Talk:Randy Orton/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Tattoos

Not to sound advert, but does all that information about his tattoos really needed? Zenlax Talk Contributions Signatures 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Not to sound like a prick, but if you dont like it, shaddup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.177.39 (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Too Opinionated

Maybe it's just me, but the section for Orton in the year 2002 just sounds too opinionated. Maybe a cleanup is in order? AugustWinterman 0:36 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cena killed.

Shouldn't cena be added to the legends killed list. I know he didn't really kill him but he publicsized as having. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterman4 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That whole list should go. Mshake3 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
A. Orton never beat Cena (while they were feuding) B. Cena injured his shoulder right before Orton attacked him. C. If WWE.com has a list, then why not Wikipedia. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
What list? Mshake3 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cena is NOT a legend.LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cena lost to Orton at Unforgiven because Cena got disqualified. 24.46.254.132 (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
What happened after the match ended? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Legends "killed" on Orton's list seems to include anyone that is, or has been, a main eventer. Keep in mind that Rob Van Dam and Booker T were on the list, even though they really shouldn't be considered legends yet. The list isn't really factual, just something to get him over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.137.34 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't of said better myself. Zenlax T C S 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Brothers name

According to WrestlingInc.com, Orton has a younger brother named Nate Orton. The article can be found here. Shouldn't this be included in the article? All about wrestling 01:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There is mention in the article of him being the oldest of two siblings. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

He also has a sister named Rebecca, or "Becky." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.17.17 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Stone Cold

Shouldnt Stone Cold be removed from the list? Orton defeated his team at Survivor Series and Orton never even laided a hand o Stone Cold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.212.34 (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

True, but remember, Stone Cold's position as Co-GM for RAW was on the line and Orton pinned HBK for the win, after Batista interfered by giving HBK a Batista Bomb, making Stone Cold leave RAW. Adding Stone Cold to the list of Legends Killed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead image

Proposed lead.
Proposed lead.

I had changed the lead image but was reverted.

To the right is the proposed new image. In my opinion, it is brighter, less blurry, larger and higher quality than the current lead, and is newer and also more relevant as it shows him with the title.

Thoughts? --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

that's taken from wwe.com and you can't use it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.82.99 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a free use image. [[1]] I definitely prefer it to the current one. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
The current image is OK, the image of him as the WWE Champion belongs in the Championships and accomplishments section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I believe the current one is fine and that this one belongs in the Championships and accomplishments section. Cheers, LAX 22:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
My comment might seem bias because I took the photo, but I think my photo should be in the infobox for the reasons stated initially. I know the believe is that it's better for the quality of the championship section. However, having a top quality infobox image is much more important than having one in the championship section. Plus, the current infobox image just sucks. Big time. On second thought, that one is OK, but I still recommend mine. Mshake3 (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Mshake. The pic with the WWE title should be in the infobox, it is of better quality. Why not put the pic of Orton with the IC title down in the Championships section? I believe it's currently in the List of WWE IC champions article and it's a good pic of both the IC belt and of Orton. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I see what both Mshake and Gavyn Sykes say about the image. But, really? If there was no other image available, then I would agree to replace the WWE image in the infobox. But, there is an image in place, and I say we stick with that one. Zenlax T C S 20:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why we should stick with one we have when there is arguably a better one available. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll tell you why. I went through hell to get that image. Now, some of you may not care, but I do. I think the image should stay where it is. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Did the poster on Flickr give you a ton of beef over it's use? Mshake3 (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, to be fair, I think this argument came up because someone removed my image and replaced it with a lesser quality image. I'm assuming it was done because mine was taken during his short, 30-minute reign, and the other was obviously during his second. Mshake3 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup. I had to convince him that the image was going to be of good use, since there was no main image. So, he finally agreed to it and changed the license. Now, as for your image, the one that was replaced looked more like a WWE image. So, your image works..... in the Championships and accomplishments section. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Legends Killed

Seriously, what is the criteria involved in determining the "killed" legends? For example, Triple H was "killed" at No Mercy this year. However, the citation, a WWE.com article, mentions nothing about him killing another legend.

Personally, I think the whole list should go, and should instead be encorporated into the article, with only a focus on the initial few he "killed", when it was made 100% that he was "killing legends". Mshake3 (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Any legends worth mentioning are already mentioned in the prose. The list should go. Nikki311 20:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree it should go. --Crash Underride 20:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I too, agree on this. Zenlax T C S 20:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If someone insists on there being a list, I will say that in 04, WWE released a T-shirt listing the legends he killed and their dates. Mshake3 (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Bye, bye list. :) Davnel03 21:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It's essentially cruft. I say it should go. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I being someone who created an article about Orton's legend killngs (Legend Killer), believe that the list is not necessary but helpful and organizational. Same reason we have Lists of every title reign. Are they necessary? Not really, but they help organize. Why does Undertaker have a table with all his opponents beat at Wrestlemania, if it's all in the prose?... Is it necessary? No, but it's organizational. Why is there a WWE Triple Crown article? Is it really needed? No. Isn't this term unused by the WWE in the present? Yes. Then why does it have it's own article? Because it's organizational.
If you decide to eliminate the list for the reasons that it "isn't necessary", then EVERY ONE of those above must go, including the championship reigns. Obviously, the championship reigns have gone for more time, and have much more information, but still, if you read the articles on most wrestlers in the WWE: "It's all in the prose..." Lex T/C Guest Book 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Wrestlers defeat other wrestlers, we do not list their matches and who they defeat in a list. Arguing if one list that is specific to this article is removed we must thus remove all lists from the article is inaccurate and in unsupported considering articles on say films can list they won an Academy Award but will also feature a list of awards. –– Lid(Talk) 23:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides, championship reigns are sourcable. I still havn't seen anyone describe the criteria for who was "killed" by Orton. Give me that, then we'll see. Mshake3 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point. Obviously we won't eliminate those lists, so why eliminate Randy's legend killings?
What is different?:
There is no physical award for legend killings
There are no physical awards for PWI Rankings, TWO Awards, Undertaker's Wrestlemania wins, etc; and they all have lists.
The problem is legends can be defeated and then they return to be "killed" again, like Ric Flair, Sgt. Slaughter and Shawn Michaels...
If this is the case, then all title lists would have a problem, as champions are also defeated, and some return to regain their titles.
Notability is questioned...
WWE has announced every legend killing, and have even made a list of legends killed on their site. How is this not notable enough? Lex T/C Guest Book 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Care to link to said list? Mshake3 (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The criteria to be in a legend killing is unknown
There is no criteria. A legend killing happens when WWE announced it happened. Fabulous Moolah, Shawn Michaels, Jerry Lawler, Mick Foley, Cactus Jack, Rock-n-Sock, Stone Cold, Sgt. Slaughter, Ric Flair, Dusty Rhodes, Harley Race, Jake Roberts, Tommy Dreamer and Rob Van Dam were announced as legends killed. Lex T/C Guest Book 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Just don't add it. Everyone has agreed to it that the list should go. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-GA Review

Note: This is NOT a GA Review, since I’m deeply involved in pro wrestling article editing I’m disqualifying myself from actually doing a GA Review. That doesn’t mean I can’t comment on the article – especially since it’s sat here for such a long time. Consider this a "Pre Review" pointing out issues that a regular GA review would probably point out as well. And as always – there are my opinions and views on the matter, if you disagree you’re not obligated to change it in any way 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And now: The issues

  • Lead
  • Independent clause issue with the first sentence, no semi colons or anything is sight?
  • Unsourced statement about his family – father, uncle etc. Should be sourced first time it’s mentioned.
  • No citation to support the “weasly” expression ”achieved considerable success”
  • ”Star and Legendary wrestlers” ? man that reads ugly, I know what the article is trying to say and all but it just doesn’t read well. And it’s not sourced.
  • Career
  • Everything from “Oldest of 2 siblings” to “try other venues first” is totally unsourced, also what other venues? What did he try? How did it go? I want to know about Randy Orton “the man” just as much as Randy Orton “The wrestler”.
  • Mentioning that he was an Amateur wrestler as a side remark seems odd, treated at trivia more than anything.
  • the NNDB citation doesn’t support that he went AWOL twice only once. And can NNDB really be considered a reliable source? Any ideas?
  • What does MMWA-SICW even stand for?? first rule of using an abbriviation - define it!
  • Irrelevant that Sam Muchnik ran a federation until 1983 – “An offshoot of the St. Louis Wrestling Club” is sufficient before it becomes trivial.
  • It mentions that he wrestled for MMWA-SICW and that he trained and officiated – is that really all there is to say about his pre-WWE days? How long did he work there? Anything on how he got a WWE contract without apparently doing anything at all?
  • 2001-2002
  • A passing mention of his OVW time – no explanation of what OVW is, what role it serves? Was he a face? Was he a heel? Who did he beat? Something – anything to make it less trivial and actually have content??
  • This sentence ” Gifted with strong wrestling skills, tall stature, and a knack for cutting promos on the microphone, Orton was quickly pushed as a main eventer. However, his persona as a face did not go over with the fans, keeping him from the World Heavyweight Championship scene” is the biggest offender of non-neutral point of view, weasel words and misleading citations I’ve seen in a LONG time. As I read it I hope this isn’t the general quality because then this’ll never make GA.
  • the rest of the section from citation “17” and forward is more of the same – weasel words, non-neutral comments, original research and fanism without source support. Even if the sources at the end support the general content the tone and neutrality needs to be worked on.
  • 2003
  • He joined a stable or he helped create it? The first sentence says both, pick one and stick with it.
  • Y Done Zenlax T C S 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I know for an absolute FACT that very little from the start of this section down to citation “20” is actually sourced in that citation – it’s OR, POV and Weasly all in one.
  • Citation “21” – only covers that Orton was in the Elimination Chamber. Everything before that is once again (say it with me) OR, POV and weasly.

And that’s where my review is going to end – because it keeps being unsourced, Point of View and filled with Weasel Words and it just saddens me that someone really thought this was ready for GA. It’s lacking in sources more than you’d think when looking at the amount of citations. For my own sanity I'm just going to stop review it and hope someone has a bit of common sense to delist this from GA so that this doesn't represent the general level of pro wrestling articles presented for GA consideration, I'm sorry if it's harsh but that's how I feel. Sorry but I’d fail it if I was actually GA Reviewing it. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Quick response to a question you asked: My understanding is that neither NNDB nor IMDB, both of which are used in the Career section, are considered reliable sources. I've also read that Lords of Pain, cited in the 2006 section, is considered unreliable. In addition, I just thought I'd mention that the trainers listed in the infobox are unsourced. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Fail

I thought someone would take the hint and just delist this – but alrighty then. I can’t / won’t pass articles to GA but I can fail those that are OBVIOUSLY not ready so and it makes WP:PW look really bad if someone outside the project has to review this


GA review (see here for criteria)

This is far from ready for GA since it breaks the policies of neutral point of view and verifiability, has a serious problem with weasel words and “In universe” problems

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Some of the pictures serve no purpose – the info box, house show, IC & World title pictures are essentially the same and add nothing to the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This needs a lot of work. MPJ-DK (talk)

Moveset

Orton has three versions of the RKO, a regular one, another where he jumps off ladders or turnbuckles (Super RKO) and a midair version, which is not on the list. Any objections adding it? 24.46.254.132 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to count you wrong, but it is still an RKO. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinlock

Do we really need an image of him doing that? Mshake3 (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. I'd like to bring up redundancy in the picture captions. All begin with "Randy Orton" blabla. Shouldn't it just say Orton? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. It something he does. But, no. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I ended up fixing the image captions to "Orton". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And that's another pet-peeve of mine. Most of the captions around here simply describe the photo. In my opinion, they should describe Orton's accomplishment when possible. If he's holding a title, say "Orton is a two-time champion." Perhaps even add a little factoid to it, like I did with this image. Mshake3 (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
How 'bout now? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Feuds with Y2J and Jeff Hardy

I believe that these should be added, especially considering they involved the WWE Championship. I would do it myself, however I'm not too familiar with editing, and it seems to be a bit too much for me at this current time. Mjack32 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Y2J feud was not notable. It lasted until only one PPV and is not relevant to Orton's overall career. The Jeff Hardy feud is notable, but we don't add future events, WP:PW consensus is to list major feuds once they are over. Cheers, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The title defenses against HBK at Survivor Series, Y2J and Jeff at PPVs are relevants. Put this like "For the remaining of the year Orton retained the title at consecutives PPVs with Shawn Michaels, Chris Jericho and Jeff Hardy. --KingOfDX (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That is lazy and you know it.

Nicknames

What about "The Destroyer of Legends", it was a short-lived nickname, but it was. And "The Man of Destiny", Jerry Lawler always calls Orton "The Man of Destiny". --KingOfDX (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The first two nicknames are not notable. However, the "One man dynasty" is not a nickname, but Orton's era as WWE Champion. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Update the page

Either update the page or get rid of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? No future events! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There Royal Rumble there No Way Out their WM24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal Rumble and No Way Out are non-notable feuds, and WrestleMania is a future event. Thus, there is nothing to be added. --Cheers, LAX 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So their still apart of his wrestling life mean for Godsake what the big deal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We go by WP:PW consensus, not by what you want. --Cheers, LAX 01:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, and have good faith. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If the bios of wrestlers listed every feud they'd ever had, article's lengths would become unmanageable. Thus, only notable feuds are added. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Let's say that Orton loses the title at WM, then yeah it would be added. Am I right so far? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 04:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No because WM wouldn't be a notable feuds consider it got the same build up as the jeff hardy and Cena match Supermike(talk) 7:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd would see Orton lose the WWE title. Something that has been added to other articles. Zenlax T C S 14:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, how's that relevant to Mike's statement above? WP ain't a wrestling news site you know. The Game - Hhh210 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
If you weren't to note that he lost the title, it would read as if he never lost it. –Cheers, LAX 00:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Randy orton did injure himself from being suplexed/dropped on his upper neck/head. Since you (whoever edited it) didn't bother to say something in this talk page, then it must be allowed. This page allowed the mentioning of john cena returning from his injury. majinsnake

7 may 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majinsnake (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source provided? Zenlax T C S 19:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It was like watching when StoneCold Steve Austin got a bad piledriver and him trying to stand barely. Heres the link http://www.pwheadlines.com/wrestling-news/randy_orton_injured_on_raw_new_wwe_talent_lots_more.shtml. majinsnake —Preceding comment was added at 09:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that is not a reliable source. –LAX 09:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

than try this site, http://www.randy-orton.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1208231060&archive=&start_from=&ucat=4& http://www.wrestling-edge.com/wwenews.php?subaction=showfull&id=1208266974&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1 You will probably say that these aren't good sites either. It speaks of him holding his neck after the match and the fact that he gave his signature move to William Regal out of nowhere. It was out of nowhere since he was hurt and they were ending the match quickly. Orton was probably already set to win the match, but had to cut it short. Stating he seemed in character, more then likely whoever wrote that wasnt paying much attention. You really had to watch closely on tv to know. Scroll down to orton vs regal match on 2nd site. [[majinsnake|majinsnake] 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that maybe he got tired out during the match. But nowhere does it state he's legitimately injured. Zenlax T C S 20:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)