Talk:Layla El
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Pictures
Please stop loading up random pointless pictures, they're useless, and we really only need one Cheers, Dubbya9 03:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. You know they're unnecessary, Shotcaller8, so don't do it. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 03:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"They're getting annoying! Everytime we take them off, Shotcaller8 keep putting them back on!" -Jay2kx
- It'll be taken care of soon. I've left a request for the admins to reprimand/block Shotcaller8 for this. — Chad "1m" Mosher Email Talk Cont. 03:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Good" -Jay2kx
[edit] Raw Diva
I was thinking she should be moved to the raw side, at SS trish called her "Raw's Newest Diva" might be premature Overlordneo 11:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
On myspace, she says she going to be on Smackdown. Jay2kx
[edit] SmackDown!
Stop taking out the SmackDown! Debut. Just because they accomplished two things with one segment doesn't make it any less her brand debut. If at SummerSlam they so much as mentioned that she was going to be exclusive to SmackDown! it wouldn't be worth mentioning, but since they didn't her debut on the show needs to be put in the article. Bdve
- The segment did not accomplish two things. It was a hype for Mike Mizanin, not Layla. Having a match, or giving a long interview is more note worthy. I will continue to remove it. TripleH1976 01:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- It was, without question, a debut confirming her debut on a specific brand. There's absolutley no reason to take it out just because it was a short segment. It's still noteworthy because it's still a debut. Just like Shannon Moore's vignettes for ECW. If you can give me any reason other than "it wasn't a match" or "it was short" I'll stop putting it, but just because it confirmed her on SmackDown and got over the new Miz gimmick is not a reason not to include it. - Bdve
-
-
- It shouldn't be included because it wasn't exclusively about her. When it is then it is note worthy. TripleH1976 02:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Why does it have to be exclusivley about her to be included? It's note worthy because it puts her on the show. Plain and simple. - Bdve
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Because if it's not then it looks cheap and tacky. That's the impression the segment gave for her. To include it is really insulting to her. TripleH1976 02:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That doesn't even make any sense. I'm adding it back. - Bdve
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And I removed it. TripleH1976 02:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Stop with the revert war already. If you have problems with a user, get an adminstrator's help or mediation or other options as well. My opinion is that her debut should remain: look at just about any wrestler page and you will see their debut is listed. RobJ1981 04:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- And I removed it. TripleH1976 02:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- We're both just as guilty as the other guy, I'll fully admit to it. Both of us got hot headed over such an idiotic issue as a no talent Diva search chicks wikipedia article that you got the argument you see before you here and the reverts over on the history page. It's stupid and more than a little childish. That's why I dropped the note on the project talk page. I don't think it's worth dragging a wiki admin in, but if TripleH1976 does I'm all for official moderation.-Bdve 04:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, all right, let the information stay. I have bigger issues to deal with on another article. So Cya everyone! TripleH1976 05:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Breast Implants
Someone should add something about her breast implants. Son of Kong
- Why on earth would that be at all important to this article?--Trick man01 04:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Myspace Page
Why isn't her myspace included on her page? Son of Kong
[edit] Howcome
Why did my information about Layla get deleted? I actually updated the freakin' thing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vladster (talk • contribs).
- As you have already been informed, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See WP:NOT. We do not welcome week-by-week summaries here. --Yamla 22:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] London, England
Wow, now you are all going edit war on me, first of all I put down London, England now everyone removes it. The infobox information looks so bad when you just have London on it's own. That fact is you should have it equal to what is said in the profile "She was raised in London, England, and currently resides in Miami, Florida." There for it should say in the infobox London, England! When billed in the WWE they said she was born in "London, England" when billed from her new location in the US they say "Miami, Florida". You have the English flag icon next to name London on it's own in the infobox, this is the English flag icon, so correctly entered information should present the flag icon followed by London, England. If you don't have the England part in the infobox it's not supporting the flagicon which is bad formatting in my view. So can you now please added the London, England back now. Govvy 19:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- WWE is an American company catering to a primarily American audience, whereas Wikipedia is an international website that caters to the entire globe. The country must be included in either both fields or neither fields. The opening of the article should reflect that she is working in a country other than the one she was born in. McPhail 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- The article points it out fine, the information in the infobox has the floor, which I have been trying to point out. There are no rules against what I did, just you lot remove what I did because you think it is right, when the truth is, there is no right way to do it. Govvy 16:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The article should be internally consistent. Either the city name and country name should be included in both fields, or only the city name should be included in both fields. You are not presenting a compelling argument for introducing inconsistencies into the article. McPhail 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
Seriously, I don't see your reasoning, I just been through a load of actors, actresses and footy players, they all got the dam country name in the place of birth field on their infoboxes. I am putting it back I did it before. Govvy 21:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Again, the country must be in both fields, or neither. McPhail 17:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Can you stop making up rubbish and change it back please. Govvy 19:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)