Talk:The Undertaker/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

GA on hold

The article's content is informing and it seems to cover his carrer well but there is a critical need for references (in a article this long there should be around 35-50 refs), please try to reference anything that seems important and remove any lines that may be Original Research, I know how this is since I am working on referencing Carlito but I can't pass a unreferenced article, once this has been taken care of please leave me a message on my talk page. -凶 23:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be more than happy to go referencing around WWE.com and other sources. There are, however, two large and unencouraging obstacles in the way, 1) the page is completely protected from all edits [to which I am completely against in biographies of still-living people, especially with such an active individual], and 2) a majority of The Undertaker's career was before widespread information on the internet, though it is still there. Carlito is a relatively new wrestler (at least compared to the near 17 year tenure of Undertaker) whose information is fairly available, but a majority of Undertaker's career is either hard to find or unpublished. Of the 2, the first is still the most discouraging. Enhanceddownloadbird 08:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kane The Undertaker

The Undertaker was NOT introduced as "Kane the Undertaker" at survivor series 1990. He was called that at house shows, yes, but not at the survivor series.

Trivia Page.

Hi. I request a short unprotective source from this page. I have a lot of notable points to add. Thank you. Iron Scorp 10:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add Trivia, please read WP:TRIVIA. For anything else add the template {{editprotected}} and then below that the changes you would like to see to the page and an administrator will review what you would like to add to the article shortly afterwards. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Passing GA

The article has been referenced. -凶 21:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Citing Every Match

While citations are good, and I think most information should be cited, it is unnecessary to cite every single match win or loss. Citations should be limited to information such as quotes, images, or information that could be challenged. Wins and losses won't be challenged because they are "common knowledge"....millions of people saw them on TV. Maybe if a match is from a house show or some other non-televised event or information from their personal lives, then it should be cited. The guide for citing sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite sources, clearly states that information that is likely to be challenged should be sourced. For example, who's going to challenge that The Undertaker won the Championship at WrestleMania 23, when they either saw it then or heard about it the next day on RAW? Thoughts? Nikki311 18:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. This is a bad phenomenon that has seeped through a lot of wrestling articles. Referencing 100 pages on the same website is not proper citing. Match results are defenetly common knowledge, and do not need citing. Articles do not need to have every sentence have multiple citations, especially from internet sites, which are suspect for being a WP:RS. Biggspowd 02:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Undertaker's Injury

I heard that HBK or Randy Orton may replace 'Taker, due to an injury he sustained at Backlash!!! Zerorules677 10:24, 03 May 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty much accurate, though the dreaded "cited sources must apply" rule will keep Wikipedia users from learning this more directly. That's the policy

Batista is expected to retake the title inside a steel cage, to be announced this week on Smackdown, though Kennedy could also cash in and revoke on his promise to wait until Wrestlemania do to the circumstances.

Dr. R.KZ. 02:39, May 4th 2007 (UTC)

Well as I said, "I heard". But, yeah, maybe Kennedy will cash it in. Let's just see what happens TONIGHT. Zerorules677 10:19, 04 May 2007 (UTC)

Both the Undertaker and Batista appeared on SmackDown! after Backlash. JBL said on commentary that Batista injured his leg and Undertaker hurt his arm. And Teddy Long announced that there will be a rematch for the World Championship next week inside a 15 foot high steel cage. Don't add this yet as it hasn't happened on American TV (I live in Australia so I watched it yesterday). My point is if the Undertaker is going to be in a match next week, then there is no need to add any information about the Undertaker tearing his bicep and taking a leave of absence to recover. - Deep Shadow 20:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Taker hurt his arm sometime before the match; that's right, he worked through the match a bad arm; that's how tough he is, the crazy dead guy. -Gambit01 24:46 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard he'll be out for the rest of the year (that suck won't get to see him when smackdown comes to my home town) and that batista will win but only hold it for 1 minuit before kennedy will cash in + win, and michaels won't win it because DX is back in july and Orton won't win it because he pissed off McMahon nuff' said gravediggerfuneral

Wow, you obviously know just SO MUCH about WWE. How did we ever get alone without you? VelvetKevorkian 07:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker will be undergoing surgery for his torn right bicep next week. Indeed he worked Backlash despite his injury, which is impressive if you know how incredibly painful this injury is. Talking about being dedicated to Pro Wrestling. Anyway, he is estimated to be out of action from 6 to 8 months. That is in any case the usual time it takes. Same applies to Mr Kennedy's injury by the way, the reason why Edge received the MITB shot. Enough possible scenarios for SD. Batista recapturing the title, Mark Henry is due for his return, but now with Edge's MITB, he could well be the next World Champion on Smackdown. What is sad is that he was scheduled for a long-term reign as World Heavyweight Champion and all the extra training he did to work more house shows, proved futile. Sandman 17:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

GA

When did this article become a good article, and where's the discussion page. The Prince of Darkness 17:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the talk page history, it was passed on May 1 by user:Dark Dragon Flame. There is no discussion page for a GA. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article looks like its IMPROVING. Zerorules677 21:23, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

UNDERTAKER TRIVIA

undertaker has made history throughout the years hes been in the wwe...doesnt that count 4 sumthin....to start a trivia page...please respond thank uNosaints4life 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No trivia page or section as per this policy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

He lost his title

Edge is the new World Heavyweight Champion, Undertaker lost his title on May 9th Smack down when Edge cashed in Money in the Bank.

yes, and it's been noted. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 02:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the point in locking the article until Friday? The title change has already been acknowledged, not only on WWE.com, but also on ECW. Once it's on TV, it's not a spoiler, so why treat it as such? VelvetKevorkian 06:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't locked for that reason. 70.58.119.52 22:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for elaborating. -_- VelvetKevorkian 03:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edge is the new World Heavyweight Champion? Zenlax 10:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is all over wwe.com and was all over ECW's tuesday night show. This is not a spoiler in any way, so please do not add the Spoiler tags.--ProtoWolf 05:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

is it true he had to forfiet it early due to a torn hamstring ? and shouldnt that be in here since its an article about him and not just the persona he plays ???

Yes, see info about his torn biceps injury above--Sandman 07:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

AHH yes i see now i was just in aww he lost his title so quickly thats why i sipped b4 reading the rest but will do next time thx sandman dont put too many people to sleep ... and kick spidermans ass !!65.123.157.253 11:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I don't feel this article qualifies, and have asked for a review accordingly. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 03:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Biggest Fans

Unless others disagree, I would strongly suggest to remove the 'Biggest Fans' part in the article for all the obvious reasons Sandman 07:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That was a recent addition. The page has been vandalized a lot lately. I removed it. Nikki311 12:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RUMOURS ON INJURY?

Iread down the page that it says Undertaker suffered a torn bicep, which will sideline him for the rest of the year. Due to the nature of the injury, he was forced to drop the World Heavyweight Title to Edge in reality, while he was scheduled to have a long title run. He's expected to be out for 6-8 months.

That sounds like a rumour to me, if not it is written up pooryl, i would like to see a citation or link added to porve this true as i have not read anything on the wwe site about it nor have they mentioned it on televised events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.135.93 (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Source: http://www.wrestleview.com/news2006/1178060320.shtml whose source is http://www.wrestlingobserver.com/ . Sandman 16:10 17th May 2007 (UTC)

The Undertaker is a different character than many of the others on the roster, the WWE will not break kafaybe with him if he is in his deadman persona and inform anyone that he is "injured", as it takes away from his invulnerable gimmick. They excuse his abcenses by having someone really stick it to him and then have him taken back to the "darkside" to recover.

Make no mistake, he IS out for eight months, but being as dedicated as both Mark Callaway and WWE are to the character, they won't spill it the same way they spill that someone like Shawn or Batista is injured.

Dr. R.KZ. 22:10 16th May 2007 (UTC)

He also was due to have a long title run, prevailing over Batista in a Hell in a Cell match at Judgement Day and moving on from there, but his injury forced the impromptu cage match with planned Money in the Bank interference where (presumably) Mr. Kennedy would have been granted the title until his injury at a house show. There are many sources to show this, but Wikipedia guidelines will not allow us to say anything in a factual way since the plans were scrapped, while many editors will likely complain about speculative information. The sad thing is that this is probably the biggest point in his career to date as his last hurrah was interrupted by injury, and there may be nothing included about it, and no way to include it. Enhanceddownloadbird 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark Calaway or Brian Lee?

I have removed the sentence "he also acted in a Hindi [bollywood] movie featuring akshay kumar" for conflicting reasons. According to the IMDb cast list, Mark Calaway is listed among the credits. However, in the Wikipedia article is says "The highlight of the film is the appearance of WWE wrestlers Brian Lee who once wrestled as The fake Undertaker". - Deep Shadow 08:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Date Of Birth

Was Mark Calaway born March 24, 1965 (on the first line of the article) or April 24, 2007 (in the bio box on the right of the article)?

I changed it from April to March. Thanks for pointing that out. - Deep Shadow 07:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As some of you may have noticed, we have a current disputation on whether Calaway was born in 1965 or 1962, in the German Wikipedia [1]. One of the disputants claims to have several sources to prove that he was born in 1962. So what we need are as much reliable sources as possible and also Undertaker-experts to prove his true date of birth and to arbitrate in that disputation. Thanks, Valerius Myotis 02:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

On IMDB.com, it claims that Mark Calaway was born on March 24, 1962. thats the date i would go with, IMDB is very reliable. Thats what i would use. SU121188 05:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

IMDb is not reliable. - Deep Shadow 05:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been a Taker fan since he broke into WWE. it has been said lately that he is 45 years of age on an Undertaker DVD i have. he was born in 1962. SU121188 02:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WEiGHT

how much does undertake weigh in real life?Nosaints4life 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Taker

I read something in this article a couple of months ago about undertaker coming back in his american bad ass gimick was it a rumor vandalism? I know that this is not the place to ask but can someone go to my talk page[2] and help me?? Urena198 00:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

cleaned up article

Wow! This article was a mess. It talked about all of the Undertaker's matches. No one is going to read all that. Make a different page for that. It also had a bunch of stuff about Mark Calaway when the name of the article is even the gimmick. So I took out all that information because it didn't belong there. TV2007 10:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You simply destroyed the article. Yes, the name may be The Undertaker but that is because he is more well known by that name than his own. Before destroying articles, try reading over Wikipedia guidelines and also WP:PW - Deep Shadow 10:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to go by the name. If you want an article about Mark Calaway, feel free to make one though. If I want to read up on Undertaker, I don't want to see all this stuff on Mark Calaway. The article was a mess. TV2007 10:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels, Hulk Hogan and Triple H aren't their real names either. People are more likely to search for those names than their real names because they are more familiar with them. The articles are fine the way they are and don't require separate pages. If you keep deleting the content, you will be reported. - Deep Shadow 10:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then those articles aren't enclopedic either. If you like all that information so much and would like to have ownership over that mess that was there, make your own internet site at Geocites.com. It's fun and easy. That doesn't belong in a enclopedia tho. TV2007 10:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You also said: leave the article alone in your edit summary. Remember to be civil and remember that you do not own articles here at wikipedia. TV2007 10:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't own them either. This page is part of a community project. Literally hundreds of people are members. While Wikipedia does encourage people to be bold, they also encourage people to seek consensus before making a move like you have. I act by what the project says. The reason I said to leave the article alone is because you are destroying other people's hard work for something you think is better.

I have never claimed ownership of any article, but I get defensive when people destroy them to suit themselves. I can't, however, revert the page because I have done it 3 times already, but I have posted your antics on the community talk page for others to deal with this matter and take it further. - Deep Shadow 11:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Okeydokey! Try not to be so defensive and btw, please do not refer to my edits as antics and assume good faith TV2007 11:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, hence the title of the section on the community talk page. - Deep Shadow 11:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was switched back over to what I thought was the bad version, but I didn't get defensive about it and I didn't tell her to leave the page alone or call her a vandal. TV2007 11:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here. I'm not saying you're the bad guy either. Personally, I don't think I was being uncivil. The only thing you may not have liked what I said was "antics" and "Leave the article alone". To me, antics means mischiefly playful. As for the latter, it may have come off as a bit harsh but that depends on how you take it. I didn't mean "No! Stay away from this article forever! Never make a single change!" I just meant to stop making those bold changes unless you have consensus. I would have written all that but I was trying to act fast. Also there is limited space in the summary box.

I knew you were acting out of good faith. I told you that, and I even titled a talk section like that. - Deep Shadow 11:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

TV2007, you want Wikipedia to back you up on one hand then condemn Deep Shadow for upholding Wikipedia policy, this article does not need "cleaning up", and if you want type in Mark Calaway and see which article comes up. Darrenhusted 12:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Deep Shadow, it's over so just get over it. Darrenhusted, stop it TV2007 15:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am over it. It's been over for a while now, at least for most people… - Deep Shadow 15:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Move The article

I think this article should be moved to Mark Calaway because every other article about wrestlers are listed under their REAL name and NOT their Ring Name.-- Hornetman16 19:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

...Hmm... Stone Cold Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, The Rock (entertainer), Triple H...? Names of articles are not based on the persons' real or ring name. They are based on what they are best known as. Terry Bollea is best known as Hulk Hogan which is why his article is named Hulk Hogan despite his real name being Terry Bollea. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's naming conventions for articles tell us the articles should be named what the person or subject is most well known as. Mark Calaway is definitely most well known as The Undertaker. Please see here for the last debate on this issue. Another move request would be the third in the last year. Bmg916^Speak 19:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Kennedy isn't know better as Ken Anderson (wrestler)? How'd that one slip by?-- Hornetman16 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Because he's only been using Mr. Kennedy for 2 years. Before that, he used his real name. - Deep Shadow 06:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)