Talk:The Undertaker/Archive 4

Sentence doesn't really make sense
This sentence - "Despite his strong showing against Lex Luger, WCW declined to renew Calaway's contract, and he signed with the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) in late October 1990. " Doesn't really make sense. His "strong showing" was presumably scripted, that shouldn't have had any bearing on whether WCW renewed his contract. Wrestlers are not awarded contracts for winning their matches (they're told which matches they win by whoever writes the script) they're awarded contracts for other reasons. Blankfrackis 02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the script says who wins, but the wrestlers talent and work ethics is what determines how well they do in a match, how believeable it looks, how the fans respond to it. It's also a mistaken belief that just because the finish is agreed upon in advance that every single move in the match is written down like a script-like form. Yes that does happen from time to time but generally the two wrestlers lay out some of the "spots" along the way and then adapt while in the ring. Look at it this way, why do actors win awards for their roles when it's all scripted? it's in their interpretation of the material - it's much the same with wrestlers really. MPJ-DK 01:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Children?
Anyone know the birthdates of his children? And does he have two sons with his ex-wife Jodi Lynn or just one? (MgTurtle 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)).

I do know that he had only 1 child born with Jodi Lynn, born sometime in 1993. he does have kids born with Sara, most recently born in October of 2002. yes sir, thats the extent of what i know! SU121188 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I know he has two daughters with Sara and I believe their first daughter was born in either November or December 2002 (most websites (mostly unreliable) said that the first daughter was born in the same month as Kurt Angle's daughter who was born in December.I believe his son's name is Gunner but 'Taker hasn't said anything about his son so it's basically hersay MgTurtle 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)).

Good article review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

The only thing I whould like to say is that the image/text ratio is low, but it doesn't really need an image of him each year.

Passes all the other points (see checklist) I'm passing it.- Flubeca Talk 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this article has been delisted again. For the same reasons as the last time. Please don't nominate it at GAC again until the "in-universe" issues have been corrected and the article meets all of the criteria listed at WP:WIAGA. The discussion for delistment, now in archive, can be found here. Regards, Lara  ♥Love  13:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sara's info
Anyone think that some of Sara's info. should be on this page like her birthday and how the met and stuff or should be recreate her page with sources?(MgTurtle 16:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)).


 * She is not notable enough to have her own page. She had one, but it was deleted. You can read the discussion here: Articles for deletion/Sara Calaway. Nikki311 21:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that she is younger than him or Have her birthday on his page?I don't personally think it matters or it will enhance his page but I thought I'd ask anyway?(MgTurtle 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)).

BIG EVIL
Can someone remove this name from his ring names? It was one of his nicknames (and listed as such) but never a ring name. This page is protected, so I cannot edit this. --Endlessdan 18:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection
It says on the top of the article that it is semi-protected, but I am unable to make any edits, and my account is more than a year old. Anyone else having this problem, or just me? (Sawyer 09:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC))
 * It was semi-protected but it was then changed to full protection. - Deep   Shadow  09:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

doesn't matter. Just leave it alone. To many people edit this article and the article is a disgrace. Tratare 04:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * can we assume you mean "too many" people? Or maybe "two many" people? it makes a difference -- use spell check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How is the article a disgrace? Or is it the people editing it which is a disgrace? Darrenhusted 17:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I say this article is a disgrace because the amount of information on each of his feuds is excessive. If I want to learn about who the Undertaker is on wikipedia, instead I'll have to go on a 3 hour-long visit back to every last one of his feuds back from 1990 to the present. I doubt anyone with any kind of a life at all, would sit there and do that. Tratare 20:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC) he will some back to face mark henry

Deleting lots of this article
A lot of the information on this article needs to be deleted. It's a outrageous. Talking about everyone of his feuds is inappropriate. Maybe we can throw in a couple of his best moments and the main parts of his character and what he wears, but to dwell on his feuds... In fact, to go through almost every one of his feuds in order since 1990 is outrageous. This article is outrageous! Tratare 07:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to further pursue this topic, I would advise taking it up with WikiProject:Professional wrestling, as such a massive revamp would be setting a standard for many articles which do the same. Enhanceddownloadbird 07:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discussing it anywhere. I just wanted to say my opinion here, which I've done. This article is a mess. You can choose to do something about it or you can leave it that way and I don't really care if there are other articles like this one. Then there all a mess too. Let me give you an example. Take the show Family Matters (TV series). Look how perfect it is. A section about ongoing themes, a section about the cancellations, a section about comical issues, etc. No section dwelling on one aspect of the show. Let's say we changed it to look like this Undertaker article and discussed each episode from beginning to end. There's no difference and that would be stupid Tratare 10:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

As this a previously a GA article I would say that any mass deletion would harm rather than help the article, if I were you I'd take your outrage to a different article, or at least draft a copy in your sandbox before you start trying to chop up this article. Darrenhusted 13:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think its great. You have to think about it: Undertaker has had a long career. Its good to cover it the way it does. This is one of the best articles on wikipedia.BIG Daddy M 14:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your favorite, eh? I think the feces article is better than this one. Tratare 15:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds all too familiar. Anyone else agree? - Deep   Shadow  20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup; Very. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the article, can we at least try to act civil here, Tratare? Making rude and insulting remarks doesn't help anything. (Sawyer 07:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

Photos
You should put a better photograph of the chokeslam like this one you should add it, the link is

Cleanup/in-universe
I just cleaned up the article a bit. Mostly I combined like citations, removed peacock words and unattributed weaselly phrases, as well as removed some of the continuous linking of names. I also changed the "cleanup" tag to a "in-universe" tag, because the paragraphs about his career are still, well, "in-universe". Anyway, I tried to write this out in my last edit summary, but I accidentally pressed enter before I finished, so basically, I'm just letting everyone know why I changed the tag. Nikki311 23:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole thing of changing Wrestling articles to real articles is too difficult. The fans will just keep reverting back to in universe story telling as they like to read it. The fact is anyone with half a brain reading it will understand that wrestling is presented in a kayfabe manner anyway and just accept that the names are what the Wrestlers called themselves on the day. That way, we can keep it as it looks without complaints, and understand what is being said. Madslocodemente 04:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

From Manual of Style (writing about fiction) When writing about fiction, keep the following in mind:
 * The principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded: write from a real world perspective;
 * References to the real world are always made when the fiction and reality differ. (i.e. Big Show substitutes for Khali in the GAB Punjabi Prison match)


 * Both primary and secondary information are necessary for a real world perspective: maintain a balanced use of both primary and secondary sources;
 * Just look at the sources.


 * Unpublished personal observation and interpretation of the article's subject and primary sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia: avoid original research;
 * No original research, this has been carefully guarded.


 * All included information needs to be attributable to reliable sources, and all sources (including the primary sources) need to be appropriately cited in the article: reference all information and cite your sources;
 * Sources are reliable. And if the sources aren't enough, get anyone who has watched the shows over the years to verify it for you. The fact the matches happened or the events happened can not be denied, so they are hardly in-universe.


 * Readability and comprehensibility: put all information in the context of the original fiction;
 * The context is perfectly fine, though the information can hardly be regarded as fiction. The matches are "real" in terms of the fact they actually happen. The events are real, though the Undertakers' supernatural powers are not.


 * Wikipedia's fair-use policy: the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible.
 * No problems meeting this criteria as far as I have noticed.

As per this, I suggest the removal of the tag. If someone has a better suited tag, and can make an argument for it then let it be placed. Enhanceddownloadbird 07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the tag does apply. Check Candice Michelle, Bobby Eaton, or John Cena to read a wrestling article that is out of universe. When this article was delisted from being a Good Article, the major concern was the fact that it was still in universe. Mostly, it needs to be made 100% clear that the matches are pre-determined and the storylines are scripted. I'm adding the tag back until these issues are addressed. Nikki311 15:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have compared the articles and ultimately am just as lost as before. The scripted nature of the programming goes under irrelevance to some degree, but the reality is still clearly present. Let's review several examples:

From 1990-1994, Line 3-4: The appearance of Undertaker was modeled after a mortician from old Western movies, with the character being supposedly impervious to pain and possessing supernatural powers, such as teleportation and manipulation of flames and lightning.
 * This review of the character takes it out of concept of reality as he was "modeled after" and the character "supposedly being". I fail to see any more efficient way to illustrate that he shoots shoots lightning in a realistic sense unless you want to go into the science behind it, which is irrelevant in this article. It also explains the following event:
 * From 2006-2007, Line 1-2:At the 2006 Royal Rumble, Undertaker returned during Kurt Angle's celebration of his world title defense against Mark Henry. He entered on a horse drawn cart and made his intentions known by destroying the ring with lightning bolts.
 * This event happens so much later in the article, but is nevertheless explained. In an encyclopedic article, you cannot assume something about the article without reading the entire thing. Should every example of supernatural power be dragged with the word "kayfabe"? Or should an introduction of his power, as demonstrated above be enough for them all?

From 1990-1994, Paragraph 3, Line 3-4: ''At the Royal Rumble, Yokozuna sealed Undertaker in the casket with the assistance of several other heel wrestlers, winning the match. The Undertaker's "spirit" appeared from inside the casket on the video screen, warning that he would return.[13] This began Undertaker's first hiatus. In reality, he had a back injury that was getting worse and needed time off.''
 * Perfect example of what I'm saying. This showed exactly what happened in the storyline, including adding " " around "spirit" so as to add doubt to the statement before revealing the reality in the following line. "In reality," is not in-universe at all.

From 1995-1996, Line 2: At WrestleMania XI, while Undertaker was facing Bundy, Kama Mustafa stole the Undertaker's source of kayfabe power, the urn, and disrespected 'Taker by converting it into a large gold necklace.
 * Notice the use of kayfabe in this statement. Do we really need to add that Kama Mustafa kayfabe converted it into a gold necklace as well, or does a second use of kayfabe actually confuse the statement? Or, can we assume the storyline is kayfabe entirely after a single use.

From 1997-1999, Paragraph 2, Line 4-7:During this match, Undertaker's storyline brother Kane made his debut, ripping off the door to the cell and giving Undertaker a Tombstone Piledriver, Undertaker's trademark finisher, allowing Michaels to pin him.[24] During the next few weeks, Paul Bearer and Kane challenged the Undertaker to fight his brother, but these challenges were refused consistently by the Undertaker.
 * This is a perfect example of being subtle. Kane is frequently referred to as Undertaker's brother, but it is made clear fairly early that it is only in the storyline. Don't confuse subtlety for lack of reality.

From 2006-2007, Paragraph 3, Line 3-4: ''Khali was removed from the match, due to elevated liver enzymes, and replaced by ECW Champion Big Show, over whom The Undertaker gained the victory. In the storyline, Teddy Long replaced Khali with Big Show as punishment for an attack on Undertaker shortly before the match''
 * This is a perfect example of reality before storyline. In this case, the reality of the situation was volunteered before the storyline was revealed. This is certainly not in-universe.

Ultimately, your argument has no basis from what I can see, and the only help you offered was to offer articles with which I saw little to no difference. If I was able to see the article's need for improvement in-universe, I would have worked on the article instead of providing an argument that the article already conforms to Manual of Style (writing about fiction) as per it's conclusions and giving more than a few examples to support my claim. If you would like to dissuade myself and others from this tag, you will have to use more than the fact the article was delisted by one person who said the article need clean-up and providing examples of articles that are GA, but do nothing towards revealing, to at least myself, what needs to be different. The fact is, it can be argued that the article is in-universe until your fingers fall off, but I want examples of how the article fails completely to do so and help in fixing the article that is not in the form of adding tags that go unaddressed for a month. Until someone presents an argument otherwise, I suggest the removal of the tag, and I stand by my earlier comment that if another tag can be placed with a good argument behind it then do so, but the in-universe tag may as well be defunct in this article.Enhanceddownloadbird 19:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care if you remove the tag or not, I doesn't change the fact that the article is written primarily in-universe. Clearly, I'm having a hard time explaining this. I can refer you to either User:LaraLove or User:MPJ-DK who have both done GA reviews for wrestling articles (MPJ-DK also has experience tweaking an article so that it no longer is "in-universe"). You can also bring it up at WPT:PW, where (hopefully) someone can explain the situation better than me. You can also read the delisting argument here, where experienced GA reviewers insisted that the article was written too "in-universe" and little has changed since then. Actually, that is the second delisting argument, as it has been delisted twice. I can't seem to find the original discussion, but it was a different group of people saying the same thing. For example, the major problem is saying that he won a championship or a match...when in reality he did neither. He was just playing the part. It is more accurate to say that "he was booked to win a title or match", which is what it says in the article examples I provided for you. Moreover, it is essential to note that feuds are not because two wrestlers don't like each other, but it is just an angle or storyline. While you did provide a few examples of where reality is differentiated from fiction in the article, the majority of the article is still "in-universe". It has to be 100% clear that he is a character acting from a script, where titles and matches are not won or lost per talent, but because someone scripted it that way. The last example I can give you is for Kurt Angle, whose article is currently under GA review. I had to take the article "out-of-universe" so the article could pass. You can see how I did that here Nikki311 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the Kurt Angle revision and I believe I understand what you're going for, though I still fail to see how it goes under in-universe. I think perhaps there needs to be a modification of the tag or in-fiction writing style as far as pro-wrestling, but that can be dealt with later. My apologies for any hostility, as I thought we were referring to The Undertaker character itself as being more in-universe than others which I disagreed with as his "supernatural powers" are covered well. I'll bear this kind of writing in mind when making future edits to this and other WP:PW articles. Enhanceddownloadbird 20:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good. :) I'm sorry I didn't explain myself better the first time. I agree that a different tag may be more appropriate for professional wrestling articles. Perhaps one that says something like This article fails to differentiate between real life and kayfabe or something to that effect. However, the in-universe tag is the closest thing we have at the moment. Good luck in your future editing. Nikki311 21:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have gone through the article section by section and edited it in a similar way to what I saw in Kurt Angle's article and I believe the problem has been dealt with, though any more help with any problems that anyone may see would be wonderful. I am thus removing the tag. A full set of edits is available to see here. Enhanceddownloadbird 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Great job! Nikki311 04:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this issue is the article's title. Why have the text be "out-of-universe" if the article is about a professional wrestling character? And based on the title, it certainly seems that it's about the character and not about the man portraying the character. I know "wrestlers ARE their characters" and everything, but come on. Is this article about a man who works for World Wrestling Entertainment or is it about an undead monster who can survive being buried alive, sealed in a casket and burned, and has the power to conjure lightning, et cetera... 69.7.37.69 09:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker's real age
Taker was born on March 24, 1962 (not 1965). Taker himself has stated this in his own magazine special (early 2003), and in many interviews over the years. Could someone please correct this error?Brennaf 04:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found on many sites that undertaker is born in 1962. An IGN article in 2003 stated he was 41 so he must have been born in 1962. Should i go ahead and make the change? 11rey619 9:57 pm, 18 September 2007  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It does NOT state anywhere in the Undertaker special from 2003 that Callaway was born in 1962...What he does say is that in 1985 he was 19 years old when he stepped in the ring with Bruiser Brody...This could have happened in Jan/feb of 1985 which would be just before his 20th birthday...It should be noted that his high school records have him graduating in 1983 which would put him at 18 years old if he was born in 1965.....i believe the 1965 date is correct.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.168.86 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I graduated when I was 19 so BY NO MEANS does the graduation date make a good source for a birth date, let alone for an encyclopedia. IMDB is a good, reliable source and it clearly states that he was born in 1962. Please correct the date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.140.223 (talk • contribs)


 * The IMDB is not a reliable source as anybody can edit it. I do, however, agree that his graduation date is not a good source either. My best friend graduated at age 17, my mom graduated when she was 16, I graduated at 18, and I have another friend who graduated at 19. The best bet is an interview where he says his age or a published book source. If you can find either of those, the date can be changed. Nikki  311  19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not use IMDb as a source but let's not use its graduation date either. I'm going to request an actual citation for The Undertaker's actual date of birth and please, don't use the same one again. An encyclopedia cannot use a graduation date as a source to find out the birth date. Sorry to say it, but that's ridiculous.