Talk:List of WWE personnel/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Layla

Layla should be listed as Layla London as she is advertised for several house shows with the London surname, and will most likely be billed under Layla London tonight on Raw. JayLethal2008 16:01, 3 November 2008

Bring a source.—WillC 04:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a reliable source. Try either WWE.com, WrestleView.com, or PWTorch.com iMatthew 11:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How Do I Edit This Page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 09:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't, it's protected from editing currently. iMatthew 11:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Page

How do i edit this page????????!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.130.187 (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• You can't, it's currently protected from editing. iMatthew 11:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How long until...........

How long until we can edit this page, it's a damn shame that because of IP's and the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees owner's. SteelersFan94 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Steelerfan, remain WP:CIVIL and don't secretly attack them. Yes, we can see the "Vjmlhds and other who never learn." Anyways, it's a week until it is unprotected, which is why the above discussion is taking place about the tables.--S_RX 21:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Tables has nothing to do with why this page was protected. Dahumorist (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Primo needs a name change

WWE.com has removed Colon from his bio name, and just goes as "Primo". Can someone edit it, and be sure to place him properly in the P section. Shame that this page is protected, or I would have made the edit.

Mike Knox

Mike Knox should be in alphabetical order and if i recall correctly H goes before K. JayLethal2008 12:43, 4 November 2008

Heath Miller

His ring name is listed as Sebastian Slater on fcwwrestling.com and has been introduced as Sebastian Slater for matches, his name needs to be changed. JayLethal2008 12:44, 4 November 2008

Dos Caras, Jr.

It should not state that Dos Caras, Jr. is debuting at the 2009 Royal Rumble as that is not confirmed. JayLethal2008 08:33, 4 November 2008

Super Crazy

Why is he not on this list I heard he was released.--74.79.38.72 (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)JKT

Didn't you just answer your own question?  Hazardous Matt  22:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Super Crazy is still listed. A-Dust (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to have an admin make the change about Super Crazy and Mike Adamle, but he is refusing to, insisting we wait until the protection is over to do it ourselves. iMatthew 00:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ted DiBiase jr

He got kicked in the head so he should be in the inactive--74.79.38.72 (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)JKT

Shouldn't we actually wait to see if he's inactive before we list him?  Hazardous Matt  13:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's Get on the Same page PART II

This page was protected for the following reasons:

• Layla El being changed to Layla London

• What brand Mike Knox is on

• Honky Tonky Man, Goldust, and Piper's status

• Evan Bourne's status.

Now, let's re-address these one at a time:

• When/if Layla's name is changed either on TV or WWE.com, we shall change it here. Until then, it should remain as Layla.

• When/if Mike Knox is moved to Raw officially (either by WWE.com or by a definate statement on Raw), we shall move him. Until then, he should remain under the ECW roster. Keep in mind, Raw and ECW are sharing talent currently.

• It appears obvious, at least to me, that Honky Tonk Man was a 1 or 2 time thing. He should probably be removed completely. Piper, however, makes occasional appearances and should be other Under Personnel. Rumors about Goldust's signing are all over the place. He should remain under RAW's Other On-Air Talent section listed as "Making occasional appearances" until something is confirmed by a legit source.

• It can definately be agreed that Bourne should be moved to the injured list.

If nobody disagrees with this, then it's time to unprotect the page. THESE are the reasons the page was protected. It has NOTHING to do with the table format. That is another conversation altogether, and from what I can tell most people agree on it. Let's get this page unprotected so we can at the very least keep the page up to date. Dahumorist (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I think we should unprotect it, and see where things go. in a matter of 5 days, the page has become out of date. super crazy has been released and primo colon is now only "primo" on wwe.com

• Abso-tively.

1. Layla is Layla, period, until otherwise stated.

1. As long as Knox is on the ECW roster on WWE.com, that's where he stays until otherwise stated.

1. Honky and Piper were one and done. Goldust however has appeared on Raw 3 weeks in a row (plus the PPV appearance) so there may be something to him being signed to a deal.

1. Bourne's hurt, and his injury/time missed status will be noted in the table.

1. Primo is Primo, period.

The article will be unprotected on 11-8-08 (which is in 36 hours) as that makes one week from when it was protected.

It'll be back and in table form, as we have consensus there, so just be patient lil' buckaroo, and everything will be up to snuff.

Vjmlhds November 6, 2008 19:10 (UTC)

Yes, nobody's name should change unless WWE.com states it. And Honky should be off Gold Dust should be off, Piper should be at the bottom with Stone Cold, also, if someone appears once, they should not be on this page. SteelersFan94 19:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Until the surname "London" appears on Layla's WWE.com profile, no dice.

1. Knox is moving to Raw in a short while, but until he's moved from the ECW roster to the Raw roster it's gotta stay the way it is.

1. HTM was only in WWE for the CS and following Raw appearances. Roddy Piper still makes random appearances now and then. Goldust has signed a contract with WWE. It is unknown whether it is a Legends contract or a regular worker's contract. So Goldust should be the only one listed in the roster.

1. Bourne's injured for at least four months according to WWE.com.

That aside, people have really got to stop thinking inside the box around here. --Kaizer13 (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, how do you know Gold Dust has a new contract? Source please. SteelersFan94 20:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus christ, this isn't an article. What, I've gotta source even statements on a talk page now? And you wonder why the Internet communities hate the Wikipedia project, no disrespect intended? Either way, it's not been confirmed by a reliable source as you call them, so I guess it's all speculation really. Feel free to remove my edit or whatever. --Kaizer13 (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Our new page

I've been working on the new look for the page in my sandbox. When the page is finished in my sandbox, I'll let you know. It's still being transformed and changed around. iMatthew 20:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer the smaller box format seen in the original suggestion/straw poll thing. This looks too messy and it's hard to concentrate on reading. --Kaizer13 (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What smaller box format? iMatthew 20:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest decreasing the width of the table and the columns, then remove the ref column since it's mostly needed for notes and just place the ref on the note.--S_RX 20:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is not exempt from being sourced. The ref column needs to stay and link to the wrestler's WWE and FCW profiles. iMatthew 20:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me sir, do you see anything in my sentence that said "remove the ref itself?" Um no right? I said remove the column and place the ref on the note or in the notes section, that's what the note column is for.--S_RX 21:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that I've also created a slightly different table format for the page. A-Dust (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see with that is the heavy reliance on WWE.com and the fact that there is no referencing to the injuries. Plus, what's the point of having the link to the profile page, what does that accomplish? The main Raw page can be used as a general ref to source the superstars, if you need the profiles, just make a column just for that, there is no problem having the external links to the profile page as a separate column, but if not, just remove them, they do nothing good for the list because the main Raw page can do the same thing used as a general reference.--S_RX 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of two people working on the same article. As I don't own the article, I can't ask you to stop, but it's pointless for us both to be working on it. What should we do? Also, SRX - I didn't get your comment, sorry! I can tell you take offense easily "Excuse me sir" and "Um no right" tell me so, so sorry if I offended you. iMatthew 21:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend my comment like that, I'm just saying that I never said you should remove the ref itself.--S_RX 21:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that there are references to injuries/inactivities were available, located in the Notes section. Also, I think two different possible tables are a good idea, giving more choice. For example, your table lists everybody associated with the show in one table, whereas mine lists them according to role (male wrestlers, female wrestlers and non-wrestlers), which was requested from a user on this page. A-Dust (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You all are seeming forgetting that you're also going to have to source the real name. It says they have an alias so you're going to have to give proof that it is an alias besides just throwing their name that was in the article and saying that is true when half the time ips place in a different name under their sourced name in the article. Like Christian Cage and Booker T. One minute William Reso then Jason Reso, when William is correct. On Booker T you have Robert tio "Booker" Huffman one minute then you have Booker Huffman, when Robert is right. Also I feel a reference section has no use, just do what I have done with the TNA roster page (see here).--WillC 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer A-Dust's format over iMatthew's. Dahumorist (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. iMatthew 21:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll elaborate. A-Dust's format is better because it groups the Male Wrestlers, Female Wrestlers, etc separately per brand. What this does is make the table look less cluttered because their "role" is already established under the appropriate heading. Dahumorist (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

True, but it creates more tables. iMatthew 22:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

But the whole argument for tables has been beautification of the page and legibility. Putting everyone in one brand in one table needlessly clutters the page with the words "male wrestler" or "female wrestler" hundreds of times, whereas it can be pre-established prior to the table. I know you're heading the table format mafia here, but compromises have to be made as well. Dahumorist (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For Raw, SD, and ECW, A-Dust has the better format, everything after that, IMatthew's version works just fine. Vjmlhds November 6, 2008 23:52 (UTC)

I've split the tables into separate sections. I've also combined referees with other on-air talent, because that is what they are. iMatthew 23:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that looks a lot better, as it is less cluttered without the role information being displayed. One thing I've noticed is that you have no section for tag teams, so could that not be added to the notes section (as in my sandbox) or added to the end of the article? Also, would adding notes about who the champions are and other storyline notes (such as Finlay being the father of Hornswoggle) be added to the notes section? A-Dust (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to add that, thanks for reminding me (about the tag teams). The other information such as championships and storylines should not be included, as it would clutter up the page, be non-notable to this specific page, and already covered on the individual bio(s). iMatthew 00:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

iMatthew, I like the new setup. I have one more suggestion. If anyone disagrees, feel free to let it known. I was just wondering if anyone objects to possibly making the ring name the link, with the real name as plain text? A general rule I've found on wikipidia is that the name a person is most known as tends to be the article name (i.e. Jay-Z, rather than his real name), with wrestlers that seems to not be the case and I'm not sure why. But I think linking the ringnames would be more aesthetically pleasing anyway. Thoughts? Comments? Dahumorist (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added images on the right column, as seen in Featured lists (ex. List of American Idol finalists, List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania, Cy Young Award). The majority of the images are champions of the brand. iMatthew 01:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely outstanding work, IMatthew. 9.9999/10 I'd give you a perfect 10, but then I'd have to turn in my "cranky,, internet smarky know it all that owns the article" card :) Vjmlhds November 7, 2008 5:48 (UTC)

I think we should stay with the current format. Its easy access and very printer friendly. I keep up to date roster printouts for personal reference, and the current format is good.

User:NickSparrow November 7, 2008 1:48 (UTC)

In iMatthew's format, couple of issues. One, decrease the widths of the ring name and real name columns and decrease some of the width of the table itself (applies to all of them, they take up too much room and have too much white space. Two, why are only champion pictures up, when you don't even mention that champions in the table? Three, Lead needs to be expanded.--S_RX 11:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the FLC, so the lead is not an immediate issue. I'll fix the tables though. iMatthew 19:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, the widths should stay - because if we make the table smaller, there will be a large white space between the tables and the images. Also, where does it say I can't list the champions? iMatthew 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Couple small updates to FCW you may as well make now. Tyrone Jones IS going by Tyson Tarver. Heath Miller IS going by Sebastian Slater. And Lupe Martinez is going by Lupe Santiago. Jon Cutler debuted in FCW, so he can be moved there. And Vic Adams is inactive. Dahumorist (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, if you carry on like that you'll end up being blocked. Thankyou! Kalajan (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? Because I wasn't treating it as a forum. I was discussing the content of the page. Dahumorist (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a seperate Real Name column for the Other Personnel section? The current way (with the real name in brackets) doesn't look very good. Thanks, Genius101 ^Guestbook 20:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the majority of the people use their real names, so the amount of those people top those with a ring name, if you know what I'm saying. iMatthew 21:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Matt: The white space in between the images doesn't matter, see 2008 WWE Draft and List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania, try instead to make the images larger or just leave it some space in between.--S_RX 21:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mike Adamle

On Raw Mike Adamle resigned as General Manager of Raw.

Yup. iMatthew 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, honestly, it's not a storyline. Adamle IS GONE! Go to ewrestlingnews.com or any other reliable site. Rfcucl1972 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know. Also ewrestlernews.com is not reliable. iMatthew 21:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Super Crazy

Super Crazy was released according to WWE.com and his page says so too, so can somebody remove him from the Smackdown roster. Adam Penale (talk)

Yes, we know. There is already a section on it above. iMatthew 22:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Goldust

What's the story with Goldust?

Are we gonna add him to Raw, or see what happens?

Vjmlhds November 7, 2008 23:46 (UTC)

Can we agree, that if he appears on Raw next week, we'll add him to "Other on air talent"? iMatthew 23:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen Matt, amen. SteelersFan94 19:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remove Goldust from RAW's main roster and be placed in "other personal". wwe.com has made no mention of him signing a deal, or the news sites has only stated talks were going on between both sides. (wiki user "nicksparrow")

Consensus needs to be formed

Tag team names

Users are changing the name of the tag teams from "None" to "Priceless" (for Cody/Ted/Manu) and "None to "The Colons" (Carlito/Primo). Can we agree that neither tag team name is accurate and should be removed on the spot? iMatthew 00:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Priceless is not an a offical tag name for Rhodes,DiBiase&Manu,until they are offical called that comming to the ring,they are not offically Priceless,same goes for Carlito and Primo Colon

When they go into the ring their video says "Priceless" - Dmanskater11 8:08 Nov 7 08

Then are not OFFICALLY called that.Like Carlito and Primo,they are not called The Colons to the ring as they have since removed that for several weeks now.So right now,I'd say don't add it just yet,wait until they are called that to the ring.

I decided to do a little research on the status of the name "Priceless", and in reading through the last month of Raw results on WWE.com, they are never referred to that as their official name, they always say "Ted DiBiase, Cody Rhodes and Manu", so it appears Priceless is not an official name. --James Duggan 02:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do we add championships?

Titles are also being added next to champion's names. Should we remove, or is the information notable? iMatthew 00:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Under the old format I always said no because the Champions were listed elsewhere, but with the notes section now, it actually kinda makes sense to mention it in the notes section. --James Duggan 02:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no on the titles,its not needing,the notes section is for injuries or being suspened,nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well now theres a bunch of bland empty Grey boxes under the note. It couldn't possibly hurt to add the Championship the wrestler holds, and it's an offical lisiting and it's notable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 18:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Primo Colón

Why is he posted on here as only Primo when he is called Primo Colón by the WWE?

His WWE profile has removed the "Colon" iMatthew 00:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really,on the Power 25 part of the site it is always on there,also Jim Ross and Tazz have announced him as Colon and not only as Primo but the whole thing.

Are there other opinions on this? iMatthew 00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be to names: Primo, Primo ColonD$ 8:04 Est Nov 7 08

He still is called Primo Colon on WWE tv by Jim Ross and Tazz,even on www.nodq.com a fan at a house show sent in that he was called to the ring as Primo Colon and here is my proof.

http://nodq.com/wwe/227849222.shtml

to Whoever said that; read what i typed again cuz i dont think your brain is on (no Offence) -D$ 8:04 Est Nov 7 08

No offense taken,but he shouldn't have two names,only the Primo Colon until it is fully removed from WWE.com,that goes along with the Power 25. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.80.202 (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the Power 25, and he is only listed as Primo, without the surname. --James Duggan 02:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope,check the Power 25 results for October 25-November 1,they all say Carlito AND Primo Colon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the Power 25 as of November 1st, which is the current ranking on WWE.com, it says Carlito & Primo (NO COLON!). Here's the link: http://www.wwe.com/inside/power25/ (they're listed 13th). Check it again for yourself, because I'm looking at it RIGHT NOW! --James Duggan 12:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Boxes?

Why have the wrestlers and then entire thing have been placed in boxes that is the WORST way you can post anything,just like the ppv results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.80.202 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was reached on this talk page last week. iMatthew 00:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it makes it more harder to understand and also it makes it so stupid seeing like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.80.202 (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but the consensus was just established. If you'd like, ask for help on how to read and edit the tables. iMatthew 00:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well,personally,I guess it is ok but it just makes no perpose to change it to boxes,I when it wasn't in boxes it was so easy to understand,now its crammed up and hard to even understand it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.88.80.202 (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We Should at least have an "inactive talent" box --D$ 00:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanskater11 (talk • contribs)

Where were you guys last week when we has an entire discussion on this? It was decided to combine the active/inactive lists. iMatthew 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

i think its a bad idea, we should have and active list and an inactive list, the thing we have now is confusing D$ 8:04 est Nov 7 08

For one,I agree with you D$] it just makes it to confusing to read it. And for you iMatthew I did vote on keeping it,but my vote was removed two times by someone else.

We Should Do another Vote. D$ 01:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmanskater11 (talk • contribs)

If in the "Notes" sections of the tables, you begin with "Inactive; (insert reason here)", then you can click the sort button at the top of the table, and it'll lump all inactive talent together. Sort tables are much easier to navigate than plain lists. Nikki311 01:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to be changed to boxes at all,to me haveing it out of boxes makes it more readable and more easy to understand,with this new system with the boxes,it just makes no sense at all changeing it.And I would also like to say with this new"box system"it will require more work,when the last one under the old list format was so much easer to fix and edit,which is why I have added the WWE roster to MY OWN forum where people edit and make it perfect and its FREE unlike this wikipedia where you need your little donations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Inactive Category

I think we should re add the inactive list category instead of just adding "inactive for ...." next to the name on the main categories. It makes it better imo for viewing and instant info on who is inactive. (Wiki user "NickSparrow")

For God's sake! No more inactive list. Because of that stupid thing, we got into a whole big ruckus about what makes one inactive, and everybody having their own definition.

The table is fine. If somebody is inactive due to injury, suspension, or 30 day inactivity (which I think are fair guidelines, and were discussed before, and everybody seemed fine with), we'll note it in the notes section, instead of making a whole separate section and having it re-edited every 5 minutes.

Trust me, it's better this way. It'll save everybody a whole lot of headaches.

Vjmlhds November 8, 2008 3:41 (UTC)

Its not"better this way" for your information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 03:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with V. Last week he established a very effective guideline for defining Inactive Talent and it's simply noted next to a person's name if they're inactive or not. Having seen the new format for the first time I think it's a heck of a lot easier to read and navigate. The fact that people are complaining about editing it makes me think we won't see as much vandalism as I had originally feared. Hot Stuff International (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I didn't mind it with the old format, but with the table, why are we using the last name first. I understand that with most organizations the last name is used primarily, but this is WWE. It is an Entertainment feature where not everyone has a cannon first and last name. Some only have one word names and others have full names. Never has the WWE organized it's talent by last name, it is always by first word in the name. Now it could be properly organized by the superstar's real last names, but by ringname is just troublesome and hard to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.15.212 (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. (wiki user "NickSparrow")

I agree to with this. (wiki user "Oreius") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 04:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this as well and guys don't write wiki user blank sign your posts using 4 of these ~ thanksAdster95 (talk) 10:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you all feel this way, but that won't change anything. iMatthew 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So you only want input that you agree with? Haleth (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It WILL change weither you like it or not,so you guys fighting for it are just makeing sad and lame ways to defend it,and your STILL loseing,more people hate it,you just haven't heard it yet,so HA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

So why can't we just organize it correctly then. Do it by there real names and not ring names. Is it that hard. You wouldn't organize a sports roster by a nickname, which is pretty much what there ring names are, no it be by there last name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.20.220 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Table

This page has got to be the worst looking web page in history, lose the tables and change it back to the neat and simple old format. JayLethal2008 (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this was generally agreed upon last week and was the only way to get the page unprotected. Hot Stuff International (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it looks horrible. Adam Penale (talk)

Sorry to hear that. iMatthew 16:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He is right its IS horrible.

If you wont remove the tables at least get rid of the horrible images that are on the page, there is no need for them. JayLethal2008 (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The images really should only be in there if the article gets taken to FLC. I agree with that since the images really should be added to the table instead to make it neater, but the tables will stay and soon be added to both the ROH and TNA rosters when I'm finished with the TNA one in my sandbox.--WillC 09:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The images should stay to keep the article up to most of the FL criteria. iMatthew 11:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If your going to put tables in the TNA and ROH roster pages then logically you should put a table in for EVERY professional wrestling promotion that has a wikipedia page, and frankly unless all of them are in table format then just one or two shouldn't be in a table. if you want to make every roster page a table then knock yourself out but dont just do WWE, TNA and ROH. JayExperience 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Are the pictures really necessary? Adam Penale (talk)

There is nothing wrong with them on the article. There are images on other featured lists, so it should not be removed. iMatthew 16:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He is right,do you have any pictures on the TNA Roster,no you don't be ohhh you think your the boss and want it YOUR way.

For your information the only reason there is no table or pictures on the TNA roster is because I have yet to place the finished product in the article since I am waiting for everyone to get along with the new format and not to have to get the TNA roster protected too.--WillC 09:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

Nope not allowed,its going back to the listing at the end of the month.

We usually leave that up for consensus.  Hazardous Matt  19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just hear us out...

Many of you are complaining about the new format. Many of you are also editing under an IP address, which tells me that you are not as experienced with Wikipedia as some other registered users are - so I understand where you are all coming from. A group of experienced editors on this talk page last week agreed that the table format would work better in this article. The information presented is better organized in tables (or "boxes" as some of you are calling them). I understand that a lot of you enjoyed the list format, but the table format is better for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a playground, and some of you see this article as a playground. Picture a regular playground if you will, and say that playground is intended for kids ages 7-10 to play on, and not 3-5 years. If the town received complaints that the monkey bars are too low to the ground, and the come along and make them higher, the 3-5 year old kids will of course be mad because they can no longer reach the monkey bars.

I can relate that analogy to this article. It's intended for encyclopedic reasons, as a list of employees in World Wrestling Entertainment. It is not intended for random users to play with as a toy article. You cannot all have things the exact way you want it, because remember - we are here for the better of the encyclopedia, not for our own personal enjoyment. I see a lot of you are angry because you "can't reach the monkey bars" anymore, or as it relates to Wikipedia, you can't edit the article as easily as you used to. As you all continue (or not) to edit the article, you will grow used to it, and will find a different way to reach the monkey bars. But until then, read up on how to edit and maintain tables.

Again, I apologize if any of you are inconvenienced by the new format, but as per the consensus from last week - it's here to stay. You are more than welcome to offer suggestions on how to improve them, or the article itself, but please do not continue to complain, because it will not change how this page looks.

Also, concerning the silly edit wars that occur on the page such as "Primo" or "Primo Colon," adding championships next to their names, and/or other edit wars - we need to establish consensus before we continue adding or removing these from the article. Any person who fails to agree with making a consensus and continues to edit war may get blocked from editing, so is it worth making your point made to get blocked? I personally don't think so. Regards, iMatthew 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've again had to request the page be fully-protected, and again it was. If this continues, we'll be seeing a lot more full protection in the future. iMatthew 16:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is ridiculous, there was a long, extensive conversation on this very talk page not two days ago concerning the table format that had an OVERWHELMING amount of support for this new setup. I, myself, had actually been one of the THREE votes against it and ended up changing my mind. These people should have spoken up earlier. Fact of the matter is, this page DOES look better and it really isn't that hard to edit AT ALL. It's very upsetting that this page has to suffer from being inaccurate for a whole week simply because people insist on arguing of formatting problems that actually IMPROVE the look of the page. Dahumorist (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for another vote or consensus that can overrule one that was just formed. Protection is unnecessary as well, consensus cannot be overruled.--S_RX 19:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody suggested another vote. The consensus(es) that need to be reached are the silly edit wars, which have become:

• Add championhsips or not

• Primo (Colon?)

• Is Glamarella, Natalya and Victoria, or the Bella Twins considered a tag team or stable?

• A few others that I'll look into.

So until these issues have consensus, the article may remain protected. iMatthew 19:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

THIS WAS TALKED ABOUT MONTHS AGO SEE HERE. IT WAS REJECTED.CMJMEM (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So? That was months ago. This is the present. There is a difference.--WillC 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

YOU SAID THAT IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO VANDALIZE AND LOOK WHAT HAPPEN.WE NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER VOTE ON PROJECT WRESTLING PAGE.CMJMEM (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about vandalism. The page was already protected because of vandalism, with a table or not it is going to be vandalized and because you don't like the way it looks should not keep it from becoming better. With work this article can reach FL status. The old way was keeping it from that.--WillC 06:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

yeah you did see here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CMJMEM (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the last discussion for the table, I was here when the idea was given. I'm for the table it makes it look better and makes the article up to standards. A decision come to months ago can be changed months later. People didn't want the table months ago but now there are people who do.--WillC 21:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

why is it that over half of the members that supported the change are not project wrestling members? i smell meat puppets.CMJMEM (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What are meat puppets? Also, it does not matter if they are not project members anymore, the project is going dead so it doesn't matter, what matters is consensus by the Wikipedia community, which includes everybody on Wikipedia.--TRU_CO 23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

it also appears that they have never made any edits to wrestling pages before or after the vote.CMJMEM (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That does not matter per Wiki's policy of WP:CONSENSUS.--TRU_CO 23:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Also the vote was I believe 14 in supports to two in opposes. So even if the ones who made no edits to the page before and after the vote were removed, the table was still agreed upon.--WillC 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Championships

Resolved

There seems to be no issue with adding them, so we're good, right? iMatthew 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added some subheaders so we can discuss this (hopefully) in an organized way. If we reach a consensus, I have no problem adding said consensus into the article until the page gets un-protected. For the first issue of championships, I see no harm in adding them to the tables. What was the argument against it? Nikki311 19:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure, but I don't see a major problem with it. iMatthew 20:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? What was the issue? Adding it into the notes seems no harm.--S_RX 20:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've marked this as resolved - it's really non-controversial. iMatthew 23:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because it makes no sense and is stupid,do you add it on TNA Roster page,nope so its not allowed here,case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How the heck doesn't it make sense? It's a roster, and it's relevant information to there status.

We should also come up with a format so you don't have like "World Heavyweight Champion, Reigning WWE United States Champion, Current Diva's Champion". It should follow like "Current *Insert Title Name* Champion", and for the tag team it could be "One half of the current (WWE or World) Tag Team Championship"--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope,no titles,its aready 5 who doesn't like it and 2 who does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that this is not a vote, and you are not in charge. iMatthew 23:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

YOU are not in change either,so stop NOW! This is your last warning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Or what? We reach things here by discussing and coming to a consensus. If you're only arguement for why we shouldn't add it is because it "is stupid" you aren't going to be taken very seriously.--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Championship info is included in other articles, so it is redundant here. You'll find many discussions about this in the archives. --James Duggan 00:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Under the old format yes. But here there's just a mass of empty boxes that looks completely unprofessional, and half-done. If you add the Championships, it'll fill in some more spaces, and make it look like we did some work on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 04:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

THIS WAS TALKED ABOUT MONTHS AGO SEE HERE. IT WAS REJECTED.CMJMEM (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So? That was months ago. This is the present. There is a difference.--WillC 22:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You are fighting a loseing battle dude,the championships will NOT be added,and thats that,understand rookie?

WP:CIVIL. Read it. Know it.  Hazardous Matt  19:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Kiss my nudist ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Primo (Colon?)

Resolved

- Again, non-controversial, official WWE.com sources call him "Primo" so it will be "Primo" here. iMatthew 23:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com has him listed as just "Primo", although it is mentioned elsewhere on the website that his full name is "Primo Colon". I'm undecided on this issue. Nikki311 19:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be no issue with listing "Colon" unless further WWE.com results start to just say "Primo" in which case we should change it. iMatthew 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

SRX's sources tell me just Primo is good. iMatthew 23:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing various results from SmackDown, and I see that they only list him as Primo, w/o the Colon. Plus his bio page verifies that, I see no issue here, it's just Primo.--S_RX 20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He is called Primo Colon to the ring for the past week and he should be posted as that,look on several wrestling fourms,as there he IS listed as Primo Colon,here is my proof:

Second Match:One Half of the WWE Tag Team Champions Primo Colón pinned Low Ki.

That is from the fourm http://americandragon.proboards60.com/index.cgi

You're going to use that website as proof over WWE.com? How do you know that he was actually introduced as Primo Colon and not just Primo? The "reporter" could have included Colon out of habit. --James Duggan 00:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Because that person watches WWE Smackdown and says thats what is was called when he came out last Friday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 00:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a dark match, it wasn't on TV. --James Duggan 00:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Dark Match or not,being called to the ring as Primo Colon IS his ring name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 01:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, WWE.com is considered an official reference and those other sites are not, so your fighting a losing battle. --James Duggan 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Tag teams and stables

Glamarella may come to the ring together, but as far as I can remember have only had one official tag team match together (where they won their championships)...so I'm leaning toward no. Natalya and Victoria team regularly, but they are by no means an "official tag team", and they wrestle singles matches just as often...so right now this is also a no. As for the Bellas, they haven't teamed together even once yet, but I imagine they will eventually be a tag team, but we should wait until that time before adding them as one...so no for now. Nikki311 19:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Glamarella - no for the reason you stated.

• Natalya and Victoria - no again for your reasoning.

• Bella's - guess, go ahead! ;) - no for your rationale.

So we agree, ;) iMatthew 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A few more opinions and we shouldn't have a problem. iMatthew 23:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No your wrong:

Glamarella has teamed twice together,one at SummerSlam and the other the next night against Kofi Kingston and Mickie James in a intergender non-title match.

Natalya&Victoria should be a team until otherwise said not by WWE offically.

The Bella Twins are a tag team as they have been teaming in house shows for the past month and wrestled on the last Smackdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 23:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No your wrong. Glamarella wrestling twice means nothing, sorry. Natalya should not be a team until they team every week or way more often (or until a Women's Tag Title is created, which won't happen soon. The Bella Twins just debuted together on live TV, not wrestling together- they are not a tag team. iMatthew 23:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Glamarella IS A tag team and you have NO proof of them not makeing a Women's tag title,are you with wwe,so nope hush your mouth about it,you KNOW I am right so they will stay,case closed.

Case opened ;) -- Please don't attack me, stay civil or you will be blocked. I have no proof of them not making one, and you have no proof of them making one. So it's all good. There are not a tag team - thanks! iMatthew 23:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They are a tag team,enough said and you can try to block me,but with a total of 10 user account to my computer,your"block"will last a mere two hours,nothing more,now they will remain at tag team and that is that,cased CLOSED,You've losted.*closes case as they WILL remain until other wise posted by wwe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thye are not - and what exactly do you mean "a total of 10 user account to my computer" ? Also - you must be what? 11? 12? I didn't "losted" and again I'd like to remind you, you are not in charge. iMatthew 23:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Need I remind you as well you are NOT in charge either,so shut up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oreius, please familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL, and please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). --James Duggan 00:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If Glamarella are considered a tag team, shouldn't Paul Burchill and Katie Lea Burchill be considered one too? Then again, to be fair Santino and Beth act as each others valet/manager, and I doubt a man and woman pairing can be officially considered a tag team considering the tag team division only consists of two men pairing up, and two people a stable do not make. So yes, Santino and Beth are aligned, no they can't be considered a tag team or stable. --James Duggan 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the Bella Twins, I know there is no woman's tag team division, but you surely can't compare their alliance to that of Victoria and Natalya. I think situations like that of the Bellas should be considered an exception to the rule. To me, common sense dictates inclusion as a "tag team". --James Duggan 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Bellas were always teaming together in FCW, and for a very long time they were always listed under the tag team section of the FCW roster, with no one ever objecting to it. The revelation of Brie Bella having a twin sister is the culmination of a slow-built angle on Smackdown, and according to WWE's kayfabe canon, that would be the first time the Bellas have been seen together in a pro wrestling ring. Again, common sense. Their entire schtick revolve around the fact that they're identical twin sisters.

Alright, as for Santino and Beth, they are probably not a conventional tag team, nor do they have a third associate to form a "stable" as such. So I guess it's unnecessary to class them under "tag teams" then, since a few prominent editors here have fervently rejected to it. But they're definitely in a permanent alliance that is too important to ignore, and she's instrumental to Santino's title reign and how he won it. How about we put "Love interest/Ally of XXX" under their notes instead.

As for The Burchills. They did debut as an intergender tag team of sorts, and they used to accompany each other to their singles matches. But now Katie's just reduced to being his manager on the occasion he does wrestle, but Paul doesn't show up at ringside in her corner anymore, and there are times like Batista vs Paul where Katie didn't show up. Haleth (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Most people seem to agree here. Glamerella and Victoria/Natalya=no. As for the Bellas, I say we wait a week or two and see how it goes. Common sense does dictate that they will be a tag team, but WWE doesn't always follow common sense, as we all are probably aware. :) Nikki311 17:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Goldust

Resolved

Is there a reliable source that he signed a legends contract? If not, that part should be removed. Nikki311 19:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. iMatthew 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is speculation he has agreed to some contract/deal with WWE, but it has not been verified by WWE.--S_RX 20:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source for Goldust possibly signing can be found here, which is at WrestleView.com. The article states that "According to a report by PWInsider, Dustin "Goldust" Runnels is believed to have signed a new deal with WWE. Whether the deal is a contract or a Legends deal remains to be seen." A-Dust (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit speculative, isn't it? I think we should wait until it is 100% confirmed. Nikki311 18:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Any other thoughts on this? If not, I am going to remove the sentence for lack of source. Nikki311 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree on removing him since there isn't any official word he's signed a new contract, Legends or otherwise, and will be appearing regularly. If that information comes along, he can be easily moved back onto the page in the appropriate section. Hot Stuff International (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Removed note about a contract. Nikki311 00:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of inactive talent

This was done to get rid of the "inactive vs. active" edit war that got the page protected for the first time. Was anybody opposed to the merge? iMatthew 20:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the inactive and active wrestlers included in the main tables? If so, then it should remain merged.--S_RX 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct. iMatthew 20:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was opposed to the merge. JayLethal2008> 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you were one that edit warred over inactive/active, so I'm not sure it matters - but thank you for your input. iMatthew 11:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

DH Smith and T.J. Wilson

DH Smith and T.J. Wilson tag team name is Next Generation Hart Foundation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.127.253 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to provide a source, we can have an admin stick that right in there. iMatthew 16:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have fired off an email to Robert Beukema, who regularly attends FCW events and does photography for them. If anyone know by what they are introduced as, he would know. --James Duggan 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hacksaw Jim Duggan

[1]

Why is he not listed on the RAW Talent list? The WWE still notes him to be an active wrestler, so there's no reason we shouldn't have him on the list here.

He is under "Unassigned talent" - but you have a point. Next time he appears on Raw - I don't see why we shouldn't re-add him there. iMatthew 18:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it says "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan and then James Duggan, followed by: Makes occasional appearances. James Duggan does not lead to Jim Duggan, it leads to a U.S. bishop. so it needs to be changed to go to Hacksaw's real page. Adam Penale (talk)

I fixed the link...it should go to the correct article now. Nikki311 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearing things up to prevent another page blow up.

Let's get a few things straight so to avoid Holy War II on this page:

• Hacksaw Duggan - WWE still considers him as a regular part of the regular Raw Roster. Yes, he has a legends deal to give him some flexibility in his schedule, but for the last 3-4 years, Duggan has been a semi-consistent part of the show. This is different than a Stone Cold or Roddy Piper, who come in 2-3 times a year max. Thus Hacksaw should be considered part of the Raw Roster here.

• Goldust - If he works a Duggan type schedule, then he should be considered part of the roster, if he works a Piper/Austin schedule, then he goes into "Other Personnel" Goldie and Hacksaw should be held to the 30 day guideline we discussed earlier (like anybody else on the roster). If they wrestle/appear once per 30 days, then they stay on the roster, if 30 days go by and they aren't heard from, then they go bye-bye.

• The Colons - WWE doesn't list them by a team name, they are billed as Carlito and Primo. Look at the tag team title histories on WWE.com, if they use a team name for the champions, then we'll use it here. If they list them as X and Y, then we list them as X and Y here. Example--They use "The Hardys" when listing Matt and Jeff's title reigns, thus we can use it here, but if they don't use "The Colons" for Carlito/Primo, we can't take it upon ourselves to use it here.

• Victoria and Natalya are mainly singles wrestlers who team now and then. Ditto the Bella Twins. If we get some sort of Women's/Diva's Tag Team Title, then we'll re-address this.

• Glamarella is not a tag team. If we give Glamarella tag team status, we have to do the same for Regal/Layla or any other man/woman, boyfriend/girlfriend , or husband/wife tandem, and it starts getting silly after awhile. A tag team is 2 male wrestlers who team fairly consistently and are eligible contenders for either tag team title. Obviously if you hold tag team gold, you're automatically on the team list.

What? that's not true Female teams and Female/Male teams are still Count as tag teams. Duh

Now to address a few things before they become a problem.

• If Shane or Stephanie McMahon announce themselves as the GM of Raw, they should get moved to the Raw page. Likewise if a McMahon holds a title, they go on the roster of whatever brand they hold a title on.

• I don't see a problem with listing championships in the notes section if so-and-so holds a belt. That's what that section is there for. Listing things about wrestlers that are relevant to the current product

• If Eve Torres starts wrestling regularly, move her to the women's wrestlers section.

Hopefully we can stop the insanity before all hell breaks loose like last time.

Vjmlhds November 8, 2008 21:13 (UTC)

This is why there is an edit war, because 2 people have different consensus: some of the issues pointed in this section are being discussed above in other sections and subsections, this is why there is edit wars.S_RX 21:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on Hacksaw Jim Duggan,he IS signed to a raw and legends contract so he SHOULD be on the Raw roster at all times

Same with Goldust

On Carlito and Primo,I agree on the tag name,but its Primo Colon for the last time.

Victoria and Natayla is a tag team until offically shown on WWE.com that they are not.

Glamarella 'is' a tag team weither its male and female it doesn't matter.I was hear years ago and saw Edge and Lita listed here as a tag team and they when through the same thing as Santino Marella and Beth Phoenix so they SHOULD be a tag team

I agree with the McMahon's part

Holding belts are NOT going to be a good idea,it just adds more space that is not needing on the boxes.

And your right on Eve.

Hacksaw should be considered a wrestler. It doesn't matter how occasional, he usually appears in a wrestling role. The notes section should indicate his Legends status and his occasional status as a result, but he's still a wrestler.

As for Goldust, though we all know he's a wrestler, since his "return", he hasn't appeared in a wrestling role yet, so maybe other on air talent for him... at least until he wrestles, or no longer appears. Also put explanation under notes.

I agree with the rest. --James Duggan 00:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To the anonymous poster one above "James Duggan":

First, sign your post.

Second, as far as Edge and Lita being listed as a team, you're thinking of Rated RKO, where it was Edge, Lita, and Randy Orton. Edge and Orton were the tag champs, while Lita was still portrayed as Edge's girlfriend. Edge and Orton were the team, with Lita along for the ride.

We can't do a man/woman team, because then every pairing like that (i.e. Regal/Layla, or say Booker/Sharmell in TNA) would have to be listed, and that would be getting crazy.

A team is 2 male wrestlers who semi-frequently tag together and are contenders for the tag titles. If a woman goes along for the ride, then she'll be listed (X and Y with Z).

The only exception would be if there were a male/female team who were tag champions, since holding the belts automatically puts you on the list.

Also due to the limited amount of women on the roster, you cant really list teams, because you only have 2-3 faces and 2-3 heels per show, so if they team, the options are limited.

Now if there were some women's tag belts, we could do teams because then there would be a tag division.

But since there's not, we won't (or at least shouldn't).

Vjmlhds November 9, 2008 1:21 (UTC)

I disagree on Duggan completely. The way his contract is structured alone states he isn't a regularly contracted wrestler. Thus he makes occasional appearances. He is not featured every single week like the rest of the roster so why should he be considered a full time member? Hot Stuff International (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Locked again? Jesus, This is bull crap! whoever added stuff, or whatever without getting a decision on the talk page should be....! I'm not pointing finger's, Also I have not looked at the "History" so I have zero idea of who did it (I'm to shocked to look and or care. But come on man. SteelersFan94 18:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a consensus reached on this very page to add the tables. It is your own fault that you did not look. I'm just stating the obvious.--WillC 09:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As you can see on that thread I voted for the tables, what I was saying I can't believe the page IS LOCKED AGAIN!!! So.....Yeah....... SteelersFan94 18:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dolph Ziggler

His supendstion is over.--74.79.38.72 (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)jkyy

Source?  Hazardous Matt  13:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, a source isn't needed since all you need to do is count 30 days since it was announced, which I believe was on October 10th. However, until he actually does come back, we should leave as is. --James Duggan 14:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Subspention (I CANT SPELL) was extende any way

Dykstra, Burke, and Yada

{{editrequest}}

Just want to throw this out there that someone should put in for Kenny Dykstra, Elijah Burke, and Lena Yada to be moved to the Alumni Section as they were all released. Hot Stuff International (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Wait a minute Dykstra wasn't releast he's back on FCW, are you dumb or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 20:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you're dumb.. or something.. Usually when WWE.Com announces a talent has been released, that's all that's needed as a source old chap. Hot Stuff International (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well, Nya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

November 10, 2008 edition of Raw

A couple of notes from tonight's edition of Raw:

• Mike Knox has been moved to Raw, this isn't a "talent exchange" deal with ECW, Knox was announced by Cole and King as leaving ECW for Raw (WWE.com hasn't adjusted the roster yet, but on TV it was explained that Knox did indeed become a Raw guy.)

• Shane and Stephanie have been established as directly running Raw in lieu of a GM. Seeing as they'll be a visible part of the show (at least until they get a GM again), they should be included on the Raw roster (under "Other on air talent", with Shane noted as an occasional wrestler due to him often wrestling during his involvement).

Do I get a thumbs up from the brass?

Vjmlhds November 11, 2008 4:53 (UTC)

Of course. You didn't need to take a not so subtle shot at me since I was the one that asked Knox be kept on the ECW Brand until WWE.Com moved his profile to the Raw Roster. Nobody had an issue with that at the time. Hot Stuff International (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

To add to the Mike Knox move, WWE.com's results mention he is on the Raw roster now. --James Duggan 05:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Vjmlhds, You've done good coming here first. SteelersFan94 05:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure to get the proper blessings before the page gets changed.

Vjmlhds November 11, 2008 5:24 (UTC)

Agreed with Dubhagan, it needs to be made official over WWE.com for Knox's move.--S_RX 14:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's officially official--Mike Knox is on the Raw roster page on WWE.com.

Vjmlhds November 12, 2008 2:48 (UTC)

 Done Mike Knox has been moved from ECW to Raw. As for Shane and Stephanie, what exactly should their role be? Temporary Rulers of Raw? King and Queen of match making? Shane shouldn't be listed as an occasional wrestler until he actually does some wrestling, IMO. Nikki311 18:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Stephanie and Shane should be listed as "Interim Authority Figures".  Hazardous Matt  22:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Their role would be termed as "Executive VP/de-facto GM", seeing as they are running the show on-screen for the time being. And Shane should be classified as an occasional wrestler due to his past history. Whenever Shane appears on-screen, he usually wrestles as part of an angle. It's the same thing as Jerry Lawler...not a full time wrestler, but enough to have it noted.

Vjmlhds November 12, 2008 22:35 (UTC)

A Few FCW changes that will need to be made when the page is unprotected

Here are the most recent FCW TV results [2] (i.e. with names appearing on screen, etc. They verify that Lupe Martinez/Damien Santiago/Lupe Viscara/Whatever is going by Lupe Santiago. Also Gabe Tuft is referred to as Tyler Reiks. And Chris Logan should be spelled Kris Logan. That's it. These changes can wait for unprotection or maybe someone with power can make them beforehand. Either way, just a note. Dahumorist (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed something. Is Kris Logan really Brian Cage (Brian Button), or is he Chris Cage (Kris Pavone)? I'm going to see if I can clarify that, since it makes more sense from a name standpoint that he is actually Chris Cage. --James Duggan 04:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No Kris Logan is Brian Cage (Brian Button), Chris Cage has not yet debuted with FCW. In fact, Cage's signing with WWE didn't occur until after Kris Logan had already appeared in FCW. Dahumorist (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Scotty Goldman

I think enough time has passed since Scotty Goldman was last seen on Smackdown (early September I believe) that it should be noted next to his name that he's currently Inactive; he hasn't popped up in any dark matches or house shows either, at least from what I have read as of late. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Stuff International (talk • contribs) 13:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

New

Go To My Talk And See The WWE Employee Page That You Can Edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewWeaver1 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not really sure what the goal is. All someone has to do is request a change here and if it's a valid, verifiable claim, it will be updated.  Hazardous Matt  17:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Go To My Sandbox To Check It Out!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewWeaver1 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You have no sandbox.--WillC 02:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

After some digging, I think this is what he was talking about. Alex ^T/_C Guest Book 04:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Do You Like?

Like what? iMatthew 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think his version of the list, which I see no difference in to the current one.--S_RX 00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, then. iMatthew 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder needs to be wikilinked so it looks like [[Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder]] i.e. like this. D.M.N. (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Nikki311 18:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to move Shane and Stephanie to the Raw roster (under Other on air Talent, with an occasional wrestler note for Shane).

This is due to them becoming on screen characters by becoming the quasi/de-facto GM(s) of Raw following Adamle's resignation.

Vjmlhds November 12, 2008 22:28 (UTC)

Shane and Stephanie McMahon

We should be getting back to normal here soon.

Once we do, I would like to add Shane and Stephanie McMahon to the Raw roster.

This is due to them becoming on screen characters by taking over Raw after Mike Adamle resigned.

They would go under "other on air talent" (with Shane noted as an occasional wrestler), in the "role" column would be "authority figure", and in the notes column would be "Executive VP of Global Media and occasional wrestler/(kayfabe) currently running Raw."

And Stephanie would be listed in the same way though not as an occasional wrestler.

Thumbs up?

Vjmlhds November 14 21:32 (UTC)

Agree with Shane and Stephanie being added as the authority figure for the Raw brand as of late due to Adamle's resignation, but Shane should not have a note denoting him as a occasional wrestler because he hasn't wrestled since 2006.--S_RX 21:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Shane and Stephanie listed as interim authority figures, no on occassional wrestler.  Hazardous Matt  22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Shane wrestled quite a bit in '07 actually. Remember the Lashley-Vince feud after Vince got his head shaved, and Umaga, Vince, and Shane were wrestling Lashley in handicap matches (where Vince won the ECW Title). Shane also wrestled on TV a couple of times during that period.

That was the last time he was on for an extended tour of duty, so I think the occasional wrestler tag would apply.

Vjmlhds November 14, 2008 23:12 (UTC)

Uh huh, 2007, what year are we closing in on now? 2009? Jerry Lawler is an occasional wrestler, since he has actually wrestled in the past year.--S_RX 23:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.

But if Shane does wrestle on TV (or is scheduled to wrestle on a PPV) during this period while he's on Raw , the occasional wrestler tag gets added.

Also remove the inactive tag from Cena, since he'll be wrestling for the World Title at Survivor Series.

Vjmlhds November 14, 2008 23:30 (UTC)

 Done Added Shane and Stephanie as authority figures. What the Notes should say exactly needs more comments, as there are many, many things that could be written there. We should wait to add Cena until he official becomes active again, which is during Survivor Series. Nikki311 00:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove Shane and Steph from "Corporate Management"--no need to list them twice.

In the notes section, list their real jobs and note that on-air they're currently running Raw as de-facto GMs following Mike Adamle's resignation.

Vjmlhds November 15, 2008 00:42 (UTC)

This is killing me, they are not GMs! They are de-facto authority figures due to their position in the company.--S_RX 00:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK. No need to have a heart attack. All I wanted was for them to be included on the Raw page due to their on screen roles. They're there. I'm fine with it.

Vjmlhds November 15, 2008 4:04 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it was just bugging me :D--S_RX 04:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's understandable.

Just so there's no future blow-ups when the McMahons take up homestead on a show again (because you know they will, and it'll usually be on Raw), when they do, let's include them on the Raw roster as resident authority figures under "other on air talent", as they will have become on-screen talent.

If Vince or Shane wrestle (or have a PPV match scheduled), we'll put the "occasional wrestler" tag on them.

Finally if either of them win a title, then we put them on the main roster, as all title holders automatically go there anyway.

Good to go?

Vjmlhds November 15, 2008 4:41 (UTC)

I agree with you on that V. However it should be stressed that for the "occasional wrestler" tag to be added, it has to be clear that they're going to be working a long-term program that features an in-ring match. If Vince pops up like he did for that street fight against Flair earlier in the year and then vanishes again, then that label need not apply.

I'd also include them on the "Other On Air Talent" though if no specific role is assigned to them that's not obvious I would hold off on adding anything prematurely. Hot Stuff International (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Request

Requesting that The Brian Kendrick and Ezekiel Jackson be included in tag teams and stables.

Without revealing too much (find the spoilers if you want to know all the details), they teamed together on the taping of next week's SD! (they taped 2 weeks worth of shows during the England tour).

Also one accompanies the other during their matches anyway, so I think it's time we include them.

Vjmlhds November 15, 2008 4:50 (UTC)

This is a pointless request. Kendrick & Jackson have NOT teamed together yet so they arent a tag team. A stable is 3 or more wrestlers so they fail that as well. Plus I believe WP:PW policy is to NOT list Wrestler/Manager or Enforcer relationships in the stables/tag teams section and instead make note of it by the manager's name. If and when they team (I dont read spoilers) then the discussion can be reopened.JakeDHS07 05:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jake. As it stands currently they haven't worked an official tag team match together. If they do team next week and begin to do so on a regular basis, then they can be added as a team. Hot Stuff International (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ted DiBiase

Cody Rhodes is alone on the power 25 sence Ted DiBiase got booted in the head by Randy Orton.--74.79.38.72 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)JKT

Wats your piont —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 08:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ranjin Sing and Brie Bella

Why Don't They have an artical (each). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

TABLE

Get rid of the table its annoying.

Also PIE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was to make them into a table.--S_RX 22:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I Don't Care-WWE Fana

That's fine, nobody's forcing you to care. iMatthew 19:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree get rid of the table. JayExperience 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

SHANE TEMP WRESTLER

What the? Why Do People think that he hasn't set foot in a ring since 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please restrain from using all caps, its rude. Plus, he hasn't since mid 2007. It's been a year and a half since he has, so he is not a temporary wrestler.--S_RX 22:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Proove it also why isn't anyone else responding and what does all caps mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 07:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Shane McMahon is currently running Raw with Stephanie McMahon and not wrestling, therefore he is not a temperary wrestler. JayExperience 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Inactive Notation Request

I know.. I'm a pain in the ass but I conferred with a fellow user and this is what I came up with.

Deuce hasn't been on Raw since late September and has not been used in house shows or dark matches so I'd consider him inactive.

Ditto for Scotty Goldman for reasons I previously mentioned. Hot Stuff International (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I de-activated them.

Deuce, Scotty Goldman, and Armando Estrada have all gone more than 30 days without wrestling on TV, house shows, or dark matches, so since it was pretty much agreed upon that 30 days is the cut-off, those guys are all inactive.

Vjmlhds November 16, 2008 4:58 (UTC)

Thanks V. I didn't realize the page was unprotected again. That and I haven't mastered editing a table just yet! Hot Stuff International (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I see a notation of Inactive next to Ryan Braddock's name I think should be removed for now. He just worked a dark match against Chavo Guerrero at the Smackdown tapings and also worked a house show match against Khali. Hot Stuff International (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Gavin Spears, he hasn't worked a WWE match in months. JayExperience 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Deuce appeared on this weeks Raw in the opening segment. JayExperience 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dibiase, Rhodes, and Manu

There needs to be a final consensus about whether or not to list Ted Dibiase, Cody Rhodes, and Manu as "Priceless" because I keep seeing the name removed and re-added almost every day and I really don't want to see this page once again put under full protection. I think a vote is in order or whatever you would call it.

Personally I think it should stay because for awhile now I have heard Michael Cole refer to them as "Priceless" on commentary and should that not be a good reference, their own announcer? What do the rest of you think? Hot Stuff International (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It was decided, I think not to give the tag teams a name unless it is given. Like - don't call them Carlito and Primo as a tag team name - because that is not one. Cryme Tyme is a tag team name, so it's fine. Priceless is not an official tag team name. They are introduced as Cody Rhodes and Ted DiBiase. Cryme Tyme is introduced as Shad Gaspard and JTG, CRYME TYME. iMatthew 16:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well that makes the most sense so thank you for clearing that up. Now if you could get more people to read that, there wouldn't be a pointless edit war over it. Hot Stuff International (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment here. --James Duggan 05:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

References

References to SmackDown! in pt:Plantel da World Wrestling Entertainment. User:Christian Hartmann^speak 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

References to ECW too. Christian Brazil^speak 17:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Priceless

Can we add priceless? They were announced as a tag team/stable after Unforgiven, when Manu helped Randy Orton injure C.M. Punk. Priceless is Cody Rhodes, Ted DiBiase, and Manu. It should be named Priceless, not N/A. Can someone please change it? The name was given by Raw staff and other people that work for the WWE.

Ammccoy (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Read two sections up. Sigh. Nikki♥311 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment here. --James Duggan 05:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Its Not called Priceless they may believe they're Priceless but there not called Priceless-From WWE Fana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 06:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Primo Colon Clear up

Go to this site [[3]] or [[4]] I'm trying not to be RUDE!!!! ( talking to you Srx or watever) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why me? What Did I do? Haha, you people are funny.--TRU_CO 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Aren't they, hehe. iMatthew 23:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Man somebody doesn't like you now Truco :). Hey Wwe or "what ever" please take a look at WP:CIVIL. SteelersFan94 05:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The new page

It stinks and i don't think anyone asked permission so can someone plz answer Kalajan (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a discussion right here, on Talk:List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees (thumbs up for cheap pop), and the consensus was to move to a table format.  Hazardous Matt  13:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kalajan. The tables look ugly. Maybe they could be fixed (maybe stretched horizontally more), but the current format doesn't look right. TJ Spyke 15:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's What I Said and EVeryone else was like "NO WAY" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe.fana (talk • contribs) 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tables are much more professional and organized. Maybe there should be some changes to the way the tables are presented, but I think the overall concept of adding tables is an improvement. Nikki♥311 00:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Although i opposed the table idea originally, if the table was well presented (right now it looks like a 5 year old made it) and if we got rid of the pictures it could work out. Also i think the headings and subheadings should be centered with the table. The Jay Experience 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Like here?--WillC 05:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No way, the TNA page is nearly impossible to read. But that's besides the point, these people who don't like the tables aren't making suggestions on how the tables could look better. What does getting rid of pictures have to do with the table presentation? Dahumorist (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Actually, yes, that looks nice. And I'd like to go back to my original reason for opposing the tables on this article, which is that WWE's staff is simply too big and a table format would be overwhelming. If the tables can be rearranged to suit the article better I don't think it'd be a problem.  Hazardous Matt  13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The TNA roster page looks worse than the WWE roster. The Jay Experience 21:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Deuce, Duggan, Simmons

I know Deuce appeared in the ring last night but I'd say if he doesn't wrestle in any capacity (tv, house show, dark match) in say the next two-three weeks, the Inactive notation should be placed back next to his name since technically he hasn't wrestled yet.

If Duggan and Simmons appear on the WWE.Com listing of the Raw Roster they should stay but the notation "makes occasional appearances" should be added because clearly neither one will be appearing every week. Or at least it should be noted they are under Legends deals and not regular contracts. Hot Stuff International (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jim Duggan is a wrestler so that's where he should be listed, Simmons just makes occasional appearances. JayExperience 21:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Inactive List

Let's mark this down--11-17-08.

Every member of the Raw roster (except Cena, Dibiase, and Layla) were there as part of the forum and the lumberjack match.

Refer to this date when those with itchy trigger fingers on the inactive list want to make changes.

The 30 day mark will be 12-17-08.

Unless there's an injury or suspension, do not de-activate anybody from Raw until that date.

They actually made it easy on us this week.

Vjmlhds 23:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

wwe roster

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was

 Not done

this is for a vote to change back the page. over half ov the votes were of users that had never edited on wrestling pages before or after they voted. they are called Meatpuppetsand using them i vote fraud.if you support the move to get rid of the tabels say support if not say oppose. voting will last for one week.CMJMEM (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support tabels need to goCMJMEM (talk)

First of all you are wrong, that is not meat puppetry. The editors that participated were aware of Wikipedia's policies and understood the argument, making them able to vote in the survey. Second of all, this discussion shall be archived due to it being against a WP:CONSENSUS formed already, and this is just a disagreement by one user.--TRU_CO 23:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Table

Change it back to the list,is is so stupid and takes longer to change and edit stuff here

My vote is to change it back.

Agrees:

3

Disagrees:

0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreius (talk • contribs) 04:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This vote is not going to matter. It is against WP:CONSENSUS. The tables stay either way.--WillC 06:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Will is correct. The tables need work in my opinion but the list was sloppy.  Hazardous Matt  13:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I Recon the table should Show Real Name, Ring Name, Billed Height, Billed Weight, Billed From and Notes --WWE FanaWwe.fana (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Like This

Real Name	Ring Name	Billed Weight	Billed Height	Billed From	Notes
David Bautista	Batista	290 lb	6'6	Washington, DC

Why?--WillC 01:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's some seriosuly irrelevent information. I would really like to understand what is wrong with the current format. It's simple, easy to read, and to the point. I originally was against the whole tables thing, but I have to admit, I really do think the page is better than ever. And on top of it, it's not THAT much harder to edit at all. Somebody who dislikes the format seriously needs to step up and state exactly what the problem with it is. If they are unable to do that, this argument should be put to rest for good. Dahumorist (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a lot simpler and easier to read when there wasn't a table. The Jay Experience 08:21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why Not --Wwe.fana (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm Changing it anyway --Wwe.fana (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Only if a consensus is formed on this matter. I would hate for this article to be fully protected again.--WillC 06:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just please sort by real name. Not ringnames. It is too hard with the current format. It's way morw accurate to use the real names then basically a nickname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.1.21 (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

actually WP:CONSENSUS change see Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Consensus can change.

Yes it can, but that is really referring to a consensus formed a while ago. This was a few weeks ago. iMatthew 13:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

so how long do we have to wait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.17.56 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For...? iMatthew 13:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tables are for matches not articles.

While I agree that the tables make the article easier to read, is there anyway that the information can Make MORE Sense?

Just put the "Ring Name" up for each wrestler, any current titles tehy may hold and the show they are primarily competing on. If they are inactive due to injury or suspension, that can be added as well. That's all you need.

We don't need their real name listed in the employee article, don't need their real/billed heights/weights or any other BS. on the table. Isn't that what each article for each specific wrestler is for to have that extraneous info? Just give us the basics.

Qazox (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Todd Grisham

Todd is also Raw Backstage interviewer. If you do decide to put with his name put it under Notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.127.253 (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Raw and ECW have a talent exchange, so ECW wrestlers (and other assorted personalities) can regularly show up on Raw.

So there's no need to make a special note for Grisham.

Vjmlhds 23:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Todd Grisham has been the Raw interviewer before he moved to ECW as an announcer and BEFORE the Raw/ECW talent exchange was established so it should be noted that he is both an announcer and backstage interviewer. The Jay Experience 08:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe prior to the talent exchange, we could have noted it, but since there is a talent exchange, and all ECW personalities are involved, there's no need to single out Grisham.

Vjmlhds 00:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Goldust

It's been reported Goldust signed a talent contract and not a Legends Deal so he can be added to whatever brand he eventually pops up on (I'd guess Raw) Hot Stuff International (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever WWE.com states, doesn't matter what brand he appears on. Remember Big Show appeared on just Raw before this year's WrestleMania, and now he's a full fledge Smackdown! guy. So let's just wait for WWE.com to state something. SteelersFan-94 22:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes Goldust has now signed a contract and can be added to the Raw roster as he debuted on Monday defeating Santino Marella. ^The Jay ^Experience 01:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)