Talk:List of WWE personnel/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Hardyz

where are the hardys?user:sub619 17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff is still on RAW, Matt is still on Smackdown!--Duality344 23:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Stone Cold, Mick Foley

As much as I find it ridiculous, Stone Cold is in the RAW roster page on wwe.com, and Mick Foley is not. Mick Foley hasn't wrestled a Raw show, and Vengeance isn't either a Raw show anymore. So, we cant just put him under Raw because he appeared there and said he was. Then The Rock should be here, because he mentioned that "the rock is coming back to monday night raw". Now, Stone Cold shouldnt be on wwe.com's roster page in the first place, he should be in the Alumni page. Lex94 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I believe he said "Finally The Rock has returned to Monday Night Raw." Meaning for about three minutes in the form of a pre-recorded video segment. He's not coming back, he's stated he's done with wrestling. Stone Cold (and Hulk Hogan) seem to have secured places of honor of the Raw roster page. Terry Funk has always been listed on the ECW roster page as well, despite not wrestling since either ONS1 or 2, can't recall which.

So really, none of them should be listed in any capacity on an active roster page. Mick Foley in "Other Roles" though. Gavyn Sykes 01:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair Mick did wrestle on Raw against Umaga and since he is in the running for the title he should be a member of the roster page. --Duality344 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mick did not wrestle on Raw. Umaga knocked him out before he did anything. Lex94 08:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

mick was in a wrestling match HAPPY and stone cold, the rock, hulk hogan, foley and funk are part of raw and ECW they just dont wrestle... much

Nick Sinn

O.K his profile is on OVW.com anyone think he should be added to the roster? gravediggerfuneral

No, because he's not under contract to the WWE. Dahumorist 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

King Leonidas

I might as well post this on here in advance. No, he's not in WWE. Get over it. ;) -- Oakster  Talk  22:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

They did the same thing with Nacho Libre a while back. --Mas0playa 09:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Trinity

WWE.com has reported that Trinity has been released. Could someone please edit this?

ding dong i dont know what just happened i went one time to a house show ECW trinity was there if shes fired shes fired that house show was a couple months ago but who knows

raw stables

stop taking the hardys of of the raw stables! user:sub619 15:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

they are not an official stable on raw, as matt is a smackdown wrestler, so unless they hold the titles there ias no need for them to be in there. Skitzouk 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen out. The only way for a stable to be part of a brand, they both have to be related to the brand in some way. When they were tag team champions, they both were. But now, Matt Hardy is not related to the brand, because he has no championship. Jeff is obviously related to the brand, because of his roster status. Until, Matt wins a championship, or is drafted, he is not related to Raw in any way. Lex94 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

Could someone please remove him from the ECW superstars, as he has recently deceased

you mean he- well i'm not going to speack of it but yeah hes not on the ECW roster

dead he worded it right

FCW

If Harry Smith won a 21-man battle royal to become the Heavyweight Champ, who were the opponents? There are only 19 people in the FCW roster on this page. Are two missing from this page, or were the other 2 wrestlers from OVW, or local? Lex94 05:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Isnt anyone going to answer my question?

hey wish i could

email FCW or WWE otherwise we would only be speculating AfTaDaRkCrU 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Chuck

Why is chuck palumbo on RAW's roster. He should either be, not on at all, or on the Smackdown page cause he will be appering in the next episode

Triple H

Promos are airing for triple h's return, this should be reflected on the roster page.

only in that it should be noted, he should still be "inactive" until he actually returns AfTaDaRkCrU 18:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing

Im new, and I cant edit anything. this sux JoseValentino 05:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DX

Shawn Michaels and Triple H make up DX on Raw. DX is a tag team. Shouldn't they be under stables and tag teams? Even though they are injured. Meanwhile, Domino over on smackdown is injured and they won't be wrestling as a team until he is better. But they are still listed as a tag team.

HHH and HBK are injured, so they're not listed as a stable. Domino being injured is a different story, they still need to be listed as a tag team, since they hold the belts. Gavyn Sykes 22:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Domino should be moved from Inactive talent to Other On-Air Talent. Even though he broke his nose last week, he still came out with Deuce and Cherry on this week's Smackdown. 76.21.249.103 02:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornswoggle

hasn't he wrestled against boogeyman and little boogeyman on smackdown? doesnt that make him a wreslter? he should be under male wrestlers for smackdown. correct me if i'm wrong.

Not really, since there really isn't anyone else that he can wrestle against besides Little Boogeyman, and since the Boogeyman is on ECW now, I don't see Hornswoggle wrestling anytime soon, good point though. Gamer928 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

well now that he is champion =] Hardyboyz27 01:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a good choice but will be interesting to see what they do to his character and the belt. --Mikecraig 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Matt Striker, Elijah Burke, Marcus Cor Von

these three are listed as the new breed. the new breed is no longer as matt striker is now feuding with the boogeyman. burke and cor von have not been a tag team in a while. also, one episode of ecw, tazz addressed burke as FORMER new breed leader. he also addressed striker as FORMER new breed member.

Striker was thrown out of the NB some time ago but as far as i know the NB hasn't officially split.AfTaDaRkCrU 20:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

well then he should be taken out of the new breed stable.

Striker was never thrown out, ever. Gavyn Sykes 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

yes he was, becuase he kept getting beat so elijah and cor von turned on him. AfTaDaRkCrU 16:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're both half-right. Striker was never "kicked out," persay, but he is no longer a part of the group. He just stopped appearing with them. Having not done anything with them since One Night Stand and now forming his own alliance with BIg Daddy V, I think it's safe to say Striker is no longer a part of the New Breed. Hell, it might be safe to say the New Breed no longer exists. They did say "former leader" recently. Maxwell7985 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Rey Mysterio

Rey wrestled on the raw mexican tour, therfor he is not inactive any more

True, he has wrestled. But that does not make him active until he returns to television. Every returning wrestler does some sort of tour or house shows to get ready for their return. P.S.: Please sign your posts, people. Gamer928 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

he is returning at summerslam as confirmed on last friday's smackdown, dont add him to the active roster until he returns to T.V. AfTaDaRkCrU 21:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WWE DIVAS

i think that the divas on each brand should be listed in subsection. they shouldn't be split up in female wrestlers and other on-air talent. on wwe.com they are all listed as divas. not female wrestlers and other. there should be a diva section for each brand, and if there is something notable about them it can be noted next to their name.
example - in the raw diva section it should look like:
DIVAS:
jillian hall
mickie james
maria
melina
candice michelle
beth phoenix
lilian garcia - ring announcer
queen sharmell - valley of king booker

not really, as someone like Sharmell never wrestles so should be listed simply as "other on-screen talent" where as someone like maria actually wrestles, even if its not all that often. AfTaDaRkCrU 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Personally, I'd like to avoid even using the term "Divas" on the page. It may be WWE's term for it, but that doesn't make it politically correct. "Female wrestlers" makes more sense and then the other talent. Gavyn Sykes 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have to be politically correct. If the term that they use makes sense, then we should use it. Cheers, The Hybrid 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

yes but they dont call it the "Diva's" division, its the women's title so female wrestlers is more appropriate. AfTaDaRkCrU 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The user was proposing it so that we could group all of the women together, rather than having the female wrestlers in one section, and the backstage talent in another. For a compromise, perhaps we could simply say Females. That way the issue of the non-wrestlers is addressed while remaining politically correct. Does that work for everyone? The Hybrid 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

in that case then it should just say Males as not all the men wrestle, both spilt or both together ...AfTaDaRkCrU 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for even bringing up the political correctness comment. Not really the place for it. In the spirit of being encyclopedic, the WWE does refer to them as "Divas" and most of the time specifies when the match is contested between two divas by referring to it as a "Divas match/contest." So I suppose my comment is rather null anyway. Gavyn Sykes 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, so does Divas work for everyone? There are way more men than women, so both split or both together doesn't really seem to apply either. The Hybrid 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

i say diva is correct. when candice is introduced, she isn't announced as
candice - female wrestler
and sharmell isn't introducted as sharmell - other on-air-talent
they are introduced as candice - wwe champion diva. and sharmell - wwe diva

no but by the same score J.R isn't called other on-air talent either but it doesnt change the fact thats what he should be listed under.AfTaDaRkCrU 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

your right. then that gives me the idea that the commentators should be grouped together under all three brands looking like this:
WWE COMMENTATORS
Jim Ross - Raw
Jerry Lawler - Raw
Michael Cole - Smackdown
JBL - Smackdown
Tazz - ECW
Joey Styles - ECW

why mess things up they are fine the way they are, besides the brands are listed separately, btw sign your post with 4 "~". AfTaDaRkCrU 19:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ok forget the announcer thing but the diva's should still be listed under their own section Hardyboyz27 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

rob van dam and edge

his contract has expired with the wwe. he should be taken off of the page. also. edge is now inactive. he needs to be moved to the inactive talent section.Hardyboyz27 00:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rob Van Dam is no longer under contract, SO STOP ADDING HIM TO THE PAGE. AfTaDaRkCrU 18:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hart Foundation 2.0

has it been confirmed that they have formed in FCW? if not can people please stopp adding it to the section. AfTaDaRkCrU 06:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Daddy V and Matt Striker

They are listed under tag team or stable. That means they are one of the other. They are not a tag team since they have not been in a tagteam match, and there is no more tag team division on ECW. The only thing left in that category is stable. A stable has two or more members. There are only two in Big Daddy V and Matt Striker. That means they are not a stable. They should be taken out of that group. Next to Big Daddy V it should say: Also bodyguard of Matt Striker. Hardyboyz27 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

you contradicted yourself there, 2 or more, there are 2 therefore they are a stable. AfTaDaRkCrU 21:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

according to the raw royal kingdom discusion topic, a stable has more than two. 68.195.109.116 22:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

yes but we are not talking about a wrestler and a valet, we are talking about 2 wrestlers... AfTaDaRkCrU 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Big Daddy V and Matt Striker arent a stable, arent tag team and arent a wrestler/valet relation. They are two different wrestlers who are allied. No need for mention on this article until matt striker starts managing big daddy v. If you put them under tags, you may put other alliances like Booker,Kennedy; MVP,Edge; Batista,Flair; CM Punk,Tommy Dreamer; MCV,Elijah Burke; Regal,Carlito; Sandman,Hacksaw; Candice,Mickie; Beth Phoenix,Melina,Jillian, etc. Lex94 23:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Josh Matthews, Maz Bretos , Kristal Marshal and Maria

Josh Matthews is also host of Afterburn and the Experience , and the back up play by play commentator of HEAT.

Max Bretos is the secondary interviewer of Smackdown.

Kristal is the main interviewer of Smackdown

Todd Grisham is also the main interviewer and back up commentator of Raw.

Maria is the secondary interviewer of Raw.

and your point is? AfTaDaRkCrU 17:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

if your trying to suggest that what you wrote should be added next to their name. its not necessary. it doesnt need to become complicated. Hardyboyz27 19:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

it should be pointed out about there other roles

please sign your posts with 4 "~"'s it helps us decypher who's saying what, as for their other roles they should be mentioned on the individual pages or each brand's page it's not needed on this page. AfTaDaRkCrU 17:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cryme Time

Why are Shad and JTG on the OVW roster?--Tommyf10170 02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

because they are the Southern Tag Team Champions thus NEED to be on that roster as well as RAW. AfTaDaRkCrU 08:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But they have not been active on Raw for weeks. Once they show back up on Raw, we can add them to Raw. Doppy88 18:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

they wrestle on house shows, on heat and are still on the WWE roster page there is no need to remove them... AfTaDaRkCrU 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, it's been a month or so since they've been on either heat or house shows. Doppy88 00:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

champions

i think that the champions from each brand should get their own sub section under their brands section. like for raw, john cena, umaga, trevor murdoch, lance cade, and candice michelle should be pulled out of their current groups and put into a subsection called raw champions. or just champions. i think its a good idea so that if people are looking at the roster pages, it says right there who the champions are. Hardyboyz27 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

they already have that on each brand's page, this is not a WWE site so its not relevant to the article, its been discussed before and this was the consensus. AfTaDaRkCrU 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be discussed again.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

no it doesn't, this page is a list of who is employed by WWE, the current champions are not relevant and their mention on each brands page will suffice. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Put it to a consenssus vote...it might surprize you.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to its been the policy on here and the TNA roster page, why list champions on the TWICE if you really need to mention then put a wiki link to the sections on the brand pages saying "current RAW champions" or something at the top of each section on here then, it doesn't need to be listed next to the wrestlers themselves though. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 21:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you put the link in instead of discussing it?--Monnitewars ^(talk) 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

because i dont think it needs mentioning at all, but you seem insistant that it does.Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you suggest it?--Monnitewars ^(talk) 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Because YOU were insisting that the champions need to be mentioned, they dont but if they must a small wiki link would be acceptable. Skitzo 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be perfect.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy

what is the source for the info regarding his 30 day suspension? AfTaDaRkCrU 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

it is in this column of jr's blog. http://www.jrsbarbq.com/blog/2007/08/03/bar-b-q-is-life-zz-top-at-jr%e2%80%99s-sooner-footballers-gobble-up-jr%e2%80%99s-beef-jerky-why-can%e2%80%99t-jr-tell-jillian-and-beth-apart-raw-ratings-not-as-bad-as-some-ranted-the-simpsons-movie-pa/

Chad Patton Is Gone

The section for Chad Patton is up for deletion so the link to it should be deleted.24.0.47.244 12:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC) TonyWWE

William Regal Now RAW GM

As of last night William Regal was named New GM of RAW, so I think he should be removed from the active talent list.24.0.47.244 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC) TonyWWE

well he wrestled last night we should wait to see weather he continues to or not 1st. AfTaDaRkCrU 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Undertaker return date

On the page, it says Undertaker will be out until Jan. 2008, but the huge rumor is, according to the Unforgiven poster as well as PPV advertisements suggest he is returning in September 2007. Is there a source that states he will return in 2008, because if not I think we should put rumored to return at Unforgiven or something. Virakhvar321 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

commercials in memphis are promoting the return of the undertaker as the main storyline for unforgiven. if this wasn't true. all promotions would have been taken down by now 76.160.118.126 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

all wrestling cards are run with the tag "subject to change", until the promo's air on T.V. it shouldn't be mentioned. AfTaDaRkCrU 23:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats True, but the poster was released after The Undertaker got injured!

maybe so but we should wait until T.V promo's start airing. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 10:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the promo from today's SmackDown answers the question. Clearly, Unforgive is the return date, and apparently Mark Henry is the opponent. Furioku 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Doean't mean he's coming back AT Unforgiven, just possibly at Unforgiven. He still might return before that.

If thats when the show says he's coming back then 9 times out of ten he's coming back Kingofthe360 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron Simmons & others who appear on multiple brands

We need another section for people who are not brand specific like Simmons and McMahon (even though his profile is on the RAW Superstars page) who appear on multiple brands. Simmons will be the Best Man at the 'wedding' on smackDown! FYI... SAH-DennyCrane 11:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ric Flair and Batista

Ric and Batista have bin tagging latly,shouldnt they be on tag team

Tagging twice doesn't qualify as I team. Generally they have to have been tagging consistently each week, come out to the same music or hold a tag title to be considered an actual tag team. Gavyn Sykes 00:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vance Desmond

I happen to know a guy named Vance Desmond who books the shows for a promotion in southern Ohio and he works matches in OVW.I added him to the roster but he got removed.Why?

Because you provided no source Gavyn Sykes 03:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Armando Estrada

He is now ecw GM, not other on air talent on raw, someone needs 2 change this

Triple H

HHH isnt back yet,hes still inactive.

Well now hes back

Jesse and Festust Name

Hey, ever since the promos started airing again for Jesse and Festus the last name Dalton was not mentioned at all. When Jesse introduces Festus he says "My Partner" not "brother" or "cousin" or anything like that. Another thing that proves they arent related other than actually watching and paying attention is that on last nights episode of Smackdown, Jesse said he isn't Mr. Mchmahon's son but Festus could be. This downplays that Jesse and Festus are family.

So, can someone go ahead and change Jesse and Festus Dalton's name to simply Jesse and Festus?

Stone Cold

I would just put this up, but I don't want this to be deleted, so I can make my point here.

Now, on the WWE Superstars page, Stone Cold still appears on the roster for RAW, with his own superstar page. He makes appearances on special occasions, such as Wrestlemania 23, or more recently, Saturday Night's Main Event. I think Stone Cold should be added to the RAW superstar list, not to the male wrestling talent, but maybe to the "Other On-air talent" section. Perhaps with "Appears sporadically and at special events".

Any arguments?

TheGuitarHero 00:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

no because other wise you need to do the same for the rock and hogan (who is on bad terms with ince and is unlikely to appear again at this point) also stone cold is on the page in the other roles section along with mick foley. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 10:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, no, The Rock and Hogan would have no business being on the list, since they are no longer affiliated with the WWE, but he is on the other on-air talent section, so I guess Austin doesn't belong where I suggested.

TheGuitarHero —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:40, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

The Rock has made a few appearences this year and shares Duel ownership of the name with them, while hogan remains on the raw roster NONE of them are under contract, neither is foley yet 3 of them have maintained a working relationship yet by your WWE roster page claim they should all be listed in the RAW section on here. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Extreme Expose - Number 2.

Somebody put a section for female wrestlers in ECW. The only females are Kelly Kelly, Layla, and Brooke. They never wrestle on ECW, but they will at SummerSlam. For now, I wrote - Will be wrestling at Summerslam in the diva's battle royal. If they start to wrestle on a regular basis, then we can put them in their own section, "Female Wrestlers." Hardyboyz27 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly!, the have to wrestle on regular basis for them to be considered "Female Wrestlers".

Same goes to Cherry. Art 281 17:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspended Superstars

I think on the inactive list it should include the 10+ wrestler who have been suspended for violating the wellness policy.Go to [[1]] and get the list there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.177.37 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Better source is located here, as this is an offical news source. — Moe ε 10:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

in that article all it says that those are the peolple who have used streiods and other stuff not those that are suspended. so i feel until wwe releases the names we do not note it S-pac54 12:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

i have undone all the inactive statements until confirmed by WWE, or the people not appearing on TV next week. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 12:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr kennedy even said he stopped taking steriods and you got stars like chavo whom his uncle died because of steriod use , batista a former world champ , edge the former champ and i personaly think funaki and gregory helms should be realesed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.177.37 (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

ok we are not discussing which superstars took steriods or who you feel should be released. we are discussing the superstars that got suspended S-pac54 16:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been said that they will all be suspended for 30 days for the those with first offences and 60 days for those who have comitted a second offence all without pay and will be dropped from tv with major storylines or stars like funaki and chavo will just be dropped with imidiate effect ,there rumors that john morrison will continue on tv without pay for 30-60 or will drop his title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.177.37 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Asserting that it's been said proves nothing. Provide a reliable source; if it really has been said, then that should be an easy matter. Anyway, it is not confirmed that the names outed in the investigation are the people who have been suspended. No original research, The Hybrid 21:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone protect the page. So much vandalism --KingOfDX 05:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My previous comment is obsolete since Moe provided a site. Anyway, if you want to request protection, then you can do so at WP:RFP. Cheers, The Hybrid 05:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Sports Illustrated article means nothing in terms of officialness. The article specifically states, and I quote, "While the WWE declined to release the names of the suspended athletes, SI has learned that a dozen professional wrestlers have received steroids and/or human growth hormone through the drug network. The WWE would not confirm which, if any, of the following wrestlers are among those suspended." Sports Illustrated did not suspend the wrestlers, the WWE did/will. We should not say anyone is suspended until WWE releases a statement. Virakhvar321 07:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

will everyone just stop adding people to the inactive list. we do not know for sure who is currently suspended by the wwe. there are rumors that all of these guys are suspended, yet most of them appeared on their shows this week. yes, maybe they are trying to play off their storylines, but until they do, their suspension hasn't started. i think that we should leave everyone where they are, and not put anyone in the inactive list until it is confirmed. Hardyboyz27 15:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we will NEVER get confirmation about who the 11 superstars are. So the only way to do this is to speculate as we have been doing. If you want to discuss who has been suspended here first before the changes are made, then go ahead. Basically, only 1 of these 12 are NOT suspended: Umaga, Mr. Kennedy, King Booker, Charlie Haas, Santino Marella, William Regal, John Morrison, Chris Masters, Chavo Guerrero, Funaki, Edge, Gregory Helms. Once you all decide who is that 1 based on storylines and house shows, then we should list the rest as suspended. My choice is Santino because he seems to start a program with the Sandman on Raw. The rest were all written out in some way or just did not appear. Doppy88 18:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

just so you know not everybody on the show appears every week and we cant guess either, even if it is never confirmed who has been released MATT 19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Finding an official source from WWE of the suspensions is impossible. And Wikipedia operates on verifiable facts. Gavyn Sykes 22:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless WWE says they are inactive we should not make them inactive. dirtsites are not a rliable source at all. User:Cowboycaleb1Cowboycaleb1Cowboycaleb 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's called watching the programming and reading the house show results. If they are absent from both over the span of two weeks then they are obviously inactive are they not? Doppy88 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Theres a difference between marking someone inactive and suspended. Not being active is enough evidence to mark them as inactive without non-kayfabe reason. — Moe ε 05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

you guys just don't get it. you want to put all of your trust in the dirt sites. those sites are not credible sources when it come to this topic. now if a wwe superstar comes out and says that he or she was suspended then that is a different story. until then we should go by what wwe says. User:Cowboycaleb1Cowboycaleb 02:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't get it. Saying someone is inactive doesn't mean someone is suspended. Saying they are inactive means just that, they are inactive, as in not wrestling. Give proof that these wrestlers are active at house shows or any WWE Live event, because reports from the live events say they aren't. — Moe ε 02:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

in that case you might as well call most of the roster inactive because most of them do not wrestle at house shows.wwe supertars will not be made inactive unless wwe or the wrestler say they are inactive. User:Cowboycaleb1Cowboycaleb 05:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Most of them do wrestle at house shows or live events like Raw or SmackDown!. WWE doesn't state if someone is "inactive" or not, so theres no guarentee that will ever happen. Making arbitrary rules doesn't trump long established practice at this article, which has been fine before you long existed on Wikipedia. — Moe ε 07:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

it seems like some of you want to be wrong. so i'll let you be wrong.user:Cowboycaleb118:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Active Talent

Not that its that important, but I keep adding "Active" to the Male Wrestlers and Female Wrestlers sections, because just writing "Male" or "Female" is too general (it doenst exclude inactive talent). So I believe Active should go before each. Lex94 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I Agree.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Suspensions

With the recent rash of WWE suspensions, I'd like to point out that WWE has only asserted any sense of verifiability starting in November. That means that by that time, we can add a suspended list. After all, right now, for all we know, these "outgoing due to suspension explanation" storylines may have been what was originally intended. Although I find whatever counterargument to this as plausible, the fact is that this doesn't cut the mustard at Wikipedia. If one of the suspended came out and openly say that they are suspended, then we can add it right now, but who will fess up to this? Besides, we do not know whether the suspension terms start following the announcement date, the date of the next live event, the date of the next TV taping, or the end of the next TV airing, or whether existing suspensions (seeing that one is rumoured to be 60 days, which would mean their term would end at least at the start of November) will be made public at that date. Furthermore, WWE has not stated that, when announcing who has been suspended, whether other information (such as length of term or existence of previous suspensions for whatever reason) will be divulged. For all we know, it could be a form statement whenever a superstar has been suspended (like those that they have whenever someone is released).

Back on topic: WP:V is very hard to get in the world of PW. November 1 may be the day that all of us will be waiting for - just so we can inject some of it. Then again, we will not have nearly enough - that's the nature of the business. The day that the Entertainment releases boxed sets with DVD extras such as writer interviews and candid non-kayfabe interviews from persons involved in storylines is probably the day when we can get a good article out of any professional wrestler (I'll use Hardys-E&C match from No Mercy 1999 as an example, as such a "backstage expose" had aired on Heat for some weeks, IIRC).

I'm just going to op-ed for the next bit, but hear me out: it seems that running a wrestling promotion today is prohibitively expensive, and it might be something that not even WWE can afford. Think about it: ideally you'd like WWE to adhere to strict WADA guidelines, right? Where everyone is checked after every show (live event, TV, and PPV) and where the first suspension (ie. the two-year ban) is likely to end your career due to a complete and total burial in storylines (if the humiliation of being caught isn't bad enough), to account for a release (which would face you into obscurity), which leads to industry blacklisting (if you could find a way to return) and severe ring rust (if you did find a way to return)? Putting the "sports" in "sports entertainment" is getting costly...

Finally, anyone think that the greatest beneficiary of this whole situation (with the drug-related suspensions, not the recent industry downturn and scrutiny) is CM Punk? It seems that he's one of the guys who will be in WWE for the rest of their career (ie. time filler/utility player roles like Benoit and Guerrero in their times, or the Hardys today), not to mention that the guys "higher up on the card" have been dropping like flies means that in both short-and-long-terms he's going to get top billing (we'd like to think that it would be inevitable that he'd win some major accomplishment that will cause Styles or preferably JR to completely mark out, like a big Mania win or MitB/Rumble/KotR/etc). After all, for however "shoddily defined" the WP has been, it fits well with his lifestyle, and he benefits from anyone on the ECW roster (possibly SD, but Raw is a distinct possibility around Mania time) who does not do likewise.

kelvSYC 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You read it wrong, suspensions given AFTER November 1st will be made public. This recent round of suspensions will never be made public, so we must use our best judgement. Doppy88 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Or we could not use our judgement at all so we don't violate WP:NOR. The Hybrid 23:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should not change the page until wwe announces somethingCowboycaleb 03:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowboycaleb1 (talk • contribs)

We shouldn't be announcing a suspension for anyone, except maybe on their main articles when we get confirmation. There is a slight possiblity that announcments will be made on or after November 1, but by then the suspensions will be over for the majority of them. — Moe ε 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Like someone said before, any suspension made after Nov 01, 2007, will be publicly announced by WWE. Until their is confirmation that they were actually suspended, we should not be speculating. --Zii_XFS 21:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What kind of "confirmation" are you people looking for? Have you not yet realized that the WWE will NOT be releasing the names of the 11 superstars suspended? And that the Nov. 1st date has NOTHING to do with these 11 suspensions? Doppy88 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We understand that. That is exactly why we cannot list names in the article. WP:NOR says that we cannot speculate, or, "use our best judgment", as you put it. Without official confirmation, which we've pointed out, and you've just pointed out will never be given, we are absolutely forbidden from saying that certain superstars are suspended for violating the wellness policy due to the risk of us being wrong. Saying it without an official source and being incorrect is libel, meaning it could get Wikipedia sued. We cannot use our best judgment because doing so a legal risk, so we will just have to ignore that fact that some of the wrestlers currently inactive are suspended. Is it fair that we have to? No, it isn't. Could we be accurate in our guesses? Yes, we probably could. Does this mean anything to a judge in a court of law? No, it means absolutely nothing. Now do you understand? The Hybrid 01:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore on the suspensions

I think it can be confirmed that Mr. Kennedy, Umaga, William Regal, Charlie Haas, and King Booker are all suspended. I think we should leave the on the active list, but write next to their name (possibly suspended). We should write that because considering WWE has not announced it, those superstars were not present at all during the South Africa. Also, some of their characters have been played off. King Booker didn't even appear on RAW this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.218.83 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Still, unless WWE announces it, we can't post on it. After November 1st, we will never have to have this discussion again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zii XFS (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

no we wont, the November 1st thing Effects all FUTURE suspensions not previous ones. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

There seems to be a lot of arguing over what sources are deemed "reliable", especially by user Moe Epsilon. Fact of the matter is this, sources like Wrestling Observer, PW Insider, Rajah, and 411Mania have proven in the past to be reliable and typically do not provide much false information. On the occasion that information is provided that is proven false later on, it is usually retracted in a timely manner. These have been the ONLY sources for signings of new superstars and developmental talent, so we can't honestly say that WWE.com is our only source, or even a reliable source as oftentimes they are in kayfabe. If a character was "fired" on television, WWE.com would report that as fact, despite it being strictly part of the storylines. These wrestling fansites are truthfully the BEST source for information and have proven to be useful for YEARS. So why the arguments over stuff like that? Dahumorist 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Because nothing is confirmed. Proven reliable in the past doesn't mean it's reliable now, it violates WP:BLP given the names have not been outed except for leaks which are unconfirmed. Readd them again and I'll see that the page is fully protected from no editing except for administrators. — Moe ε 05:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

But fact of the matter is WWE.com is NOT a reliable source. It doesn't report all injuries, suspensions, hires, or even releases. The only thing we have to go on are these other sites. Perhaps these people should have waited until this week to see who has been "myseriously" written out of storylines to truly "confirm" their absence from television. But chill out, man. Nothing is ruined here. Nobody is getting hurt. Don't take these things so personally. Dahumorist 05:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling rumor sites are not more reliable than WWE.com, although they are just as reliable as WWE.com. In regards to the suspensions, this is being picked up in serious news media as well as those sites, and secondary reports will always be more reliable than rumor sites like Observer and 411mania. Secondary reports state no names are confirmed, and unless you can provide one, the information won't be added. End of discussion. Violating WP:BLP is a very serious issue that deals with slander and libel, and saying someone was prescribed steroids and suspended from WWE is more serious than you're making it out to be. — Moe ε 03:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold on there, slugger. I never said anything about saying that these people should be listed as inactive for the reason of wellness policy. I was just saying that we should not be disregarding the wrestling fansites on a regular basis, as (as i've already mentioned) they provide much needed information in the ways of new hires, etc. Once again, I gotta say, chill out, bro. Loosen your tie. Geez... Dahumorist 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandman

{{editprotected}} A note to any admins or whoever can still edit the page, The Sandman was released today, http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/sandmanreleased , so when anyone gets a chance, please remove him. Thank you. --Zii_XFS 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Sandman should be removed from this list. — Moe ε 00:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The article's not protected. --MZMcBride 10:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I Quit

you cant Keyfabe lose,he did lose (Chavo) He Keyfabe quit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardcore Holly on Raw?

He wrestled a match on Heat this week. Does that mean he's on Raw now? --61.68.57.102 12:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

no its just that smackdown has no sister program with ECW having the Velocity slot.Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 12:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

CM Punk's name.

I know it's just a minor detail, but are we referring to his name as 'CM' being his first name, and 'Punk' the last? Because I think that CM Punk as a whole is more of a stage/ring name and should be alphabetized as such, between Burke and Dreamer.. anyone else agree? Miztahrogers 10:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Gavyn Sykes 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony Chimel and Justin Roberts

The last few weeks Tony Chimel has been ring announcing on ECW and Justin Roberts on Smackdown. Should the change be noted on here? Don.-.J 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Next to Theadore Long's name under inactive talent, could you put kayfabe there. For a moment I thought he had genuinly had a heart attack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.117.139 (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave Taylor

When was the last time he appeared on television? I can only remember in July, but I'm not too sure. should he be moved to the Inactive list? 76.21.249.103 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter on television time. He is still wrestling on house shows so he should still be considered an active member of the Smackdown roster.Soopafred 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Champions

I Think we need to acknowledge the champions in the roster, e.g, beside John Cenas name, write in italics "Current WWE Champion", whoever agrees with me, plz reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.9.8 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

We've acknowledged that in two previous posts. the champions are on their brand's page, there is no need to them to be on the roster page. 24.191.218.83 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Krissy Vaine

can someone add Krissy Vaine to the smackdown roster she debuts this friday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.233.105 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

When it airs, it'll get added. It could be any other blonde anyway. Miztahrogers 08:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL violations

I'm tired of coming to this article and finding violations of WP:CRYSTAL here. If anyone adds spoilers, and I'm there to revert it, I'm handing out {{test}} templates, because it's ridiculous. If you see "returning on", "returning in", "debuting on", or any kind of violation of the sort, revert it please. — Moe ε 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

John Morrison and Chris Masters

I was at a Smackdown/ECW house show last night in Hammond Indiana and both Chris Masters and John Morrison were in action. Should they be moved back to the active roster, or do they have to appear on television first? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.85.4 (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to verify this, please? — Moe ε 14:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

they need to appear on T.V before they become active again.Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link, http://www.wrestleview.com/news2006/1191267817.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.85.4 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

HBK

HBK is back he was on raw this week and kicked ortans head off put him on the active list also if HBK is back doesnt that mean that DX is back together —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.129.190 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

don't add DX back to the stables list until they re-unite on tv. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 09:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they never officially disbanded. We should probably add them back, but with some kind of disclaimer. The Hybrid T/C 10:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, they seem disbanded to me, I would say wait until they officially re-unite on TV (per the sake of WP:V). Their run was supposed to end soon after Trips got injured anyway I think. Bmg916^Speak 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BMG. Two injuries (or even) one would signify a disband, in my opinion. We have no idea if they'll reunite again or not (hopefully not). Gavyn Sykes 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as he hasn't actually wrestled yet should he be added to the other on screen talent as Bryan Alvarez said on his radio show he isn't yet cleared to wrestle. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 17:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I Think we should on raw this week HBK was doing the DX chops that would say to me that DX are alive and kicking

he didn't do any chops, waasn't wearing any DX logo's DX is dead for now. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

he did so after he kicked ortan he started to do them them

well during Triple H's second match with Ortan at No Mercy, right before he fell down for the 10 count, he leaned back on the ropes and did the DX crotch chop. 24.191.218.83 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Any and all requests to place DX on the stables will be removed. They are not officially back together. Unless it is televised or they make an appearance at a house show together as DX, it's not going to be added. — Moe ε 04:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue, but my response is the breakup was never official. The most convincing argument to not put them on the page is that HBK is not yet cleared to wrestle, so they can't be an active stable, even if they are still considered together. Due to that I won't argue, but Moe, I'm afraid that I completely disagree with your argument. The Hybrid T/C 06:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can classify as any break-up of any stable offical unless you see them compete against eachother. Do teams that don't appear together on-screen for a month considered a non-offical break-up? The term unofficial is really ambiguous. Not on-screen together is really the only way to measure that. — Moe ε 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He is going to wrestle hes in the list for for the wwe champ match

They never officially broke up because 1st Triple H and they HBK were injured including an exteded overlapping period, on monda they were not seen together at all, as for HHH doing the crotch chops, he ALWAYS does them as a face, ever since the 1st incarnation of DX.Skitzo 09:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)