Talk:Stacy Keibler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stacy Keibler article.
Article policies
Good article Stacy Keibler has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
May 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia.
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.
WikiProject Professional wrestling
Professional wrestling
Portal
Stacy Keibler is within the scope 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, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Roundhouse Kick

Keibler used a Spinning Heel Kick, which may have been considered her "finisher" even though I don't believe she ever scored a pinfall victory with it. WWE.com called it a roundhouse kick on keibler's profile, but it is not. Trish's "Chick Kick" is a proper roundhouse. One may consider it a Reverse Roundhouse kick to be technical. Not sure if it should be edited or left alone because of WWE.com's listing. She has also used a crescent kick from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.182.142 (talk) 08:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stacy's acting career.

I am a big fan of Stacy's...but I fear her days in the WWE may be numbered. Her final months on RAW, she hardly appeared. They stuck a mask on her face, paired her up with an undercard tag team, and made her reduced tv appearances on HEAT. Then she's traded to SMACKDOWN, and again, she's no where to be seen, making very few TV appearances. With the Diva search giving the WWE an abundance of new girls who will work for less money, it is obvious Stacy (as well as Torrie) are not as valuable to the company as they once were. I would really love to see Stacy cross over into acting. I hope she is planning for her future if she is let go from the WWE. She would be a perfect choice to play Beautia in New Line Cinema's in-development superhero epic Shazam!. That is the type of role that would really make Stacy a mainstream star, much like the Rock has become. She should get her people to look into New Line's Shazam! movie. And I am very proud she is refusing to do Playboy. That would only hurt any chance of an acting career she may have outside of wrestling.

Stacy is going to star in a film in 2006, I thought this was noteworthy and added it.
Actually, the only movie she appears to be in now is Big Momma's House 2, which is only a cameo. She has been removed from the cast list of Manhunt in the Caribbean. --Wwfanz 07:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Stacy is in the last 6 episodes of cancelled ABC show What About Brian.In her filmography only 5 of her apearences are mentioned,can someone add the she was in the episode What About Calling all Friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.233.105 (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fan Sites

I don't know WHO keeps deleting Unique Beings from the fansites list, but that site happens to belong to a friend of mine, and it definitely qualifies as a fansite for Stacy...please stop deleting. It's annoying and rude.

I'm not the person who keeps deleting it but I think it should be deleted. There's already enough fansites on there and it's not a Stacy info/fansite, it has three different divas covered. I think it would be more appropriate if it was added here: WWE_Diva, IMO. (Alicia 13:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC))
i keep deleting it for the same reason the person posted above me, it isnt a stacy info/fansite as it covers 3 different divas. There is already enough sites on there. it doesnt matter if its your friends site, i personally dont think it should be included, theres enough sites, the sites that keep ebing added is becoming a joke. (Lil crazy thing 14:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC))


It might cover 3 divas, but it does, indeed, cover Stacy. She has her own complete section and everything. Honestly, you people must have too much time on your hands if you're going to run around Wikipedia, deleting people's links because YOU don't find them good enough.
i am not going to start an arguement with you, which is what you and other person are looking for, insulting me on other talk pages isnt going to get you anywhere. Whether you like it or not, not every fansite will be included on wikipedia. You dont see all the other diva sites on here just because it has the one person in it. Please stop adding it it is on the WWE Diva page it doesnt need to be on other pages. (Lil crazy thing 21:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC))
Whatever, I didn't realize Wikipedia was such a disgustingly lame website. Remind me not to refer people here anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.240.10.170 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL if you had a brain you probably didn't need a reminder. mirageinred 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Boo hoo hoo

[edit] Done with WWE?

i died a little bit when i read the she WAS a diva for wwe. *sob* but she is still on their superstar pages.

I know, a certain someone keeps changing it to WAS even though she IS STILL part of WWE!

Well seeing as it is clearly noted she wants nothing to do with the wwe anymore and has not appeared for them once at all this year then i think she is now a former diva, whether or not it shouldnt matter if she hasn't been officially released. Lil crazy thing 11:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what you think. But seeing that her profile is still on WWE.com and she's still doing other stuff for them(ex: signings), that makes her still a diva.

She hasnt done a single signing yet for them, she hasn't done a single thing for the wwe since dancing with the stars. Please do not change the fansites so spot advertising keibler-vibe, stacymariekeibler.com is there because it is the most noted fansite for stacy so leave it alone please.

She has a signing today at Fresno. That's doing something for them, don't you think? And SMK has insecurity problems. They're afraid of a little competition. Keibler-Vibe is a more professional site than SMK will ever be. Why stop advertising KV when you yourself are advertising SMK?

One thing she has done wow, it doesnt matter wheater you think it's more professional or not, you are adverting keibler-vibe because you keep changing it your the only person on here that keeps changing it no-one else, stacymariekeibler.com is there because it is the most noted stacy fansite on the internet and only the most noted fansite will be added and kept on there. If you actually took the time and effort to join up and read the rules you will see that noted, all the wrestlers will have the most noted fansite put on there page wheater its more professional or not that doesnt come into it. So stop removing stacymariekeibler.com please there is no need for it.
Stacy Keibler is still under contract, which makes her a WWE diva. Eenu (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Normally when people are done with the WWE they would post it on the website. But since they failed to do that either A. She is done and she didn't want them to post it on there or B. She might come back and be like another Stone Cold, and The Rock. So I think that WWE has something up with her and her progress with the WWE and they are not telling us what it is yet.

[edit] Stacy Keibler Video

I would like to request the inclusion of Stacy Keibler Videos from http:// stacyannmariekeibler.com/videos.html . I think viewers will get a better insight on Stacy keibler if video is included for her. Thanks. Tim Alba 10:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as spam sock. WikiProject Spam case - (permanent link) Femto 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Does Stacy Keibler have a six pack?

that site will not be added as it is NOT the most noted fansite on the internet for stacy keibler. Only the most noted fansite will be included not any random fansite. The most ntoed fansite is smk.com so that will be the onyl site Lil crazy thing 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

--152.163.100.200 02:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)==Stacy's boyfriend== On this page, it says Stacy is now dating Randy Orton. On Randy Orton's page, it says he's engaged to "long term girlfriend Samantha Spino". I also heard him say the same thing last week in an interview on tv. Is there any basis to believe that she is dating Randy?

       Stacy and Randy are NOT dating.Trust me.I know!Stacy is dating Geoff Staults and Randy is engaged.So they therefore are not together.I wish they were,but no.Like I really care anyway.-Diana D.

[edit] Stacy and Geoff Staults?

—Are Stacy and Geoff still together?205.188.116.70 16:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Diana D.

Stacy and Geoff got engaged in early 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.233.105 (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally saw Stacy and Geoff leaving Caesars Palace at about 3:00am on Jan. 12, 2008. Waiting for a cab, a friend tipped the bellhop to bypass the waiting taxi line and they hopped in. It's a guess, but they were probably at PURE, given the evening dress Stacy was wearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.232.28 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Height

How tall is Stacy really? I think she is 6'0.



In reply:It says EVERYWHERE that she is 5'11.

[edit] Towelie?

I don't know how true it is that she appeared in the "Towelie" episode of South Park. I can't find anything to support this claim. And on the episode, the bikini girls don't look anything like her. I think this should be removed until it can be proven. - Deep Shadow 05:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Anybody with 1 working eye can watch the episode and see her. It's completely obvious. I'm going to keep adding it every time it's deleted. And of course the girl looks like her, IT IS HER! --Billywhack 07:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I happen to have 20/20 vision. As stated several times already, you are clearly mistaken Billywhack. Not only do none of the girls look even remotely like her, Stacy was already involved in the wrestling business when this episode was created in 2001. Obviously, she already had blonde hair, contrary to your claims. None of the three women are even wearing a green bikini, also contrary to your claims. I have been following Stacy since she debuted in WCW in 1999. I know what she looks like. You are the only person who believes this cameo appearance exists, and there's an obvious reason why. Please do the mature thing and accept when you're mistaken. Otherwise, your tedious edits of the article will continue to be deleted. --Xviper2k 4:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have reported you for violating the 3 revert rule. I may be wrong on the color of the bikini because I have not seen the episode in quite some time, however, it is her in the episode. I warn you that continued violation of the 3RR may result in your editing priveledges being revoked. I will continue to push this issue as long as neccessary. --Billywhack 10:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Also, your fanaticism for Stacy borders on unhealthy. It is also improper for you to delete other people's questions on the discuss page when they pertain to the article. Respond instead of continuing this. --Billywhack 10:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Please get a life. I'd appreciate it. --Xviper2k 3:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Pot, this is Kettle: You are black! Seriously, stop being a child. Either participate in a reasonable debate and stop blanking discussion pages or just stop editing Wikipedia. --Billywhack 07:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing to debate here. You are wrong and you've been proven wrong; you just want to be an annoyance. Fortunately, it takes all of 5 seconds for me to undo your silly form of vandalism. Sending me immature messages won't change that. --Xviper2k 7:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You're the one being very immature. This is not your private page, nor have you proven anything. I suggest you read Wikipedia's policies before you get banned from making edits. Billywhack 12:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Haven't proven anything? Hmm...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhskpjFXaRE
Now I have. Th-th-tha-th-tha-th-tha-that's all, folks. --Xviper2k 12:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


That video was terrible quality. It proves nothing. You could be one of the girls in it and nobody could tell. Anyways, it looks like I had the color wrong but it was still Stacy. Any other "proof" there, Porky Pig?--Billywhack 07:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently de nile isn't just a river in Egypt. --Xviper2k 5:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What's the shoe size of Stacy Keibler? Morris Munroe 08:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I think this article needs to be semi-protected to avoid vandalism by unregistered users. Anyone agree? Jtnorl 01:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dvd-vivalasdivasofthewwe.jpg

Image:Dvd-vivalasdivasofthewwe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Saw this article in the BLP noticeboard. Hello? Where is the sourcing? As best as I can tell, this entire article is cribbed from the Internet Movie Database.--Mantanmoreland 21:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Tony and Stacy Tango.jpg

Image:Tony and Stacy Tango.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DOB changed incorrectly

Stacy's DOB, as reported by every internet site with an ounce of validity for the past 7 years, is 14th October 1979, not 1980 - as it has been changed to.


[edit] Handspring Back Elbow?

When did she do that move? Lee 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Stacy used the Handspring Back Elbow once to my knowledge during her WCW days as Ms. Hancock in a "rip off the camouflage" match against Major Gunns. This, however, does not constitute a slot in her "signature moves" list. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.89.65 (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

She Used It Muliple Times In WCW--ICECUBE1995 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-GA review

Yet another quality diva article. I do have a few things that I think should be mentioned:

  1. Calling the pregnancy angle "ill-conceived" in the lead seems like point of view.
    Y Done iMatthew 2008 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. In the "Early life" section, "small" is used twice in the same sentence. It's not a big deal, but if another word could be used instead, the sentence would read better.
    Y Done iMatthew 2008 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. In the "World Championship Wrestling" subsection, I think it should be clarified that the mud match was a singles match (at least, I'm assuming it was).
    Y Done iMatthew 2008 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Is there a source available for Keibler's contract being one of 24 that the WWF retained? Nikki311 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. "pantsing" seems too colloquial for an encyclopedia.
    Y Done iMatthew 2008 01:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Maybe I'm confused because I don't watch wrestling, but is a Lingerie match different from a Bra and Panties match? I've always assumed they were the same. It sounds strange saying that the first-ever lingerie match took place at No Mercy when a Bra and Panties match is mentioned earlier in the paragraph.
    • They are different. In a Bra and Panties match, the point is to strip the opponent. In a Lingerie match, the girls wrestle a regular match with lingerie on. I think part of your confusion is that lingerie match was linked to "strip matches" and shouldn't have been. I've clarified all of this in the article. Nikki311 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Is there a source available for the final sentence in the "The Invasion and Duchess of Dudleyville (2001–2002)" subsection? Nikki311 14:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. At the beginning of the "Feuding with the Divas and Randy Orton (2004–2005)" subsection, "track" is used in three consecutive sentences. Could one of them be changed to "song"?
    Y Done iMatthew 2008 01:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. The first paragraph of that section (about recording the song and how the song was used) needs sourcing.
    • I couldn't find anything from a reliable source, so I removed the info. Nikki311 02:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. With no background knowledge, Keibler's claim about Playboy sounds strange. Had Sable and Wilson posed for Playboy and Keibler and Jackie not posed? Nikki311 14:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. The third paragraph of that section looks like it needs more sources (for the first few sentences). Nikki311 14:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. "at the Taboo Tuesday" sounds awkward. Can "the" come out?
    Y Done iMatthew 2008 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. The final sentence of that section seems long. Can it be split up?
    Y Done iMatthew 2008 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. The final paragraph of "Modeling and acting career" could use more references (Bubble Boy, Pecker, Good Morning America, The Comebacks, October Road).
    • I couldn't find anything about the Good Morning America appearances, so I removed it. Nikki311 02:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. In the personal life section, "still lived at home" sounds like point of view. I don't think that's how it's intended, but that's how it seemed at first glance.
    Y Done iMatthew 2008 01:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Please get in touch if you have questions about any of these. Good job on the article so far. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've answered a few of these concerns, but I have to log off for tonight. iMatthew 2008 01:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

Suggestions were implemented

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

Suggestions were implemented. Lead section is very well done.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[2]

Excellent

(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and

Excellent

(c) contains no original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and

Although appearances on Dancing with the Stars should be expanded with some weekly comments

{b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.


5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

No disputes, only copy editing and reverting vandalism in the past month

6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images. In this respect:

{a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

Verified copyrights, all placed on Commons, link to Commons category

{b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good, although the article talks about her long legs, so this image might be more suitable.

Reviewed by: Royalbroil

[edit] Specific comments

  • I'm surprised to see that she has been assessed as low importance, I would expect a High to Mid assessment. She was a household name before she danced on Dancing with the Stars, and that program increased her significance.
  • Our importance system is really messed up right now and a lot of articles are rated with a lower importance than they should be. I changed it to mid for now, because I agree with you, but not high because she didn't add much to the wrestling world as a whole. Nikki311 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Moreover". Please reword. I hear the word occasionally spoken but not written. Online dictionaries don't use the word, so it doesn't have broad usage.
  • Gone. Nikki311 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "due to" doesn't sound brilliant or even good.
  • Reworded. Nikki311 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "German American" - it that relevant? Do people still look at a person's ancestry in most cases? I realize that there are many exceptions, but is she known for her ancestry?
  • I'm not sure. I removed it, as I don't think it matters either way. Nikki311 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Removed. Nikki311 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "She went to university" that's how the British phrase it, but it's uncommon in the U.S. You should consider rewording, but it's not necessary.
  • Re-worded. Nikki311 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Initially a Nitro Girl" Is this needed? It seems obvious.
  • Fixed. Nikki311 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "faux relationship" They were in a fake relationship? Was it kayfabe?
  • Yes, in kayfabe. I reworded to "on-screen". Nikki311 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "the stipulation being if Test won, he would not only retain Keibler's services, but would acquire those of Steiner as well". That's worded awkwardly. I had to re-read a few times to understand that he would acquire Steiner's services. "the stipulation being" is also awkward.
  • Reworded. I think it is clearer now. Let me know. Nikki311 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's still weak "but would acquire the services of Steiner, as well." It would be stronger if it was worded "but would acquire Steiner's services as well". Royalbroil 13:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right. I changed it to your wording. Nikki311 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "she botched another interference" the word botched pushes POV
  • Reworded. Nikki311 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Keibler then got involved with SmackDown! Divas Torrie Wilson and Sable" Involved could be taken as a romantic involvement even though that's not what you mean. I'm unclear who had posed for Playboy, Sable or both? Should Diva be capitalized here and in other places?
    • Re-worded. Zenlax T C S 19:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "where she placed third" I would eliminate this phrase. I wrecks the flow by foreshadowing the result.
    • Oh, that phrase is used twice. I mean in the section "Super Stacy and departure (2005–2006)". It's fine that you mentioned it in the lead, but it's out of place in the other section. Royalbroil 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Gone. Nikki311 01:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Subsequently" - is that word needed? I know you need to vary the prose, but it sounds odd.
    • Has been removed. Zenlax T C S 19:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Keibler has graced the cover of Stuff" Graced is not a good term for an encyclopedia (even if it's true :)) )
    • Re-worded. Zenlax T C S 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Keibler also starred" - "also" is unnecessary
    • Removed. Zenlax T C S 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Attempt to expand the section on her performances on Dancing with the Stars. Some people only know her from the show. She made the final show, so I would expect more information in the article. This is not required to pass GA but a suggestion.
  • "Keibler has also appeared" "also" as above. There are other odd "also's", so please search the entire article and consider if each should change.
    • Removed. Zenlax T C S 19:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "The first time was as an accomplice to Triple H's prank, along with Stephanie McMahon, in season five." The sentence is awkward, especially "was as an" and "along with Stephanie McMahon".
    • I've re-worded it. Zenlax T C S 19:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "first significant acting" How about replacing "significant" with "major" or "starring". I'm sure that she's argue the other roles weren't insignificant.
    • Cleared up. Zenlax T C S 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The reference "Byte This: October 05, 2005 (Video)" is inaccessible and should be marked as a WP:DEADLINK if not accessible from archive.org
  • "tabloid, Star, " doesn't need commas for it's not a break in thought.
    • Cleared up. Zenlax T C S 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Are those love triangle rumors significant and widespread enough that some people would be looking for that information? I don't have a good feel for the situation, so use your best judgement.
    • It should be removed, but others do need to have a say on this. If plausible. Zenlax T C S 19:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree, consensus is the best way to determine if it is widespread enough. Would you start a thread at the Pro Wrestling WikiProject? Royalbroil 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see why not. Zenlax T C S 19:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I left a notice at the project's talk page. Zenlax T C S 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll read the article another time after you finish these edits. I'll put the nomination on hold for now, but these are not major concerns. Royalbroil 13:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you need help with marking the link as dead? Let's hold for a while waiting for opinions on the Star sentence. Royalbroil 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Is the link dead or is the video just not playing? If you click on the link, click 2005, and then click on October 5 it should come up. Nikki311 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the info about the Star report. I tried doing some research on it, and it seems it was more of a rumor than fact anyway. Also, I removed the information about Byte This. On the appearance, she just said "no comment" when asked about dating Stults. That isn't particularly important, IMO. Nikki311 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article passes as a Good Article

Congratulations, I believe it meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria! I'm supposed to provide additional commentary on what could be improved to make it a featured article. You could expand the section on her appearance on Dancing with the Stars. You could use the Priscilla Presley article as a blueprint. Otherwise you could expand the section with a quote from one of the judges. Great job! Royalbroil 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Her Legs

She can leg press 405 lb, or 183.7 kg, which is uimpressive. Her legs are both gorgeous and strong, and this should be noted. (source: Stuff Magazine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.112.166 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)