Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame

List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 30+ days, 7 support, 2 oppose. After a long debate, one of the opposes was ruled out, and there was the one left about the inclusion of the inductees within the list. One person opposed it while all others involved in this nomination argued the importance for the inclusion of such material. Thus I am going to Promote. Juhachi 03:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second nomination, the previous one can be found here.

The article failed its previous FLC because of one comment that real names should be added to the table. This has been discussed at WP:PW and many agree that "birth names" are not necessary or essential and thus count as trivia.

Anyway, I feel that this page is well sourced and meets FL criteria. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very well organized, though it'd probably be advantageous to sort the inductees in addition to the inducted where applicable. MarcK 00:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, pending the above fix. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 01:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It's already in use. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I meant inducters, not inductees (they need to come up with some new words for these things). William Shatner, S.D Jones etc. MarcK 02:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many citations, all from the same website, which is barely a WP:RS Biggspowd 21:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a new one. An oppose based on the fact that there are too many citations. Too many citations are not a bad thing and how is the official website not a reliable source? I agree that in some cases it is a bad source, but I think its just fine in this case. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the WWE qualifies as a reliable source on its own hall of fame. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I too think that WWE qualifies as a WP:RS on its own hall of fame. - T-75|talk|contribs 03:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I did not vote in the previous candidacy I did so because I thought it would pass with no problems and found its rejection odd. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WWE Wikipedians definitely have their stuff together. Good list. Wish there were a few more pictures, though. Anthony Hit me up... 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per my original objections which can be found here. After reading the discussion at the WikiProject Professional Wrestling, I feel justified in my reasons for opposition. I have tried to clarify this in the last FLC, but I'll summarize again:
- The role of the inductee is not clear, and the one statement about it in the lead is not referenced. I don't think it is clear, and judging by the comment here, I'm right to oppose for this reason. I don't see how it's important or relevant - other then for marketing reasons (which don't concern us).
  - What? The role of the inductee is very clear, they get inducted. I assume you mean inducters and like I said in the previous one, the role of the inducter is highly promoted by the WWE and plays a large role in the induction. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I do mean inducters. Big role? Other then as a promotional or marketing tool it has not been justified. Why do we care about how the WWE try to improve their ratings? How is this important? - Shudda ^talk 01:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - As has previously been stated, there was a discussion about the inducters awhile back and the overwhelming consensus was that they should be included. The WWE Hall of Fame induction ceremony isn't like other hall of fames - there isn't a physical hall of fame you can visit, which adds a lot of importance to the inducters. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How does not having a physical hall of fame (it's common not to have one) mean there needs to be a list of inducters (awards presenters)? The justification for there inclusion is very weak - which not good enough for a FL. The discussion on WikiProject Professional wrestling even pointed out that "plus not all the inducters are "highly promoted" nor are all of them "high profile" (such as Cody Runnells); nor is their participation always highly promoted" - plus it was not an overwhelming consensus. So even if your justification was acceptable (which it's not) it couldn't even apply in all cases! - Shudda ^talk 10:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am the one who made the statements you quoted in the discussion you quoted. I made those statements and also made a recommendation on how to change the wording to address your concern, and the editor of the article made that change so that it now reads, "Usually inductees are officially inducted at the ceremony by a high profile wrestling personality whose participation in the ceremony is highly publicized." That statement is accurate, as usually that is the case...but the verbiage acknowledges that it is not always the case. I don't think your concern from the previous nomination is legitimate (I did think it was at the time, which is why I suggested the change). - T-75|talk|contribs 03:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I've tried my best to explain it to you, but I guess its the kind of thing only wrestling fans understand, because there has never been any attempt to remove them (or any objections) before the page became an FLC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If it can only be understood by wrestling fans (I am not a fan of wrestling, but I have watched it quite a few times in the past) then it's not appropriate. It should be crystal clear, and it's not. The justification for it is that WWE deem it important, but thats because they want to promote their product. Our objectives are different then theres. Hence the problem. Who the inducters are is trivia, and is redundant. - Shudda ^talk 00:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You know this is the WWE Hall of Fame and if the WWE deems something important than that should be good enough for inclusion here. And as for real names (just to go back there for a second), the WWE only recognizes the character. As far as they are concerned, Terry Bollea is Hulk Hogan and Terry Bollea doesn't exist. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see this situation:

The inducters are as or more relevant (more, in my opinion) to the topic than the inductees' birth names, which are already included.
Listing the inducters certainly doesn't hurt the article, and is beneficial to some or most readers.
Shudda seems to be the only one opposed to listing the inducters.
Regardless of why anyone thinks they do it, WWE always makes a big deal about the inducters, which in itself merits their inclusion in the article.

--MarcK 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the inducters more relevant? Why are they relevant at all? They are a promotional tool used by the WWE so of course the WWE are going to consider them important because they help sell their product, but because we aren't trying to sell anything its trivial! As for being the only person objecting, FLCs get very little scrutiny compared to FACs - if this weren't the case then I'm sure there would be many who supported my objections. It seems that the whole argument for the inducters inclusion boils down to because WWE think it's important, and that is never going to be acceptable here. The WWE's opinion is POV, and using them is a questionable source (see Wikipedia:Attribution where it mentions questionable sources include those that are "promotional in nature"). Questionable sources can be used in an article about the subject itself, but only if it is not contentious or self-serving (which this clearly is). - Shudda ^talk 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that you wanted us to add trivia (birth names) to the page and yet you reject this. If the birth names stay, so do the inducters. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal names (or birth names) are not trivial - how can someone's legal name possibly be trivial? I thought we had that issue sorted. The inducters is completely separate issue; each comment made should be treated independently otherwise a consensus will never be reached. - Shudda ^talk 22:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inducters are relevant because they play a major role in the ceremony itself (they often spend several minutes inducting the person in question), which is what this article is about. So regardless of whether anyone thinks they're a "promotional tool" or not, the fact is they are a very significant part of the ceremony and so should be included. As for the birth names, as Scorpion's been saying, I don't think it's especially notable for the topic at hand because they're inducted by a particular ring name, not their legal/birth/real/Christian names; however, I also think that it doesn't really do any harm, and if someone for some reason needs to know their real name, it's right there. Likewise, I can promise you that nearly everyone looking for information on this subject will be looking for the inducters. And anyway, I don't really see how this is a big enough concern to block it from being an FL. --MarcK 00:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal (it would be rare not to happen) for there to be several minutes, if not more, spent introducing someone getting inducted into a hall of fame (any hall of fame). I'm not disputing that this happens. However this is a list of members of the hall of fame, who inducted them is irrelevant. Does the identity of the person that introduces them, inducts them, or presents them their hall of fame membership have any influence on the notability of the inductee? No. A discussion of the induction procedure and ceremony may include information on the type of people whom induct and introduce hall of fame members, but it's completely irrelevant to a list of those members. I think more information about the inducters and the hall of fame's procedures and ceremonies should be added to WWE Hall of Fame, but not to this list. It's irrelevant here. - Shudda ^talk 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so against listing the inducters here? Is it really worth failing an otherwise decent article over it? Also, what FL criteria does the page fail by having inducters? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant to the article. Like I said it's trivial (it is trivia). Trivia should not be included. This is about the Hall of Fame members, not the induction process, not the inducters, not the WWE's promotional methods. With the inducters included I don't believe this list exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work. - Shudda ^talk 02:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How could something that actually has something to do with the WWE Hall of Fame be trivial when birthnames, something that has nothing to do with the HoF (or even the WWE) apparantly is not? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I stated that I believed the legal (or birth names) should be listed in addition to their in-ring name. The reason is that it should be clear that the person has been inducted into the Hall of Fame - not a character the person plays. Many of the wrestlers in the list have Wikipedia articles that give their legal name - not their in-ring name. So why not include it in the list? Also, some of the people in the WikiProject Professional Wrestling discussion (which did not involve many people btw) did mention that listing their legal names does no harm to the list - so why the objection?
  - It's pointless, thats why. It would only be included for the "Oh, so thats his/her real name" value because 95% of the inductees are best known by their ring names. And because its not essential to the article, it can be counted as trivia. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If these two things are addressed I'll support. - Shudda ^talk 03:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also think that listing birthnames is unnecessary, but if it has to be done to push this to FL, I've come up with an unobtrusive method of listing it here. MarcK 05:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that looks very good MarcK and would be very happy with that format. - Shudda ^talk 01:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Against my better judgement, I have added birthnames to the table in the format suggested by MarcK. However, this format conflicts with the tag team members who were listed below the tag teams, but I don't think it matters. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support The concerns from the original nomination have been addressed. I agreed with some of the concerns and recommended ways to address those concerns, and they have been addressed. There is no reason not to list this as an FL. - T-75|talk|contribs 04:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work and I'm 100% in favor if having the inducters listed as well, it's an important part of the HOF ceremony and they're picked for their connection to the person or persons they induct MPJ-DK 07:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment Most of the "real names" of people aren't known to people out there in general I mean "Hulk Hogan" or "Terry Bollea" which is more known? listing the real name is irrelevant, are real names listed for the Academy Awards if the recipient uses a stagename instead of their actual name? Technically it's "Hulk Hogan" the character and that character's contributions to wrestling that's recognized MPJ-DK 08:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and motion to close, it's been a month already.--Wizardman 13:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Second motion to close - I can't believe this is still being argued. 7 supports and 2 opposes over minutia shouldn't prevent this from hitting FL status already. Anthony Hit me up... 17:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]