Talk:The Undertaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Undertaker article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is a frequent target for editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of kayfabe events, unconfirmed information, rumors, and other content inappropriate to an encyclopedic article. Please make sure to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not, and consider whether your additions to this article will serve to make the article larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar.

Archives
/Archive 1 - November 2004 – November 2005

Contents 1 Correct me if I am wrong 2 Kane The Undertaker? 3 Championships 4 Tag the Criticisums section 5 undertaker/badass 6 Article 7 Picture sucks 8 Adding Weekly Events 9 Requested Move 9.1 Survey 9.2 Discussion 10 Move 11 The Pin? 12 Hanging 13 Info on Mark Calaway should be deleted out of this article and used in a Mark Calaway article 14 The orbital eye injury 15 New nicknames 16 Mark Calaway: date of birth 17 Wrestlemania 23 18 Nickname 19 BURIED ALIVE MATCH AT MANIA 23 20 About the challenge to Batista 21 14 wrestlemania opponents 22 Trivia 23 ECW Theme

[edit] Correct me if I am wrong

It says kennedy cost him 2 title shots but didnt Batista cost the undertaker his title shot on the second one?

Yes and no, Kennedy attacked Batista, which led to Batista attacking Kennedy, thus in a manner, that was Kennedy costing Undertaker his second attempt at a title shot. (MTX 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Kane The Undertaker?

Why is that under his nicknames in his stat box?

Because for a few weeks after he came to the WWF he was called Kane the Undertaker on WWF TV by Mooney and Okerland. That was the real name but it just got cut down to The Undertaker by the time Royal Rumble came arround.(Silent Jay 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

Yea, I don't really get why the whole Kane thing is added either. I mean, it was something that wasn't aired and no one even knows about. The company doesn't even care about it as they never put it anywhere. Twentyboy 07:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

He was announced at his TV debut as "Kane, the Undertaker", as was just stated above, Twentyboy. And WWE doesn't talk about Katie Vick, so why should we talk about that, by your logic. -Darryl Hamlin 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

His debut and first match (I think on Superstars) both listed him as "Kane the Undertaker".

If you had any knowledge then you would read the article and u would see his debut and first match was at Survivor Series —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Legendary One (talk • contribs) 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Hr debuted as Cain The Undertaker and became the Undertaker after that. 19:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Championships

Undertaker did not win the WCW Tag Team Championships in WCW. He won them with Kane, while in WWE, during the Invasion angle, before the titles were unified. Stop adding it to a seperate section for a promotion his championship partner never wrestled for. -Darryl Hamlin 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag the Criticisums section

I'v noticed that the Criticism section is quite biased toward The Undertaker. I don't knoow how to tag it for haveing disputed neutrality so can someone do that for me?-Terminator Storm

[edit] undertaker/badass

I think the half Undertaker/half Badass gimmick is ruining the Undertaker, not to mention the lack of appearances. Because he's sort of doing both, I don't think fans know whether to be scared or act like their at a roll'n roll'n concert. I liked him as the Undertaker, but that was back when I thought he was scary in the 90s. I don't have a problem with his badass side, btu I think he should stick to one or another because it's just confusing to me. Oh well, he's probably rich as it gets the way the company praises them like he's God so I suppose it doesn't really matter to him. I just have a problem getting the whole 90s Undertaker vibe when he pulls off his top and raises his arm, then pulls it back on and falls to one knee worshipping the urn and Paul bearer that aren't there. That's another thing, Paul Bearer with all the faces throughout the entrace, pulling off of the coat, using the power of the urn was a big part of that whole character. I think he should just give up on being the Undertaker because he isnt' scarying anyone anymore. That character was a good one that was meant to be scary, not changed into all sorts of rockers. I know you wrestling fans who are crazy about him are going to have a tizzy over my remarks. I'll just ignore them. Twentyboy 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is not for talking about the person/character, it is to discuss what should be done to the article. Also, ignoring critics is not the Wiki atitude. THL 07:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article

I think it is a complete show of disrespect that the Undertaker cannot have his article as his ring name. He's wrestles under that name for 16 years. Someone needs to do something. --Mikedk9109 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree Twentyboy 11:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture sucks

This new picture of the Undertaker in the ring sucks. Get a decent pic 65.31.99.71 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Weekly Events

If anyone sees the warning on the edit page it says to not add week by week events. But that doesn't seem to stop anyone.Jayorz12 12:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

It isn't stopping or going to stop anyone. If wikipedia members don't add it, random people will. Therefore, wikipedia people might as well add it or edit it to make it tolerable, then slowly dissipate it into a summary later. At the end of the year, it's very likely that someone (possibly me, who knows) will scrap the whole 2006 section and revamp it as more summary, less week-to-week. I also expect a fusion of several sections of years (similar to the first few sections) when Undertaker retires and no 'news' is added.

The real problem is that random people watch a show with a wrestler in it, then immediately report it to wikipedia like its going to make them famous. Then regular editers will trim it and make it fit to make them happy. Then both sides will briefly have an edit war until both sides are happy with "size vs. information". The article will then be a happy place for a while until the next appearance. The next problem is when somebody says "do not add week-by-week events", then deletes the "happy place", and we have to start all over in the "size vs. information" edit war. More often then not, this results in a LONGER article. Every time, and I mean EVERY, the Kennedy and Khali followed suit when this happened and got longer.

Not attacking anybody, just telling it how I've observed it. Enhanceddownloadbird 18:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

lol Actually, I think Enhanceddownloadbird has described the issue with articles like this one far better than I've ever seen it described. Scrapping the 2006 section seems like overkill though and besides I don't think it would work - right after it was deleted a while ago someone just went and added a line saying that the Undertaker was currently feuding with Kennedy. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

well, what I meant when I said "scrap the 2006 section" was a complete redo, just in summary form, more storylike... but it still isn't as bad as it was. everything used to have a date attached to it, for instance Enhanceddownloadbird 19:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. Summary style is good, but it shouldn't have too much of a story tone as it should be grounded in real-life events. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Move

[edit] Move

Thanks to all the people who supported this move. Now the articles name is correct. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can somebody get a bot to change all of the "Mark Calaway" links to "The Undertaker"? I went through and fixed a bunch of redirects, but there are like 50 pages that link to "Mark Calaway". TJ Spyke 00:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Pin?

Is the name of The undertakers pin known as the crucifix pin after tombstone piledriver and is it a signiture move?--Wally787 23:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, and yes. A crucifix pin is where the wrestler wraps their opponent's arms, one with their own arms, one with their own legs, then fall back, pinning the opponent's shoulders to the mat, and keeping them from using their arms to assist a kick-out. Undertaker's signature pin does not have a name to my knowledge, though it is often called the "Darkness Pin" in WWE wrestling video games. -Darryl Hamlin 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tis true that the pin has no official name other than what video games have dubbed it as the "Darkness Pin". Kane has a similar pin that he has referred to as the Crsifiction Pin which isn't really a crucifiction pin by wrestling standards. He just calls it that because it looks similar to a person being held down to be crucified on a cross. --Charles-Joseph 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hanging

At some point, The Undertaker hung a guy in a Cage Match or something like that... (seen in the clip shown to Randy Orton during their feud) I'd like to know who's the guy that 'Taker hung.24.37.96.171 00:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It was Big Boss Man (Ray Traylor) at Wresltemania XV in 1999 in a Hell in a Cell match, ironically Traylor died a few years later, but I don't think that the hanging had anything to do with that (I hope not anyway..) Undertaker2134 00:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Traylor died of heart problems, it had nothing to do with the "hanging" he recieved at WM XV. TJ Spyke 06:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That hanging had to be one of the worst thought up elements of a Hell in a Cell match ever, they could have at least put him on the shelf for a couple of months not have him return the next night on RAW! The Legendary One 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info on Mark Calaway should be deleted out of this article and used in a Mark Calaway article

Now I'm happy with the situation and don't mean to propose a change because I'm sure this has been debated and decided by contributors wiser than myself. But I just began to wonder that why exactly are the gimmicks portrayed by wrestlers and the wrestlers themselves described under the same article? The analogy between wrestlers and actors was brought up by some when the Mark Calaway -> Undertaker move was discussed, and while the line between a wrestler and his gimmick is a bit more blurred than between an actor and his character, it is true that the whole story of Han Solo is not found under Harrison Ford.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arto Kekkonen (talk • contribs) .

I agree! There should be two pages. One for Mark Calaway and one for the Undertaker. Mark is famous enough from the Undertaker gimmick to have people interested in who he actually is. There's a lot of information on Mark Calaway that could make a large article. All the info about his different wrestling characters, his movies, how he played basketball in highschool, his wife, kids, motorcycles, his divorce, his substance abuse problem and depression issues back in 1994 when he was on break, etc. All this has to do with Mark Calway himself. The Calaway info should not be under the gimmick character. There is a lot more information about him than what's on this Undertaker page. The info on Mark isn't a lot because this article already takes up way too much room about the Undertaker gimmick. The Calaway info just doesn't belong in this article. Great point Arto. Lonelyboy 07:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also because many actors could play one character for example. James Bond but i don't think there would ever be another person playing The Undertaker. DXRAW 07:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Actually, another person HAS played the Undertaker gimmick and that was at the 1994 Summer Slam. We might as well stick that guy's name under this page as Brian Lee also played the Undertaker. After all, for those few months in 94', he was known as the Undertaker just like Mark Calaway. Don't get me wrong. of course the character truly belongs to Mark Calaway, but even when you look on Brian Lee's page, you'll see in the heading box that he too is also known as the Undertaker. A third person might decide to play the Undertaker gimmick in the future. Who knows?! Yet another reason why that info on Mark needs to be put into a separate article. Mark Calaway is a totally different person from the Undertaker whose also Brian Lee. That is why there was so much issue when this page was known as Mark Calaway when all it's about is the Undertaker Lonelyboy 07:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That was just a work, Just like Evil Kane. DXRAW 07:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Mark Calaway. This article was moved from Mark Calaway to The Undertaker because he is better known under that name, and Wikipedia has a policy that says the popular name should be used. Despite the article name, this article is about Mark Calaway in the same way Triple H is about Paul Levesque. -- THL^CCD 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is not about Mark Calaway. Can't you read? The majority of this article is about the Undertaker gimmick, not about Mark Calaway. There's a small bit about Mark Calaway at the bottom of the page. Regardless if it was a work or not DXRAW, you said you don't think anyone else would ever play the Undertaker gimmick, and Brian Lee has. The info on Mark Calaway needs to be removed to a separate article. 65.31.99.71 13:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be? Nothing needs to be done. This article was about Mark Calaway before it was about the Undertaker, and it still is. The name of the article means nothing; this is the article about Mark Calaway and The Undertaker. No, for emphasis NO, wrestlers get an article for their gimmick and them in real life. The two ALWAYS go together, and that isn't going to change. The fact that most of the article is about the Undertaker is actually a mistake that needs to be fixed. This article should have a balance, not be split. -- THL^CCD 13:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. The name of this article is the Undertaker so it should all be about the Undertaker gimmick. The Batman gimmick isn't about the people who played batman, but just batman Lonelyboy 19:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

While I do agree a separation between characters and actors is valuable, it should be noted that articles such as "The Undertaker", "Triple H", and any other instance where the gimmick is the name of the article do not feature characters and actors.

There is a fine line of separation between actors and pro-wrestlers, and in a single word it's kayfabe. Simply put, for the duration of the characters existence, a wrestler is made to be the gimmick. Even at press conferences, Calaway takes on the Undertaker role. That is NOT true for actors at their movie premieres. But consider this, if Calaway left WWE, and joined TNA (for example), and got a new gimmick, it's very likely that the article name would go BACK to Calaway OR take on his new gimmick's name. It's this kind of debate that left me neutral in the name change vote, as it really can go either way.Enhanceddownloadbird 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I now understand why there was so much debate about moving this article; crap like this would happen. Batman doesn't count because more than one person has played the character over the years. Triple H is also about Paul Levesque, note that the controversy section is mostly about Paul's marriage, where as Hunter is divorced from her. Also, an article on Hunter wouldn’t mention Paul's daughter. This article is about Mark Calaway and the Undertaker; it is named the Undertaker because that is the most well known name for Calaway; not because it is supposed to be about Undertaker only. This article would be moved back to Mark Calaway before it would be split into two articles. -- THL^CCD 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the last time I will say this. There is so much debate because there needs to be 2 articles. One on Mark and one on the Undertaker. This article should only focus on the Undertaker gimmick and not have equal information about Mark Calaway and Undertaker as you said Hybrid, because that much info on Mark Calaway isn't really appropriate for the gimmick. Triple H isn't scary or mysterious so you can throw in any personal life info on his article. That does not apply here. The Undertaker gimmick is meant to be scary and mysterious and shouldn't have all this equal information on Mark Calaway's personal life about kids, divorces, family, and all that in it. Putting a scary gimmick with all that stuff just ruins the gimmick and makes for a poor article. The Mark Calaway info would just kind of take away from the Undertaker gimmick. The Mark Calaway info needs just to be removed and put into it's own damn article as I said. Lonelyboy 09:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to make the Undertaker seem scary, and as such it shouldn't be altered for that reason. The article isn't about the damn gimmick! The article is about the wrestler himself. However, it turns out that we already have an article about the different gimmicks. See Personas of The Undertaker. Now, if you want a good article about the gimmicks, there you go; edit until your heart's content. However, this article is about Mark Calaway, and is named The Undertaker simply because that is the name he is known by to the masses. -- THL^CCD 11:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm! Interesting! I didn't know such a page existed. Is there a link to it in this article? I believe if more people knew about that page, this page wouldn't have been changed to the Undertaker. That page basically has the Undertaker gimmick on it. This page is basically a 2nd Undertaker page with way too much Undertaker info and should focus all about Mark Calaway as well as be called Mark Calaway. Lonelyboy 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't check about the link before typing this. If there isn't one, I'll add it. There is a Wikipedia policy requiring that the popular name for a person be used for the title, and Mark Calaway's popular name is the Undertaker. That is why this article was moved. This article will stay the way it is to comply with Wikipedia policy. The reason an article on Mark Calaway has to have many things about the Undertaker is because every time the Undertaker walks out to the ring, Calaway is walking out to the ring. Everything Taker does, Calaway does. -- THL^CCD 21:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably the only reason this article is named The Undertaker is because if you went up to any random person, and asked them if they knew who Mark Calaway was, they would say The Undertaker. The Undertaker is best-known professionally as this name. Like what Hybrid said, Calaway and The Undertaker are one in the same. -- Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm done. We don't agree and I guess that's it Lonelyboy 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of having two seperate articles and how exactly do you separate Mark Calaway from the Undertaker persona? Aside from the "supernatural" aspects of the Undertaker gimmick, it's virtually impossible to go through picking and choosing how much of Calaway's personality is weaved into the character's fabric and how much isn't. Also, what exactly would you write for the Undertaker's "history" since the character didn't exist prior to 1990? His entire history would consist of everything that's already in this article. Odin's Beard 01:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that Mark Calaway is nothing like his Undertaker gimmick. Mark Calaway is a totally different person if you look up information about him anywhere. Everyone knows that. Lonelyboy 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's over. That sock has had his IP banned. See User:Twentyboy. -- THLR^CCD 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, how can it be obvious? The "life" of the Undertaker is so tangled with Mark Calaway that it's next to impossible to seperate the two, aside from the various "supernatural" aspects, on a personal level without personally knowing Mark Calaway. Trying to seperate Mark Calaway from the Undertaker in a seperate article would be saying that we know everything about who Mark Calaway is as a human being and the fact is that we don't. Of course he's not exactly like the Undertaker character, but no editor on Wikipedia can go through here and say, "Well this, this this and this is all Calaway, but this and this is all Undertaker". In some ways, it'd be like separating Clark Kent and Superman. Odin's Beard 02:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

THL The Hybrid, your remark is not on topic. It has something to do with a feud you're involved in and should not be on this page. Please stay on topic and stop bringing personal feuding into this. Your remark is to be based on info to help out the article, info that is apart of the argument going on in this portion of the page. Nothing else. Please be aware of that. 64.149.204.158 21:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was mentioning that in order to bring his discussion to an end. The only person still trying to get the articles separated has been blocked. That is relevant to this conversation and this talk page. If comments continue to pour into an ended conversation, that takes up room on this page and makes an archive necessary sooner. I was simply trying to save room on this page. Cheers, -- THLR 22:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The orbital eye injury

Was the whole orbital eye injury from King Mabel and Yokozuna actually a real injury the Undertaker suffered? Did they accidentally actually hop on his face? Was the mask a way of covering up a band-aid or sitches that he had because it didn't fit his gimmick character? Lonelyboy 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a legit injury that King Mabel caused when he performed a clumsy legdrop and broke the Taker's eye orbit.Halbared 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

LoL! I never knew that! Thank you for letting me know. I'm glad he did that though because I liked the grey-mask. I wish the Undertaker got that back. Lonelyboy 22:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't Mable who broke the Undertaker's eye socket, it was Yokozuna. He broke it while performing his Banzai like drop off the top rope. Yokozuna accidentally sat on Taker's eye socket crushing it. There are a few WWE videos that have that information in it, as well as commentators stating that it was Yokozuna who crushed his eye. One video is "Undertaker - History of The Tombstone" during the match with Yokozuna if you listen you'll hear King say it to McMahon that it was Yokozuna who broke his eye and not Mable. --Charles-Joseph 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Mabel broke it in kayfabe. VelvetKevorkian 07:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New nicknames

Undertaker is now commonly referred to 'The Phenom' or 'The Dead Man'. Can those be added to the template? Of them, the first one is pronounced 'fi-naam'. Saurabh Sardeshpande 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The template is for ring names only, so nicknames cannot be added to it. Cheers, -- THL 15:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ringnames can count as nicknames the deadman, buddy but nicknames do not count as ringnames 153.18.17.22 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Calaway: date of birth

I know that this topic has probably been argued countless times, but when searching the web, I recieve a lot of information suggesting that The Undertaker's birth date was in 1962. What age do wrestling journalists say he is? According to Texas birth records, he was indeed born on 24 March, 1965. --88.104.30.49 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

'62 is wrong, the cited source for '65 being used is the best one available, but if you have access to the bith records, that'd be a lot better. SteveLamacq43 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see these birth records or any respectable online source. A fansite is hardly a reputable source. Thanks. MackyMackn 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestlemania 23

Since he won the Rumble it would be clear to say that the Undertaker should probably win the title. I doubt they would allow this win strike to come to an end, or somehow he loses this title shot before Wrestlemania in some match with that as a stipulation. Though he's a legend and will be remembered for many things, but also for the win streak. It's hard to believe they would give him a loss at the event so far into his career, at this point.

I've heard a rumor for years that Undertaker never loses at Wrestlemania because there's a clause in his contract that guarantees a win unless he chooses to lose. I've never run across any clear proof of this however. Has anyone seen anything that might prove or disprove this? Sykobabul 21:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

All because he has always won at Wrestlemania does not mean he is guarenteed to win again. As a diehard fan of his for 11 years, I know he has always done his best to push young talent, ensuring a future for the company and the sport. Although I personally hope the Deadman can retire undefeated at WM, I cannot deny the fact that he may willingly give that away to further the career of another. But if he does that, I hope whoever wins is VERY grateful. I also say this because I do not fear the possibility of retirement for the Undertaker, he has had a very long and glorious career and could easily walk out on top of the world. --Sakaki22 21:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing but rumor and speculation, which is unencyclopedic at its very core. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so nothing that hasn't already happened will be put in the article. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is one huge rumor floating all over the web including a popular website that has given accurate information on WWE events, happenings as well as TNA, and other promotions. It is called Insider Wrestling" or something similar to that name. On the webstie is a huge news story supposedlly out of the WWE that Undertaker is going to retire either right after, or shortly after WM23. He will loose at WM23 to...here is the biggest shocker...Kane. If that is true then Kane will have to win the title before WM23, or Undertaker would have to win the title before WM23, and Kane would have to become Number 1 contender. All I can say if this is true and the website has been right a lot of times on a lot of other news, then I'll miss the Deadman, but at least he's giving Kane a big push for the future. --Charles-Joseph 05:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kane also is in lack of a future, as Glen Jacobs is nearing retirement himself. Wrestling Insider / Wrestling Observer, and all the like are also sites based on assumptions from within the companies. In reality, not even the companies know where they are headed right now, especially WWE with the recent sidelining of Triple H. Simple fact is this, we can't write an encyclopedia with things we don't know. In light of the fact this isnt a question, or a comment about a specific edit, I'm going to assume that this is purely for conversation, where I would recommend a forum. In my own opinion, however, I would think it sad to destroy the streak no matter who it makes in the process as the Undertaker character is synonymous with death: you can hold it out for so long and consistently get the upper hand, but sooner or later it'll get you. Ending the streak would require a gimmick more powerful than death. Enhanceddownloadbird 08:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what supposedly credible sources think will happen. Those are predictions, and what do fortune tellers see in their crystal balls? -- The Hybrid 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

They will probably take the easy way out and have it be a disqualification on Batista's part, letting taker keep his winning streak but not win the title.

[edit] Nickname

On Raw this past week (Feb. 5th) Jim Ross was referring to the Undertaker as 'The Deadman of Death Valley.' J.R. will probably begin to use it a lot (as well as the likes of Cole and Styles) and I definitely think that should be added as a nickname.

It sounded like demon to me. Anyway we aren't allowed to assume that he will start using that. Assumptions are unencyclopedic. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 03:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The first match i saw undertaker in was against big bubba in a louisville street match no holds barred. Bubba kicked undertakers ass in less than 5 minutes. Everybody was so disappointed it didnt last longer, the promoter was Fred Ward in Macon,GA

This is a talk page about the article, not a forum. If your going to chat about the undertaker at least add something meaningful.

[edit] BURIED ALIVE MATCH AT MANIA 23

can someone tell me where thet got that from look at the bottom end at 2007 it says

On the March 2nd edition of Smackdown, Undertaker announced his Wrestlemania match will be a Buried Alive Match.

now this hasent even been put into question yet so could we please take this down because there was a rumour that it was gonna be hiac (hell in a cell) but that didnt get put up also taker didnt say it was going to be buried alive he was stating that bastisa's life was going to be a living hell and that grave section was his way of saying that batista's title reign will end at wrestlemania IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BURIED ALIVE MATCH BECAUSE IT HASENT EVEN BEEN PLACED ON THE TABLE YET!!!Deadman lastride666 16:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

1) You're right, it's obvious speculation

2) Be more calm about....way calmer about it.

3) I removed it. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 16:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmm, I like Kool-Aid. It tastes good, 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the speculation. After seeing the segment, i suspected that it meant that the match would be Buried Alive since i did not see any rumors of what the match would be. But i will say that it would have made sense that it could have been that since we haven't seen such a match since the Undertaker-Vince M match back in 2003. Psp900 15:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! Don't put rumors. There shouldn't even be a storyline section on this page

[edit] About the challenge to Batista

There seems to have been some debate about whether No Way Out and the challenge to Batista are notable and/or in violation of the speculative match guideline.

On a lesser importance, to me at any rate, is the No Way Out match. It passes notability guidelines (and whoever doesn't think so needs to get out of WP:PW articles and look at the inconspicuous tidbits all over the site as a whole), but was a crappy match. That's my opinion, but considering over the past year the Undertaker has not been in the main event PPV scene (since Armageddon 2005/No Way Out 2006 I believe, but don't hold that against me if I'm wrong) this seems notable in his career. Also count the fact he was teamed with a world champ facing a world champ. Or heck, even the fact it's one of the only physical altercations between himself and Batista in the whole feud. Something makes it notable. I don't care if you hated it or loved it, notability isn't about that.

On a more important debate, I'd appreciate leaving in the challenge to Batista. It has become common knowledge that the winner of the Royal Rumble gets to challenge for the title, and that is what I'd like to include. The definition of what I'm looking for is not "He is scheduled to face Batista at WrestleMania 23", but rather, "As a result of his Royal Rumble win, The Undertaker challenged Batista for the world title." In addition to the fact I believe the event itself is significant (looking at the start of 2006, the Undertaker challenging Kurt Angle is a significant event, even if it was more elaborate), I believe having this in there would help stop vandalism (even though the article is semi-protected off and on). The fact is that the challenge is important, whether the match happens or not (even more important if it doesn't). As such, the match itself should not be talked about until the event, and neither the match nor the challenge should be placed in the WrestleMania section until the event has occurred.

Comments welcome. Everything above was written as my own opinion towards the matter and your opinions are completely welcome and desired. I apologize if any hostility has come across as that is not my intention. --Enhanceddownloadbird 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, and that is very well written. I don't believe the NWO match was notable because as far as his overall career is concerned, I feel its only but a blip and nothing really stood out about it. The WrestleMania match will/should definitely be added after WrestleMania. Unfortunately I see adding anything about him and Batista at this point referencing WM23 in some way, which just opens up a whole can of worms on every article about WrestleMania or a wrestler who will be wrestling at WrestleMania. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 14 wrestlemania opponents

He has had 14 opponents at WM because Atrain and big show both count as opponents. Kane was twice but Big Show and Atrain make it up. Wrestlinglover420—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrestlinglover420 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Trivia

I recently edited this page twice to include information on a song I found on Limewire. It was entitled "Undertakers ECW Entrance Music *RARE*" The song was basically Awake by Godsmack and had several of Undertakers catch phrases from his American Badass days inserted into it. For some reason it keeps getting deleted and I wanna know why. ImmortalKaine 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because a song that the source of which is unknown, and was more than likely made by a fan, is not notable for an encyclopedia article as it pertains to The Undertaker's actual life and career. Bmg916 ^{Speak to Me} 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for answering my question. I'm ImmortalKaine BTW, just forgot to log in 70.49.207.65 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers, Bmg916^{Speak to Me} 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECW Theme

ImmortalKaine here again, haven't logged in yet, but I RAR'd the song and uploaded it. It's been virus scanned, 100% clean. It's really a good song so download it and take a listen if you wish. Not sure if it's fake yet, sounds too good quality to be fake.

70.49.207.65 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I had to delete your link, sorry, possible copyright vios (since it is basically the Godsmack song "Awake"). BTW, some fake songs can be good quality, it's not hard if you know what you're doing and have the right software. For an advertising class in early 2005 I created a TV commercial for at that time, the upcoming World Baseball Classic. The teacher said that it could be taken straight from the classroom, put on tv, and no one would know the difference. Bmg916^{Speak to Me} 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dont care if you delete it, I've already posted it on like 50 sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.207.65 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

You mean sites on Wiki, or independent sites? Bmg916^{Speak to Me}_{Leave Your Mark} 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)