Talk:Job (professional wrestling)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Professional wrestling This article is part of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] List

I have a problem with the inclusion of some of the jobbers on this list. I think the list should contain "pure" jobbers, not just wrestlers that currently lose a lot of matches that were bigger and had title runs in the past. Here are some I think should be removed. (and I used this site to help determine things a bit: http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/results.htm)

  • The ECW one-offs: I think it's too early to tell if they are going to be used more than once, and if so, they should not be on here. And the stripper and the priest didn't even technically wrestle.
  • Simon Dean: He has a gimmick and a theme song, and his winning percentage isn't high, but he did have a nice run of wins in his first few months, is probably a JTTS now (jobber to the stars).
  • Scotty 2 Hotty: A JTTS now, but has won a few titles in the WWE.
  • Funaki: See above.
  • Stevie Richards/Shawn Stasiak: Both JTTS, but a lot of title runs and a fair amount of good wins at times.
  • Sylvain Grenier: 4 time tag champ, I don't think he's a bona-fide jobber.
  • Rob Conway: JTTS, but a gimmick and a few titles.
  • Lance Cade: JTTS, but did have the tag titles
  • Shannon Moore: maybe, but probably more of a JTTS, he did beat carlito
  • Aldo Montoya: Not that bad, he did beat the likes of Kwang and Steven Dunn a lot
  • Koko B. Ware: JTTS, had gimmick and prop, which is more than a natural jobber would have
  • Al Snow: No way
  • El Gran Luchadore: Only appeared 3 times, as a joke
  • Nunzio: 2 time CW champ

Thoughts? --63.18.243.157 05:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jobber litmus test

there has to be a way of deciding who belongs here and who doesn't...WillC 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to "jobber"

I think this article should be moved to jobber (professional wrestling), since we should be using the noun form. The article seems to focus on the jobber, not the act of jobbing. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current jobbers

would that satisfy you all, to list wrestlers who are currently booked as jobbers? WillC 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is a jobber list so important? Just let it go. A current jobber list wouldn't be right either. Several Raw wrestlers lose on Raw alot, but end up winning in Heat matches. That certainly isn't a jobber. There isn't many that really job on a fulltime basis in WWE or TNA now. Scotty Too Hotty, Funaki, Stevie Richards and Val Venis are the main ones for WWE. For TNA, there is Norman Smiley, Shark Boy and Jerelle Clark only I believe. So with that said, there isn't many to list. A small list is basically useless. RobJ1981 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ideally, the content should be relatively stable - a current jobber list is subject to change and contention regarding who is included on the list. For example, Shelton Benjamin was on a losing streak a while ago, but his inclusion would be questionable. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
there are current event articles on wikipedia. WillC 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Just because there are current event articles, doesn't mean there needs to be a current list of jobbers. I don't see why this is such an issue. RobJ1981 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
ditto to you. WillC 23:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The page is fine as it is, consensus has been reached. Let's keep it like this. --Burgwerworldz 04:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Your lone opinion, or even two opinions, is not a consensus. WillC 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The "Current event" articles are different since they document major events whose facts will remain static, not an ever-changing, debatable list of people. Although there isn't a large consensus regarding this issue, Wikipedia:Embedded list provides a guideline for something a list like this. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comedy relief section

Before this turns into an edit war, we should probably discuss the merits of the comedy relief section. As it is, it really doesn't belong there. All it does is mention two ECW jobbers who are pretty small in the broad scope of this topic. There's not enough stuff in there to warrant its own section - which is why I tried to merge it into the "Gimmicks" section before WillC reverted my edit. If it's going to stay there, there's going to have be a better way of asserting its significance than mentioning two recent ECW gimmicks. Namely, there's going to have to be some less recent, notable examples. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • In my opinion it should be gone. Granted there has been some comedy jobbing in the past, I don't think there has been much. It should be expanded a bit, or just be removed for good. RobJ1981 19:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Two words: DING DONGS. WillC 20:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I still think it should be folded into the gimmicks section, since the section references the gimmicks themselves as the "comedy relief" more than the actual act of losing matches. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You are splitting hairs....your bunch must always have it YOUR WAY OR ELSE. WillC 20:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all, avoid personal attacks, second of all, assume good faith. We all want to make a good article here, we just disagree about what should be in it. I could have removed the comedy relief section, but I instead I kept the material and merged it into the Gimmicks section since it didn't stand well on its own. Nevertheless, the change was reverted. That's what we're discussing this for, so we can come to consensus. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ding Dongs and the recent ECW jobbers aren't enough for a whole comedy relief section. I think a small note about comedy would be fine in the gimmicks section, but that's it. It doesn't need a section of it's own. RobJ1981 20:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We're not talking an entire article....it's not costing Wikipedia or you money to be separate; it does not belong with gimmicks because they were not consciously jobbers like the JOB SQUAD. I think three examples is sufficient to merit its own space. WillC 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Comedy jobbers don't have the same gimmick as the JOB Squad, but they certainly aren't that note worthy (Ding Dongs, ECW, and a few others possibly isn't enough for it's own section). Armstrongs didn't have jobbing as a gimmick completely, but they are in the gimmick section and it's fine. I think comedy would be just fine in it as well. There doesn't need to be a section for every little thing. RobJ1981 20:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
wrestling is entertainment, be it drama or comedy. it stays. WillC 21:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • According to WillC (in his latest revert of the comedy relief) "comedy relief of some sort is used prior to most main events". That's not really true at all. There is comedy on shows, but it certainly isn't JOBBING most of the time. RobJ1981 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry WillC, but as an impartial newbie to this arguement, I tend to agree with the others. Making a "comic relief" section of the article is unnessicary... Everything we need to know is under the gimmicks section.
-NickSentowski 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
You were invited by others to come here and say that as per the wrestling project page. He should have asked for unbiased commenting, not slanting to his POV with his call. WillC 19:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a rediculous, personal attack on my on my integrity. I am quite offended by this and am now warning you of Blocking. You are also in violation of WP:3RR
How else did you find this page? WillC 23:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-NickSentowski 22:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Block nomination is here
-NickSentowski 22:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that the "comic relief" part is even notable as a remark, those examples are hard to define as jobbers, just one-shots that happened to lose a match, I say get rid of it all, one stubborn editor should not force us to make a compromise to include it. --Quotes22 22:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I am calling for an arbitrator. The fact that I have posted three such examples (Zombie, Macho, Ding Dongs) instantly, with many more in reserve is enough for notability. None of you are being open to compromise or even debate. WillC 23:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it really worth wasting your life over this? You are being totally stubborn. There are over a million other pages on here that may need improvement, find some, and work with those. No one agrees with you, and just because it's a minor fact does not mean it should be included. --Quotes22 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Then why do you care so much about not including it? WillC 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random, uncatorized comments

I moved these comments down here as an attempt to clean up the page: -NickSentowski 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • A list of jobbers through the years should be included on this site. WillC 03:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the first sentence. Would someone clarify? - 194.73.118.78 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is pretty non pov - NightShade 01:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Patience Has Expired

As much as I love the openness of Wikipedia, children should not be allowed to edit. Read & Contribute Here. -NickSentowski 19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triple H as jobber

Triple H was given this role from 1996-1997 by Vince McMahon as punishment for the infamous MSG Incident.

No doubt it's true; but does anyone have a reference that can be added? (This article has no references at all). Maybe from the Wrestling_Observer_Newsletter? --Dglosser 23:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VOTE ON COMEDY JOBBING

WillC feels that there should be a secton devoted to wrestlers who job commedicly on a regular basis... Others feel that his section should be merged with the gimmicks section of the existing article... A third group feels that this section should be omitted completely, believing that the examples mentioned are not notable.

Please vote below to MERGE, SEPERATE, or REMOVE this content.

This vote will be resolved in 7 days. - NickSentowski 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • MERGE and re-write. While some workers do job for comic relief, they are to few and far between to make a major impact. The gimmick's section is perfect to list those types of workers. - NickSentowski 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • MERGE We already agreed to do this once. WillC 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Not notable enough to even have a little bit on it. Don't delete this again Will. I have every right to vote, and have it left on here. RobJ1981 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not delete it, ever. WillC 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This ought to be a discussion to build consensus, not a vote. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE. Per RobJ1981, the use of comic relief in wrestling isn't really all that connected with the main point of the article, which is to lose a wrestling match. It's just clutter, and we are fighting this because of a persistant and stubborn editor. I also do not see any evidence that there was any agreement to include it at any time. And WillC did indeed remove RobJ1981's vote/comment, so I think that should be grounds to automatically strike WillC's vote from the record. --Renosecond 20:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the edit history and saw that his entry was struck, but it was not done intentionally. Perhaps we were editing at the same time and mine saved. In any case, I edited and expanded this article long before any of you were here. If anyone has a vision for this entry, it is me. If you don't want this vote to stick, that's fine. Let's go back to consensus building...the compromise on the table is that comedy relief jobbers stay, but in the gimmicks section...because that's what they are. Everybody wins. WillC 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
They aren't even jobbers, they are just one shot characters used to build up a wrestler. Don't go with this "everybody wins" thing, cause that just won't happen unless you change your stubborn ways. You can say that you didn't delete your vote, but with your constant violation of WP:CIVIL and the like, I think there's a fairly good chance that you did. The article looks better without a pesudo-example cluttering it up. Just stop editing this page, and leave it alone, it is perfect as it is now. Just because you alledgedly improved an article does not mean you own it, as the edit page says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --Renosecond 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Prove I was uncivil. You calling me uncivil is uncivil. You should follow your own advice about editing. WillC 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I posted on the notice board about the little "not done intentionally" comment by Will. I will post the same thing here. I checked the history, it's almost 2 minutes apart (from when I posted, and he posted/deleted my post on this talk page). RobJ1981 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that was some sort of trickery on your part. Your vote was not there when I voted. WillC 00:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Could have been an edit conflict. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't the "edit conflict" screen have been shown? - NickSentowski 02:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It was a technical glitch and nothing more. WillC 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a glitch or trickery. But it's not like you would admit you deleted it anyway. RobJ1981 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/b/Talk%7EJob_%28professional_wrestling%29_b69f.html"