Talk:The Undertaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Undertaker article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Good article The Undertaker was one of the Everyday life good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Comment This article is a frequent target for editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of storyline 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.
This article was the professional wrestling collaboration of the week between December 9 and December 15, 2007
Please help to continue to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling article.

Contents

[edit] Personas/ Characters

We earlier had a Personas page for the Undertaker but now it redirects back to this page. Should we not add information which was present in the erstwhile Personas page (like nick-names, descriptors, signature-taunts) into this one? Mayankeagle (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of other wrestler pages contain nick-names (e.g., Kane's contains "The Big Red Machine", "The Big Red Monster", etc) - I don't understand why they can contain nick-names but the Undertaker's page cannot contain nick-names like "The Phenom", "The Deadman", "The Demon From Death Valley" which are his most popular nick-names. Why do we want to give less information on specifically the Undertaker page when his page should contain more, considering that he lasted longer in the industry than the others? Mayankeagle (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kane's page contains precisely two nicknames, and they both carry references, this page is not for listing every name anyone has ever called the Undertaker by. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is largely focussed towards his career, but just like we do mention every signature move he has used and every finisher he has used, we can at least enlist his most common nick-names along with references from WWE.com if required (for "Phenom", "Deadman", "Lord of Darkness" and "Demon of Death Valley", we would get the references anyday - I'm not counting many others like "American Bad Ass", "Big Evil", etc if we don't want to put too many). However, I think we should put some nick-names because it makes easier for readers to relate to him, otherwise all nicknames should be removed from all Wikipedia pages for wrestlers to keep it consistent. Mayankeagle (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames are listed when there is a source, find a source and you can list whatever you like. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Conscience of the WWE is a popular nick-name for him - why was it removed (it had a WWE.com reference too)? Mayankeagle (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a nickname, like The Phenom is. It is something that commentators occasionally say. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you differentiate between nick-names and descriptors? I understand that some other descriptors like "the most respected athlete in the history of the WWE", "the greatest phenom in the history of the WWE", "the greatest mind-gamer in the history of the WWE", "the best pure-striker in the history of the game", "the most dominant force in the history of pro-wrestling", etc are descriptors as they are too long and used by commentators in the match sometimes while referring to him. But then "The Demon from Death Valley" is also a nick-name and "The conscience of the WWE" isn't? Mayankeagle (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Judgment Day 2008 results?

I added information about Judgment Day 2008 results where the Undertaker defeated Edge via count-out but then Vickie came and announced that the title was still vacant because he won the match via count-out. I had also provided a link to the WWE.com page which had published the results. Somebody removed the entire thing (I guess it was Darrenhusted) - not sure why. It is a PPV result, and a lot of PPV results (for even non-title matches) are included on this page, moreover this is also a part of the Undertaker/ Edge story-line, so it should be kept on this page - why was it removed? Mayankeagle (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Undertaker has been appeared on hundreds of PPVs, not every result is notable. I have removed the whole Judgement Day paragraph several times in the last few days because until we get a couple of months perspective the result may be meaningless and have very little impact on his career. This page is not a results page, the PPV pages contain the results. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Every PPV result is not notable, however this one is because it was for the World heavyweight championship, and it is a continuation of the story-line which mentioned that he was stripped off the title. Mayankeagle (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, every PPV is not notable. The feuds need to be looked at in the context of his career. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a continuation of his career feud with Edge with an important future stipulation - now its been taken to the extent where Vickie has stated that Undertaker should face Edge in a TLC match at One Night Stand and if Undertaker loses, he will be fired - that's going to be announced this Friday on Smackdown!, however it has already been reported on wrestlezone.com and phenomforever.com spoilers. I guess after that match (which is likely to be the end of the feud), we will have enough to post about. Mayankeagle (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

None of this is notable. Wait until they have finished the feud then it can be summarised if it turns out to be notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mentioned, we will wait until the feud culminates instead of adding to the article right now, hopefully it would be at One Night Stand. Mayankeagle (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Veering away from what a talk page is I think that Night of Champions will feature the blow off match between Edge and Undertaker in Hell in a Cell. But you will need to wait until July before any of this is worth noting. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They've announced a TLC for One Night Stand which is Edge's speciality, probably in an attempt to make it look like Vickie & Edge tried whatever they could to keep him away from the title (and even WWE) but the storyline would be that he kept coming back like a dominant champion. The Night of Champions poster also has his photo on it with the title, so I'm hoping he will win the title at One Night Stand :-) though I would hate to see Undertaker vs Edge in 4 PPVs consecutively. The draft is due in a few weeks, and that's probably going to bring some Raw talent like Umaga to Smackdown. I read there's going to be a Kane vs Big Show main feud on ECW and an Undertaker vs Umaga main feud on Smackdown (perhaps planned for Summerslam also). For more discussions, log on to phenomforever.com Mayankeagle (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WWE.com awards

There are several recognitions which Undertaker has received on WWE.com either through fan-voting or the WWE's internal expert-ratings. One of them has been that he was selected as the Greatest Superstar in Raw History during the 15th anniversary of Raw - http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/raw15/exclusives/raw15pollresults/. Another is that Undertaker vs Batista was listed as the # 1 "Wrestlemania match which made us sweat" by "List! This" on WWE.com - http://www.wwe.com/inside/listthis/maniamatches/maniamatches1. Should we include this in his wrestling accomplishments/ awards, because essentially they are related to his career and convey a big message about the same? Mayankeagle (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not. I think we should add some info, because the only thing mantioned here is his Wrestelmania record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.82.93 (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

sound like it should be noted i dint know he was voted the best raw wrestler of all tyme considering he is on smackdown it deserves mention 172.159.163.221 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No because those are not notable awards, and are not considered awards, they are just lists and poll results, not officially awards. --SRX--LatinoHeat 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That way, even the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards are more like opinions and not real awards (by the way, what about listing the Slammy awards? At least they were "real" awards). By the way, whoever posted from "172.159.163.221" - he's been on Smackdown since a few years but earlier he was on Raw for several years (in fact, he was in the main-event of the first ever Monday Night Raw), and the impact Undertaker's dominance had on Raw at that time also was notable. Mayankeagle (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last part of Undertakers biography in Alumni

At the link of Undertakers biography in the alumni section in wwe, it has a rather curious statement. Here is what it says.

Throughout it all, Undertaker has remained one of WWE’s most popular Superstars while becoming one of its most decorated – another trend that should continue until the day The Deadman’s illustrious career finally does rest in peace.

This almost sounds like his career is not over in the WWE. Maryslove 01:31, 2 June 2008

This is not proof enough, because some of the WWE.com profile pages are not edited very frequently. If you look at http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/wwerecords/, it still mentions only about his Wrestlemania 23 victory against Batista but not his Wrestlemania 24 victory against Edge (it says "many wonder whether if Undertaker will be able to continue The Streak in Orlando" - we all know that it did continue). However, you are right that his career is not over. Mayankeagle (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's some possible proof. For the Survivor Series tour of the U.K. he is advertised to take part in the Smackdown brand live show in November. Now i'm not an expert on advertising laws but if he were to have retired wouldn't it have been a misleading advertisement therefore breaking the law?

This is not a forum for this kind of discussion - I guess that kind of discussion will be better off on a fan website like www.phenomforever.com. However, in response to your point - he was also advertised as the champion (holding the WHC belt) in the promotional poster of Night of Champions (Vengeance), however I guess that's not how it is going to be when the event happens. Don't trust what they show in ads as things can change in the future. Mayankeagle (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Four words: Card subject to change. Tobythegreat (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Taker was not advertised this week during the promo for ecw and smackdown survivor series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.247.244 (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retirment

Someone edited his article and stated that he is retired.I don't think so.You must see this http://www.wrestleview.com/news2008/1212346268.shtml.Pavlen (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, look at this. http://www.wwe.com/superstars/wwealumni/undertaker/bio/

His profile is now in the Alumni section, and read the bottom line, too. I think WWE.com is the most reliable source for something like this. It didn't let me do it, so I ask that someone replace his profile link with what I just provided, because it's a dead link for now.--Lord Dagon (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done but let's all remember that WWE uses WWE.com to advance storylines etc. This doesn't really prove anything. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, and I just wanted the link fixed. It bugs me how people look at news sites first and try to bring all of it here, so I took it upon myself to look at the actual site first and thats how I came by the dead link.--Lord Dagon (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WTF

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/the_undertaker_forced_to_manage idek where these ppl came up with this i wanted to know if this site is just for fake news or real things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.254.171.74 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Onion is a parody news website. Everything they post is fake, but funny. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] left wwe kayfabe?

do we have a source that states this is kayfabe because everyone always goes on about sources. as far as we know undertaker has left. on wwe.com it states it (even if it is to advance the story line). i mean he probably hasnt but how do we know for sure?81.105.64.186 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Black6989

WWE.com is used to advance storylines. Like Regal is fired? Except he's not; he just got suspended. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah but sources such as JR's blog in which he talks about the suspension of reagal tells us its kayfabe. like is said i know wwe.com used for advancing storylines but we have no source that states that it is kayfabe whereas with reagal we do. im not disagreeing that it is kayfabe but people are always going on about sources and stuff but yet we don't have one here stating otherwise. i mean some of whats on wwe.com isnt just for advancing storylines. for all we know taker could still be with wwe but retired (like ric flair).point is we have no source that shows this is kayfabe and im wondering why we put it as that when on ppv people always go on about sources.Black6989 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Black6989

  • If Taker retired though, I'm sure by now some form of announcement would have been made, even on WWE's Industry news section. Something as big as Undertaker's retirement wouldnt be a quiet affair. Besides theres no source to confirm that its no kayfabe, theres no source saying he has retired, so maybe the article should say, Undertaker lost to Edge at One Night Stand, and as per pre match stipulations was forced to leave the WWE. end of story. 58.6.85.29 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with this fair enough thier is no source stating he has left buty as stated none saying he hasnt left so just stating that due to match stipulations he was forced to leave wwe would sound fine and if he does return we then add in that "however he returned on the ____ of _____ etc..."Black6989 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)black6989

Darren Matthews was suspended.ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 03:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Isnt it obvious that 'The Undetaker' will randomly show up or ring the gong at Edge and Vickie Guerrero's "wedding"? 71.103.163.73 (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC) TCO

  • I read on various wrestling news sites (eg lordsofpain) that he is recovering from some injuries.(Like the Tombstone Piledriver which hurts his knees). On Survivor Series this yera he would be 15 yeras in the WWE. He is probably going to come back then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaheer12a (talk • contribs) 00:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Undertaker will be working WWE's upcoming Australian tour, replacing the Big Show who is out with a orbital bone injury. WWE is pushing a storyline where Vickie Guerrero is "allowing" Undertaker to bid farewell by wrestling during the Australian tour. (Wrestlezone) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgbobcat 9008 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that alot of users take the time to check their sources and verify the content they so choose to post because it causes for alot of confusion and puts out alot of misinformation about persons which is half the reason the Wikipedia is repeatedly attacked as essentially being a Whiteboard. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 03:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Greatest Wrestlers of all time:
  1. Ric Flair
  2. Hulk Hogan
  3. Andrè the Giant
  4. The Undertaker
  5. Bret Hart

Flair, Andre, Hart, and Hogan didnèt leave quietly, neither will Taker. He is A Living Legend, how could he leave in such a stupid way as 1. Losing to someone 99.5% of the fans hate, 2. LOSING AT ONE NIGHT STAND. If he is going to lose a retirement match, It will be at Wrestlemania, to a face, and in the same way as flair did; to one of his friends. Taker will most-likely return at the two retards wedding, tombstone both all the way to yuo know were and then become a 7-time world champ. Plus, if I have anything to do with it; he will be a 17-time world champ (1 more than Flair) when he retires. There, I think I made my point VERY, VERY clear. Altenhofen (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah i have to agree with u in one part, undertaker wont retire quitely Upol007 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gogoplata/Triangle choke??

The Gogoplata is mentioned in his Signature moves/ Finishers. However I have only seen him doing the Triangle Choke. The Gogoplata is done from a guard. The triangle choke is with the head in a figure four and that is what he does and not the Gogoplata.Zaheer12a (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He does it from a guard. if you watched wrestlemania you wouldve saw that Egde speared him on top of him still. allowing the undertaker to catch his arm and lock it between is legs. Not his head. The difference is that a Triangle choke applys more pressure to the arms as the Gogoplata is more focused on the head. hence the blood from the mouth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klrobinson93 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, no one ever signs their posts anymore, second; you mean “fake blood”. Altenhofen (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Now he doens't really do the Triangle Choke. Now he just uses the Gogoplata.Go go Gogoplata! You mighty morphin' gogaplata! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.191.192 (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Undertaker's Career

At One Night Stand the Undertaker fought against Edge. And if the undertaker loses this match, he will be banished from the WWE. But the Undertaker is not retiring, he is on a 60 suspension, and he will return in August.

Sign your post Special:Contributions/75.65.177.96.
You have no basis for such a claim and yet make it. Mark Callaway is not on suspension. WWE publicly announces all suspensions. This policy was set in place in November of 2007 after 12 persons were suspended for breaking the Wellness Policy of the WWE. As Mark has not been suspended, such is not reflected on WWE's Corporate Website, unlike Darren Matthews (also known as William Regal) who is suspended from WWE for 60 days for his second violation of the Wellness policy. This happens to be reflected on the Corporate Website for WWE. The Undertaker, like many superstars do, is more than likely currently taking a break. His return will happen when he is rested and ready to come back. You cannot declare he will be back in August without a basis for such, though I believe we have already covered that. These breaks are not announced. If the Undertaker were to leave the WWE, a parting of ways and/or a release from contract would also have been publicly announced. Once more, please try not to post things which can then be basically equated to Libel. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 03:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fairwell Tour

This week, WWE is coming to Australia and Undertaker is being "allowed" to perform in a fairwell tour. Should this be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.80.127 (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undertaker in Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi

The Undertaker (of WWE) page states that Mark Callaway was in the Bollywood film Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi, he was not in fact in this film as stated on the following website http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246729/trivia. Also by watching the film (avaliable on youtube) its is clear this is not Mark Callaway, as this is a protected page could I ask this be removed.

Grahamlicence (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Divorced from Sarah now dating Michelle McCool

Is there any truth in this please?

Paula Jones, UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.125.194 (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

no proof. Altenhofen (talk) 01:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] retirement

i justwanted to ask some one to add that the real reason of losing the if _____ lose will be bannedfreom the wwe was for takingsometime for injuries

source:http://www.wrestling-edge.com/wwenews.php?subaction=showfull&id=1213381211&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.86.230.17 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need like 5 sections on this related matter, that source is unreliable.--SRX--LatinoHeat 03:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)