Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:52, 18 December 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of WWE personnel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 7 days

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.

Professional wrestling List‑class Mid‑importance

List of WWE personnel 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 List This article has been rated as List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Complaints against the article will be ignored unless suggestions for improvement are included.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: Superstar A and Superstar B teamed up on Raw, but only team up every few weeks. Does this count as a tag team? A1: No. A tag team is an active duo of wrestlers who tag-team regularly. A stable consists of more than two people, but doesn't necessarily need to consist of wrestlers. Q2: Superstar C joined Superstars A and B to form a stable. Can I add Superstar C to the team? A2: Yes, only if are officially stated via a WWE article. Q3: Superstar A hasn't appeared on WWE television for a while. Can I add him as inactive? A3: If Superstar A appeared on television less than 30 days ago, no don't add him as inactive. However if Superstar A appeared on television more than 30 days ago, then yes. Add the following line (edit as necessary): Inactive; last seen on WWE television on.... Q4: Superstar A appeared on ECW this past week even though he normally appears on Raw. Can I add him to the ECW roster? A4: We follow WWE.com's superstar list, so therefore if he is still listed on Raw's roster on WWE.com, we should keep him there until they move him.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

A.W

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

FCW Releases

The official FCW website has removed the profiles of

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

JR is not the senior VP of talent relations

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

End the nonsense.

Let's end this nonsense right now.

Seth Rollins, Dean Ambrose, and Roman Reigns ARE NOT DEVELOPMENTAL WRESTLERS ANYMORE! They were called up to the main roster, are involved in a highly promoted storyline, and are going to have a high profile PPV match (which maybe the main event).

They are "big leaugers" now.

And it states quite clearly at the top of the page that wrestlers on the main roster can also wrestle in NXT. I don't understand the need to specifically label these guys as "developmental" when it's clear that these guys are coming out of the gate with a major push. They've arrived.

And WWE is bending over backward promoting Johnny Curtis under his new gimmick of "Fandango". He's being advertised on TV vignettes, and wrestling under the new name in dark matches and house shows. What will it take to make it super-duper-officially-official for some people?

A congessional vote?

So please, stop the convoluted BS.

Vjmlhds 19:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, on both points. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

They can be "big leaguers" but they are under developmental contract yet and this should be noted because it is an important information. It is exactly the same thing that happened with the Nexus at Summerslam: seven developmental wrestlers working on the main roster main eventing a PPV (a bigger one than TLC) and it was noted here in this same article at the time. The same thing with the Usos that have a feud and a match for the Tag Team Championship against David Hart Smith and Tyson Kidd while developmental wrestlers. You all could see it if you search the history. And the Shield guys are in the middle of a storyline with the developmental roster. You could not let your personnal opinions go against and above facts. WWEJobber (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion on the matter. It's about weighing evidence. They've been featured on WWE TV since they attacked Ryback, and seem to be leaving NXT (Ambrose last wrestled there on October 11, Rollins just dropped his NXT title, Reigns is slightly more questionable). In light of this, the balance tips in favour of assuming they have regular WWE contracts, just as we assume those who are still on NXT are still on developmental contracts. Until you present more definitive evidence for your "under developmental contract" claim, such as a reliable source, we have no reason to believe it's true. The fact that developmental wrestlers have been on WWE TV before doesn't mean that everybody on WWE TV is a developmental wrestler. The Shield might be, but we need more than your speculation. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that they have profiles in the WWE Superstars section of WWE.com is also pretty telling. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

Above, Vjmhelds said we should "End the nonsense". And I just have. The article is now fully protected. Indefinitely. The reason why is that as far as I can tell, none of you seem to be capable of following the most basic of WP policies. First, and foremost, Misplaced Pages is a collaborative editing environment. You all have got to stop edit warring, and until you can demonstrate that you're not going to do that, we're going to have to keep the page protected.

Second, as you attempt to start making decisions about what belongs on this page, you must stop the original research. I see a lot of commentary above from people saying "Well, he's on this show, and he's been in this event, so we can't call him X." That is pure original research. We do not make analysis like that. How do we avoid OR? By citing sources. In order to list someone as a "developmental wrestler" (or whatever), find an independent, reliable source that states that. If two sources disagree, then we include both sources and both pieces of information. If there are no sources, we do not list the information either way. We do not make decisions based on the TV shows themselves. Remember, any act of interpreting a work of fiction is always original research, and thus cannot be done by editors, only reliable sources.

Third, a number of you have been trying to make this about contributors, not content. You're personalizing everything.

So. Now. Start a conversation. Use sources. Establish consensus. Once you have established consensus, use the {{edit protected}} template to request that the change be made. Do not use that template until after consensus has been achieved. Once you can demonstrate that you can all work well together, then you can request that the page be unprotected by filing a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP.

If you cannot achieve consensus on something, Misplaced Pages has a very robust set of dispute resolution processes. For instance, if the question is about what is or is not a reliable source, you can consult WP:RSN. If the question is about given undue emphasis to one fact or another, you can go to WP:NPOVN. If you just need more eyes to provide input, there's WP:RFC. If it's a broader problem, you can try WP:DRN. If there are behavioral issues, you can bring them to WP:ANI. You can, of course, always ask me for advice about which process is most effective. But you can't just keep sniping at each other, edit warring, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I always thought the most basic Misplaced Pages policy was "Sign your post with four tildes". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you, Qwyrxian. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

OK...let's find consensus

Well let's get some consensus on some basic things so we can get this thing unlocked.

The boys in The Shield should not be labeled as "developmental", and Johnny Curtis should be known as Fandango since that's who he's wrestling as.

I vote that's this is how these guys should be listed.

Vjmlhds 03:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

source for Curtis being Fandango. STATic message me! 04:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That source says he wrestled as "Simply" Johnny Curtis. It's also reader-submitted. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't you guys just use "Johnny Curtis / Fandango"? While Fandango has appeared in vignettes and house shows... he hasn't debuted on television. The last we saw of Curtis, he was still being called Curtis (backed up by source http://www.wwe.com/superstars/johnnycurtis). So list both names until Fandango actually debuts. Simple, conflict solved. Starship.paint (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I didn't mean to imply I don't want him called Fandango. Just pointing out the contradiction. Not to be a dick, either. Just for clarity's sake. Personally, I don't even know who Johnny Curtis/Fandango is, and have absolutely no preference for a name. Whatever is verifiable, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Instead of repeating myself, see above. Not seeing the point of having two sections for one question. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's Seth Rollins' profile in the "WWE Superstars" section of WWE.com. Here's Ambrose. Here's Reigns. Compare this to the redirect of any other similar URL with a developmental wrestler's name. If we use these profiles to verify the status of every other "Superstar" on the list (and we do), this seems a no-brainer. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, no comment on the other points, but your "see above" is exactly what I was talking about above when I said you're conducting original research. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit. But this is a talk page. I was using it to try to explain some things to an objecting editor, not to add or remove anything. Original research is only a crime if used as justification for editing an article. My hands are clean in the edit war itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll see that most of the regular editors of this artice (myself, STATic, IncredibleHulk, Keith Okamoto) are in agreement about most topics, and have repeatedly brought forth references backing us up. It's one editor in particular (WWEJobber) that no matter how much the rest of us ask politely and no matter how many references we show, insists on doing things his way and just overall has a "my way or the highway" approach to this article. I could understand if we were all sniping at each other, but as I said, we're usually in agreement with each other regarding how to edit the article, and it's really just one editor who doesn't want to work with us. We usually find consensus/common ground. Thus I ask ask with the utmost of respect that the lock be opened. Vjmlhds 15:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me be clear: being "in agreement" is not enough. You must be in agreement that is concordant with policy. WP:CONLIM explains that local consensus cannot override site-wide policy. And policy requires verifiability, collaboration, and consensus building. What I see is both "sides" making assertions without reference to sources. I sometimes see references to past agreements, but no one ever actually links to those, and those "agreements" I've seen, like the discussion up in "End the nonsense" above, has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages policy. Again, let me be clear: for creative works, the only time you may refer directly to the creative work (the "text" of the shows) is to site unequivocal facts. If you are interpreting in any way (that is, deciding the "status" of the various characters), then you need independent third party sources. If those sources do not exist, then you cannot label the people either way (which may, for example, in this case, mean leaving off the "developmental" part).

As far as dropping the protection, I can promise you I won't be dropping it until such time as you all prove that you can come to policy-compliant consensus, more than once. If you want to ask an uninvolved admin to drop the protection, you can make a request at WP:RFUP. But I'm absolutely not going to do it myself now, because I see a long-term problem here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave three sources verifying the three disputed wrestlers are listed on WWE's official main roster, and so should be here. It's a stretch to say this requires interpretation, or cannot be "verified by any educated person with access to the source, but without further, specialized knowledge". Yes, I also pointed to a past discussion, but that doesn't negate my policy-based point. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am kind of new here, but I'd like to add my 2 cents to this discussion. I understand both POVs and, yes, The Shield guys are on the main roster. It is a thing that don't need further explanation or even be discussed. The guys are ready to make a big impact and to be the next best hot thing in the business. But what I understand about WWEJobber arguments (you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that even working on the main roster and being on PPV, they (and referee Rod Zapata too) are still under developmental contract (as can be seen here) and he simply put a note about this fact. He didn't move them back to the developmental roster section or other disruptive kinds of thing. Dean just made his debut on NXT during last week tapings. Seth still has his championship rematch against Big E Langston. The Shild stormed on NXT as part of a storyline. Searching the article history, I could observe that this kind of note was used before. He was right in the cited examples and there are others such as Mason Ryan and Michael McGuilicutty (this one being a Tag Team champion with David Otunga) during their New Nexus tenure; Trent Barreta, Tyler Reks, Yoshi Tatsu and Sheamus during their time on ECW; and many more. My opinion is that it is an important information and should be noted there. The guy could be a pain, but he is right in this case, and it will not hurt to put this note there. Nomelck (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A note would be fine, if backed up by a source. Unsourced stuff, especially contentious stuff, can be removed from Misplaced Pages. The link you provide doesn't indicate any of the wrestlers on that page have WWE developmental contracts or standard contracts, only that they wrestle for NXT (and so probably have some type of WWE contract, unless, like OVW and HWA, NXT also has their own guys). If the note said "Also wrestles for NXT" or something similar, it would be fine, with that source. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you be alright with this note, WWEJobber, instead of mentioning contracts? I think we'd all like it if we could reach a compromise and get this page unlocked. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone could wrestle for NXT. NXT is a TV show. It does not mean the same thing. Daniel Bryan, Johnny Curtis, Michael McGuilicutty, Percy Watson, Derrick Bateman, Big Show, Tyson Kidd, Justin Gabriel, Jinder Mahal, Heath Slater, Drew McIntyre, The Usos, Kane, all wrestle for NXT. Some of them have storylines in the show. So the prerrogative that "The Shield guys are still listed on the roster because they are in the middle of a storyline" is not correct. They are listed because they are part of the developmental roster yet. But now thay are part of the main roster too. Just like the Nexus when main evented Summerslam. It is not an uncommon thing to happen. WWEJobber (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not logical. Bryan, Curtis etc, yes, they appear on NXT, but they are "main roster" now. They're not listed on the NXT roster page. It doesn't matter if they guest-star in NXT. You can't compare them to the Shield... because the key difference is that only the Shield can compare to itself because they appear on both WWE and NXT pages. Are you denying that the Shield are not in the middle of storylines? Rollins is still NXT Champion on television, Reigns is still playing the rich throughbred gimmick and Ambrose hasn't even debuted. How can you remove Seth Rollins from the developmental roster page when to viewers of NXT TV, he's still NXT Champion? He's not part of the Shield yet, even on the recent 12/12/12 NXT. It's also not logical for Rollins for example to be under TWO contracts, main roster and developmental. Starship.paint (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

But all the things you said are exactly everything that I ever said about it. So do you agree with me now? And they are not under two contracts. This I never said. They are under developmental contract. Just this. They are not full main roster yet. It is simple. WWEJobber (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, then. Find a reliable source. Even a sketchy source would be better than nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Is everybody in NXT working on a WWE contract?

A comment above got me thinking on this, and Google sucks (or I suck at Googling). Is everyone on the show contracted to WWE, or are there pure NXT wrestlers, who are paid by someone entirely different (Skinner, perhaps)? I know that NXT is different from OVW, HWA and DSW (where guys worked without anything to do with WWE) in that it's owned by WWE, but is it that different? Does anyone have a source saying one thing or the other? Should the "Developmental roster" section be renamed "NXT roster", until this is clearer? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider this Gavin Reid fellow. Unlike many other NXT wrestlers, he doesn't seem to have any presence on WWE.com. Is this because he's strictly a NXT guy, or does WWE have another reason to ignore him like this? Same with Angelo Dawkins. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those who are competing in NXT as wrestlers are signed to WWE's developmental contract, as they can't appear straight to the main roster because they aren't ready for tv yet. They are trained into the WWE style of wrestling by trainers, some of whom were WWE Superstars themselves. Most who appear in developmental don't make it to the main roster mostly because they don't have what WWE wants in a in-ring competitor. Some are demoted to being referees(Maddox & Zapata), while others moved to creative or other on-air roles(Pierce & Saxton). The few who make it to the main roster have their contracts upgraded to main roster status, the process usually takes a few weeks/months before the transfer's complete. Before and during the transfer process, the new talent compete in dark matches during tv tapings and compete at live events to test their skills in front of a live crowd and producers to develop a background story for the gimmick the talent is using. I hope that clears up most of the confusion, IH. Keith Okamoto (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a great explanation, and I think something like that would be very helpful in Farm_team#Professional_wrestling or the NXT article. But I've been a wrestling geek for 25 years, and am generally familiar with the system. And I know there were guys in OVW who worked alongside the WWF prospects, but were paid by Jim Cornette and had nothing at all to do with the WWF. I suspect NXT is different, since WWE owns it, rather than works with it, but just wanted some confirmation that NXT is purely a WWE training ground and not also a traditional promotion. Keirn can't book anyone not under WWE contract, without permission, even for house shows? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're listed on http://www.wwe.com/superstars, you're "main roster".. because it's WWE.com. Referees (like Brad Maddox) seem to be an exception. If you're listed on http://www.fcwwrestling.info/NXT-Wrestling-Superstars.html or http://www.fcwwrestling.info/NXT-Wrestling-Divas.html, you're in the developmental roster... because it's NXT Wrestling, the renamed FCW, which is WWE's developmental territory. If you're listed on both, like the Shield, main roster should take precedence. Note, by "main roster" I mean WWE television or PPVs, not house shows, not dark matches. Starship.paint (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "Is everybody in NXT working on a WWE contract?" The answer would be yes, because NXT is owned by WWE - see the WWE logo in the middle of the NXT logo at the top of the NXT website and " © 2012 WWE, Inc. All Rights Reserved." at the bottom of the page. However, as I have talked about above, there must be two kinds of contracts, one "main roster/television/PPV" contract for John Cena, and one developmental contract for Gavin Reid, as evidenced by his absence from WWE television programming and WWE.com. Source for the existence of developmental contracts... Starship.paint (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. Of course, I know developmental contracts exist. I was asking if anybody had a source saying that each and every wrestler in NXT had one, or that it's a mix of developmental WWE wrestlers and guys who are paid directly by NXT and have no intention or hope of joining WWE in the future. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, a standard WWE contract doesn't mean someone will necessarily wrestle on TV or PPVs. They have to basically do whatever WWE wants, whether it's win at WrestleMania, job on NXT or kiss Hornswoggle at house shows and autograph signings. The main difference from developmental contracts is the money and job security. Sure, a guy like Cena or Punk probably has a special clause or two in their contract, but there's nothing stopping WWE from sending most guys to NXT on their regular contracts, and paying them the regular downside guarantee. But since WWE's paying them, they generally like to get their money's worth by using them on TV. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Everybody listed on NXT Wrestling roster has a WWE developmental contract (superstars, divas and referees). Some of them (like Gavin Reid and Angelo Dawkins) are just not ready yet like others that came from another big promotion (Xavier Woods, Kassius Ohno and Adrian Neville that came from TNA, ROH and Dragon Gate/Evolve) or others that are receiving training since FCW (like Big E Langston). And there are the wrestlers that even under developmental contracts are given the chance to work on the main roster (like The Shield guys and Rod Zapata). And all members of the Administration Staff are WWE employees (even the developmental's President Steve Keirn). It is just simple as that. I hope it had helped. WWEJobber (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but what I really want is a source confirming or denying it. Do you remember where you heard/read this? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In the old FCW website (before it was converted to the NXT Wrestling name) and on the FCW TV shows. But why a developmental territory website would list non-developmental wrestlers? WWEJobber (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Because they'd still be wrestling for that promotion, even if they weren't training for a WWE career. All the older devolpmental promotions did it. Not so unreasonable to think NXT might. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"And there are the wrestlers that even under developmental contracts are given the chance to work on the main roster (like The Shield guys and Rod Zapata)." - definitely needs to be sourced. Note that the Shield guys are already listed on the WWE.com page alongside Cena, Punk etc., so an easy inference is that they already have full "main roster" contracts. About Zapata, I don't recall WWE.com listing referees. A logical reason why the Shield have not been removed from the NXT page is that there are still episodes of NXT that have been taped but not aired regarding the Shield, so they are still going to appear on NXT for the time being until their storylines are wrapped up (Seth still NXT Champion on the TV show) Starship.paint (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact it is not just the case of episodes that have not been aired yet because they probably will tape more episodes with them because Seth still have his rematch agains Langston. Unfortunately the new NXT Wrestling website do not have the Alumni section that the old FCW website had to denote when a wrestler's developmental contract ends and he gains full main roster status. WWEJobber (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So let's get all of this wrapped up in a nutshell so we can get this thing unlocked.

The Shield boys should be listed on the main roster, as they're on the WWE.com roster page. For the sake of compromise, I'll concede to a small note saying that they also work in NXT. The term "developmental" to me means that they're not ready for the main roster...at worst, The Shield boys are in middle ground.

They're obviously ready enough for the main roster, but they may still be working out some small kinks, so they also work in NXT.

If we can all agree to this, hopefully the powers that be will unlock this thing. Optimally, we need to have this thing unlocked by Sunday night to be ready for any title changes that may happen at TLC. Vjmlhds 19:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Vjmhlds, are you not listening to what I write, or deliberately ignoring it? "the term 'developmental' to me means..." is irrelevant. InedibleHulk is on the right track (thank you, by the way): we need sources. I cannot stress this enough. You have all got stop talking about what you think, about what you interpret. One last time: WP:CONSENSUS cannot override site-wide policy. This is not about you all coming to an agreement about what makes sense. It's about finding sources that support one side or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not deleberatley ignoring anything. Here are the sources......this is the WWE roster page from their website, where the three men in question (Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns, Dean Ambrose) are listed. This is proof that they are indeed part of the main WWE roster. Here is the roster page from NXT, WWE's developmental territory......this shows that the three men in question are also still part of that as well. So I go back to my proposed soulution above...list the 3 men on the main roster, with a small note saying they also appear on NXT. I have provided sources to support both elements of this proposal. Vjmlhds 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed the problem here. Everyone is making confusion between NXT Wrestling (the developmental facility formerly known as FCW) and NXT (the TV show). The roster on NXT Wrestling official page is not the TV show roster. It is the facility roster. The developmental wrestlers. The ones that are still receiving training. The farm's students. The facility official website. The TV program official website. It is very simple. WWEJobber (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I have a solution to this. I've asked before if the developmental roster section should be split between the TV visible roster and the live event/training roster, but was rejected and added the notes, starting this disaster. I'll take the blame for this mess, but I still think the developmental roster should be split. Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if divided this will not add anything to the Shield guys. The developmental are still debuting on NXT one by one week after week. WWEJobber (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

How about just re-naming the section the NXT roster? That way, The Shield are included since they still have profiles on the NXT Wrestling website and the other who haven't appeared on NXT TV won't be left out? Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That would make things much easier (and reduce Misplaced Pages's server load by a whopping 10 bytes). The problem seems to be with the implied associations between contracts and rosters. By removing the word "developmental", we make it much clearer that this is simply about rosters, not contracts. Rosters are easy to verify, contract details are not. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll support this idea. It makes sense, and takes away ambiguity. Vjmlhds 14:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Now what?....

OK...so now what do we do with Big E Langston?

He comes in, and whoops up on the "franchise" player John Cena during the main event on Raw.

Does this mean he's still developmental?

What is the breaking point when guys stop being developmental?

I would think that it would be like MLB...once a guy gets called up, he's not a minor leaguer anymore.

We have to have a line of demarcation on when we can consider guys main roster, and whether or not they're still developmental.

When did Wade Barrett, Brodus Clay, AJ Lee, Damien Sandow, Ryback, and on and on become "officially" main roster and no longer developmental?

When do The Shield boys stop being "developmental"?

There has to be a point where the umbilical cord gets cut.

Vjmlhds 04:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I know, how about adding a roster section called "Rookie roster"? It will show who's on the main roster, but still appears in NXT Wrestling for either more training, working on mic skills, etc.. We can even put the main roster wrestlers who appear mostly on WWE NXT in there like Derrick Bateman and Percy Watson. Keith Okamoto (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems like it would invite even more disagreement and speculation about who belongs where, especially if a main roster guy works an NXT show or two. Is he/she there for training, there to train others, wrapping up a storyline or just adding name value to a card? We probably won't know for sure. Simplest way is to follow the lead of WWE.com. If someone's on their main roster ("Superstars") page, they belong on ours. If they aren't, but are on the NXT site's roster, they go in our NXT/Developmental (whichever we call it). If they're not listed in either roster, they don't belong here. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I have a hard time understanding...for the longest time, when somebody got called up from developmental, he was put on the main roster with no fuss. First we had a little note saying "Also works in FCW (now NXT)". Then we put a note at the top of the page saying that main roster personnel can also wrestle in NXT..again, no fuss. Guys like Clay, Sandow, Ryback, and Cesaro were added immediately once they made their debuts, but why is it that the Shield boys are causing such a fuss? We had a good system going here, and now because of stubborness by a select editor, the whole works are gunked up. It almost feels like the article is being held hostage by 1 person. That isn't right. Vjmlhds 18:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cire web

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please fix the Template:Cire web to {{Cite web. Thanks. mabdul 17:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• WikiProject Professional Wrestling frequent targets
• Biography articles of living people
• List-Class Professional wrestling articles
• Mid-importance Professional wrestling articles
• WikiProject Professional wrestling articles