Talk:WWE Hall of Fame/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

whoever said rhodes and guerrero were "officially" announced?

No one... it's typical IWC morons assuming that everyone knows just because they read on the internet that some other geek's uncle's friend's pet dog heard Vince McMahon mention their names and the 'Hall of Fame' in the same sentence.

WWE.com announced on Monday 2/12/07 that Dusty Rhodes is the first person in the 2007 Hall Of Fame

---

What's the deal with that moron that keeps adding 'Latino Heat' to Eddie Guerrero's name? It wasn't his in-ring alias.. just a nickname...

Hey, hey, be nice. No need for name calling. Though I do agree, "Latino Heat" doesn't really need to be attached to Guerrero's name. While other wrestlers on the list have their nicknames ("Rowdy" Roddy Piper, "Cowboy" Bob Orton, Bret "The Hitman" Hart), those nicknames are almost always used with that name (most people say "'Rowdy' Roddy Piper" rather than just "Roddy Piper"). Jeff Silvers 02:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That guy is still doing it.. I think he has a crush on the late Eddie Guerrero...

They added Hulk Hogan and TOny Atlas when they were still wrestling--Unopeneddoor 01:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Venue 2007

Taken from J.R's blog Dusty Rhodes belongs in the WWE Hall of Fame and if anything Dusty’s induction on March 31 at the Fox Theatre in Detroit is past due. Tickets for this event go on sale March 3 but I am unaware of the pricing. I know, I have Bar-B-Q and beer drinking buddies coming from Oklahoma, and I have to buy tickets for 8-10 of them because they are big Raw/WWE fans.

Eddie Guerrero as "Latino heat"

I see where everyone is coming from with the debate of Eddie's name including Latino Heat, and even though, it was not his in-ring name when he died, it was his in-ring name for a really long time. I remember growing up, watching him come out with Chyna, and his name was "Latino Heat" not Eddie Guerrero. So, technically, he is Eddie "Latino Heat" Guerrero. Wesayso26 03:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Charlie

Wrong. TJ Spyke 05:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll do this argument one better. Please point to any instance where the ring announcer ever used that in an introduction.Wayman975 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Latino Heat was Eddie's gimmick (and the name of his theme song), but by no means was this his monicker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.239.171 (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

This is possible trivia just wondering if anybody would support me on this but i believe the WWE Smackdown Video Games the legend characters have all become hall of famers in the same year they were put in the game: Jerry Lawler and Dusty Rhodes - 2007 Bret Hart - 2006 --Wally787 06:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Brutus Beefcake, Ted Dibiase, Jake Roberts and Davey Boy Smith (all characters in SD games as well) have not been inducted yet, I would say it's more a coincidence (and that the game draws from likely HOFers in the first place) than actual occurence barring any cited proof that confirms otherwise. Wayman975 14:50, 13 March 2007 (U

One could also note that Shane McMahon, Jim Neidhart, Stone Cold and The Rock are have not been inducted but they are considered legends. They also remove some legends from time to time [André was removed in 07]

Hell, they even consider Shane to be a legend in the first place. They also consider Mick to be a legend in Story mode, but not in Exhibition and such. Zero R 11:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Mick was originally intended to be a legend. He was later moved to the regular roster because of his frequent appearances on TV. At this stage, story mode would have been complete. The legends list is really just a "people who are retired but people still want in the game" list anyway. Koberulz 14:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Inducters

I went on WWE.com at 4:23pm (March 22) and it said that it was confirmed that William Shatner would induct Jerry Lawler. Here's the proof. http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/exclusives/shatnerlawler 72.38.234.177 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I went on WWE.com at 1:51pm (March 25) and it said that Bobby Heenan would induct Nick Bockwinkel. Here's the proof. http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/exclusives/heenanbockwinkel 72.38.234.177 17:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, you don't need to post this here. You could just put the link in the edit summary (just letting you know, you can do it this way if you want). TJ Spyke 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don Muraco has been confirmed by WWE as inducting Mr. Fuji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.90.207.74 (talk • contribs)

The Hall of Fame commercial said Stone Cold is an inductor, and the visual showed when it said this was Stone Cold sharing a beer with Jim Ross, so I think it's safe to assume that Stone Cold is inducting JR. Virakhvar321 06:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be original research, so that's a no. TJ Spyke 06:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"Original Research." Also known as "Thinking Logically."Donco 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Also called "followong Wikipedia rules and guidelines". TJ Spyke 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's two links stating that Austin is inducting J.R. - http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/52368/WWE-News:-WM-Press-Conference,-Brock-Angle,-WM23,-Austin,-More.htm and http://rajah.com/base/node/7589 MattSutton1 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither of which are WWE, so don't count. WWE has not announced that Austin will induct Ross, so any edits saying he will will continue being reverted. TJ Spyke 02:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. I assume it's the same policy that prevents the posting of spoilers on Wiki unless the promotion's already given them away beforehand. Then again, WWE has advertised that Austin will be at the ceremony, and the commercial did heavily imply that he'd be inducting JR (but I do see that "heavily implying" something isn't the same as a confirmation). MattSutton1 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You got it. This is the type of thing that isn't added unless WWE announces it. We know Austin will be an inductor, and it seems obvious that Austin will induct JR, but WWE hasn't actually said he will induct JR. TJ Spyke 03:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Change format to Table?

I was wondering if we should change the format to a table and have the headings be:

• Year
• Inductee
• Inductor
• Date of Birth
• Date of Death (iffy one)
• Notes (This is where you could note their representatives or if the wrestler spent little to no time in the WWE)

Thoughts? -- Scorpion 22:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you do a test page to show what you think it should look like? TJ Spyke 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can do. I'll do it later tonight or tomorrow. I was thinking two other spots could be Major Promotions (This is also an iffy one, but we could go solely by what is mentioned in the WWE Hall of Famers site) and years active (again, extremely iffy) -- Scorpion 22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You can see an example here. For the time being, I have made it sortable, but that can easily be taken off. I originally had a "Major promotions" slot, but that could more than easily lead to edit warring. Thoughts? -- Scorpion 23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice, maybe it should be seperate tables for each year though (one for 2005, one for 2006, etc.). TJ Spyke 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I think we should make it one big table because if it is made sortable, then you would be able to easily fins somebody. What do you think of having Date of Birth and Date of Death sections? -- Scorpion 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What if somebody wants to know when and where each HOF ceremony took place though? I'm neutral on the DOB and DOD sections, they don't really help much but they are interesting. TJ Spyke 23:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just list it afterwards in a section called "Ceremony locations" or something along those lines. -- Scorpion 23:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Inductees Split off?

I have added the table to the page and I was considering adding sources and taking an FL run. However, to do so, the section would have to become its own list page. The section is getting longer and perhaps a split could prove to be useful. I just thought I'd get some opinions on this before doing it. -- Scorpion 15:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been no objections, so I have moved the section to this page. -- Scorpion 19:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Benoit Section

Should the Benoit Section be in the article. I know that it is unlikely at this point that he will be inducted but he is not the only one who has a slim chance of being inducted. Granted he is the only alleged Double Murder, but I don't think he deserves a special section in this article, if anything it should be moved to his own article. As we do not know that he won't be added in the future(it's been two weeks since the tragedy), the same sections could be made for Randy Savage, Ultimate Warrior and Bruno Sammartino, who all have major personal problems with McMahon and may never be inducted.--Dravenfrost 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Back 'n forth edits

Pick a premise, please. First you wrote, "Sammartino is the only one mentioned because he is the only one with a source. Find a source, then readd it." Multiple mainstream sources were added, but deleted. Next you wrote, "We could list every single employee that has never been inducted (and there are a lot), but Sammartino has refused it several times and has talked about it even more, so he is a more notable example." But there was no attempt to list every single employee, or anything close to it, so your rhetorical complaint doesn't correspond to the edit. Also, basing an editing stance on Sammartino "refusing [induction] several times" is itself original research (unless a valid source can be found). And one interview doesn't establish that he's "talked about it even more" than the (uncited) number of times he's allegedly rejected it. Next you moved to, "If Savage has publicly spoken out against the Hall of Fame, then something can be added," but this is an absurdity, because that standard would self-define notability; Dave Meltzer or Wade Keller have both publicly criticized the HoF and thus, as eminent figures in wrestling, would both qualify by that criteria. Or, if Doink the Clown were to give two negative interviews, he'd suddenly be twice as notable as Bruno Sammartino.

Also, even while objecting to POV, your most recent reversion presents a series of POV issues: fixating on Sammartino to the exclusion of similar individuals is not neutral; the statement that all inductees must be on good terms with WWE is unproofed; the suggestion that Sammartino is not on good terms with WWE is unproofed; declaring Sammartino to be a notable critic assumes a body of HoF criticism with Sammartino at its head; there's the inference that the opaque HoF criteria is suspect; and there's the unsourced claim that a defined guiding premise for the WWE HoF once existed and has since been altered. Now, you know and I know that each of these points is plausible in its own way. But they're also POV statements. Unremarkable POV statements, yes, but far more POV-heavy than a list of past titleholders who are either in or out, which is an easily-sourced fact. Throwing 's onto your preferred wording only, while repeatedly eliminating other edits/sources is hardly an equitable response.

The "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point" guideline also includes the advisory not to "rely upon the letter of policy as a defense when breaking the spirit of policy." I think you may be skirting this. Please consider this: the idea that Bruno Sammartino should, all by himself, represent the entire field of overqualified wrestlers who have not yet been inducted is a bigger overreach than my edit, and is not neutral. I sincerely look forward to hearing your side, which is surely more nuanced and thoughtful than the cramped Edit Summary spaces have allowed you to be. This seemed like such a nothing little edit when I first made it.208.120.224.54 (talk) 02:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not write anything in the article, and I really don't care what it includes. The reason I reverted you is because your edit was basically a revenge edit, which goes againse WP:POINT. The present wording does not say that Sammartino is the sole representitive, it just says he's a notable critic. The only reason he is included is because he's publicly complained about the Hall of Fame in an interview with a reliable source and that's a good way to mention general criticism of the hall. Other potential inductees have too (such as the Ultimate Warrior) but I couldn't find any reliable sources for them (just dirtsites) If you would like to add criticism from Meltzer or Keller or any other wrestler, then go ahead (nobody ever said that you couldn't). As for you wanting to list former WWE champions, it does go against WP:NPOV. There are many many wrestlers who could make it so if we're going to list Savage, Backlund, Warrior and Sammartino just because one individual thinks they should, then whats to stop another user from adding Ricky Steamboat or Ted DiBiase. Then, what's to stop someone else from adding Max Moon or Brice Pritchard? It's best to not even get into that territory or else half of the article would be a listing of exclusions. Most Hall of Fame articles are like that. If you don't believe me, check out an FA like Hockey Hall of Fame or a GA like Canada's Walk of Fame. The HHOF article only mentions one exemption (Paul Henderson) and that's only because entire books have been devoted to his Hall of Fame cause. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

We both agree on the need to avoid "slippery slopes" in Wikipedia articles; I suppose we just disagree on where this slope begins. I don't think Randy Savage leads inevitably to advocates for the Boogeyman and Tugboat. I also think it's NPOV to indicate that there's a Hall of Fame that omits Bruno Sammartino, and cut the topic off there. Citing Sammartino and no one else runs afoul of the "undue weight" standard (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight).

I've made another edit with direct quotes from both Meltzer and Jim Ross, which I hope will be to your satisfaction.208.120.224.54 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So you complain about the section focusing on Sammartino (when all it does is mention him as a critic, it does not once say that he has been omitted, snubbed or should be in) but all you do to "improve" it is add stuff about Randy Savage and Lou Thesz not being in? Criticism should be general, not "_____ isn't in because [insert rumoured reason]". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly. All I did to 'improve" it is exactly what you suggested: "If you would like to add criticism from Meltzer or Keller or any other wrestler, then go ahead." Apparently a quote from WWE spokesman/Hall of Famer Jim Ross constitutes original research.

You're being disingenuous about the context of the Sammartino quote, too. Read the link-- he's answering in response to this:

Ironically, Sammartino's appearance in Detroit was on the eve of the WWE Hall of Fame induction ceremony. Sammartino is not a member, won't be a member, and has no idea what the Hall of Fame even is.

And it continues:

"They've called plenty of times," Sammartino admitted. "I turn them down every time. [Wiki quotation begins] What's the point to a Hall of Fame? Is it a building I can actually go to?..."

Your standard isn't shared by other Wikipedia pages. The Wikipedia entry for the Baseball Hall of Fame includes entire sections on players who have not been inducted, and players who have been inducted who some people think should not have been. The NFL Hall of Fame page discusses specific players who have not been inducted. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame page includes controversies about acts both in and out. And so on.

A new edit, including quotes from the Associated Press and Scripps Howard News Service, is up. Presumably not for long.208.120.224.54 (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How many of those articles are GAs or FAs? The Hockey Hall of Fame is the only HoF FA and if it included every opinion from every columnist in a reliable source then the article would be 90% criticism, 10% information. By the way, I'm not the one who has reverted you the last two times (solely because I got beaten to it). The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame article does include a criticism section but does not mention a single exclusion. When I said you included criticism, I meant about the Hall of Fame in general, not that you could add pro-Savage statements. You basically want to turn the article into a listing of reasons why Randy Savage and Bruno Sammartino are not inducted, which is not acceptable. There are dozens of wrestlers who have just as much claim to a spot as they do and to keep the article fair you can either mention them all or mention none and wikipedia standards are to go for the latter. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Historical context

Shouldn't Vince McMahon Sr be listed as founder and promoter of WWWF rather than WWE? The belts are listed that way, shouldn't the company be also? Or is there a reason I'm missing? Tony2Times (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The "inducted by" column

I fought for it's inclusion in the past, but I'm starting to wonder if it's necessary. As recent events have shown, there is a lack of reliable sources for the older ones, and overall, it's not particularily notable. Thoughts? -- 14:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I see it notable since most inductors talk for a while about the inductee and some are sometimes celebrities, like Sylvester Stallone. But I also agree to remove it because its really not saying anything about the "Hall" itself. --TRUCO 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

2009 inductees

Even though WWE is yet to confirm it, The Von Erich family and Bill Watts will be inducted this year. I don't know if it should be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithas (talk • contribs)

Nope, because neither have been confirmed to be inducted. TJ Spyke 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Watts was confirmed on Legends of Wrestling on WWE 24/7 this month. VWG (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There have actually been 18 posthumous inductees with the induction of 5 of the Von Erichs this year. Also, with all of this years inductees, 2009 has set the record for most people inducted in a single year with 13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.211.116 (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the record, that depends on whther you count tag teams together or not. The Von Erichs, for example, are considered to be 1 inductee rather than 5/6 (I don't think it has been confirmed if Chris is included). I supposed if the wording were changed to say the year with most people inducted, then yeah. TJ Spyke 02:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2010 Induction Ceremony

What's the source for the 2010 induction ceremony date?? VWG (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been announced. The induction nor the date. It might not even happen. We don't know.--WillC 11:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

All we know is that a 2010 ceremony will happen. Per the announcing of WrestleMania 26.--₮RUCӨ 14:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Tables

Shouldn't the columns for the tag team table match the columns for the other tables? Is there a particular reason that, contrary to the other two tables, Column 2 is "Notes" and Column 3 is "Inducted By?"--ECWAGuru (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

TJ Spyke was wrong

I chose to name this subject, because it's something that TJ Spyke needs to admit. While I was blocked I read the rules, and saw that original research was not allowed (unless for fictional character biographies) but no where in the rules does it say that YouTube is an unreliable source because they are illegally putting up that video. TJ Spyke just made that rule up because he refuses to admit he's wrong. So I propose now we consider whenever TJ Spyke reverts the edit I made, we consider that as vandalisim (I checked the rules here at Wikipedia, that does count as vandalisim). --210.49.251.226 (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE says youtube can't be used as a source, if the material is copyrighted. I'm not entirely sure what you were trying to reference, but if it was a WWE/WWF show, then it is copyrighted, and cannot be used as a source. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys, everything WWE shows is copyrighted, every drop of blood, every bead of sweat, and every breath is copyrighted.--Nascarking (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Stu Hart

Wasn't it announced that Stu Hart would be inducted in 2010? Dr Rgne (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Antonio Inoki

Creating IGF is not notable and should be removed. It was a non-notable promotion that lasted about a year, barely ran any shows, and actually tried to claim another promotions title (it would be like TNA saying they had the WWE Championship). We don't note other similar things, Terry Funk started his own promotion (called !Bang!, which WWE Diva Gail Kim actually won a title in), as did Dusty Rhodes (called Turnbuckle Championship Wrestling, which his son Goldust won a title in), but we don't note them for the same reason IGF shouldn't be. I find it odd that Scorpion is fighting for this to be in since he is the one always complaining when a notable title like the IC Championship is added in to a wrestlers entry. TJ Spyke 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Warrior

I heard reports that he's going in in 2010? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.159.105 (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The RUMOR (and I stress that it's nothing more than a rumor) is that he had initially accepted an invitation to be inducted but the changed his mind. TJ Spyke 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can i just ask, wheres the great 1, the peoples champ? THE most electrifying man, in sports entertainment. The rock changed wwe when it was going through that transition phase after hogan, i agree the hulkster should obviously be there, but surely so should the rock? 5 times champion? Non undertaker? No hhh? No Warrior? No clue!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.41.113 (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

this is not a forum, but undertaker is still an active wrestler, thus he can't go in. same with hhh. warrior was offered to be inducted, but declined, most likely because of the "Self-destruction" smearjob. lastly, the rock is the biggest joke in wrestling history. he was pushed during a boom period that he had nothing to do with. wherver he went the crowds chanted "rocky sucks", and millions....and millions of anti-rock signs were confiscated, in order to try and make him appear popular. the defining point was when the nwo run him over with a truck, and the crowd cheered... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.49.43 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The gallery

Rather than edit warring, let's discuss this. There aren't a lot of images of the inductees, and adding them along the side allows us to show some of the better ones. All adding a gallery does is allows the page to display 6 more images, most of which are either poor quality or have questionable licensing (ie. I have a hard time believing that the Gorilla Monsoon image is actually free). How does throwing in not particularily good images of Moolah and Mae Young and Greg Valentine "add to the reader's understanding of the subject"? Why not limit to the better images, preferably ones of wresatlers in ring gear, along the side? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul Ellering

Ellering was inducted alongside the Road Warriors, not only when he was mentioned but at the ceremony. I would argue he goes in with the teams as part of the Road Warriors. Tony2Times (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You maybe right, but since he never competed in a match with Hawk and Animal, he just goes in as a manager in the individuals section.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He was a manager, so he wasn't technically a member of the Road Warriors. I can see both sides of the argument, but I think the current method (listing Ellering separately, but mentioning that he was inducted with the team) works best. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Criticism?

there should a subsection pointing out the incredibly negative reactions from longtime wrestling fans that celebrities like Drew Carey, Bob Uecker, and William "The Refridgerator" Perry are in the Hall of Fame, as opposed to actual wrestlers. Especially in the case of Carey, as Tammy Sytch's acceptance speech was edited out, in order to give Carey more time to promote his new show.

another common criticism is that there is no physical hall "Superstar" Billy Graham sold his HOF ring after learning that it's nothing but a publicity stunt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.160.159 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

mil mascaras

mil mascaras is the first inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame's 2012 class

http://www.wwe.com/inside/mil-mascaras-hall-of-fame-announcement

so keep it on the page ok --Wjmdem (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Rock

I heard a rumor and saw on this page about The Rock being inducted into the HOF 2012. If so, where's the source?

Tribal44 (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Tribal44

According to the PWTORCH, this year's "headliner" inductee will be Edge(bwahahaha). It is unlikely Rock would be inducted too, as he would overshadow Edge a bit.

Edge

Please leave Edge's accomplishments as is.

Being the only one to win the WWE, World, I-C, U.S., World Tag Team, and WWE Tag Team titles is noteworthy.

As is being the only one to win the Royal Rumble, Money in the Bank, and King of the Ring.

Thank you.

Vjmlhds 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Being the most successful tag team champion in WWE history is more noteworthy, and who cares about a defunct tournement. why is winning the Rumble, MITB and KOTR notable? It's not like the WWE has ever hyped winning the trio as an accomplishment. They have, however, mentioned his tag team accomplishments countless times. Besides, it's an overview of his accomplishments. Anyone wanting to know more can easily visit the page devoted just to Edge.

Lets use Edge's WWE bio as a guage. It doesn't mention either of those accomplishments. It does, however, mention Edge's tag team prowess, though it doesn't directly mention that he has won more Tag Team titles than anyone else. So, I suppose it could be removed, though I think it's notable and has been mentioned by the WWE many times.. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't want to list them, doesn't mean that the accomplishments didn't happen. And who are you to judge which accomplishments are noteworthy or not? Isn't being a Triple Crown or Grand Slam winner more noteworthy that merely listing how many times one one was an I-C or U.S. Champion? And others in the HoF have their KOTR wins listed in their accomplishments...so why not Edge? And KOTR isn't defunct..it's been held every 2 years since 2006. Agian...what is your beef with mentioning Edge is the only one to win the Rumble/MITB/KOTR? He did something no one else has ever done, so it's worth a sentence. And I'm not writing long bios in everybody's accomplishments...just highlights. Total world titles, Triple Crown/Grand Slam (if applicable) and Rumble/KOTR/MITB wins (if applicable)...what's wrong with that? Vjmlhds 15:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying they didn't happen. I'm just saying that we can't get too in depth here. Because every other blurb limits accomplishments to the most major titles. Look at how short the blurb is for Ric Flair, it doesn't mention a lot of his many accomplishments. Why should Edge's be any different? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, undid your addition of breaking spaces because it made the table rows wider than they had to be. It's also discouraged in tables. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's agree to this--If someone has won multiple World and/or Tag Team titles, let's combine them...it's "shorter and sweeter" to say Hulk Hogan is a combined 12 time World champion, rather than a six-time WWE Champion, and a six-time WCW champion. Also if someone is a Triple Crown or Grand Slam winner, list that. For example, Bret Hart being the first to be a WWF and WCW Triple Crown winner is much more notable than saying he was a three-time I-C Champion. If someone is a TC or GS winner, then you know he's won the I-C/U.S. (depending on the promotion) and Tag Team titles. I never listed every one of everybody's titles, I'm just trying to put it all in a nut shell. Vjmlhds 20:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Does it really matter if someone has won an Intercontinental Title if they're already a World Champion? When this list was originally compiled, we tried to limit it to just the highest title, plus Rumble victories, barring exceptional circumstances. Bret Hart is a 5 time WWF Champion. Does it matter that he also held a bunch of less important titles? Flair's entry is absolutely perfect: "Two-time WWF Champion, eight-time WCW World Heavyweight Champion, and seven-time NWA World Heavyweight Champion. Recognized by WWE as a sixteen-time World Heavyweight Champion. Flair was the first active WWE wrestler to be inducted in the WWE Hall of Fame." It hits the highs of his career. If his entry is fine with just the basics, why does Edge's entry need to be extremely detailed? Hell, the accomplishments you keep bringing up aren't even mentioned on his WWE bio, so why should we mention them? Also, I don't see why you disagree with listing titles separate. They're different belts, why combine them? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go through every change from this edit and explain why I reverted you.

• There's no need to say "then-World Wrestling Federation's". It's the same company, just under a different name.
• The image of Vince McMahon is fair use. The image of Pete Rose is unnecessary, especially when there are other wrrestlers we can include. Flair hasn't been inducted for a second time yet. As for the rest, images of them at the Hall of Fame are preferable.
• Do not change change "one-time champion" to "former champion". Of course they're former champions. Does that mean that anyone without the word "former" is a current champion?
• There's no need to break the rows up into sentences, since many of the new sentences aren't real sentences.
• Pedro Morales' entry should note that he is a former WWF Champion, since it is the highest tile.
• There's no need to list the ECW title for Don Muraco. When he won it, it was just a regional title, so it was (at the time) lower than the IC Title.
• Who cares if Pete Rose is the first inductee in the celebrity wing?
• How is "12-time combined WWF/E and WCW World Champion" better than "Six-time WWF/E Champion, six-time WCW World Heavyweight Champion"? I strongly oppose combining titles from different companies. The WWE and World Heavyweight Titles is one thing, but the WWE and WCW belts (before WCW folded) were completely different titles and should be kept apart. Same with combining the Women's titles for Sherri Martel.
• Do we really need to note that Bob Orton was Piper's bodyguard? Yes, his entry is vague, but so are the entries for a lot of others. Besides, I think he's most known now for being Randy Orton's father.
• Ric Flair is not actually a 16 time World Champion (real totals: 2 WWE, 10 NWA, 8 WCW). That's just what the WWE bills him as.
• Don't say that The Road Warriors are just "4-time World Tag Team Champions." This isn't boxing. The companies and the belts matter, and each win should be in the proper context (ie. Which title it was).
• There's no need to list every one of Tyson's roles. He's most famous for his role at WM14. Leave it at that.

So please stop blanket reverting me and lets discuss. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• You know, if we're going to have this many problems, perhaps only a very small subset of people should be allowed to edit professional wrestling entries on this website -- far above and beyond current restrictions. We seem to be running into these kinds of problems all over the site in this genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.248.248.210 (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yokozuna

According to PWTorch.com they have announced he is to inducted this year... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.42.204 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Presenters Sourced from Wikipedia-reliable site

A previous edit giving the presenters who will induct the 2012 class was removed for not having what The Powers That Be consider a reliable source. Here's another source which falls within your list as a "website proven reliable", a Mike Johnson article in PWInsider.com, with the same five names (Edge had announced Christian would induct him previously) as the challenged/removed edit: http://www.pwinsider.com/article/66993/who-will-be-inducting-this-years-wwe-hall-of-famers.html?p=1 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.248.248.210 (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Do not add speculation for the speakers at the Hall of Fame 2013!

I have been seeing this way too much. Please do not add any speakers for each Hall of Famer in the class of 2013 without sourcing it. Otherwise, it will be assumed that it is speculation and will be promptly deleted. Thanks. Srsrox (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting indefinite semi-protection

Just so everyone knows, I have requested indefinite semi-protection for this page due to consistent and persistent vandalism and constant unsourced speculation, almost all of it coming from IP addresses, not usernames. Let me know what you think if you'd like. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 03:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The request is located here for your info: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_protection srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 03:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

I changed the non-standard instance of {{Infobox}} to {{Infobox website}}. This was reverted as "this is not a website". However, it appears that the HoF exist nowhere other than online. Why is that infobox not a better fit? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

HOF 94 Date Wrong

The 1994 Hall Of Fame took place on Thursday June 9th, not Saturday June 18th. This needs to be corrected. For verification of this you can check out the June 6, 1994 episode of Raw(it's currently up on the WWE Network). Vince McMahon mentions it on commentary during the Razor Ramon match. It's also mentioned on TheHistoryOfWWE.com, a site that is used as a notable source all over Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.94.198 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Pedro Morales

Should this article note that Pedro Morales was not present at the 1995 Hall of Fame Ceremony? He is the only living inductee who did not attend the HOF ceremony to accept his induction. The article indicates that Savio Vega inducted him, but he actually accepted the Hall of Fame induction on Pedro's behalf. Should this article make a note of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grammarian10 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Andre's Induction Date

Andre The Giant was inducted into the Hall Of Fame on March 22, 1993, not February 1, 1993. A video package was shown announcing him as the first inductee of the newly created Hall. The February 1, 1993 date is when WWE aired a tribute video to Andre after he passed away the prior week. He was never announced for the Hall Of Fame on that episode. It was the March 22nd episode when they officially announced the creation of the Hall. You can check these episodes out on the WWE Network for verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldSkool01 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

2015

It's necesary to wait until the night before WM to include them as part of the HOF? WWE.com lists Savage in the Hall of Fame section --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Once WWE lists somebody in the HOF section of the WWE.com roster, that means they're in...the ceremony is just for show. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You've both been around here for a while, so you should both know better. Since when do we take the WWE's word for iron law? If we did, our history sections would be way off reality. It's how we do things here at Wikipedia, it's easier to bunch the 2015 guys in one section, and updating the totals as they happen can lead to confusion and snap updates. Besides, their graphics say "to be inducted by", in regards to the inductors. As unlikely as it seems that someone would be removed, lets not forget that this is the company that changes their minds constantly after advertising things. In a few months it won't matter anyway, so let it be. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Scorpion. I'm not disputing that WWE has the authority to decide when these guys get in, even they say he won't be inducted until the night before WrestleMania. I'm guessing their bios are moved to the HOF section on a technicality... they don't have a "To be inducted" section like we do.LM2000 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

However, Savage profile was moved to WWE Hall of Fame section and Career Highlights includes 2015 Hall of Fame inductee. http://www.wwe.com/superstars/randysavage Even if the ceremony is in a few months, he is a hall of famer.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Master of ceremonies

Was thinking of adding at table in the list of ceremonies with all the hall of fame hosts. Any thoughts? MB1972 (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The Bushwackers Induction

John Laurinaitis will induct the duo into the WWE Hall of Fame Class of 2015. Why are you continuing to remove this part of Article? 82.59.66.20 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Because nobody has verified this claim. Do you have a source?LM2000 (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read that in some sites. 82.61.167.219 (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Pedro Morales' absence

Although claims that he was absent at the Hall of Fame ceremony in 1995 have been picked up on some unreliable sites, I haven't have a reliable source that makes that claim. Part of the ceremony is on the WWE Network, they claim Morales was there but they lost the footage of his speech. They did air photographs of him at the ceremony though. If nobody can produce a reliable source to support the claim then I'll be removing it at some point.LM2000 (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Too late, already gone. Some unsourced stuff isn't that bad, but when it's implying stuff about living people, waiting doesn't make a lot of sense. Source first, then claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm in awe of your boldness, Hulk.LM2000 (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not hard to be awesome. I recommend we all try it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I was mistaken. Pedro Morales was present at the ceremony. WWE claims that there is no footage of his speech, though there is footage of Savio Vega speaking on his behalf. The fact remains that he was present at the ceremony, so you were right to remove this material. Grammarian10 (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Question

Why was Hogan removed from the list here? Has the WWE released a statement about this yet? Just curious is all. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 16:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone has since since restored it. He was removed from WWEs online page, which should not necessarily be equated with removed from the HOF itself.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I noticed that, thanks for answering though. --DSA510 Pls No Level Up 18:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

WWE has not announced that his Hall of Fame honors have been rescinded, we should not be removing him until we get confirmation that they actually removed him. Even if he is removed we will still need to include him somewhere in the article as he was inducted and remained a Hall of Famer for a decade.LM2000 (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

He should be removed in my opinion, as WWE have done the same, and it's been made public, but as there's no announcement I can see where you're coming from, I still vote for his removal though.Corabal (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"Hulk Hogan, we comin' for you, nigga!!!" *COUGH COUGH* You know, it's one thing for historical revisionism to be rampant on the Internet and in the WWE Universe. It's another thing for Wikipedia to reflect that historical revisionism simply because someone found something lying around on some website somewhere. Unfortunately, it's already happening. Wikipedia has allowed itself to be a party to the Confederate flag "ethnic cleansing", so why not this affair which I'm sure far fewer people care about? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"And this bird you cannot chay-ee-ay-ee-ay-ee-ay-ee-ange!" InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

Would anybody object to blanking this shit? Every criticism is several years old and WWE has met nearly every criticism mentioned. Bruno, Warrior, and Backlund have been inducted; Superstar Billy Graham is back on good terms with them; The Post and Courier source complains that Savage and Bruno weren't in yet in 2012. Dave Scherer is apprehensive about the future of the Hall because the inductees since 2004 have been of such an awesome caliber... that's basically praising the job they've done for 12 years. The section is totally useless, violates NPOV, and is horribly outdated. Off with its head.LM2000 (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter about the timescale. The point of the section should be to show all sides, that includes any negative comments. Removal is not neutral point of view since the article then appears as if there was never any issues, when there have been and still are.--WillC 09:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's neutral and balanced now. Still wouldn't mind seeing the section go away though.LM2000 (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There is some more stuff to balance it out. Perhaps add something where someone notes that the WWE has made positive strides in recent years. That is what is done in the criticism section for Hockey Hall of Fame, which is a FA. There is more stuff that could be added here as well, such as the (valid) criticism that it's about marketing and merchandise and ignores the greats from eras and promotions they don't own video footage for (ie. Lou Thesz). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2016

I heard on a website that the 2016 HOF inductees are Sting, John "Bradshaw" Layfield, Regis Philbin, Jacquelyn, Papa Shango/The Godfather/Kama & the tag team The Freebirds. 2605:6000:3F05:2800:CD0C:DD21:85B5:2875 (talk) 00:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Rumors from dubious sources, I believe the rumor originated from What Culture which WP:PW/RS lists as totally unreliable. We add inductees once they are officially confirmed by WWE.LM2000 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2016

Add Jacquelyn Regis Philbin The Godfather Freebirds

2605:6000:3F05:2800:CD27:EB17:A076:E117 (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Not until/unless WWE officially announces them.LM2000 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The Valiant Brothers

The Valiant Bros. are two times tag team champions. Once in 1974 and then again in 1979. The list of their accomplishments mentions once. Bill Koby (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Stan Hansen

Please add former AWA Champion Stan Hansen to the list of 2016 inductees. The news has broken out all over the web.50.136.139.204 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Warrior Award

Just to make thing's clear, as per the reference on the article, WWE considers Warrior Award recipients as HOF inductees. Basically, this is like another "wing" of the HOF a la the "celebrity wing".

At the end of the day, it's their award, and their HOF, so if they want to consider somebody as an inductee, then we just gotta go with it.

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've scanned the WWE.com article and press release and there's very little to support your claim. In fact, the article makes it clear "which will be presented each year at the WWE Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony." It doesn't say induction. There's a quote from Vince ("I can think of no better way to honor Connor, than by recognizing him with our highest honor, the first fan to be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame, as a Warrior"), but that could just be Vince being Vince.

This is not uncommon, there are other Halls of Fame that have awards but don't consider the recipients inductees, for example the Hockey Hall of Fame has an award for journalists. Also, Connor is not included in the Hall of Fame section. For the time being, wait. If things change then so can we, but for the time being there is no clear evidence backing you up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I interpreted it the same as Vjm. I think that Vince is clear; Connor is getting an induction, as a "Warrior". I don't think that WWE.com would have printed that had Vince misspoke. USA Today seems to have the same interpretation, they use the word "inducted" as well.LM2000 (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

USA Today doesn't know anything. Like you guys, they are making assumptions. Lets take a look at the evidence that we actually have:

• Connor is a full inductee arguments
  • Vince's quote: "I can think of no better way to honor Connor, than by recognizing him with our highest honor, the first fan to be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame, as a Warrior" (If you want to get technical, he mis-spoke anyway, because this isn't about honouring superfans, its about courageous ones)
  • Trips and Steph's tweets: I don't put too much stock into anything that limits one to under 200 characters. I'd also like to point out that there's a very good chance those tweets came from assistants and not those two themselves.
  • The USA Today article. Believe it or not, they actually know no more than we do. They're basing the article on the press release and are re-reporting what Steph and Trips tweeting. I highly doubt they did any original research into this, so the article confirms nothing.
• Connor is not a full inductee arguments
  • First line of the WWE.com article: "will be the first-ever recipient of the Warrior Award, which will be presented each year at the WWE Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony." If he was a full inductee, would it not just say that?
  • He's not included in the Hall of Fame bios section. (I guess you could argue that they simply don't have one ready, but the WWE almost always has the bios up within an hour of the announcement)
  • At the main page for the Hall of Fame has a section called "Class of 2015 inductees" which includes all five announced people, but not Connor.
  • There isn't one of those fancy inductee graphics for him.

In short, we don't know enough but the evidence points towards the nay. Hey, if I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit it, but until we know for sure let's hold off on calling him a full inductee and use the wording that the WWE itself uses: He's getting an award at the ceremony. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• If you look at the USA Today story, both HHH and Stephanie also refer to Connor as an HOF inductee, so you can't call it a "misspeak" on Vince's part. Bottom line if the top 3 honchos in WWE all call it an induction, who are we to argue...after all, it's thier HOF. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I was just fixing my argument to address those points but you got to it first. At best everything is contradictory so we should hold off. Also, all three head honchos have said that Triple H played a huge role in killing WCW and he was the top guy while Sting was top guy in WCW, neither of which is even close to being true. I don't put a lot of stock in what they say. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The McMahons don't have a say in who killed WCW but they do have a say in what is going on in their Hall of Fame. This "induction" is certainly unusual but I think that their statements are enough for us to consider it a de facto one until we get further clarification. LM2000 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I won't revert any edits if you report what we know: McMahons say one thing, WWE.com says something else. But that seems rather pointless. It really would be preferable just to say nothing about full induction status until we know for certain. It's not like the current text says he's NOT an inductee, it just says he's getting an award. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This should put this to bed. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a start, but again WWE.com says something else. Like I said above, I won't revert any edits if you specifically mention the contradictions, but I don't see the point of it (especially since the text doesn't say he's not an inductee). Once the ceremony has come and gone we'll know for sure. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing WWE (or any other source) has said indicates that Connor isn't an inductee. Everything from USA Today, to BuzzFeed, to WWE's twitter page, to Vince, HHH, and Stephanie themselves have called it an induction. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Except WWE's own website which doesn't include him in any of the official inductee sections, and the press release which specifically does not say he's a full inductee. I'd rather the section said nothing about it, but if you can't wait we might as well be honest and say sources vary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

WWE.com never said that he wasn't an inductee, and numerous sources has said yes...they argument isn't whether anybody said he WAS, but who says he ISN'T...Nobody has said he ISN'T. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed the section to say exactly what we know. It looks terrible, but you're the one who can't wait a few weeks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

What we know is that WWE themselves call him an inductee, they made a graphic for him calling him an inductee, and put it on their TV show and on their twitter page (and on WWE.com in the video section). A newspaper and a website (with no ties to WWE) called it an induction, and the top 3 honchos in WWE have called it an induction. The only one who isn't is you, and it's really starting to look like you're grasping at straws. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I still agree with Vjm. This isn't even a "sources vary" issue, no sources say he isn't an inductee while others explicitly say that he is. It's possible that they could issue a press release later on clarifying that he isn't an inductee. If that happens then sources will actually vary and we'll have something to talk about.LM2000 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I've already countered a lot of your claims actually. Did USA Today call it an induction? Yes. But I've found several others which do not say that. You see, Newspapers are like Wikipedia, they just report what the press releases say and add a little speculation. You keep forgetting what WWE.com says, and for as long as they counter your claim, I'm going to continue to add it. Let's try a compromise. I've re-worded it to show precisely what we know. Vince McMahon says he's an inductee, but this is not reflected by the website. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your bias on Twitter's limit on characters, check out Stephanie McMahon's extended statement to The Washington Post. Oh yea, the Post says that he is to be inducted too.LM2000 (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If a source ever does come out which does contradict his status as an inductee I will revert myself on that edit to the template.LM2000 (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, that Stephanie McMahon quote is the exact same one that was originally attributed to Vince on WWE.com, but they've removed his name from it there now. Like I said previously, I have no problem with citing these sources, as long as you also make it clear that we don't know for sure. I should also point out that WWE may simply consider this a category. For example, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has multiple categories where "Performers" is considered the big one, but they have various other ones of varying importance. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yea, Vjm compared it to the "celebrity wing" which I what I thought of as well. The general wrestlers wing is clearly the big one, I don't think anybody thinks that is what Connor is going to be honored with. Most of the sources clarify that he's being inducted "as a Warrior", that's significant. Unless we reorganize the template I don't think we can reflect that there but I think the layout of the article makes the distinction pretty well.LM2000 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Scorpion...you are WAY over-thinking this. You act like Vince, Stephanie, HHH, Monday Night Raw, WWE.com, and WWE's twitter page are all separate entities. They're not. At the end of the day, they're all under the WWE banner, and if anything under the WWE bannner say he's an inductee, then he's an inductee. USA Today, The Washington Post, and Buzzfeed - 3 separate outside entities also refer to this as an induction. What we don't have is a source which says this isn't an induction. I'm sorry, but this really is turning into a "needle in a haystack" argument on your behalf. Numerous sources say yes, zero sources say no, and you're trying to translate any trace of ambiguity into a no. WWE is tripping all over themselves calling this an induction, and the best argument you have is "well, it isn't explicitly stated in this specific section on WWE.com. This is like seeing a foot of snow on the ground, but because you didn't witness the snow falling out of the sky, you're questioning if it snowed. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You aren't going to process this, but I'll explain it anyway. As it turns out, the quote was from Stephanie, NOT Vince. All of of these "sources" you keep citing amount to one source because its all based on one thing - the WWE.com article. The USA Today article only quotes it. The Washington Post article only quotes it. You can claim you have all these sources on your side but the reality is that you have two tweets and a quote from Stephanie McMahon in a WWE.com article that also contradicts itself because it earlier says Connor is an award recipient. The text of this article does not (NOT!) say he isn't or won't being inducted, nor did I ever want it to say he wasn't (as you won't recall, I argued that we should wait until we know for sure). It simply lays out the facts that we know: The one article claims he will be, but he hasn't been included in any official induction material. Wikipedia is about what is verifiable, and as such we need to note the discrepancy amongst WWE's own sources. Since you are completely unwilling to accept the compromise of noting the contradiction, I think we should just take the whole sentence out and not include any mention of whether or not he's an inductee until after the ceremony. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/OfficialUltimateWarrior/photos/a.233574443331890.59866.231574830198518/886547014701293/?type=1&fref=nf

According to Warrior's official Facebook page Connor is indeed a WWE Hall of Fame Inductee. JCW555 (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) I removed this from the third opinion noticeboard because it is a dispute between more than two editors. Consider other methods of dispute resolution. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@DaveA2424: is free discuss rather than edit war if he wants to.LM2000 (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@LM2000: @Scorpion0422: I'm simply utilising the information that I have at my disposal, which indicates that Warrior Award recipients are most definitely WWE Hall of Fame inductees. What I am trying to do is prevent inaccurate information being contributed to the wiki page and I feel that Scorpion0422 is contributing inaccurate information just so that he can have his way. I have been looking through his interactions with other Wikipedia users and it is clear that all he wants to do is harass other users and administer some kind of authority over them. I have asked him many times to stop harassing other users and to mind his own business but he refuses to do so. All of this feels like somewhat of a waste of time anyway because Joan Lunden will be moved to the Warrior Award section of the WWE Hall of Fame wiki page after the ceremony, regardless of where she is an inductee or not. DaveA2424 (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@LM2000: @Scorpion0422: In addition, it is clear that we have reached a stalemate on this issue and I feel that it would be best for us to simply agree to disagree and continue on in the best interests of the wiki. I have decided to allow your edit to remain in order to put an end to the edit warring, although I have edited it slightly. As we have already said, all of this will be somewhat of a moot point after the 2016 WWE Hall of Fame ceremony. Have a nice day. DaveA2424 (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Jim Cornette declining induction

I believe Cornette has stated in interviews that the WWE has offered him induction several times, but he has refused because all they want to give him is $50,000 and a plaque, and he already has both of those many times over. How much is serious and how much is in jest is up for debate. -160.3.65.75 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

asking for Day Jobs to be removed

I am asking for the day jobs to be removed the WWE Hall of Fame is for what they have done or occasion with WWE or Wrestling in general the inductees have gain enough nobility so everyone knows who they are LM 2000 added the occupation section and informed me that Donald Trump's presidency was added by another user. Just because he is president doesn't mean that an occupation section should be created. I have already stated my case to LM 2000 and I wrote to InedibleHulk without knowing that he took time off. --Sc30002001 (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

OPPOSE There is no reason none of the occupations shouldn't be listed,Listing them as a Celebrity is vague. The above user has already stated thier reason for not wanting it on there is they don't like Trump which is non neutral POV and shows they are not here to contribute neutraly. User is under the impression that because they don't want it there it shouldn't be there when clearly other users have no issue with it. Please Note Above user has also used IP to edit war on the article then switched to their user name to back themselves up and revert an Admin here they posted to Hulk and LM2000 via the IP not their user name they have admitted to their socking by their above comments and [here] stating they started this talk. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Donald Trump was the reason why the section was created it has nothing do with me not liking him or disliking him I am not into politics in general. All these years it was find until Trump was elected president that is all. 47.202.17.249 (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Above IP is User:Sc30002001 Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• "Celebrity" is vague, these guys come from all sorts of different backgrounds. I added the "occupation" column after Trump becoming president-elect was repeatedly and awkwardly added into the "WWE recognized accomplishments" section. That said, we should add this section anyway. The Celebrity Wing continues to grow and has rappers, boxers, comedians and politicians. Their appearances in WWE are usually related to their background so this is helpful.LM2000 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

For those not watching my talk page, I think it's fine. Your idea, that is. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sgt. Slaughter

Can someone fix Sgt. Slaughter's accomplishment?? they are next to his inductee Pat Patterson--47.202.17.249 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the heads up. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 18:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

WWE Recognised Accolades

Opinions on whether only inductees world title wins should be included or if we should include secondary titles as well, such as the WWE Intercontinental Championship? DaveA2424 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

DaveA2424 Please make new threads at the bottom of the page, not the top. If you click "New section" it will do this for you. When a wrestler wins a bunch of titles in their careers we have to omit some. Shawn Michales doesn't list his European championship win or his tag title victories, Edge doesn't mention any of his singles titles outside of the world championships. We try to include just the most important championships in their career.LM2000 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kurt Angle Intercontinental Championship

does this accomplishment get added since the title is still active??47.202.17.249 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Answered above your question here Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2017

Donald Trump is now the president of the United States. Thegreengoob (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

 DoneLM2000 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2017

Please add the following sentence to the "Reception" section, onto the end of the "The Hall has garnered criticism..." paragraph, as another notable opinion on the hall:

Wrestler Sabu commented: "I'd only do it because I need the money... I don't consider it a real Hall of Fame."

ALSO, the reference at the end of the lede (citation 12) is given twice.

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

References

My recent edit

• Note User:TBBC was blocked for violating the 3RR again. Nickag989^talk 17:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

My edit was notable (while most were shocked over Pete Rose's induction in 2004, quite a lot of people were shocked by NWA Legend Harley Race's, Greg Gagne even made a joke about Verne's induction in the speech he made while inducting him), the person who reverted it tried saying it was wrong, but then I pointed out to him Pat Patterson's biggest contribution and he's still reverting it. If it's because you didn't add it first, tough bikkies,--TBBC (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Just because you were first, that doesn't mean you're the WP:WINNER. The phrase, From 1993-1996 the WWE Hall of Fame honoured those whose biggest accomplishments in wrestling were in the WWE. is not true, because in that context, the HoF recognized the accomplishment within the WWE, not in the AWA nor NWA. Nickag989^talk 13:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. --TBBC (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither your edits, so you're welcome. Nickag989^talk 14:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

From what I gather, here's my response. Harley Race, Dusty Rhodes, Nick Bockwinkle, Mad Dog Vachon, wrestling legends, but their biggest accomplishments happened outside the WWE, when you look at the original run of the WWE Hall of Fame, you wouldn't have dreamt the WWE would acknowledge them. Verne Gagne had never even wrestled in the WWE. But when they brought back the WWE Hall of Fame in 2004, they were, as well as many other legends who's biggest accomplishments happened outside the WWE, all inducted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBBC (talk • contribs) 14:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This was a long time ago, but it was removed in 2009 when the community merged the List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame into WWE Hall of Fame. And yes, the fact that these wrestlers had a lot of success outside WWE is notable, but it's useless without sources. Nickag989^talk 15:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright message understood, I've added citations, we have conscience, stop reverting, someone beat you to adding this fact FULL STOP --TBBC (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not citations for superstars tho. We don't need this. Nickag989^talk 17:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add your edits, if you continue to edit war over this you will be reported. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This is getting on my nerves, I have added citations for the hall of famers who's best days were OUTSIDE WWE, what more do you flippin' need apart from a time machine so you could go back in time and add it first.--TBBC (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You are edit warring, you have no consensus on add that section. Not really concerned with your nerves. You were just blocked for edit warring and your about to be reported for it again. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Well that backfired. Nickag989^talk 17:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't say he wasn't warned. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

Hitman1994-17 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

beth has edges last name

 Not done "Birth name" is what we're looking for.LM2000 (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Kurt Angle's TNA championships

Being the first TNA World Heavyweight Champion to be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame, I personally feel that his TNA World, X-Division & Tag Team Championships should be added to his accomplishments list... even just his World Title reigns (6), should at least be added. WWE has recently been acknowledging former TNA World Champions on their programming, including Bobby Roode, when he debuted, he was credited as being a former World Champion, as was AJ Styles.

For the record Sting, who was TNA Champion, was inducted last year, so he's not the first.--TBBC (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Unfortunately, WWE doesn't recognize those accompilshments in TNA on their website. Nickag989^talk 13:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

.For the record (X2) Mick Foley was first. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity for 2017

Will WWE have a celebrity inductee?47.202.19.158 (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

None announced so I doubt it Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 07:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Just wait, it'll be either Ronda Shear or Herb from Burger King. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 10:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Accomplishments

What is wrong with pointing out how the original WWE Hall of Famers all of their biggest contributions were to WWE, but now the WWE have moved on to inducting wrestlers who made a huge impact on the world of wrestling?--TBBC (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what are you trying to say. Nickag989^talk 09:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Look at the original WWE Hall of Fame Andre the Giant -- one of WWE's biggest draws ever. Pat Patterson -- first Intercontinental champion, created the Royal Rumble, has booked other classic matches. The Fabulous Moolah -- longest reigning champion in WWE history Buddy Rogers -- first WWE Champion Pedro Morales -- first man to win the WWE, Intercontinental and Tag team championship YOU GET WHERE THIS IS GOING?! Once upon a time, legends the likes of Harley Race and Verne Gagne being inducted into the WWE'S (keyword WWE'S) Hall of Fame would have been silly, because their contributions to wrestling were outside the WWE.--TBBC (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Their accomplishments speak from themselves. No need to add them in the lead. Some of them were done in NWA and AWA, when the WWE HoF in the 1990s. Nickag989^talk 09:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

But you didn't get why I put it in the lead, so again I'll repeat myself, once upon a time, legends the likes of Harley Race and Verne Gagne being inducted into the WWE'S (keyword WWE'S) Hall of Fame would have been silly, because their contributions to wrestling were outside the WWE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBBC (talk • contribs) 09:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your sources didn't say what you want them to say. Either way, Dusty, Race and Von Erich achieved some success in WWE anyway so it's a moot point. If you can find a source that talks about the criteria WWE uses to chose candidates you could include something along those lines.LM2000 (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop posting there is a consensus to add this when there isn't. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 09:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Non-free image use

I've removed a number of non-free images being used in this article because this type of usage is almost never allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Each use of a non-free image is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria listed on the policy's page. One of these criteria is WP:NFCC#10c which says that a separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use. None of the non-free images I removed had such a rationale for this particular article, so they could simply have been removed for that reason alone per WP:NFCCE. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that a valid non-free use rationale could be written for this type of article because the context required by WP:NFCC#8 is almost always lacking as explained in WP:NFLISTS. Each of the entries has its own stand-alone article, and using a non-free image as the primary means of identification is a stand-alone article of a deceased individual is generally allowed per item 10 of WP:NFCI. Using such a image in a article such as just is more "decorative" than "contextual" and is something almost never allowed by WP:NFCC. If someone feels otherwise, then they are welcome to provide the required non-free use rationale for each of these files and then re-add them to the article; however, as stated earlier, this type of use is pretty much never allowed and it is likely that a WP:FFD discusison to review this type of use will result in the file's (or files') removal once again. Also, be advised that inappropriate non-free image use is not really allowed even for FA/FL articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2017

change "Flair, Sting, and Kurt Angle are the only people to be inducted while still active." to delete. This statement leaves out Jerry "the King" Lawler who didn't stop wrestling until his heart attack in September 10, 2012 (5 years after being inducted to the WWE Hall of Fame

It also leaves out the Rock n Roll Express who wrestled less than a week before the WWE Hall of Fame

There are probably several other's who were active up to and after their induction.

The phrase should be deleted. Aard46 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree the phrase should be deleted, I'm not sure what criteria we're using when we describe wrestlers as "active". I saw Greg Valentine and Tony Atlas wrestle each other on the indies after both were inducted.LM2000 (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Goldberg is the headliner for WWE Hall of Fame 2018.

Bill Goldberg has been announced by WWE as the first inductee. http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwe-hall-of-fame/wwe-hall-of-fame-2018/article/goldberg-wwe-hall-of-fame-inductee-2018 --72.184.23.194 (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It is already in the article - Galatz^Talk 16:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You Removed him. Trevor800 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope, its there - Galatz^Talk 00:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Hogan and Snuka disclaimers

Can we remove these? Having a profile on the WWE.com website really doesn't matter in the long run; every other source, including other WWE sources, still call them Hall of Famers.LM2000 (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no benefit to it. Unless there is an official statement saying they have been removed, they are still inducted. - Galatz^Talk 00:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. When these guys got in trouble WWE removed their profiles and that caused some confusion. Every source since has continued to reaffirm their Hall of Fame status so the disclaimers are no longer needed.LM2000 (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Page split?

This page is getting to be very large and a bit hard to follow. I would propose splitting it but I am not sure the best way to do that. For example, say you wanted to know who got inducted into the 2015 Hall of Fame, you have to scroll through the individual, groups, celebrity, warrior and legacy.

My thought is to use other current hall of fames as a basis. If you look at the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame articles, since the Museum article itself doesnt really apply, we could probably do something similar. You then have a page that looks into the detail of each individual year, such as Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2018. I know its not exactly the same, since it doesn't have balloting, but just an example.

Therefore I am thinking this page because a more high level summary page, where we have a table that does something like:

Year	Category	Ring name (Real name)	Inducted by
2015	Individual	"Macho Man" Randy Savage (Randy Poffo)	Hulk Hogan
		Rikishi (Solofa Fatu Jr.)	Jimmy Uso and Jey Uso
		Alundra Blayze (Debrah Miceli)	Natalya
		Larry Zbyszko (Lawrence Whistler)	Bruno Sammartino
		Tatsumi Fujinami	Ric Flair
		Kevin Nash	Shawn Michaels
	Groups	The Bushwhackers	John Laurinaitis
	Celebrity	Arnold Schwarzenegger	Triple H
	Warrior award	Connor "The Crusher" Michalek	Dana Warrior and Daniel Bryan

The larger tables, similarly formatted to the way they are right now, would then be moved to the individual year pages.

Any thoughts? - Galatz^Talk 14:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, since there's no actual balloting or other public selection process that draws thousands upon thousands of words of commentary about not just the selections but the process itself every year, the analogy with baseball doesn't quite work. That said, I can see breaking the chart down by years, not categories. In fact, I really can't see how the current chart helps anyone. This may be best served by a sortable table with columns for years of induction and for categories so that people looking for either can use the chart just by clicking the header. But I can't support the idea of breaking this article into multiple articles. There's just not enough independently notable material to justify a whole bunch of articles. oknazevad (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: I understand the point, but especially the 2004 and after it is a lot more than just a listing of people. A page for each year could allow for more information about the event itself. For example, add prose as to what happened and why. The 2015 example I gave above, we could discuss how Savage had recently died, The Usos being Rikishis kids (something you have no idea about looking at the current page), Natalya bringing out the trash can for Alundra Blayze to take the title belt back out of the trash, etc. The current article is a list, this would in essence stay as a list, but the individual pages would become proper articles. - Galatz^Talk 00:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Moolah wasn't inducted in 2008

Since 2013, one woman has been inducted every year, before this, woman were inducted sporadically, starting in 2008 with the Fabulous Moolah.

Moolah wasn't inducted in 2008. It was Mae Young that was inducted in 2008 and Mae was the third woman inducted. Moolah was inducted in 1995. There was 5 females inducted before Trish Stratus.

Woman Inductee Timeline:

1995: Fabulous Moolah (1st) 2004: No woman this year. 2005: No woman this year. 2006: Sensational Sherri (2nd) 2008: Mae Young (3rd) 2009: No woman this year. 2010: Wendi Richter (4th) 2011: Sunny (5th) 2012: No woman this year. 2013: Trish Stratus 2014: Lita 2015: Alundra Blayze 2016: Jacqueline 2017: Beth Phoenix 2018: Ivory - 90.196.224.102 (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)