Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of members of the WWE Hall of Fame

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 20 days, 4 support, 1 oppose. There must be a consensus to promote, and there is none here. Fail. Juhachi 09:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this page because I feel that it is comprehensive and well-sourced and is of FL quality. Everything is sourced, many of the inducters are listed in the inductee bios, and there is a link in the sources section that goes to a source for inducters. The one problem is the remarks section. I was trying to fill each blank, but I figured that it would be dificult to do without going to POV. I also almost listed them by their job, ie. wrestler, announcer, manager, etc. but I decided against that due to the fact that many of them were wrestlers and announcers. Any complaints/suggestions that anyone has will be addressed. -- Scorpion 16:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion: Shouldn't the reference be next to the wrestlers name, rather than under remarks. Seems out of place when the remarks section has just a reference in the form of a [#]. Pepsidrinka 20:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Lead should be expanded, a picture at the top right would be nice, and remove the multiple wikilinks to years and inductors. VegaDark 07:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only way a free use image could be included is if I used a picture of a random inductee. As for the lead, do you have any suggestions as to how it could be expanded? -- Scorpion0422 08:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A random inductee would probably be fine, if the caption explained the relevance properly. As for the lead, you may want to go somewhat more in to detail about the ceremony, how the induction process has evolved since it was started, who is elligible (only WWE wrestlers and the promotions it evolved from? If not, which other promotions?), perhaps something on the voting process. Perhaps mention how many have been inducted after death in the lead after the total inductees number is mentioned as well. VegaDark 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really need Reflist with 3 columns here, I would think 2 is fine. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. --Phoenix (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Support --Phoenix (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Clear; Well reffed list. Neldav 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I will support this, the list is clear well reffed and easy to use. Govvy 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - First thing is the lead, there are mistakes in the grammar, for example 8 rather then eight, and the last sentence doesn't even start with a capital letter. Next is the statement "induction is contingent upon the candidate being on good terms with WWE" could this be explained? What is good terms? Also, why is there no explaination of what WWE stands for (preferably this should be included in the first sentence or two)? Could the role of inductor be better explained, and maybe it's just me, but isn't it appropriate to include the inductee's real name (rather then just stage name) in the table? Last thing, is it spelt inductor or inducter? Is there a difference between American and British spelling? - Shudda talk 05:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points, my conditional support is also dependant on these issues being addressed. VegaDark 10:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the stage name, we go by what the name of the person is according to WWE.com and adding the original name of the wrestlers would count as OR. I will fix your other concerns. -- Scorpion0422 12:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not going to be OR unless their name is unknown and you go and research it, but their names are easy to find I would assume. I think the list becomes trivial if the persons actual name is excluded. It's a joke the character someone plays gets inducted into the hall of fame but the person does not. - Shudda talk 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's how the WWE works. They recognize people by what their in-ring names are and so should we. Besides, they are best known by their in-ring names and in some cases (Bret Hart, Jim Ross, Jerry Lawler) they go by their real name. It's best to just go by their names as described by the WWE. -- Scorpion0422 05:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course the WWE don't talk about their real names, because the WWE are promoting a product. We are not - we are trying to provide a comprehensive list. To omit their real names means the list is not really comprehensive. Also, I'm still not happy with the explanation about what the definition of good terms is. I still don't really know - does it mean still employed by WWE? You may want to add a footnote expanding on "several notable alumni have not been inducted". Also - "Inductees are officially inducted by a high profile inducter who is highly promoted" doesn't explain what inducter is (btw, did you find out whether it's inducter or inductor). As far as I can work out, the inducter is the person that presents the award, and this isn't really notable (they don't list the presenter when someone receives an Emmy or Oscar. - Shudda talk 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify - I think the real name should be included as well as their stage name. They are also primarily known by their stage name so I'd expect their real name to be in a column to the right of their stage name. - Shudda talk 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about tag teams or people who used their real names? I really don't think it's necessary because people will know who the list is talking about without including real names. As for being on good terms, a recent article was published in which a former employee who is now on bad terms criticized the hall of fame. I'll clean it up and cite that article. And about the inducter section, they are heavily promoted by the WWE and in many cases the inducter is included in the hall of fame bio of the inductee. -- Scorpion0422 22:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Okay, I have tested out your suggestion (here) and I remain extremely opposed to adding "real names" because in many cases, wrestlers legally changed their names to match their ring names - Hulk Hogan, Jesse Ventura - so in those cases, what do you call it, birth names? I really think it is unnecessary because most of the wrestlers listed are best known by their ring names, and having "real names" there would simply be for curiousities sake and thus would not be essential to the list. -- Scorpion0422 23:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it looks much better with their real names. It's up to you whether this is their birth or legal name (I would suggest legal), but its definitely necessary. Some of them (and I've only checked a few) don't even have wikipedia articles where their in-ring name is the name of the article - for example Ed Farhat, Harry Fujiwara, Sherri Martel, Ernie Roth, Joe Scarpa, etc etc. The good terms with the WWE is much better now, not crystal clear, but clear enough. "Inductees are officially inducted by a high profile inducter who is highly promoted." still makes no sense to me, who cares if they are highly promoted (whatever that means) I want to know how it influences the Hall of Fame. Their inclusion in the bio doesn't seem like a good justification for them being in the list. Anyway clear all that up and I'll support. - Shudda talk 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this was a pro wrestling Hall of Fame, then I might agree, but because its the WWE Hall of Fame, we should only list their WWE names. And as for the inducted by section, just because it isn't done on other pages doesn't mean it shouldn't be done here. -- Scorpion0422 12:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I completely disagree. As I have stated above I think it will not be comprehensive if you don't list a legal or birth name. It's an important fact about the hall of fame members that should be included. As for the inducters being listed - you havn't justified why it should be there. I agree that just because it's not in other lists doesn't mean it should not be here, but thats not an at all adequate reason to include it in this one. - Shudda talk 01:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The WWE heavily promotes the people who will be inducting the inductees. The inducters are often included in advertisements and they are a big part of every hall of fame ceremony. It was decided by WP:PW that they were notable enough to include and nobody has ever tried to take them out. -- Scorpion0422 01:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Scorpion that birth names are unnecessary; wrestlers are almost exclusively known by their ring name in most situations, and I don't think adding their real/birth name would be helpful at all to the reader. It'd be like noting that Marilyn Monroe's real name is Norma Jeane Mortenson. MarcK 04:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support -The article seems fine outside the changes being proposed. -凶 17:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_members_of_the_WWE_Hall_of_Fame/archive1&oldid=1138486923"