Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:16, 23 August 2007

	The Undertaker was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 1, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 14, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted July 11, 2007 Good article nominee Listed August 21, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Professional wrestling B‑class Mid‑importance

The Undertaker is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This professional wrestling article is a frequent target for editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of storyline events, unconfirmed information, rumors, and other content inappropriate to an encyclopedic article. Please make sure to familiarize yourself with what Misplaced Pages is not, and consider whether your additions to this article will serve to make the article larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar.

Archives
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

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)

Return date questionable

The Undertaker's return I assume is unknown, due to the fact originally the date was set at January 2008 on the WWE Roster page under Inactive talent. Next, the date was changed on that page as November 2007. And on his article, it says he's return October 2007. WE need to find and confirm his actual return date. Thanks TonyWWE 18:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC) TonyWWE

Where exactly did you read this? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:39, 05 July 2007 (UTC)

When he returns we can put his return date. Darrenhusted 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC) He is gonna return at Unforgiven 16th september 2007 look on Phenomforever.com --Shaibani 11:29, 6 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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   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 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: Misplaced Pages: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)).

takers return

May it be added that The Undertaker is returning at Unforgiven 2007 not only is he on the poster it has also be confirmed by people such as jim ross so may it be added Deadman lastride666 19:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not necessarily returning at Unforgiven, it could be added that he plans to return at Unforgiven, but it won't be definent. Take Rey Mysterio for example, he was set to return at the Great American Bash, he was on the posters and everything but couldn't make it back in time. Bm2 21:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

no apperently from what i heard mysterio was set to return at the Great American Bash but he was found taking drugs to they suspended him for an extra month but they didnt havent time to release a new poster so they had to stick with that oen because he was on the RAW tour of mexico i beleive wrestling some matches there.Deadman lastride666 11:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On the August 10 edition of SmackDown!, a vignette hyping The Undertaker's return was shown after Mark Henry (who injured The Undertaker after the Steel Cage match with Batista) defeated a local. The vignette had a repetitive use of the word "Unforgiven". I'm guessing 'Taker will return at Unforgiven and verse Mark Henry. J.C. 03:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest adding to the article about Undertakers return. Even though it may not be for sure it should at least be mensioned that a vignette was shown and that the druid was present at the end of it.

How about this? "On the August 3, 2007 edition of SmackDown, Mark Henry cut a promo after a squash match and showed video of his attack on the Undertaker and the druids carrying Taker out, after which he was laughing. In the weeks since then, starting with the August 10 edition of SmackDown, Undertaker vignettes began airing immediately after Henry's video, followed by the appearances of druids and sand. The vignettes have in common mention of Undertaker returning from being buried alive and set on fire, as well as repetitive use of the word "Unforgiven", hinting clearly at an Unforgiven 2007 return for the Undertaker."

Or, a condensed version: "Since the August 10 edition of SmackDown, one week after Mark Henry laughed about "taking out" the Undertaker, ominous vignettes began airing and being followed by druid appearances, all pointing towards Undertaker returning at Unforgiven 2007." 63.3.16.129 03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} I Would Like To Write About The " Druid & Sand" Incident.

The article is semiprotected, so nearly any editor can make changes if appropriate. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:06, 18 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)

Return, September 16, 2007

Adding Taker's return date is reasonable becasue I have a reference, the video played on the August 10th edition of SD! the character kept repeating the word "Unforgiven" and she said that "he keeps coming back", and Unforgiven is on September 16, 2007.

So add something like, "On the August 10th edition of Friday Night Smackdown, a vignette aired hyping the return of The Undertaker at Unforgiven to face Mark Henry", or something similar to that.undertaker will be smackdown in person on friday 14th september there is video promo to be aired in a couple of weeks http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Truko9308 01:56, 15 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)

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)

• Delisted good articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Professional wrestling articles
• Mid-importance Professional wrestling articles
• WikiProject Professional wrestling articles
• WikiProject Professional Wrestling frequent targets