHayashida (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Death of undertaker

  undert5aker died of a steroid overdose in phoenix, Az 

Gogoplata put the gogoplata back as as a Signature or finishing move. Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeee it is not a triangle choke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver3 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-added Gogoplata as a finisher, but kept triangle choke as he has used this before. Lemon Demon (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC) "Hope somebody understood that - Ed"

request move

I'd like to request a move for this article so the title corresponds with the subject's true name, Mark William Calaway, and use The Undertaker as a redirect. This seems more reasonable to me. <3 bunny 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It should stay at The Undertaker, per WP:NAME. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)