Talk:List of WWE personnel/Archive 19

A.W
A.W should not be on the section of the list of wrestlers. Considering he has not been competing. He is only used for backstage and sometimes in ring roles.

FCW Releases
The official FCW website has removed the profiles of

Cable Jones, Devin Allen, Fadh Rakman, Rhys Ali, and Ron Myers

JR is not the senior VP of talent relations
JR is listed as Senior VP of talent relations in the article; he has not, however, held this role in many years.

Ambassador
One question. We have some wrestlers as WWE Legends and they work as ambassador. Do we have sources about this? We have sources about them as Hall of famers and they appear in the alumni section, but I don't see any source about they are ambassadors or they still in the WWE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether sources exist or not, we don't have them here in the article. Many were recently removed with the rationale that they don't appear on TV. I don't think that matters (the writers and corporate directors have mostly never appeared on TV), but I'll remove the rest for verifiability reasons. Sorry for the slow response. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

RVD
Just so we're all clear, RVD has been added to WWE.com's roster, so he can be added to the roster here as well.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And thank you for telling me this right before I watched Payback. That video package was still cool on an artistic level, at least (which is more than I can say for the Ambulance Match). And now Christian returns, eh? Not as annoyed as I might seem, but I'll return the favor by telling you Punk screwjobs RVD at SummerSlam. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

NXT
Charlotte finally debuted on NXT. Adrian Neville and Corey Graves are the third NXT Tag Team Champions. Paige is the first-ever NXT Women's Champion. Mike Dalton has been renamed as Tyler Breeze.

Angelo Dawkins debuted on NXT this week against Sami Zayn. 94.4.211.201 (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've removed the two "yet to appear", but think we should wait till these episodes air before recognizing title and name changes. Those are storyline types of things, and the story hasn't been shown yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Buddy Murphy's real name is Matt Silva  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killsteenkill (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Unassigned personnel
We could use a better source for Mascarita Dorada and the women on the Diva reality show.

Dorada's signing is sourced to a paysite, so hard to verify. Googling gets mostly speculation and rumours.

The reality show press release says they'll be on the show and are training to be WWE Divas, but doesn't outright say they've signed developmental contracts.

I've left them for now, but they'll need something a bit more solid, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this source for dorada, by Superluchas. For the total divas people, I don't know. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that in the Google results, but it was phrased as a question, so I ignored it. Reading further, it does cite the Observer. So do we, but this could be seen as more immediately verifiable. I'll add it alongside the paysite link. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

droz
I read in the Darren Drozdov article's that he remains employed by WWE. It's truth? I don't see him in the WWE Roster. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is that that was added a long time ago, and it seems that he is no longer active within the company. I don't read the WWE magazine, to which he was apparently contributing, but I haven't heard any mention that he still writes for it. It seems the last time he appeared anywhere near a WWE logo was for a DVD in 2005 (and that is no indication of him being employed). It seems that his article might need altering if we can find any evidence of him no longer working for the company. —  Richard  BB  14:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * He used to write a WWE.com column. The URL's still there, but that seems to be about it. Just a list of other writers' columns. The latest I can see of his was 2010. Safe to assume he doesn't work there, until further notice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rock
I know that Dwayne stills in WWE roster page, but he is a movie and he said via Twitter that his last match at WM is his last match in wrestling. I think that we should move him to unassigned, no? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you link to when he said that on Twitter? Also, considering the backstage rumor is that he'll be going against Lesnar at WM30, plus that he's on the cover for the new WWE game, makes me doubt that it was his last match. Adding him to "unassigned" is putting in him in the wrong section, I believe: these are people who are yet to have a role or debut. —  Richard  BB  14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rock's article use this source I don't know, but Rock is filming and isn't in the company, so he hasn't a role in the WWE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That article explicitly states that rumours that Rock had walked out on the WWE as false, while Rock only says that it's "possible" WM29 was his last match. Until we have anything solid that he's no longer under contract with the WWE (remember, you can be under contract without ever showing up on TV. So many retired wrestlers have "legends" contracts, for example. —  Richard  BB  14:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As long as he's on the WWE.com roster page, he stays on this roster. We should know by now that The Rock is a special attraction guy who only works select dates (just like Lesnar). WWE promotes his movies, put him on the video game cover, promotes his "Rock-pocalypse" app, still features him in the Raw opening, and most importantly of all, still lists him as part of their main roster.  Vjmlhds (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Jericho
I'm well aware of the fact that Chris Jericho has sent out a tweet saying he's taking a hiatus from WWE to tour with Fozzy. But unless WWE.com removes him from their active roster, he shouldn't be removed from this roster either.

Jericho has done this for the last few years...work from Rumble time into Mania and through the bulk of the summer, and then in the fall take a break to tour with Fozzy.

But just like with The Rock, as long as WWE.com lists him as part of their roster, he stays here as well.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't think so. Rock and Jericho appear in the main roster, so they appear in the article, but we use other sourcer. Other sourcer tell us that they aren't in the company because they are working outside the company, so today, the haven't a role in the WWE, so they are "unassigned". I think that be should move them to Unassigned section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Vjmlhds for the same reason as I do with The Rock. Jericho is listed as part of the main roster on the site, so he should be here, too. The "unassigned" section if for people who haven't got a role yet; we know what Jericho's role is. Him being on hiatus doesn't change that. —  Richard  BB  13:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (Administrator note) Pedrigree, the prior consensus decision was that the WWE website is always the definitive source in this matter, with no exceptions--in cases of conflict the WWE site always wins. Now, you could conceivably re-argue that point, but keep in mind that it leads you down a very complex and difficult path of deciding exactly when the "unofficial" sources are good enough to trump the "official" one. And you also have to argue why the creator of the fictional tale (the writers) doesn't trump the comments of the characters/actors. It's a possible argument to make, but you'll first have to do that and change the prior consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I said this because, for example, in 2008, Undertaker was "fired" and his profile was moved to the Alumni section, but sources tell us about a storyline. I know that they appear in the roster page and we can't delete them, but if they are working outside WWE, I think that we should move to other section. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Jericho may be working outside of the WWE, but he's also working for the WWE, the same way that Punk was during his recent 1-month hiatus. He's still contracted to appear on the main roster, even if he won't do for some time. —  Richard  BB  13:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly...People work 2 jobs (or multitask) all the time. Just because somebody is working job A, it doesn't mean that they're no longer working at Job B. Jericho has all kinds of irons in the fire...wrestler, rock star, reality shows, etc. Ditto Rock...movie star, reality show host, wrestler. And don't forget WWE's recent trend of signing guys to shorter schedules (Rock, Brock, Jericho, RVD) so these guys can fufill their other outside ventures. Long story short, guys are juggling lots of things these days. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * A note by his name, as is today, should suffice. If/when his hiatus turns to leaving, we'll list him like Mantaur or Charlie Haas (that is, nowhere). InedibleHulk (talk)  / Story of the Year  18:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mantaur...now there's a blast from the past. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not my past. I still reference him pretty frequently. Just noticed he's had a page move, though. Not sure what to think about that. Why can't wrestlers all just wear their last names on their trunks? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

What's with this Total Divas stuff?
Why are we mentioning this in the notes? Wrestlers often appear in other shows. We don't list those in their notes.

And why only mentioned in the women's notes? According to Total Divas, Kidd, Cena, Clay and Bryan are also featured.

Probably worth mentioning for the newbs, who have no other connection to WWE. But not for the established women. Save that for their "Other Media" sections, like the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 August 2013
Rey Mysterio has return at a wwe live event on August 23, 2013 so plz takes Rey Mysterio off the injured knee thx

D Yorker (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ✔️  STATic  message me!  22:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Rules?
I'm concerned with the two edits in this diff by DAhumorist and VJmhlds. I thought that the previously agreed upon rule was strictly based on who is listed on the official WWE roster. Am I misunderstanding? 22:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I was also concerned about those edits, as far as I can see Dibiase is still on the roster, but it looks like J Bronson is not on the NXT superstars section anymore. Dibiase also has not revealed the normal "we wish him well in his future endeavours" article on WWE.com, so I am dubious of this uncited YouTube video.  STATic  message me!  22:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned about war erupting and the page being locked again, but not about whether this is technically right or wrong. It was a clear rule and not long ago. There's one box on the checklist, and it says "On WWE.com Roster?" The answer is completely in that box, obvious as "RED BUTTON: DO NOT PUSH!" InedibleHulk (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

On the subject of NXT superstars that are not listed on WWE's NXT filter, Richie Steamboat and Adam Mercer are not listed on there but are listed on here on Wikipedia's List of WWE personeel. Do we know if either of them are still with WWE? 5.69.99.241 (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed them for the time being. And Malik Omari. Not sure about this Kendall Skye. The only mention she has on WWE.com is in an article about Alicia Fox, where she is called a "NXT Diva and ring announcer". Doesn't seem like she's a wrestler. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is absurd. WWE.com doesn't update the NXT roster regularly, but the current NXT wrestlers are continually updating their twitter. Not to mention results occasionally pop up with new wrestlers wrestling. Cal Bishop, for example, who you felt necessary to delete has wrestled on at least 3 NXT shows Cal bishop's matches Dahumorist (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rules are rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Rules that don't factor in the facts are rules that need to be fixed. Malik Omari, Cal Bishop and others are A) Under WWE developmental contracts and B) wrestle for NXT. On top of that a number of other wrestlers Cole Andrews (real name Stephen Good), Bull Dempsey (real name Smith James), and Braun Stowman (real name Adam Scherr) have been recently assigned ring names by NXT and they've been updating their twitters to reflect their new official WWE/NXT personas. Under what circumstances can we actually include this information on the wikipedia page? Dahumorist (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When they are listed on the official website's roster, we can list them here. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So despite the fact that Cal Bishop has actually been wrestling as an NXT wrestler, he's not eligible to be listed as such? Dahumorist (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, unless you have a source for their release from contract, I think it's quite irresponsible to delete members from the roster and not at LEAST re-list them under unassigned employees. Dahumorist (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that wasn't cool of me. Didn't do it on purpose, but should have thought about that. Fine if you'd like to put them there (or would you rather I do it?)


 * If you have any more questions about the rule, maybe reading the most recent archive of this talk page would help. It's not short (five or six sections), but it's thorough. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So despite Cody Rhodes actually only being kayfabe fired, WWE.com has removed his profile from the website. Now according to the oh-so-precious, infallible rules, he should be removed from this wikipedia page. Do I agree? No, but as you've said before "rules are rules"... Dahumorist (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That is different though. He was removed for storyline reasons, the rules are related to rumored departures.  STATic  message me!  17:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see a difference. Storyline, sure, but he's been removed from the roster and won't be appearing. Doesn't mean he won't be back as a married man, but for now, rules are rules. Unassigned personnel would be alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that, as encyclopedia, we have to use a lot of sources. Of course, the most important source is WWE.com roster. But we know that usually, WWE uses it for storylines. We have second level sources, which say that Rhodes isn't fired or unassigned, he is inactive due to storyline. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Storyline or not, consider what "main roster" means. These are the wrestlers assigned by WWE to work on the main shows. Cody Garrett Runnels is, in very real terms, not a part of that group for now. No house shows, no TV, no WWE roster profile. Just sex on the beach. He's almost certainly still under contract and getting paid, but so is everyone on this list, whatever section they're in. Also, we don't have sources saying anyone is "unassigned". That's our word for "Don't fit elsewhere, but reportedly signed." InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, that does make a lot of sense. From now on dealing with any kayfabe firings or otherwise we should move them to the unassigned section, until their return to "work" or their return to the roster on WWE.com.  STATic  message me!  04:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can live with that as well...it'll make life a lot easier when these situations occur in the future. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Booker T on main roster
WTF Why? Feed back  ☎ 21:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, he is here/here, if you see the section above, it was decided if they are on WWE.com's main roster page, then they go on Wikipedia's roster page.  STATic  message me!  00:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What kind of backwards logic is that? If this is the consensus, then why is Cody Rhodes still on the table? I'm sorry but that is a ridiculous notion. We must revise this consensus immediately. Feed  back  ☎ 03:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've read the above sections and part of the archive. This is some grade-A bullshit. Dahumorist said it best: Rules that ignore facts are rules that need to be fixed. And we're all veterans here on Wikipedia. How many guidelines are you violating by following WWE's table? Off the top of my head, you're ignoring WP:OR/WP:PRIMARY in a huge way, as well as every guideline and policy named in WP:3PARTY, including WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V. This "consensus" can't fly. A completely ridiculous consensus isn't binding. It's WP:IAPD/WP:BIND territory. We either fix this right now on this talk page or whoever supports this insubordination of Wikipedia's standards will have to embarrass themselves by defending it at an WP:RFC. Feed back  ☎ 04:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you describe this "huge way"? Seems pretty straightforward stuff from WWE.com, and WWE is the only organization on Earth that can decide who's on the main roster (not to be confused with "under contract" or "not actually fired"). Not embarrassing or ridiculous. Almost straight from the McHorse's mouth. The only minor interpretation is in translating "Superstars" to "main roster". Any educated person with access to the source should figure it out correctly. Primary sources are fine for stuff like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering anyone with an average attention span can figure out that the whole main roster DOES NOT translate to active competitors on television, it is very clear that the primary source is not adequate for "stuff like this". Cody Rhodes is a prime example. He's off the page and yet he's on TV. And Booker T is another example. He's on the page, yet he hasn't wrestled since WrestleMania 28. It is complete WP:OR to assume WWE.com's usually kayfabe and disorganized main roster page is representative of their current television product. And "straight from the horse's mouth" is exactly the type of thing we avoid on Wikipedia. Someone needs to start reading those pages I linked above. Feed  back  ☎ 22:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, there's more OR in deciding for ourselves who is on the main roster by interpreting what we see (or don't see) on TV ("analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources"). Of course, if we "cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented", it's fine. That's not a source that says he's "not really fired" or "still under contract", but one that says he is part of the main roster (or a synonym). It should be alright to note Booker T hasn't wrestled since WrestleMania. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think like Feedback. Wikipedia uses multiples sources. Rhodes is assigned to the main roster and was kayfabe fired. I don't understand why we translated him to Unassigned. He was assigned to the main roster because other sources tell us. Or Rock, he isn't in WWE but we put him in the roster because he has a WWE Profile. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have a source that says he's assigned to the main roster, it might be usable. A quick news Google shows many secondary sources saying he's headed to Pro Wrestling Syndicate when his 90-day expires. Might be a work. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please keep this discussion civil per our rules. Also, please don't forget that this is an article about a fictional work, and we need to keep in mind how that determines what is "true" or what isn't. As a general rule, interpreting "meaning" can be done by independent sources, even if that meaning contradicts the "author" (like how a novelists interpretation of the symbolism or themes of a book does not outweigh a literary critics interpretation), but that for "facts" (what is literally printed/shown in the book), the primary source can be taken as the definitive source. Furthermore, if people want to revise the consensus, they're going to need to propose a very specific, clear alternate means of differentiating between who "belongs" and who doesn't, and keep in mind that previous attempts at "normal" editing have resulted in edit wars, which themselves have resulted in page protection and account blocks. As an admin, I'm inclined to believe that this page needs a clear-cut way of deciding who is in and who is not, and that a case-by-case method will not work. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing some other more specific list, the primary source lists on the "current roster" every single person who appears on-screen, from backstage interviewers, to authority figures, to divas, to inactive wrestlers who haven't appeared in ages. Now, there are plenty of third-party sources that can confirm that:
 * Brock Lesnar is not a member of the current roster and only wrestles on an occasional basis (about 2-3 times a year).
 * Booker T, Josh Matthews, Theodore Long, Renee Young, Michael Cole, Jerry Lawler, JBL, Vickie Guerrero and Brad Maddox are non-wrestling characters and have not wrestled a match on WWE Television in over a year.
 * Triple H, Ricardo Rodriguez, Paul Heyman, William Regal, Alex Riley and Zeb Colter are also non-wrestling characters, but have occasionally "wrestled" at least ONCE in the past year.
 * Curt Hawkins, Evan Bourne, Yoshi Tatsu and Camacho have not performed on WWE television in a substantial amount of time, and have instead participated at WWE NXT, the company's developmental territory. Summer Rae wrestled in NXT and appears as a non-wrestling character in WWE programming.
 * Hunico, Ezekiel Jackson, Rey Mysterio, David Otunga and Scott Stanford have been MIA on WWE programming.
 * The Rock's current WWE status is completely up in the air. At a WWE press conference, they dodged every question about whether The Rock was still with the company, and The Rock said himself in an interview that he has no idea if he would wrestle again.
 * Cody Rhodes and Goldust have both wrestled on WWE programming and are booked to continue to wrestle for the foreseeable future, even though they are not on the company's page. They are only jobless on television in "kayfabe".

WWE's "current roster" list is a mixture of various personalities and it is not meant to be utilized as a reflection of the current in-ring performers on WWE television. As long as there is a substantial amount of 3rd party sources to support these claims/facts, it is a violation of WP:PRIMARY to focus this page on this silly list. Feed back  ☎ 03:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I just want to clarify your stance here. Are you saying that if the producers of a sitcom stated on their website that Person X was a recurring character in the show, but that if a third party source disagreed, you would recommend inclusion of the third party's claim? If so, how in this case do you recommend defining the terms "Main roster", "Developmental roster", "Broadcast team", and other relevant terms? That is, when there is conflict between sources, how will this conflict be resolved? In a prose article, of course, we'd just list both claims, but in a list article that's pretty hard to do. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict, and the example you used doesn't fit. This is analogous to a sitcom stating on their website a generalized alphabetical "cast and crew" list, and Wikipedia deciding that they are all starring cast members. Feed  back  ☎ 23:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

So why the hell is Booker listed under male wrestlers. He hasn't competed in over 2 years and has publicly stated that he's past that stage of his career. You can't use his listing on the roster on the wwe website as an excuse. By that logic why not include Alex Riley as he is still introduced as a wwe superstar on the raw and smackdown pre-shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.234.75.43 (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Inactive talent
I suggest recreating a section we used to have called "Inactive talent". I don't remember how long ago we had it, but it was probably pre-20010. Here is a random old link showing the section. Considering this list is for readers who want to find out about WWE's current roster, I think it is important to reflect what is currently on TV. Seeing a bunch of "inactive" stars on the list is rather silly. I think 30 days is a great cut-off date and I'm glad we're using it, but we should enforce it in a much stricter fashion and remove these guys from the table. Add them to another table of "Inactive talent" with a reference on what they are up to. Feed back  ☎ 06:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The whole reason we scrapped it in the first place was because there was constant argument over what qualified as inactive and it just got too out of hand and too much of a mess. The way it is now works fine, and it has for a number of years. And overall, The roster as it sits is perfectly fine. If WWE considers guys like Rock, Brock, and Undertaker part of the roster, who are we to argue? It's their roster, and if they say those guys are a part of it, then their word is law. Now of course, those guys only wrestle a handful of matches a year, but their reason for being there is to wrestle on major shows. They are wrestlers who work for WWE. They have light schedules, so what? WWE considers them every bit a part of the roster as Curt Hawkins. Vjmlhds (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I do not think we need another section in the article, I think having the note next to their entry on the roster is enough.  STATic  message me!  14:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that a note is enough --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As far as current "inactive" talent, perhaps research needs to be done? I know that Matt Bloom/Tensai is a color commentator on NXT and Evan Bourne is out on injury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.17.186 (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Big Show.
I just want to bring something up before any changes are made to the article.

On Raw, Big Show was fired, but then came back to knock out HHH. Now even though he technically isn't on the WWE.com roster at present...

(spoiler alert, so for those that don't want to know, you can't say I didn't warn you)

...as per the spoilers, it will be revealed that it was Vince McMahon who re-hired him, explaining why he was able to come back after being fired earlier.

So even though he isn't on the roster in the present kayfabe world, he still has his job thanks to Vinny Mac.

As per WP:Spoiler this bit of information should be able to override any arguments as to why he should be left off...it's the same deal as with title changes that haven't yet aired...as long as they can be referenced, they're OK.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of anything, he shouldn't be taken off anyway. Kayfabe =/= reality. It's the same thing from when Cody and Scott Armstrong were fired. —  Richard  BB  07:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your link is broken and I haven't found any other link that confirms what you're alleging. Feed  back  ☎ 21:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Me neither, but there's probably a shred of truth here. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ricardo Rodriguez
I've moved Ricardo to the main roster, since he wrestled as a luchador jobber during the SmackDown tapings.

In all reality, Ricardo is by trade a wrestler, and is something of a utility man/jack of all trades. He's a ring announcer, manager, wrestles occasionally as Ricardo, and can play luchador jobber at the drop of a hat. He can do a bit of everything.

So it's not really fair to pigeonhole him strictly as "other on-air talent".

Vjmlhds (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Even less so than with the rosters, reality doesn't count for much here. Whatever they're booked as is what they are. Even Kurt Angle had the General Manager label, despite never even qualifying for the World Management Championships with a broken freakin' neck.


 * If this jobador is a recurring character (like poor Ultimo Dragon was), I'd agree with counting him as a wrestler. I see RVD has "lost his smile", so I'd probably assume Ricardo will need something to do, and finally wrestling sounds reasonable. I'm calling WP:IAR on WP:CRYSTAL. Oh, it's true. It's damn real. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:Crystal really isn't in play here, as Ricardo has wrestled numerous matches in WWE since he's come aboard, both as Ricardo and as El Local. Just in the past month he wrestled on the September 25th episode of NXT as El Local, he wrestled Del Rio twice as Ricardo (a couple of weeks ago on SmackDown, and last Monday on Raw), and now as El Local again on this week's SmackDown.  It's not about trying to predict the future regarding Ricardo, it's about trying to be accurate.  He's a wrestler that performs numerous different tasks playing 2 different characters (Ricardo and El Local).  Vjmlhds (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a little in play. Enough to be acknowledged, but not so much it can't be ignored. Even more now that you say he was El Local, not some new gimmick (I should have figured that one out). El Local is already somewhat established. It was just that he was outweighed by the manager role. Now that he presumably (see the crystal?) won't be managing, the balance shifts. And he's on the WWE.com Superstar list, so all good. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not presuming anything. Right now, with RVD on hiatus, Ricardo isn't managing/ring announcing for anybody. Now will he again in the future, more than likely.  But we'll get there when we get there. Right now, they're putting him to use in the ring. BTW, I fixed the link on the Big Show section...fat fingers on my part earlier...my bad. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Creative Writers
The Creative Writers roster is completely inaccurate.

Tom Cassiello is a writer, not assistant writer. WRITERS TO BE ADDED: Angelo Fazio Steven Oppenheim Michael Notarile Cary Millman Darren Chiapetta Eddie Feldman, SVP Creative

WRITERS TO BE REMOVED: Eric Pankowski. His firing was widely recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMWalters (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't be added or changed without sources. Preferably reliable ones. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Why does the link for the head raw creative writer go to The Great Khali? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.220.241 (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * because mr. Kapoor was khali's manager.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's because the person in question – David Kapoor – does not have an article of his own. However, he did appear on-screen as the character Ranjin Singh, who managed Khali. Therefore, the most information on Kapoor is in the Khali article, under the "Arrival of Ranjin Singh and world championship pursuits (2007–2008)" section. Previously it wasn't jumping to said section correctly, but I've fixed it now – thanks for bringing this to our attention! —  Richard  BB  12:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

John Cena
John Cena should no longer be on the inactive list.

He's being promoted as wrestling for the World Title at the Hell in a Cell PPV, and WWE has him going all over the media circuit promoting the PPV and Susan G Komen (always making sure he has his pink "Rise Above Cancer" gear on).

WWE considers him good to go as they're putting him in a major match right off the bat, and he's getting his mug back out in the public airwaves, reminding us he's alive and well, and ready to go.

He's medically cleared and going on every talk show they can cram him in on...looks like he's an active part of the roster to me.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cena is promoted to appear in two weeks. Then, he will be active. He doesn't appeard in RAW, SD or any WWE program. Also, WWE says that Rey will wrestle in Mexico, but he is inactive. Kane is filming See no evil 2, a WWE Movie. In that case, is he active? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Cena and Kane are apples and oranges...Cena is wrestling for a World Title in a couple of weeks, thus he's front and center in WWE's main business. Kane is MIA, presumably locked up in the Wyatt Family's barn somewhere, thus he's out of sight/out of mind. Now Glen Jacobs is shooting a movie, true...but the Kane character is still AWOL. Cena the man (and Cena the character) are however up and running, and featured on WWE programming (as well as other talk shows and what not). Vjmlhds (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Cena will wrestle in a couple of weeks. so he will be active in a couple of weeks, but today, he is inactive. He doesn't appear in RAW, SD or WWE Program. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Inactive means out of mind, out of sight, not doing anything, not being mentioned, basically not existing. WWE is bending over backwards promoting Cena's PPV World Title match, and having him go on all these different talk shows to get him back out in the public airwaves.  Sitting quietly at home and rehabbing his elbow = inactive.  Going on the talk show circuit and wrestling on PPV for a World title = active.  Vjmlhds (tslk) 17:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think if he is not actively appearing on television then we should not consider him active. It does not really matter if he is appearing outside of the company's weekly shows promoting the PPV match, because he is not actively competing in WWE. Especially if he has not appeared in 30 days (I have not been watching much recently) then he definitely should not be considered active, since that you know, is our rule.  STATic  message me!  18:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Invisible, incomprehensible, insignificant, inexistent, inanimate or interred might be the words you're looking for, VJ. Inactive just means not active. In this context (wrestlers), "not actively wrestling". Saying he's currently active based on future plans is more than an El Local-style crystalballing. It's inignorable (not a word) here. For all we know, he may be injured (totally a word) again before the show. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's do this...if he shows up on Raw Monday or next week (the 2 shows before the PPV), he's active - no if ands or buts...if not we'll hold off until the PPV. That seems like the fair thing to me, even though this particular situation is getting into splitting hairs territory.  Vjmlhds (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Barrett and Mysterio
Both Wade Barrett and Rey Mysterio returned this week as they are wrestling on WWE's Mexican tour.

Here's the report from Wednesday night's show, and one from last night.

They're both wrestling on the tour, so there should be no problems removing them from the inactive list.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice. Matches, they are active. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)