Talk:The Undertaker/Archive 1

message: Thank you to whoever changed the picture, we can finally see who the guy is. --The Sess 22:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finally the picture is changed

message: Anyone heard any rumors on the return of the Brothers of Destruction since The Undertaker and Kane are now on the same show. Maybe a "resurrection" of Paul Bearer as their manager.--The Sess 22:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Return of the Brothers of Destruction

message: The picture doesn't even show the front of his face and you can tell the picture has been zoomed in on because of its pixely appearence. Here's an idea lets put a picture up that shows his current persona and make sure it is actually perfessionally taken.--The Sess 22:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change the Picture already

message: I'm going to remove the part about the punjabi prison match being changed to against Big Show. It has not been reported on WWE.com, despite Bobby Lashley's identical condition, reported on dirt sheets at the same time, being referenced there. 60.224.193.192 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great American Bash

message: Mike, I'm begging ya. I'm begging ya. really. guys, help me out here. Mike, don't shorten it. it looks bad
The article is too long and looks boring. It needs mixed up and is was way past the wikipedia article size limit before i trimmed and cleaned it up. This is an encyclopedia not a match-by-match news site. Just like there is no week-by-week, why should there be so many previous events that happened really close in time. They just arent needed for this article.
--Mikedk9109 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trimming 

message: The last editor has sent detailed information to verify the change of birth date which is quoted (incorrectly) as 1962 by several sources including IMDb.  I won't paste his email here, but the information is available if needed.  I've also invited him to this page to add any comments that would help.  -- sannse (talk) 22:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Birth date

message: I was just wondering since only Undertaker and Kane get up from being knocked down by chair shots etc in the 'sit up' manner could it be considered a signature move? Or for that would it have to be an actual 'attack'? Night Bringer
Wel, it is a signiture of his, and he does move... so I reckon it could be a signiture move. Hes famous for it.Emi211 06:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sit up sig move? 

message: I sent IMDb.com the detailed and reliable information on Mark Calaway's date of birth being March 24, 1965 and NOT 1962 but they aren't interested. So, a note to all readers of this page would be to just ignore IMDb's date of birth entry because, A. Not only is it wrong, but, B. They are unwilling to change it, as you can from the message they sent to me below: 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Mark Calaway's date of birth  
by - IMDb Help Desk (21 Apr 2005 11:22:39 AM)       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello 
Thanks for your message. 
There are many 'official' sources giving different dates of birth for Mark, however we are satisfied that ours is correct and will not be changing it unless we receive communication from Mark himself. 
Many thanks
Regards,
Alex
The IMDb Help Desk
: What's your source that's more accurate than theirs? NightShade 01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, IMDb even told me that their information wasn't gained from either Mark Calaway or the WWE, but is the information as posted by an IMDb member. There are lots of sources to corroborate that Calaway was born in 1965, do you want me to list them all here? For a start, he was 18 when he grdauated from Waltrip High School in 1983, do the math and you can work out what year hw would have been born. The evidence/source for that statement has already been posted on this discussion page. Luke Edhouse 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An update on the date of birth issue 

message: This article needs to be cleaned up - the sections need to be summarized and there's some cluttered lists near the end of it. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Who removed the 2 Undertaker pics I posted on the "Return of the deadman" part. And why!?
:Possibly they were unlicensed? McPhail 17:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Others

message: Shouldnt there be some mention of his guest appearances? Such as his bounty hunter role in Hulk Hogans movie, Suburban Commando? --GimpyTheGreat 09:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances 

message: This article is a frequent target for unregistered or new editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of the subject's in-ring career. This is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. More experienced good-faith editors should watch for irrelevant additions to this article that will only serve to make it larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar. - Chadbryant 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size

message: Can't we move the article to The Undertaker for the same reasons as Triple H, Steve Austin, and The Rock? He has spent 16 years under that same ring name. Maestro25 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: I have received a message from Wikipedia asking me to post this information again for some reason, so here it is - it's just the same information which was posted previously on the Mark Calaway discussion page....
The original e-mail correspondance sent and received between myself and the Webmaster of Waltrip High School's website which outlines and confirms Mark Calaway's name spelling and date of birth is below:
---Forwarded Message---
Subject: RE: Waltrip High School Website 
Date: 28/09/2004 14:16:44 GMT Standard Time 
From: rlipham@houstonisd.org 
To: LukeEdhouse@aol.com
I stand corrected. The correct spelling is indeed Calaway. I was a metal shop teacher at the time and had him in my class. He was a real quiet but pleasant kid. As far as his age you are correct to guess that he would have been 18 at his graduation in 1983. So yes he must have been born in March 1965.
Richard Lipham
---Original Message---
From: LukeEdhouse@aol.com 
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 9:04 AM 
To: Lipham, Richard W 
Subject: Waltrip High School Website
Dear Webmaster
I was reading the Waltrip High School website and on the Waltrip Trivia page, I came across this:
"The professional wrestler known as The Undertaker graduated from Waltrip in 1983 as Mark Calloway. He was a member of the basketball team."
I knew that "The Undertaker" had attended Waltrip High School and I've researched and written some information for a # 1 Biography site and Internet resoucre on the Undertaker/Mark Calaway www.Undertaker-WWE.com
One thing I wanted to query is that I was under the impression that his surname was spelt 'Calaway' not 'Calloway' i.e. you said that he graduated as 'Mark Calloway' in 1983 but in the basketball team photo you have put on site, his surname is listed as 'Calaway'. Would you be able to clear up any confusion on that matter at all?
Also, lastly, if Mark Calaway graduated from Waltrip in 1983, does that mean he was 18-years-old in 1983, i.e. born in 1965?
Any information you would be able to respond to would be fantastic and greatly appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Luke Edhouse 
Luke Edhouse 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calaway's surname and date of birth 

message: Mark is the mose Wester sines Bret "The Hitman" Hart his 14 stink Jimmy Snuka to Mark Henry!
- SMX
: Sure, why not. Bcarlson33 23:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark's WM stick! 

message: Which statement sounds better?
He went on to continue targeting WWF Champion Triple H, the leader of faction.
or
He went on to continue targeting their leader, WWF Champion Triple H.
Dbalsdon 13:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Taker never submitting is a bit of a misleading statement, in that while he has never cleanly tapped out to my knowledge, he has submitted to Angle as part of a draw, from Obbsessed with wrestling...
July 4, 2002 - Smackdown!: The Undertaker vs Kurt Angle ended in a NO CONTEST -- Undertaker retains! 
220.239.241.191Kurt Angle had put a Triangle Chokehold on Undertaker, who tapped out just as the ref counted Angle's shoulders down.. 
220.239.241.191After the confused referee discussed it with other referees, he declared the match----a DRAW!
I'm gonna change it to "Undertaker has never lost a match via submission"
Undertaker has lost via submissiom(Halbared 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never Submitted? 

message: Not that it's really relevant enough to be in the article, but Undertaker has more wins on PPV than any other wrestler(he's won 75 matches). TJ Spyke 01:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PPV Wins

message: Why is this page now called "The undertaker"? If someone moved it, the least they could have done was capitalize "undertaker." Poofyspikes 00:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did someone move the page? 

message: Mark Calaway → The Undertaker – Calaway has performed under the stage/ring name of The Undertaker for over 15 years, making this move comply with WP:NAME. --Oakster (Talk) 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support The most successful gimmick wrestler ever, he will never change his name.(Halbared 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment: That depends on your viewpoint of things.  My point (and the point others have made) is that, with wrestlers, there is a disconnect between the character (Undertaker) and the man playing him (Mark Calaway).  They're acting, and their characters are not really any different than characters played by anyone else on TV.  Kurt Angle is not really an arrogant prick; Mark Calaway is not an animated corpse; Mark Henry is not actually a 400lb. sex addict.  They're just playing characters.  The articles written here, for the most part, are not about the history of the character.  The articles are about the man (or woman) behind the character.  Sometimes, like with Kurt Angle or Mark Henry, the character name and real name are the same, so there isn't really a problem.  When they're not, such as here, the article should be indexed under the real name, since that's the focus of the article.  If someone wants to write a kayfabe article discussing the history of The Undertaker from a storyline perspective, I'd wholeheartedly endorse putting that under "Undertaker (wrestling)".  But an article that discusses Mark Calaway's marriage, his children, his past in WCW and the characters he played there, etc. should not be indexed under "Undertaker" because it's not about that character.  It's about Calaway the man, and should be under his own name.  Just because other wrestlers customarily call someone by a readily recognizable character name ('Taker for Calaway, Cactus for Mick Foley, etc.) doesn't mean we need to ignore Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedic resource. Tuckdogg 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment: Oh, (duh), Snoop Doog.  There's a difference between a stage name and a character name.  Snoop Dogg selected that name for his rapping because it was more interesting than his own name.  Nothing has changed about him, he just signs a different name.  It's like an author using a pen name; same person, different name.  They aren't playing a role, they've just changed their name for the public.  Wrestlers, on the other hand, are playing characters.  They act out the roles they've been given on television for entertainment purposes.  These may sometimes closely resemble their real life personalities, but they are just taking the actions the script writers tell them to.  Snoop can't go on MTV, shoot someone, and then tell the cops, "Dude, that was just my character Snoop.  I was acting!"  Mark Calaway can dress up like a zombie and bury his opponents in caskets and no one thinks, "Man, that Mark Calaway guy is strange."  The actions are atributed to the character, not the man.  That's the disconnect, and that's why the vast majority of wrestlers should not be indexed under their character names. Tuckdogg 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
Personally, I really don't think it's that important. If you search for "The Undertaker" it redirects you straight to the Mark Calaway page anyway. Although "The Undertaker" is the name Calaway is best known by, some would argue that it is common for most professional wrestlers' Wikipedia pages to be listed under their real names. Some may also argue that the pre-WWE career, biographical and personal information pertain to the man Mark Calaway as opposed to just the Undertaker character. I personally believe it's fine leaving it as Mark Calaway with a redirect from The Undertaker, but if majority of people here really want it changed to The Undertaker, then sobeit, I'll support that decision simply because I don't really care that much to be honest. Luke Edhouse 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is important - putting it at "The Undertaker" gives a little too much creedence to kayfabe, when we should be focusing the real man himself. There's a smaller gap between say, Chris Jericho and Chris Irvine than Undertaker and Mark Calaway. The Undertaker is an undead, supernatural character while Mark Calaway is a mortal guy. While the "American Badass" gimmick shortened the gap somewhat, he's returned to old character since and will mainly be associated with that gimmick. This is why I oppose the move. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note - this was raised with Chris Jericho and someone proposing to move it to Chris Irvine. It didn't apply there because the gap between the character and real life wasn't as large, but moving Mark Calaway to the Undertaker would sort of be like moving Patrick Stewart to Jean-Luc Picard. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, perhaps I'm being to unempowered and giving in in order to perhaps keep the majority happy, if it is indeed the majority? Hmm... in that case, instead of being flippant and not really caring, I'll go with what was my personal gut feeling and oppose the move as opposed to just supporting it for the hell of it. Luke Edhouse 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A wrestling gimmick is different than a part played by an actor.  Many wrestlers on here are under their gimmick name (Alex Shelley, Chris Sabin, Eric Young, Sting, Axl Rotten, Danny Doring, C.W. Anderson, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Balls Mahoney, Al Snow, Juventud Guerrera, Tazz, Rob Van Dam, Ric Flair... Need I mention more?).  And according to Wikipedia's naming conventions, we should use the name they are best known by, which in this case is his gimmick name.  --Dubhagan 03:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, wrestling gimmicks are different from actors, but they still shouldn't be confused with each other. Those other cases are exceptions, where the distinction doesn't matter as much. However, I hold that the difference between "The Undertaker" and Mark Calaway" is extremely large - particularly because because the Undertaker is an "undead" character while Calaway is regular man. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree; wrestling characters are EXACTLY like other TV characters played by actors.  The only difference is that wrestling used to try and maintain kayfabe.  Kayfabe is largely dead now; the only real vestiges of it remaining is the tendency to refer to the wrestlers by their character names instead of their real names (e.g. most other wrestlers call Mick Foley "Cactus" instead of Mick).  The two should be kept separate in an encyclopedic resource.  Check out imdb.com, another reference site, which indexes all wrestlers under their real names and lists their stage names as the "characters" they play on TV (as it should).   I don't consider this an issue of indexing them under their "most commonly known name", because the character and the person playing them are completely different (even if we confuse them).  I read an interview with a wrestler once that summed the distinction up perfectly: "Steve Austin is the one on TV raising hell.  Steve Williams cashes the paychecks." Tuckdogg 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I would also say that if the wrestlers noted above are all indexed currently by their character names, they should be moved, and not the other way around. Tuckdogg 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I think about it, ownership of name should be taken into consideration. --Dubhagan 05:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support The most successful gimmick wrestler ever, he will never change his name.(Halbared 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: That depends on your viewpoint of things.  My point (and the point others have made) is that, with wrestlers, there is a disconnect between the character (Undertaker) and the man playing him (Mark Calaway).  They're acting, and their characters are not really any different than characters played by anyone else on TV.  Kurt Angle is not really an arrogant prick; Mark Calaway is not an animated corpse; Mark Henry is not actually a 400lb. sex addict.  They're just playing characters.  The articles written here, for the most part, are not about the history of the character.  The articles are about the man (or woman) behind the character.  Sometimes, like with Kurt Angle or Mark Henry, the character name and real name are the same, so there isn't really a problem.  When they're not, such as here, the article should be indexed under the real name, since that's the focus of the article.  If someone wants to write a kayfabe article discussing the history of The Undertaker from a storyline perspective, I'd wholeheartedly endorse putting that under "Undertaker (wrestling)".  But an article that discusses Mark Calaway's marriage, his children, his past in WCW and the characters he played there, etc. should not be indexed under "Undertaker" because it's not about that character.  It's about Calaway the man, and should be under his own name.  Just because other wrestlers customarily call someone by a readily recognizable character name ('Taker for Calaway, Cactus for Mick Foley, etc.) doesn't mean we need to ignore Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedic resource. Tuckdogg 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment: Oh, (duh), Snoop Doog.  There's a difference between a stage name and a character name.  Snoop Dogg selected that name for his rapping because it was more interesting than his own name.  Nothing has changed about him, he just signs a different name.  It's like an author using a pen name; same person, different name.  They aren't playing a role, they've just changed their name for the public.  Wrestlers, on the other hand, are playing characters.  They act out the roles they've been given on television for entertainment purposes.  These may sometimes closely resemble their real life personalities, but they are just taking the actions the script writers tell them to.  Snoop can't go on MTV, shoot someone, and then tell the cops, "Dude, that was just my character Snoop.  I was acting!"  Mark Calaway can dress up like a zombie and bury his opponents in caskets and no one thinks, "Man, that Mark Calaway guy is strange."  The actions are atributed to the character, not the man.  That's the disconnect, and that's why the vast majority of wrestlers should not be indexed under their character names. Tuckdogg 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
Personally, I really don't think it's that important. If you search for "The Undertaker" it redirects you straight to the Mark Calaway page anyway. Although "The Undertaker" is the name Calaway is best known by, some would argue that it is common for most professional wrestlers' Wikipedia pages to be listed under their real names. Some may also argue that the pre-WWE career, biographical and personal information pertain to the man Mark Calaway as opposed to just the Undertaker character. I personally believe it's fine leaving it as Mark Calaway with a redirect from The Undertaker, but if majority of people here really want it changed to The Undertaker, then sobeit, I'll support that decision simply because I don't really care that much to be honest. Luke Edhouse 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is important - putting it at "The Undertaker" gives a little too much creedence to kayfabe, when we should be focusing the real man himself. There's a smaller gap between say, Chris Jericho and Chris Irvine than Undertaker and Mark Calaway. The Undertaker is an undead, supernatural character while Mark Calaway is a mortal guy. While the "American Badass" gimmick shortened the gap somewhat, he's returned to old character since and will mainly be associated with that gimmick. This is why I oppose the move. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a related note - this was raised with Chris Jericho and someone proposing to move it to Chris Irvine. It didn't apply there because the gap between the character and real life wasn't as large, but moving Mark Calaway to the Undertaker would sort of be like moving Patrick Stewart to Jean-Luc Picard. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, perhaps I'm being to unempowered and giving in in order to perhaps keep the majority happy, if it is indeed the majority? Hmm... in that case, instead of being flippant and not really caring, I'll go with what was my personal gut feeling and oppose the move as opposed to just supporting it for the hell of it. Luke Edhouse 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A wrestling gimmick is different than a part played by an actor.  Many wrestlers on here are under their gimmick name (Alex Shelley, Chris Sabin, Eric Young, Sting, Axl Rotten, Danny Doring, C.W. Anderson, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Balls Mahoney, Al Snow, Juventud Guerrera, Tazz, Rob Van Dam, Ric Flair... Need I mention more?).  And according to Wikipedia's naming conventions, we should use the name they are best known by, which in this case is his gimmick name.  --Dubhagan 03:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, wrestling gimmicks are different from actors, but they still shouldn't be confused with each other. Those other cases are exceptions, where the distinction doesn't matter as much. However, I hold that the difference between "The Undertaker" and Mark Calaway" is extremely large - particularly because because the Undertaker is an "undead" character while Calaway is regular man. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree; wrestling characters are EXACTLY like other TV characters played by actors.  The only difference is that wrestling used to try and maintain kayfabe.  Kayfabe is largely dead now; the only real vestiges of it remaining is the tendency to refer to the wrestlers by their character names instead of their real names (e.g. most other wrestlers call Mick Foley "Cactus" instead of Mick).  The two should be kept separate in an encyclopedic resource.  Check out imdb.com, another reference site, which indexes all wrestlers under their real names and lists their stage names as the "characters" they play on TV (as it should).   I don't consider this an issue of indexing them under their "most commonly known name", because the character and the person playing them are completely different (even if we confuse them).  I read an interview with a wrestler once that summed the distinction up perfectly: "Steve Austin is the one on TV raising hell.  Steve Williams cashes the paychecks." Tuckdogg 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I would also say that if the wrestlers noted above are all indexed currently by their character names, they should be moved, and not the other way around. Tuckdogg 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now that I think about it, ownership of name should be taken into consideration. --Dubhagan 05:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: No consensus (actually, pretty much 50-50). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: If I remember correctly, Cain was the correct spelling of the name when he was wrestling early on in the WWF/E. They just recycled it with the spelling "Kane" for Glen Jacobs. If anyone can shed light on which spelling is correct, like with a video with him labeled as "Cain" or "Kane" would help. MB 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Obsessed with Wrestling it's spelt Kane. --- Lid 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give a link to the scan? MB 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to the official US Patent and Trademark Office website, showing the transcript of a trademark application for the name "Kane The Undertaker" filed by WWE back in 1990 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pbk290.2.1. Hope that clears the issue up. Luke Edhouse 01:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is broken, but I searched for it myself and found that "Kane the Undertaker" was indeed trademarked by the WWF/E. I could have sworn seeing a video of one of his matches where it said "Cain the Undertaker" though. MB 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible. WWE sometimes play around with names right at the beginning. An examples of this is Ludwig Borge/Ludvig Borga.(Halbared 09:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well what I say isn't the be all and end all obviously, but I've never come across any videos where the Undertaker's name was spelt "Cain the Undertaker", I've only ever seen one which said "Kane the Undertaker", however, even when the ring announcer would announce him as "Kane the Undertaker" most of the time his name flashed up as just "The Undertaker". The only thing I will say about the Ludwig/Ludvig example, is that's a more commonly occuring spelling variation of the name because of the name's origin. However, another example of this would be Dennis Knight's name Midian/Mideon - WWE used "Midian" before deciding to go with the "Mideon" spelling. Anyway, "Kane the Undertaker" was the only trademark name that WWE registered in 1990, they never filed a "Cain the Undertaker" trademark. P.S. Apologies for the broken link - not my fault, it seems that the US Patent and Trademark Office's website doesn't allow links to pages to be stored. Still, as MB said, you can search for it yourself at http://www.uspto.gov/ and you'll find it. Luke Edhouse 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They changed the Ludvig thing so that it was spelt phonetically. I had forgotten aboot the Mideon one, I was trying to remember Bastion Booger, tho am not sure on that one.(Halbared 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually more because of where Ludvig Borga was announced from - Helsinki, Finland. "Ludwig" is a famous German version of the name spelt with a 'w' (e.g. Ludwig van Beethoven) but "Ludvig" is a more common Scandinavian version of then name spelt with a 'v'. As for the Borge/Borga bit, well, I'll shut up because I don't know, hahaha. Luke Edhouse 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because Borge was pronounced Borga by Tony Halme (there is also a famous entertainer with the same name in the USA), even though it is spelt Borge. And I guess American (going off Websters) prefer phonetic spellings.(Halbared 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay, I see. Sorry, I'll stop clogging up this section now, haha! :-) Luke Edhouse 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cain or Kane 

message: I REALLY think this article should be locked. Some stupid fanboys keep adding the most irrevelent of details, like the color eyeliner, boots, and tights he wears on what seems like a week by week basis. Furthermore, the article keep reverting to a tone that makes it sound like it was written by the 5 year old son of a WWE writer (ie: "It was at Royal Rumble where the Undertaker would would face the most feared wrestler in the world, the 7-foot beast known as Kane, in a match that can only be described as sickening: The Hell in a Cell. Such a twisted structure had seen the most brutal of fights, bla bla bla.....!!!") And the version of the article that keeps being reverted to is not separated into paragraphs, but rather blocks of text that span multiple pages and don't have any subtitles/divisions. This is all fine and dandy if you run a fanboy website, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It would probably be in everyone's best interest if we prevented these people from editing the article anymore. Y2kcrazyjoker 05:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locking the article 

message: Who ever put that picture of Undertaker up? That does not represent him in his character which he is so known by and it could mislead people making them believe he is using the American Badass gimmick.
I would suggest a latest picture of Undertaker from WWE.com, possibly one of the ones from his Judgement Day appearances, there are a few to choose from on WWE.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.214.172 (talk • contribs) 
:This article is about Mark Calaway, not the Undertaker gimmick exclusively. That's a good free picture of him there and free pictures are favored over fair use ones. See Wikipedia:Image use policy for more information. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's suitable and it's free. And even if it mostly talks about "The Undertaker" it's still about the man behind the character. We should worry far more about the article text than the picture. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Undertaker picture! 

message: I really don't care either way, but we need to decide if it is OK or not to have the constant little itty bitty updates on the kayfabe happenings. WHile the recent campaign against the such seems orchestrated by only a handful of users (the list of articles targeted by kayfabe or whatever category was only created by one person and has never been modified) they may (or may not) have a legitimate point. BMSprint 12:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Professional wrestling seems to have largely decided against this and one of the active topics is a war on "week-by-week" edits. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia? 

message: As Great Khali made his debut,standing face to face with the Undertaker,taker was up to Khalis eyes.This confirms that he is only 3.5-5 inches shorter. Since Khalis height is in actual terms 7'3, Undertakers height will have to be 6'10 to 6'11.5.
Undertaker is 6'10 1/2
--Mikedk9109 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he is 6 ft 8 in.(Halbared 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We're talking legitimate here, not kayfabe.(Halbared 22:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Height info

message: Is It time that we updated this picture as it is currently dated and makes him look like a street bum in a shelter.:Image:Undertaker.jpg --Lucy-marie 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture? 

message: I put a pic of Mark as THE COMMANDO & as "MEAN" MARK CALLOUS. Who keeps deleteing them? Please stop. --Dustind
Well, they arent needed, and they disrupt the text very much.
--Mikedk9109 15:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the user page of the person who claims to be Crabcan, Mikedk9109. -Darryl Hamlin 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Pics 

message: Calaway debuted in the World Wrestling Federation as The Undertaker (A character based on a Chicago area independent wrestler named Clyde.) on November 22, 1990 at Survivor Series 1990. Before Calaway debuted, he appeared as Kane The Undertaker in different house shows but the "Kane" was soon dropped, ironically, later becoming the name of his storyline half-brother, Kane. 
The word "ironically" used here is incorrect. THere is no irony at all in the fact Kane was the name of the brother character whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unopeneddoor (talk • contribs) .
Please don't nitpick as it can create bad feelings with users. thank you 03:01, 4 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) .
:It's not nitpicking. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must adhere to the highest standards of use of the English language. Which includes using all words with their proper meanings, not the colliquial meanings they've obtained from years of misuse. -Darryl Hamlin 05:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't believe in redefining words to back my arguement up. I find that it tends to backfire. -Darryl Hamlin 04:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: WWE.com has changed Mark's superstar page to "Undertaker" from "The Undertaker" - "Undertaker" is not linked to this page only "The Undertaker" is, meaning people typing in "Undertaker" are being redirected to "Funaral Director" SKRIBUL 18:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undertaker Vs The Undertaker 

message: User 69.228.200.10 keeps changing the page to the following message:
: kfhdkfhskdjfhksdjhfksd flk[sgak 'sglkkag 'lfg 'fdlgk df'lg 'lfdgk fdlgkdflhlk'h'g'kgh'kgh;lg'hlgfh;l hg;hlhh5698340896349683968=5968856 gef;ghlh;lb.,c b,.v.b.,cvb,vcbcv b'n,c ',;n'b;n, bn ',nxc n',xc n;'xc,
: x',cbn
: ,cvnv
: c;ncv
: ,n
: cv;,n cxv;n, cv';,n ';cxv,n';c,n'
: c,vn'
: cv, 'cxn,'c v,n 'cvn,'cvn, 'cvnl, x'clvn, c'lvn, xc'l,xc 'lvn, c'lvn,x 'cvn, xc'n,x 'c,n PLEASE LEAVE THE UNDERTAKER PAGE LIKE : THIS. DO NOT CHANGE OR YOU WILL LOSE THE PRIVILAGE OF EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA.
User Rsm99833 reverted the page but it was wierd and there were no boxes ect (if you dont get what I mean you can look at history) I have now fixed the problem but beware thay this user will probabally try to change the message back... SKRIBUL 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same Ip adress vandalised Kane's page to make it say he died on August 23 2006. Perhaps his IP should be banned? Cosmic Larva 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except IPs aren't banned. IP addresses are blocked, and still only temporarily, because IP addresses are not completely static. Only people, not IPs, not accounts. -Darryl Hamlin 03:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: My edit summary for my recent edit was cut off due to bumping the enter key while typing it in. It should be:
"Fixing height/weight. When rounding, 138.636363.... should be rounded up to 139 kg, not down to 138 kg."
Darryl Hamlin 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary

message: How come the Undertaker never appears on the Late Night Show, Conan, Saturday Night Live, etc. like a lot of the other Main Event wrestlers sometimes do?
It doesn't fit his character. For sure part of the reason why his character excels in longetivity. - Dave
Why doesn't it fit his career? Wouldn't more people come to know him and he would get more popular, like Hulk Hogan did. I mean, I've seen Randy Orton on one of those late night talk shows and his career hasn't gone on nearly as long as the Undertaker's. Why can't the lights go out on the late night show, smoke arise, the Undertaker brings the lights back. And it could be real funny. that guy with the big-ass chin is really scared as he is asking Taker questions. He doesn't understand a word the Undertaker is saying because Undertaker's like "For life has no purpose without the dawning of the dead.  They whome fear do not seek the eyes of those" and stuff. And J Leno is just like "whaaaaaaat? uhhh yeeaaaa' I mean, it could be so hilarious. Why hasn't Taker done this? frankly, I just think he hasn't thought of this idea before. It could be similar to what the Ultimate Warrior did on R Cineo Hall or however you spell it TareTone 04:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points, TareTone. One, it might fit his career, but it wouldn't fit his character. The Deadman gimmick doesn't work with going on Leno. Two, it's spelled Arsenio Hall. -Darryl Hamlin 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: judging from the pretty ignorant comments, Taretone is either 15 or a troll. And FYI, Undertaker has done a few talkshow appearances in his first 2 years of his WWE career. The fact that he 'doesn't do talkshows' has the same reason as why you won't see him during tribute shows. The WWE protects his image like a mother lion her cubs.
For a character that has risen repeatedly from the death, who can let lightning strike (..) talkshow appearances just don't work. Apart from that, I doubt if Calaway seeks more popularity, he is rather to himself contrary to Hogan. Not to mention that the man is hugely popular already, talkshows won't help that one bit. 84.81.226.215 20:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing is, the WWE is very protective of the characters of Kane and the Undertaker, to the point where Glen Jacobs had to be in character to an extent on the set of See No Evil, and that neither of them has ever been on tribute shows. -Darryl Hamlin 06:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undertake and making appearances on other shows 

message: Needless to say that not only the annoying fanboy additions, but also the relentless trimming of the article have resulted in a serious decline in quality. Relevant information is left out. If you decide to trim text, have the courtesy to first run things past the rest here at
I don't know what this is about exactly, but you aren't being very polite about it. Your sentence isn't finished and you didn't bother to right your name afterward. I suggest you read some wikipedia rules TareTone 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of this Wiki 

message: The Undertaker that participated at the 1991 Survivor Series looks different from the one after 1994 summerslam with Ted DiBiase's Undertaker vs. Paul Bearer's Undertaker. I have absolutely no proof that they are different people. But can anyone comfirm that it's the same person? Kingjeff 06:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can guarantee you that there has been only one person 'using' the Undertaker gimmick, and that is Mark Calaway. Keep in mind that aging and a new look/outfit and haircut can do a lot to ones appearance. Already the undertaker that lost the casket match against Yokozuna looks different from a 'green' Calaway starting out in the main event WWF. 211.136.7.178 12:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1991 Survivor Series