Talk:Cody Rhodes/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

PWI Most Improved

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As stated in the 2009 Wrestling Almanac and Book of Facts released by Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Cody Rhodes won the award for Most Improved, not The Miz as previously stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.174.148 (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been added, and I've provided a source. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Cross Rhodes

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

I changed the definition of "Cross Rhodes" (currently a Spinning Facebuster), to its APPROPRIATE description, a Rolling Cutter (which is how is was described before someone used a source where they called it a "Spinning Facebuster". Obviously that guy plain doesn't know how to call his wrestling moves, but that's off topic) only to get my edits reverted. Therefore, I'd like to bring it to everyone's attention: Cross Rhodes is a Rolling Cutter, not a "Spinning Facebuster". The first is described as an Inverted Facelock spun into a Cutter (either by spinning under or over the opponent; in this case, Rhodes goes under). The Spinning Facebuster, however, is described as "[a move where] the attacker runs at the opponent, grabs hold of him by his/her head or hair and then spins in the air before dropping down into a kneeling position, forcing the opponent's face into the mat." (Just so you know, that's the description of Melina's 180° Charging Facebuster)

I guess that's all I gotta say. If you guys still think there's any doubt over the RIGHT definition of Cross Rhodes, type "Rolling Cutter" on YouTube; you'll get the videos. Talon Kelson (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to change the information in the article, provide a reliable source to back it up. A youtube video is not a reliable source. You claiming it's a rolling cutter based on the description of the move is original research. If it's a rolling cutter like you say, then you should be able to provide a reliable source to back it up. You can find a listing of reliable wrestling related sources at WP:PW/SG#Sources.

As a side note, I'd encourage you to read WP:V. Specifically, the first sentence:

“

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

”

Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys are going with the "Spinning facebuster" even though Wikipedia's OWN definition describes Melina's move! That's why people say Wikipedia isn't a reliable source at all; some people just won't hear it. Taking a verifiable lie over a well known truth is, in my opinion, misinformation. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

I'll find that reliable source, if it's all you guys need to finally see you were wrong all along. Talon Kelson (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines trump opinions. That being said, I AGREE with you. It's a rolling cutter, not a spinning facebuster. But until a reliable source is found for it being the former, the latter is going to stay and removing it would constitute vandalism, since it's sourced. If you can find a reliable source that it's a rolling cutter, please let us know. Fact is, rules need to be followed. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it and added a legal video source straight from WWE.com. 69.23.156.97 (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've gone back to the written and reliable source for the move. While citing a video can be used for storylines, etc in pro wrestling articles, it is not a good source for moves. The video as a source requires you to interpret the move, which is WP:OR - it's your opinion on what the move is. This was discussed previously at WT:PW, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 71#Cite Episode?, however, if you disagree you are more than welcome to start a new section at WT:PW. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Seriously? The move is a rolling cutter. There is no such thing as a three quarter inverted facelock facebuster and there never will be, because, by definition, that is a cutter. The people that reside over this section of wikipedia are way too anal retentive for their own good. How is it vandalism to change something that is wrong? --Miikro (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Who mentioned anything about a "three quarter inverted facelock facebuster"? The argument was between a "rolling cutter" or a "spinning facebuster". Also, in regards to your question "How is it vandalism to change something that is wrong?", please show me where someone pointed out that this was vandalism? The fact of the matter is, per WP:PW standards, we only have a source that says that it is a "spinning facebuster". If you would like to a provide a reliable, written source (see WP:PW#Sources for a listing), then it will be changed. Until then, we go with the verifiable information, per policy. By the way, I would throw it out there that calling people "anal retentive" isn't a good way to discuss matters, and probably violates WP:CIVIL. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To your first question, if the move infact was a "spinning facebuster" (which it isn't) it would be a three quarter inverted facelock facebuster, given how Rhodes sets it up and performs it.. But given how many pages I've seen your name on in edits, you already knew that, provided you actually watch the matches as opposed to just reading recaps. It was mentioned in the conversation above that fixing it without a source (apparently common sense isn't valid) constitutes vandalism, apparently. I've fixed things on other pages around here, with sources that i've made sure conformed with the other source examples on a said page only to have them reverted, called "invalid" and then a little bit later, the edit i'd made has been remade, by someone else, citing the same material and suddenly it's ok because someone that regularly edits did it. As for "civility" -- 1) there's a difference between negativity and vulgarity, that phrase is for former, not the latter, and 2) it's completely discouraging to even visit this area of the wiki because any time one can contribute from the outside, it's unwelcome. I do believe I have a source to fix the move, btw, on a less aggravated note.. That is, provided it's still ok to use match recaps from respected sites? I'm not touching anything yet for fear of another revert. --Miikro (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the above conversation does it say that changing the move from what the sources say "constitutes vandalism". It goes against what the sources say, and was reverted for that reason, but not because it's vandalism. Well, that shouldn't happen, and I know that I personally don't differentiate (or try not to at least) between regular editors and those who edit sporadically. If an edit is no good when you add it, then it's no good when anyone else adds it. In response to your question, if the match recap is from a source considered reliable per WP:PW/SG#Sources, then yes, it can be used, and feel free to add it. If it's valid, it won't get reverted. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I should clarify. The source currently in the article for the move is from the Pro Wrestling Torch. In order for that to be replaced the reference would have to be of equal or greater reliability, i.e. those sources listed under "Websites proven reliable" and "Official promotion websites" in WP:PW/SG#Sources only. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the list of acceptable sites, the source I had is no good, per guidelines.. but it looks like someone else found another PWtorch article that fixed things. huzzah! --Miikro (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Its a rolling cutter not a spinning facebuster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.112.14 (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source to verify that information. If you can provide a source considered reliable per WP:PW/SG#Sources, the article can be changed. Until then, we go with the move verified by the reliable source. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's either Wikipedia's own definition doesn't count or NVH has a reliable source fetish. Zeggy 557 (talk) 01:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

a) My name's not "NVH", so don't call me that, and b) wikipedia's policies call for reliable sources. If you don't like it, don't edit. That simple. Have a nice day now. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial Review

Nice pics, full review to follow shortly. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Full Review

Good nicely written article, you guys have done a fine job building a coherent narrative from the various sources. Im delighted to be able to pass this article. Some general comments in case you want to progress this to FA class.

1) You probably dont need the 3 references in the lede as you link to them in the article.

2) It would be good if the article could consistently point out when an event is part of the storyline and when its real. For example you have "soon Spears began to fall in love with her, which began interfering with their matches" From checking the sources it sounds like thats manufactured by the producers, though not knowing much about wrestling Im not sure, may he really did fall for her?

3) Further copy editing would help. The prose quality is good, but I personally think it needs further polishing to be FA class.

PS, as there is a massive backlog of GA candidates waiting to be reviewed, including in the Sports class, please review one if you have time! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I really appreciate you taking the time to do the review. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Legacy theme

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is the Legacy theme "A New Day" or "It's a New Day"?? MC Steel (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The source says "It's a New Day." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Which theme?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Acording to his past theme list he is now using ,,Out To Kill" by Billy Lincoln, When did he use it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justakija (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

He used it at WrestleMania XXVI during the triple threat match. Only DiBiase entered to "A New Day". ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Alabama slam.

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Could we say it was adapted from hardcore holly? --67.148.62.18 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source to stating that. See WP:PW/SG#Sources for a listing of reliable wrestling-related sources. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it is named the "Alabama Slam", and the fact that Hardcore Holly was his "mentor" already states the glaringly obvious Wikipedia rules really have screwed up this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.215 (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The theme title is "Smoke and Mirrors, not "Smoking Mirrors"

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The title "Smoking Mirrors" makes absolutely no sense. Meanwhile "Smoke and Mirrors" means "deceptive, fraudulent or insubstantial explanation or description". We should keep the title "Smoke and Mirrors" until we can get a clear enough track.--Aguyok (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the song's title makes "absolutely no sense" to you or not. The source says the song is called "Smoking Mirrors", so "Smoking Mirrors" is what is listed in the article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

They called the song "Smoke and Mirrors" on air last night. I think that's a better source then a dirtsheet.--Aguyok (talk) 23:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. How is a dirtsheet reliable? Footage can even be found on YouTube of the band TV/TV, who performed the song, which is called Smoke and Mirrors, talking about it. Oh, how I can't wait until the next WWE CD comes out and everyone who takes something like "WrestlingNewz.com" as gospel has to swallow the truth. Of course, this still won't fix Cross Rhodes being listed as the obviously wrong move cause of what some dirtsheet writer called it. God, this article is a mess. 65.29.231.61 (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

He used an instrumental of Smoke & Mirrors on the latest edition of SmackDown! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.103.6 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Loss of Title

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Cody Rhodes and Drew Mcintyre lost there WWE tag team championship to John Cena and Ottunga of Nexus at Bragging Rights on 10/24/2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.206.251 (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Has been added with a source. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The Beautiful Disaster?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Isn't Cody's springboard kick called "The Beautiful Disaster"? I can't find a "reliable source" anywhere, but I just thought I should mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.255.2 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without a reliable source it won't be added to the article. NiciVampireHeart 22:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

NEW THEME

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

HE HAS A NEW THEME, INSTRUMENTAL VERSION OF SMOKE 'N MIRRORS! fix it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.106.0 (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Source it. Additionally, typing things in all caps is completely unnecessary. NiciVampireHeart 17:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello NVH, it's not really sourcable I just made a statement here so that other people better with finding information would be able to confirm it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.114.7 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were the original poster, you weren't really making a statement so other people could confirm it. It was more of a demand that someone add unsourced information to the article. Irregardless, yes, a source is needed. NiciVampireHeart 02:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he does have a new theme. I would call it "Smoke & Mirrors (Slowed instrumental remix)". I'm not sure when it was first used though. As far as sourcing it, it has been seen/heard on Raw, Smackdown and on PPVs, but I'm not sure how to reference it as a source, or even if you can. Again, I'm not sure when he first entered to that music, but I think it was either February or March 2011. I would make the addition myself, but due to not knowing the time of first use and not being sure how to cite TV episode number/date I'll leave it for now and up for further discussion. --Jaguar83 (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Page states that Rhodes new theme which debuted on 14th November edition of RAW is credited in the main article to Downstait. Downstait have stated that on there official Facebook page that although they did record a version of the track, theirs was not used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.178.127 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Undashing"

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is the matter with all this people here, who's deleting "Undashing" changes? IT'S LEGIT. Cody Rhodes "Dashing" gimmick was abandoned for good with the start of Mysterio-Rhodes storyline, so the line "Dashing" Cody Rhodes (2010-present) is no longer valid, and SHOULD be changed to (2010-2011). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.70.109 (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should wait and see how things go, I agree that he's UnDashing now and it should be changed but the reason that he's UnDashing is because he was Dashing first, so all of this is really because he was Dashing first and they even reference the Dashing gimmick on TV still. So maybe we should just leave it as Dashing until maybe end of year.186.45.113.154 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

UnDashing, Devious, or masked?

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Now, we all know Cody was officially "Dashing" before, but what is he now? He isn't officially called "UnDashing" nor "Devious" nor "Grosteque". "UnDashing" is merely his current theme song's name. <- EDIT: There isn't even an official source for UnDashing being his theme song's name. The only mention of devious was as a description of Rhodes on wwe.com: "One way or another, dashing or devious, Cody Rhodes is relentless in his pursuit of a long-lasting legacy." They didn't call him "Devious" Cody Rhodes, devious was just a description. "Grosteque" only appears on his titantron.

Instead, I propose renaming the newest section to... "Dashing" and masked Cody Rhodes. Rhodes has always worn a mask after leaving the Dashing gimmick. What do you all think? I shall wait a couple of days before changing the description in the article if no one comments. Starship.paint (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have changed the description to the article. If you disagree, please post here. Starship.paint (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I totally disagree. They constantly call him "tormented" so I took it upon myself to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.85.167 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who calls him tormented? Do you have a source? Starship.paint (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

WWE Employees - Jerry The King Lawler, Michael Cole, Josh Matthews and Booker T. Source - My ears during SmackDown! and/or RAW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.96.99 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

BLACK SMOKE & BROKEN MIRRORS

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have a credible source that the name of his new song is "Black Smoke & Broken Mirrors" so I'll change that for everyone! The YouTube comment that confirms it should more than suffice as a credible source. YouTube comment that confirms title of newest song: "the name of new song is "Black smokes and broken mirrors"....it's not a joke,check wikipedia!" posted by HTNcenation, 2 weeks ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.85.167 (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your source from YouTube quotes WIKIPEDIA, which itself isn't sure what the name of the song is. I mean, we're not sure what the song is right? So you checked YouTube, and this guy says it is Black Smoke and Broken Mirrors because he checked us. So that's unreliable, don't you see?

Also, youtube's not really a reliable source, I know this sucks but Wikipedia is very strict on sources, and YouTube isn't considered a reliable source unfortunately, unless it's actually Cody Rhodes' youtube channel saying so, of which that would be an exception. Changing back until you find a another source. Oh Jorgenev has done so already. As I said with Tormented, do you have a source for tormented? 220.255.2.115 (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)