Talk:Major Players/Archive 2

It's Ryder's World, We're Just Livin' In It
How about his current stuff on ECW? Feuding with Shelton, chasing Rosa. More importantly, Ryder is so notable that we, the fans, are actually able to see inside his head and view his thoughts.

I feel this makes him notable, in that he is literally breaking the 4th wall and transcending the television screen. He is so notable that he enters our homes each week and allows us to peer into his mind, however briefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.28.14 (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WOO WOO WOO
WOO WOO WOO.

That alone proves why Zack needs his own page. He has a catchphrase. He's already more notable than any wrestler in any independent promotion by virtue of how long he's been a singles wrestler on TV.

Ryder has almost won the ECW title, Hawkins is in limbo. They are completely separate individuals and keeping them linked like this is akin to saying Edge and Christian should be a single page because they spent all that time in the Brood and as surfer dudes.

15-20 mostly unstorylined matches on a show frequently watched by less people than TNA on a global scale doesn't compare with 8 years of singles success and major titles, stop being facetious. Tony2Times (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unstorylined? So Ryder trying to become number one contender multiple times isn't a storyline? Sorry it can't be a gold star storyline like TNA's "Abyss is retarded" or "Kevin Nash likes money".

Face it, if we interviewed 100 people on the street, far more would be able to name Ryder than any single TNA wrestler other than maybe Kurt Angle, and that's only because Angle was in the Olympics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.113.252 (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mostly unstorylined. Aside from wanting a title, he's had no other storyline aside from a singing contest with Benjamin. He has a page, it's here, deal with it. When his career is different enough that this page is no longer mainly about the tag team then he'll get a page. As is his career has been 5 years in a tag team, 15-20 matches not. Tony2Times (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Restart
The above section is extremely long and gets off subject alot. Starting anew is better.

Okay, lets get to it. I'm going to hopefully show why Zack Ryder should not have an individual page. First, the argument that it seems no one on the opposite side can understand. This article is about the history of both wrestlers. Why is that? Because they have spent the majority of their careers together. To break the article in half to make two new articles would be WP:Content forking. The subject material can easily fit into another article. Understand, it is not that we don't like Ryder, Hawkins, etc; it is instead that we can't reasonably give him his own page because of guidelines. Ryder is notable, and he has a page right here. That is far as he is going to get at the moment. He could win the ECW Championship, but still then will not get his own page. Why you ask? Because it is still content forking. The current ECW section on Ryder is actually more in depth than it should.

Now, this site is called "Wikipedia" not the "WWEpedia". Other promotions mean just as much as WWE is a notability sense. Reliable sources make subjects notable. No third party RELIABLE sources, then a subject is not notable. In this case, we have enough sources to justify notability, but due to the content forking guideline, we can't have two bio articles. Now, you are welcome to do as much research as you want to find enough notable info that would justify a separation, like singles career outside of the tag team in other promotions than WWE. Hell, if Hawkins was release tomorrow and debuted in ROH, he would be more notable than Ryder would. Why? Because he would have wrestled in more than one promotion in a singles career. Hopefully everyone understands now. Content forking prevents us from separating the article.-- Will C  00:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If Tyler Reks is a notable person, why can't Zack Ryder? Zack was in DSW and OVW with Hawkins yes, buts thats still one more "promotion" even if its still under and owned by WWE. Also Zack WAS in a feud with Shelton as they did team together, the singing competition and the single match. And he is becoming a prominent figure in WWE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You act as if Ryder doesn't have a page. He has one right here. He is a notable person. Yeah, as a tag team, no singles career. Neither were owned by WWE, they just had agreements with WWE. OVW is still running today. A small little rivalry does not justify a split. He is not an important figure in WWE. He is near jobber level. They don't promote Ryder. Some have forgotten about Ryder in WWE.-- Will C  02:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, this page is not about Zack Ryder specifically, its is about the stable Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder or the Major Brothers. If it was about Zack Ryder, the page would be named Zack Ryder, you don't see Jeff and Matt Hardy's wrestling career under The Hardy Boyz do you? And stating that Zack Ryder is forgotten about is purely your point of view, so you can not argue that point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither can you say he is a "prominent figure in WWE". Yes it is not all about Ryder, but I've shown why he can't have a page. He has a tag team article with Hawkins, telling the story of his life and career, alot like Briscoe Brothers. Take or, well, take it and move on.-- Will C  01:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the Hardys are in anyway relevant to this discussion. No, Jeff and Matt's careers are not covered in the Hardy Boyz, just their tag team time together, but the situation is not comparable on any level. Jeff has won both World Heavyweight and WWE Championships, not to mention the Intercontinental championship, and also had a notable run in TNA. Matt won the Cruiserweight, US and ECW Championships, had a tag title run with MVP and started his own stable with Shannon Moore and Crash Holly back in '02 and '03. Ryder has done none of these things. He had a minor feud with Benjamin, and has had what, 2 matches for the ECW Championship? Not comparable, not relevant, and not a reason for Ryder to have a separate article. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 02:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What he meant was information exists about Zack Ryder on this page, not it's about him alone. His career, however, is parallell to Hawkins for over five years, with a mere few months of haphazardly put together matches the difference. The Hardy Boyz spent about 4 years going solo in the mid 2000s, when Jeff went to TNA and Matt stayed with WWE then went to ROH and back. Their paths were split after they joined WWE again as Matt won the US Title, Tag Title and ECW Title while Jeff won the WWE Title, WHC, Intercontinental Title and now is no longer with the company. It's not comparable and if you think it is you should do some research before commenting. Tony2Times (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Zack is a notable person I agree with Will on that but if he is he should have his own page think about it 2 fueds Shelton Benjamin, and now with 4 different superstars ECW Champion Christian, William Regal, Vladimir Kozlov and Ezekial Jackson and has had a ECW championship match how long and how many main event matches will it take for Zack to get his own page.--Curtis23 (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You just do not understand do you? 2 feuds, 2 matches is not enough to pass the barrier that it is not content forking. He will not get a page for a long time.-- Will C  02:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, your arguement about "content forking" still makes no sense. over half of the people i pointed out (especially The Bushwhackers, their pages are basically identical) still don't meet the guideline standards you have apparently laid out. If they get separate pages, I don't see why this one shouldn't be split. I'm not some Ryder mark trying to get him his own page because I like the gimmick (though I do) -- I simply find no logic in anything that the detractors have said regarding "notability" especially since a large portion is self-contradicted by existing wiki articles, in some cases, horrendously so. --Miikro (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the Wikipedia law but Ryder really doesn't deserve his own page. If you look at anyone else's page, an entire year or more is only a few paragraphs even people like John Cena or Randy Orton. With that in mind, it's obvious Ryder hasn't done anything like they have since he split with Curt Hawkins. He's won a few squash matches, feuded with Shelton and had a couple main events on ECW. If he spent maybe a year on ECW with a run with the title and more feuds, got drafted to SmackDown! or RAW then won the IC Title or something and feuded for a bit then did some other stuff over a longer period of time, accomplishing more in a singles career then he should get a page since if you did try to make a Zack Ryder page right now it'd have exactly the same as this page except almost a week-by-week rundown of his singles career in ECW to make it seem bigger. He'll get his own page when he does more credible things as a singles wrestler and that just makes more sense than having two pages floating around with the same info minus a few sentences.190.59.13.89 (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Above post makes no sense. Just give him his own page he's been on ECW for months now.--Curtis23 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Above post makes complete sense. Signing your comments to make them look like other people said them, however, doesn't make sense. Tony2Times (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to make a consensus but you guys continue to disagree why don't you merge Jeff Hardy and Matt Hardy to Hardy Boyz or merge Edge and Randy Orton to Rated-RKO or especially merege Ted DiBiase and Cody Rhodes to The Legacy or merge John Morrison and The Miz to John Morrison and The Miz or Jesse and Festus to Jesse and Festus and last why don't you merge Shawn Michaels and Triple H to D-Generation X but all these people have different pages so why not split Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder and give Zack a page.--Curtis23 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * *Facepalm* Understand that content forking does not apply to any of those subjects. Why? Because each wrestler has had a wide singles career that encompasses more than their tag history. DX is a stable. That has lasted for many years and hadd many many members. HBK and Triple Asshole are not known as being in a tag team and has not been apart of a tag team the majority of their careers. Both Hardys have had wide singles career. The tag article is about the subject of the tag history. The bio articles are about the people and their careers. Ryder and Hawkins can't have pages like that. You ask why? Because they have identical careers, and it would be easier, simpler, etc to just feature their history in this page to pass guidelines. Don't ask dumb questions like that again, please dear God, do not ask dumb questions like that again! The consensus clearly is going to end up being he doesn't get a page. You don't like that, tough deal.-- Will C  21:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because unlike Jeff and Matt and so on and so forth, all these have actually established themselves as Singles Wrestlers, Edge for example won 9 World Heavyweight Championships, Orton won 6, Hardy has won like 4, Mciahels and Triple H's career speaks for itself, and Matt Hardy has won numerous notable Singles titles, including the WWF European Championship, WWE US Title and ECW Championship, these type of things make them Notable Singles Competitors, the point you are trying to make, makes no sense whatsoever. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 21:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this conversation is just going back and forth (split it, no don't split it, repeat 10000 times), I'm offering a compromise of sorts. There is a Zack Ryder article on Pro Wrestling Wiki. If anyone wants to add onto to it, feel free to do so. Just make sure to follow editing guidelines there (as all aren't the same as on here). The page is: http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Zack_Ryder. If this can get some of the bickering back and forth to stop, that would be nice. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Will poor poor Will you just don't understand and watch your mouth don't take your anger out on me that wasn't a dumb question. Oh and most of Cody Rhodes and Ted DiBiase's Careers have been tag teams especially Cody he's almost started with Holly right away.--Curtis23 (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ted DiBiase had three or four tours of Japan with Noah, had a string of matches in IWA, WLW and won the Southern Title in FCW, as well as being part of the Next Gen Hart Foundation. Cody Rhodes has been in two different tag teams in WWE so I don't know how you think that would work, not to mention winning the Tag and TV Titles in OVW. So no, most of their careers haven't been in one tag team. Tony2Times (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See this is why we need a training camp for new editors. First Curtis has changed the importance and class to this article twice to FA and Top, when first the article has to pass a review to go anything higher than a B class, while this article is clearly not a Top class article. A.J. Styles has won every title in TNA and worked in numberous promotions and is not a top class article. Most of the biggest stars in wrestling history are not Top class articles. This is not WWEpedia Curtis. Someone's career in WWE is not the only important thing. Like Tony said, Ted and Cody are notable enough for their own pages. Certainly Cody who held all of OVW's Titles and was an amateur wrestler.-- Will C  04:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Meh, might as well just start pages for both of them and do something...

What's the Point
What's the point of all you guys saying that Zack doesn't deserve a page he's notable enough for his own page.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the point in making a new section? Anyway, there is NO reliable evidence he deserves a page. Why keep arguing about it? Just leave it be. This is getting to be very lame and repetitive.  RobJ1981 (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to get the feeling Curtis is just being facetious and troll-like, so I'm out seeing as my arguments are always the same and make sense. So if I revert you, you already know why. Tony2Times (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Zack deserves his own page just like i've always said before and all the explainations i've given.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Zack doesn't deserves his own page just like I've always said before and all the explainations I've given. Tony2Times (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should propose an article in a sandbox of yours. Write up his article, bearing in mind that as this page exists to talk in detail about his tag team, it would be summarised in far less depth on his own article (cf The Hardy Boys' articles and their own pages.) Maybe then we can see if there is any credence in a Zack article at this time. Tony2Times (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's A Thought.
Since Ryder is obviously more established than Hawkins, why don't we just rename this article "Zack Ryder" and make the first part about his early career with Curt Hawkins, and then have it become about Ryder after the breakup. I just don't understand what it would hurt giving Zack Ryder his own article considering wikipedia has articles about everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotoriousND22 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You may not understand, but there is still guidelines that prevents us from breaking up the articles.
 * If we do what you suggest and rename this article Zack Ryder then Curt Hawkins would have no article at all, whereas currently both of them share an article. Tony2Times (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Zack and Curt do not have a page!!! Their STABLE or TAG TEAM have a page but not either one of them!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These solutions are a little extreme, but again I'll say if The Bushwhackers somehow qualify for seperate singles articles that are IDENTICAL minus one or two sentences, Hawkins and Ryder deserve their own pages. Also, I think the people that keep pushing this "content forking" concept are being a wee bit too serious about their own importance. Training for new editors? Seriously? That defeats a large point of the entire concept of wikipedia. --Miikro (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm currently discussing with other editors about this and a few other tag teams. A lot of articles were written way back when Wikipedia was seen as a fansite and need to be updated and processed. I can't see the Sheepherders needing individual articles but they did split up for a while so we shall see. Keep your eyes peeled. Tony2Times (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that people keep thinking that just because Zack has a singles career in ECW they think that Hawkins' doesn't have a singles career in FCW. Zack may be getting more screen-time but if Hawkins' were to win a singles title in FCW he'd actually be more acceptable to getting his own article than Zack Ryder. 190.59.20.64 (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, the people pushing the "content forking" I think are just fans to take wrestling a wee bit to serious and don't like Ryder because of his character. They are both notable as they both have been in 2 other promotions which means they have Independant experiance, just like Tyler Reks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.142.63 (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your inability to read an article you're trying to discuss is astounding. They've won titles in 4 promotions, 1 of them being WWE which I presume is the standard by which you mean "2 other promotions". 4 minus 1 is 3. This doesn't count Jersey All Pro Wrestling which is also listed in the article. So they've wrestled in 5 different promotions. And as I've mentioned time and time again is that in all these 5 different promotions they wrestled in, they wrestled in as a tag team. So all that does is extend their notability as a tag team and not singles wrestlers, upping the ratio on the tag team side in comparison to their singles careers which still amount to two sentences. Tony2Times (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if Zack and Curt don't get single, seperate articles, then explain to me why Tyler Reks should get one without just saying "He passes guidelines for being a notable person". Because Tyler = 2 promotions, Zack and Curt, whilst they have competed in a team for many years have SPLIT = DIFFERANT CAREERS!!! And have both wrestled in FIVE promotions AND held titles, I'm sure thats notable not just to have a STABLE PAGE, which is what this is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.142.63 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tag team pages can be bios as well, see ROH's Briscoe Brothers. He passes guidelines that is all. Hawkins and Ryder have a page, right here. They can't get seperate pages because that is against guidelines. Simple. Also, quit saying "Well he gets one, Ryder should" because that argument is childish and dull. If you can't come up with a good reason that passes guidelines and shows Ryder should have a seperate page, then just leave to be honest. Because we can fix problems like Cryme Tyme, etc by merging the articles. If Reks isn't notable, then that page can be deleted. Discussions would have to be done on the cases first, but those are fixable problems.-- Will C  08:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just don't get Ryder AND Hawkins have been well into their singles career Hawkins has been on a winning streak in FCW and Ryder has been in a lot of main event matches i'm just saying this because part of this is people saying that if we give Ryder a page we have to give Hawkins a page and we now can.--Curtis23 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am starting to wonder, after all [|this sandbox] contrasts so much with this joint article. There's so much there not on this page and the majority of content is so different Ryder and Hawkins clearly need their own page(!) Tony2Times (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell that is scarcasm Tony.-- Will C  03:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's sarcasm. Curtis made a sandbox and it doesn't look very different compared to this article. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was being ironic. Hence the (!) symbol. Tony2Times (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank God, I was thinking I would have to come to the UK to kill you, because of your stupidity. We already have enough idiots in the world.-- Will C  14:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok Will and TOny, this is meant to be a discussion about Splitting the article being talked about, not a "I'm so big, I can talk trash with a keyboard" article. Just thought that needed clearing up. Second, Zack and Curt will most likely not get their own Single article at this moment, but in a years time It most likely will, going back to the trend of Hawkins winning streak and Ryders "main event-ish" status. Now if you want to discuss this article, please dicuss it, not behave like whiny brats or big computer pychotic nerds and try an act all cool by saying you are going over to the UK to kill people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First off: Will that comment (even though it was a joke) wasn't needed. Talking about killing someone is very rude, period. Secondly, Devilfreak: don't make assumptions. There is no guarantee that either will be notable for articles in the future. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking trash, I was merely making a point by being ironic seeing as making my point by talking in earnest hasn't seemed to make people understand. And Will is welcome to threaten me in jest to kill me all he likes, the UK is rather a large place so he'd have a hard time trying. Tony2Times (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would find you. Anyway, is everyone clear yet, that neither are getting an article anytime soon?-- Will C  23:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Rob, didn't write my words properly. meant to write "Who's to say in a years time...". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC) People need to keep a better eye on this page. It's had repeated vandalism. The same person keeps vandalizing Dustin Rhodes. Here's their latest IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/190.59.21.71 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.156.97 (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok i'll work on my subpage and then show it to you guys and then you'll see.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's to say anytime soon Will? Hawkins could suddenly go to TNA, and win the TNA World Heavyweight Title, or Ryder, a very unlikely event but who would know with WWE lol! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would Ryder get his own if he became ECW Champion defeated Christian in a rematch a Survivor Series and then defended it in Championship Scramble at TLC and then won the Royal Rumble then defened it against William Regal and then next week Christian then Vladimir Kozlov then Ezekial Jackson, then won an elimation chamber match to defend the ECW championship at elimation chamber then defended it in a six pack challenge then next week a triple threat soon defeating every person on the ECW roster in a championship match and then at Wrestlemania won the WWE Championship for winning the Royal Rumble then defending both championships against thw whole ECW roster then kept defending it through Backlash and Extreme Rules then would he get his own page.--Curtis23 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. :D Tony2Times (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

He would have needed the Intercontinental Championship as well and also win the Money In The Bank, King of the Ring, all the Slammys, TNA World Heavyweight Championship, have a 20 year career in RoH, win the World Heavyweight Championship and beat Curt Hawkins in a "Winner Gets Their Own Wikipedia Page" Match to have his own page. :P190.59.9.44 (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Either that or just doing something notable to fully distinguish his career from the other one's. Tony2Times (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Curtis, I thought you were working on a subpage and then you were going to post it here to prove us wrong? RobJ1981 (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

For Hawkins or Ryder to get their own page, one of them would have to join another NOTABLE company or star in movies etc. E.g. Ryder goes to TNA, therefore Ryder becomes a notable person as he is with another mainstream brand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

WWE should actually do a "Winner Gets Their Own Wikipedia Page" Match between Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder since there's so much fighting over it, you know, capitalize on something real.190.59.9.44 (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hilarious idea for an angle seeing as how Matt Strkyer has already (possibly unintentionally) commented on the wikipedia non-split on at least one occasion. I do see some of the point to what's being said. The people making arguements about Tyler Reks (seemingly the favorite target) not being noteable seem to not realize that talking about a low-card singles wrestler being "not noteable" is different from a tag team that is noteable, but got split up, resulting in a "do we split the page? do we not split the page?" debacle. It's comparing apples to pineapples; some of the terminology is shared but they are completely different items in every way. I still think at this point Zack does deserve his own article, but I think people are getting way too bent out of shape about this whole thing. I think both Curtis23 *and* wrestlinglover need to step away from this entire article because quite frankly their point-and-counterpoint attacks are becoming personal. But then I'm not a wiki regular, I just look in from time to time state what I see. --Miikro (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Miikro. At the moment Zack nor Curt havn't done much to become notable enough. In my opinion if Curt was to debeut as the "Gay gimmick" thing in WWE and Him and Ryder were to still be single star-type-things then the case for seperation of this article will be greater than what it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Where did you hear about Hawkins having a "Gay Gimmick"?190.59.2.127 (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hawkins to debut on ECW?
I read on a wrestling news site that Curt Hawkins is set to debut on the December 1 edition of ECW. His gimmick well be that of a Hardcore old school ECW fan, he frequently states he was trained by Mikey Whipwreck, and he chants "ECDUB" and "ECW" on his way to the ring and after wins, not unlike Tommy Dreamer. His ring name well be Edgar Compton Wright and is set to fued with Zack Ryder, who apparently wins the ECW Championship sometime soon142.162.55.94 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please link me to this fantacist news site, it sounds like a riot of a read. Tony2Times (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I just checked my history and it urns out it got deleted, so I can't get to the site, but I'll try to look for it.142.162.55.94 (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How convenient.-- Will C  19:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If that site did have all those details, WWE would have changed them/canceled them since they hate when stories get leaked especially over a month in advance...190.59.19.249 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

SPLITTING THEM MAKES PERFECT SENSE
Just split them Ryder is notable I mean he's a main-eventer been on ECW for 7 months or a little more than 210 days he's had an ECW Championship Shot won a 10-man battle royal and is currently engaged in a huge fued.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All capitals, some bold and repeating a header don't change the fact that this sandbox and this article are all but identical, serving no purpose as different entries. Tony2Times (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Define "huge feud" because from the looks of things, they've given up on pushing Ryder on ECW since he lost his match against Shelton Benjamin on ECW and also hasn't had any real promos for a while minus a Rosa Mendes fantasy.190.59.19.249 (talk) 01:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Curtis, stop disrupting the talk page. You coming here and shouting to split isn't helpful at all, especially since you clearly know there has been numerous discussions about it. Nothing has changed. You claimed you would make the article to prove people wrong, but you still havent done that. So until Zack Ryder or Curt Hawkins do something, just stop demanding it here. This talk page doesn't need many sections about the SAME exact thing. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is for just deleting this article so there is no longer a dispute over splitting?-- Will C  21:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tony they are not the same.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who/what aren't/isn't the same? I haven't said anything like that. Tony2Times (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Will, that wasn't needed. Disputes happen. If you hate it: don't view it. Why is it such an issue for you? Curtis, why don't you just let this go? The pages are very similar. You havent made a suitable article yet. A few sentences being different isn't enough to show Ryder or Hawkins needs a seperate page here. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is called a joke to lighten the mood and scare the ips. This dispute is already dumb, and discussed to death. A joke helps once in a while. Lighten up dude.-- Will C  23:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, while this shouldn't be a forum the amount of time and space this endless asinine argument has caused needs a little good humour. Tony2Times (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me to lighten up. Will, if you hate the dispute: DON'T post about it again. Problem solved. A joke to "lighten the mood and scare IPs" isn't necessary. Talk page is meant for discussion of the article, not disruptive jokes. The dispute might be dumb, but it's not the first (or last) time a dispute will happen. So move on to other talk pages or articles instead of being disruptive. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Ryder needs his own page, and Hawkins should keep this. You all do realize Ryder will eventually have his own page? The fact that he was in the main event of ECW for 5 weeks in a row means he needs his own page. Just split the page now because it's happening sooner or later, and it will stop disputes. K P McZiggy  (Allow Me To Introduce Myself...) 21:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We have guidelines to follow, we can't split the article. Main eventing ECW is like main eventing a house show, it just doesn't matter.-- Will C  22:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He's gone six months without any meanginful storylines, he could go another six months without any and get released by that point. It's not definite that he'll get a page, even if it is likely and anyway at this point his article will be >99% the same as this one. Tony2Times (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Main eventing ECW isn't the same as a house show, so don't make inaccurate assumptions Will. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is your winner and NEW ECW Champion, Zack Ryder.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting result in a Christian versus Regal match during a show which Ryder isn't competing on. Tony2Times (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I was being positive.--Curtis23 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been editing my subpage here it is.--Curtis23 (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That subpage just proves that Ryder doesn't deserve his own page since it's going to be the same as this one minus a few lines. When Ryder has more of an actual singles career then he'll get a page. Right now, this page is good enough for both of them.190.59.254.116 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No it proves he deserves his own page.--Curtis23 (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Explain!-- Will C  06:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You said once he has a sucessful storyline it would make him noteable he's having a storyline with Rosa Mendes and Shelton Benjamin anyway even though this is making him more noteable he's always been noteable so give him a page.--Curtis23 (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's succesful (I'm pretty sure we said notable storyline anyway) about two backstage fantasy sequences with Rosa Mendes? The story hasn't even finished yet, plus it's the worst narrative in WWE right now bar none and has been widely derided not that it counts for notability but still. The Hardys had a backstage semi-fantasy sequence with Candice Michelle washing herself with water - it's not on any of the three pages associated with the Hardys for good reason. Tony2Times (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said that. One storyline means nothing. He will have to do alot more to be notable enough for his own page. He has one right now, right here, so get over it.-- Will C  21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This dispute needs to end
The first thread about splitting the article was back in April. Since August, this page has had some running discussion about making a split. It's very silly to continue arguing over this. I'm not going to give my opinion, because that's not why I'm posting. I suggest all editors involved here walk away and find an article to productively edit.  iMatthew  talk  at 21:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the edit histories of the people that have been in the discussion: most HAVE done other edits. Not everyone is just focused on this talk page. It's called a talk page for reason. This isn't the first or last time an argument will be long and/or repetitive. If you think this is so silly, then don't read the talk page. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand? RobJ1981 (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for this to end to allow me to not have to see it. It's a silly waste of time. It's been going on for months now, and clearly not going anywhere. Why continue fighting over it?  iMatthew  talk  at 04:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Yah it does need to end but nobody agrees with what's right splitting the page. I mean making a page for Zack Ryder I mean he's very noteable I mean almost every WWE fan I know (and that's a lot) know him.--Curtis23 (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I found something according to the content forking article it says that they have to be on the same subject so the only thing that keeps me from splitting the article is what you have about Ryder on ECW if you took out the championship match thing and stuff it woulnd't be content forking.--Curtis23 (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't make him notable enough for his own article.-- Will C  21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability?
What do you have to do to be noteable you haven't specified that what do you have to do I bet he's way more noteable (without his tag team career) then anybody in ECW's new superstar initiative and everybody from that has their own page explain that.--Curtis23 (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We've specified lots of times if you'd care to read our replies: sufficient progression of a singles career through storylines, title wins and whathave you and a notability away from his tag team career. ECW's new superstar intiative has included Evan Bourne who spent about 6 years wrestling in many major wrestling promotions (ROH, TNA, on MTV) as well as Dragon Gate in Japan; Yoshi Tatsu is a seven year veteran with over 300 matches in NJPW as well as appearances in Riki Pro and over 50 matches in FCW; Vance Archer has been in pro wrestling 9 years in the US, Canada, France and Japan for TNA, AJPW, FSF and WWC in Puerto Rico; Tyson Kidd wrestled in Canada's Stampede, ECCW, US' ROH, JAPW, DSW, England's All-Star&Garage, Japan's NJPW for 7 years; Sheamus O'Shaunnesy also spent 7 years in Ireland's IwW, NLW, Scotland's BCW, England's RQW, All-Star, Austria's EWF.

By comparison Zack Ryder has spent 6 months as a singles wrestler in one company wrestling mostly different people each week with only 20 televised matches of which 7 have been against the same competitor more than once. Contrast that with 4 years of tag team wrestling in four different promotions, winning 3 seperate titles and being a tag team inside La Familia which dominated SmackDown's programming for 7 months during their involvement of it. Tony2Times (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, I agree with Tony. Though on a side note, please don't call him Vance Archer, call him Lance Hoyt; I can't stand that name honestly. See Curtis, just being on ECW as a singles wrestler doesn't make someone notable for their own page right then and there. Ryder debuted on ECW before moving to SD. Ryder needs to accomplish alot more before he gets a single page. At the moment, he has just had a small singles career. That can easily be fit within a tag team article, just like the Briscoe Brothers.-- Will C  04:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We know that Will. Why are you repeating yourself? Curtis just doesn't get it, even if we explain it numerous times. Last but not least: this talk page is NOT a forum for random wrestling discussion. So don't bring up petty things such as hating a certain name or not (in regards to Lance Hoyt/Vance Archer). If I need to bring this up at the proper admin board I will. I'm not sure why you think you need to disrupt this talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can repeat myself if I please. No comment is unneeded on here. Redundancy may help Curtis understand. Dude get over it. It is not disruptful unless you make it a giant subject. You have now made it disruptful by talking about it. If you had ignored it, it would have just been a small note by me and no one would have cared. Lighten up! I said on a side note. I didn't turn this into a forum. Even freaking admins say crap like that. Take it up there, I won't pay attention to it and it won't be a problem anyway. I'm not going around starting sections on predictions at talk pages. I say a small comment, I don't open sections. No rightful admin is going to block a user who expands numerous articles, takes part in numerous discussions, and reverts vandalism for him saying a offsubject comments during a long message. If anything, you have just started a forum section. This page is supposed to be about Hawkins and Ryder, not you being so damn worried about me saying a small comments. Now let it be and find something else to worry about. Take Don't-give-a-fuckism more literal when things like this happen.-- Will C  05:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop I don't like these kinds of fights. Back to the subject. I'm talking about people like Tyler Reks what have they done?--74.235.5.234 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Sorry i'm Curtis.^ Forgot to log in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.5.234 (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe Curtis thats been my argument for ages as I was one of the first to bring him up! Lol. Personally I think there needs to be a vote as its been proved splitting won't be "COntent forking" but then people still say Ryder still isn't notable was is a fair argument as in some cases he can, and some he isn't. Someone just needs to start a new sub and have a vote tally there. And we can see if anyone edits the votes incase anyone is saying or thinking that people can do that because your IP adress will show up on the changes page of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfreak12 (talk • contribs)
 * Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --  Θaks  ter   10:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been proved that it won't be content forking, Zack's proposed page is exactly the same as the current one, aside from a brief note about Rosa Mendes and we don't add unfinished storylines or week by week updates which makes that part not valid anyway. Other than that, and obviously changing the article's intro and titles to make it about one person, it's the same thing. Tony2Times (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Zack Ryder --Curtis23 (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey i'm new but I think Zack should get his own account.--You don't know me 03:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis23 (talk • contribs)
 * Curtis that is never going to work, because we can easily see it is your account in the talk history. Just quit trying to pull the vote your way. It isn't helping your case.-- Will C  04:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That Zack Ryder page is the exact same except it has an almost perfect recollection of the very small Ryder/Shelton/Rosa feud which Wikipedia doesn't need, as all the details you gave for it on the page are week by week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealEeL (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

So if they don't deserve separate articles...
I don't think that Team 3D does. Granted Team 3D is one of the biggest names in tag team wrestling of all time, but what have they done in their careers without each other? Aside from the 2-line "Singles Career" parts of their articles, and their short split due to the WWE Draft (both of which could be summarized in single paragraph if the articles were merged), they have never been apart. Explain why (aside from their fame as a tag team) they deserve separate articles any more then Ryder & Hawkins. K P McZiggy (Allow Me To Introduce Myself...) 08:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've mentioned this before and the topic was nicely dodged. However they did merge Cryme Tyme recently. I should check the Bushwhackers.. --Miikro (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Petty much? This shouldn't be a case of "all or nothing", because that's not how Wikipedia works. Bring up Team 3-D at the Wrestling Project and see what happens. Personally I don't care either way, but let's try to stay on topic: this talk page is for Hawkins+Ryder...not a place to complain about other tag team articles. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And on a totally separate note
http://twitter.com/thecurthawkins - according to Hawkin's twitter, he is one of the FCW tag team champions. Last I checked, the dudebusters were the tag team champions. Care to shed some light? K P McZiggy (Allow Me To Introduce Myself...) 08:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Hawkins is even listed on Wikipedia's FCW Tag Team Championship page as having been a champion... it should be added but there's no source that's truly reliable... If Hawkins did win that title, he's actually more notable than Ryder lol.190.59.0.135 (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I got a link to a reliable source that shows that Hawkins wins a title without Ryder in FCW, I'll post it here since it has yet to be shown on TV: http://pwinsider.com/article/43134/florida-championship-wrestling-tv-taping-results-irwin-r-shyster-appears-kaval-low-ki-back-in-action-and-more.html?p=1

I think that we should expand Hawkins article more, talking about his time in The Dudebusters and his championship reign in FCW.190.59.0.135 (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well now that were on the topic of Hawkins yes he is FCW Tag Team Champion so lets give him a page.--74.235.5.212 (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That one title doesn't make him notable enough for his own page imo.-- Will C  03:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said it did. What I am asking is who the hell is the tag team champions lol? K P McZiggy (Allow Me To Introduce Myself...) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your letting Hawkins have a page and not Ryder?--Curtis23 (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No we shall not, for now at least I'd imagine. Thanks for redirecting. Tony2Times (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Curtis, if Hawkins would to get a page, then so would Ryder.-- Will C  03:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said give Hawkins his own page, just expand his article in the split section of this article. Hawkins is admittedly more notable than Zack Ryder because he's one a championship without Ryder around and with another team plus he's in a feud in FCW while he's with The Dudebusters. Ryder's done nothing compared to Hawkins. Ryder's had brief feuds with random people that amounted to nothing while Hawkins entered tons of feuds in FCW, made a new team The Dudebusters and won a title. Let's expand Hawkins' article who actually has done more than Ryder, and while we're at it, clear out the split section with all this stuff people put there about Ryder just to make it look longer than it should be and replace it with Hawkins information.190.59.10.252 (talk) 09:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to start an argument but if Hawkins is so much more notable why isn't he on the main roster? K P McZiggy (Allow Me To Introduce Myself...) 02:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Main rosters don't have anything to do with notability.-- Will C  08:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. If two men with two exactly identical credentials were signed to WWE contracts, with one on the FCW roster and one on RAW, you can't possibly say that the one on RAW wouldn't be more deserving of an article then the other. K P McZiggy  (Allow Me To Introduce Myself...) 05:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is all about information and reliable sources to back up that information. Just appearing on the main roster for two weeks then disappearing doesn't make that guy more notable over, lets say, a guy who has worked in countless indy promotions and been covered in-depthly by third party reliable sources. It isn't about who deserves one.-- Will C  07:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The FCW Florida Tag Team Championship and Curt Hawkins
Does anybody know if Curt is the real FCW Tag Champion or if it is still the Rutundos?--Curtis23 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Broski
I have to ask, why does the Broski reference keep getting added to the section about Zack Ryder's image change? There is no proof at all that Zack Ryder's look and/or gimmick is based on the Broski internet video. Nobody has actually shown any proof of anyone certifying this claim.

Until it is certified if his look and/or gimmick are based on the Broski internet video, it's just pure speculation and coincidence and therefor I believe it should not be added to the article. - User: Cool King 16:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True, and I agree. No one should readd it, unless providing a reliable source that says it is based on the idea.-- Will C  17:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was readded 5 hours after it was previously removed by User:Jeangabin. Someone must of not noticed the readd.-- Will C  17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Caylen and Trent on ECW
Now that they are on ECW what about Hawkins and his FCW Tag Team Championship reign.--Curtis23 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.27.225 (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who knows, wrestlers will often wrestle both the territory and on TV like when Burchill was first on SmackDown, Abraham Washington on ECW and I think either Sheamus or Drew Galloway remained FCW Champion a while after being on TV. Also Curtis, your posts are auto signed by typing four ~s rather than typing it out longhand. Tony2Times (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I Took The Liberty...
I took the liberty to update Hawkins section of the "split" area... all those crazy Zack Ryder fans should notice that Hawkins' section actually has more details about his career in FCW rather than hisnew look and catchphrases and whatever else you try to add to make his[Zack Ryder] article look bigger. Anyway, I updated Hawkins' career while in FCW hope you guys enjoy, anything else would be great.190.59.31.234 (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

VS Bazooka Kaboom
What about the rumors that Hawkins will debut in ECW alongside Bazooka Kaboom (ROH Superstar Bryan Danielson)?

Would that be grounds for a split, since it both men would would be on WWE Television as separate characters.

I personally feel that the Dudebusters is enough of a differentiation, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.239.211 (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rumors aren't facts.-- Will C  01:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)