Talk:List of WWE alumni/Archive 1

message: So eric bischoff isnt gone????
:His page was removed from wwe.com, so I'm not sure about his release being part of the story. Ken S. 22:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eric Bischoff 

message: I don't think Shawn Stasiak was released in June 2002, but a few months later —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.78.40.245 (talk • contribs) 
:You're right. Here's a news archive from September 2002 - . I'll update the page. tv316 03:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: Since there is controversy as to when wrestlers were actually realeased, I am going to place the article in alphabetical order with a date next to it. To avoid confusion, the date next to the wrestler should be when they were last released from WWE and if they are rehired the should be removed and readded when they are released once more. Moe ε 03:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And please, I would prefer if I could finish reconstructing the page before more edits were made, that would be great. ;-) Moe ε 04:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetical listing 

message: I finished the construction of this list. I noticed there was mistakes listed above, so if you find anymore, list them here on the talk page and make the correction. Moe ε 21:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finished 

message: Again, refran from editing the article for a while. I am trying to make this page more tidya and easier on the eyes. Moe ε 22:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under construction again 

message: Anon. users keep reverting this page to it's original format.  To protect against this, I think this page needs to be protected from Anon. users.  --JFred 22:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection policies state that it can't be a case of a single user vandalizing it. It has to be an extreme amount of vandalism for it to be protected. Regards. -- Moe ε 01:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's been an ongoing problem since the format change and it's been done by different IP addresses.  --JFred 01:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'll request it. Moe ε 02:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  protecting page 

message: PlEASE TURN THIS PAGE BACK TO ITS ORINGINAL WAY ,THANKS
:why?  --JFred 22:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the creator of this article, the creator of the original format you want to revert to and the creator of the new and improved format, I highly advise against it. The only reason the past version was good was that it provided the list in chronological order. Thats good for viewing who was recently released from WWE; but there are other websites that can tell you who has just been released. This way is easier on the eyes, provides it in table format and it's in alphabetical order (which most lists of names are kept on Wikipedia). I say no to a request for moving to a highly disorganized list like the past version. Moe ε 00:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this page 

message: He was released in 1990. After all, he did participate in the Royal Rumble of that year and WrestleMania VI. OsFan 14:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akeem/One Man Gang 

message: In my opinion, you have to be part of WWE (and be on TV), to be an alumni... not just a part of WWE's development system. Same goes for all the wrestlers that weren't given contracts, when WWF/E bought WCW. I don't consider that alumni either, since they didn't appear on WWE TV either. Some examples: Johnny Riggs, Jason Riggs, The Wall (possibly..I can't remember if he ever appeared on TV during the Invasion storyline). What does everyone else think about this?  RobJ1981 00:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. What do you think it should be called? Former World Wrestling Entertainment employees?--Yugioh73036 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This alumni page is fine for people that wrestled and/or appeared on WWE television shows (dark matches don't count). Former development wrestlers of WWE that didn't do that simply don't belong on the list. RobJ1981 05:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could keep the people on there and change the name.--Yugioh73036 21:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not alumni? 

message: The note at the top of the page says "They are listed in alphabetical order of their stage name".  Yet... there is two alphabetical ways done on the page: by first name and last name. People like Adrian Adonis belong under A, but Andre the Giant should be under G in my opinion. I think the page should be all by last name alphabetical, not both. What does everyone else think?  RobJ1981 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andre the Giant should be under "A". Andre was his first name and he didn't have a last name. "The Giant" was more of a title, but certainly not a last name. - Bdve 19:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetical order 

message: The alphabetical order thing is too confusing for me. What if I want to find out who was released recently? Or if I forgot a name, but I know the date? The date order should be brought back in my opinion. How about a consensus? --  Jลмєs Mลxx™  Msg me  My contribs  10:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The reason I use this page is to see who has been released recently. Plus, the date format is how the TNA page is arranged. So I think it should be changed back.Freebird Jackson 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm neutral. While I agree that a date format is useful for finding a release date, the alphabetical arrangement is useful for finding a specific wrestler. Which is more useful depends on what the individual reader will be using the article for. Cheers, -- THL 08:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds like a fair comprimise to me.Freebird Jackson 18:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why can't we also do a table by date order? 

message: I am new to wikipedia, and I actually have been making private lists of all former WWE wrestlers and personalities, as well as 100 other wrestling orgs for about 12 years. I update it each year. I would be ablre to provide you a more comlete list although I do not have a very complete list fotimes prior to 1977. I will work on researching that. I also do see a few inaccurate or speculative reasons for wrestlers either living or being fired. Several are either completely inaccurate or hearsay. To give more credability these should probably be removed or replaced. As with all things pro wrestling history can be fuzzy and there is much secrecy. We can really only go on what the wrestlers and promoters themselves have said. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. I may make some edits but if you would prefer I can e-mail a list to you to help you since you have a format you are using already. Also I would have to say it is probably a bad idea to list a release date as most wrestlers have multiple tenures. Listing by tenures with the company (such as 1990-94, 1997-98). I think this would be more appropriate.
Wrestlingprofessor1979 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New To Wiki, Old Pro Wrestling Fan 

message: Shouldnt Big Show be on this list since his contract expired in february and he didnt sign a new one, i know he may sign a new one and if he does he would be taken off, but at the moment he should be called as alumni Don.-.J 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.Freebird Jackson 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Show 

message: I was thinking a few days ago about the state of the List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni article and was thinking about a re-write. Currently it is in a weak state with the current alphabetical order by most notable ring name and it looks horrible now that I think about it. Plus, there has been confusion all over the page about the alphabetical order of the article, which name it should be listed by, etc. and the article itself had no sources. 
Over the last couple of days I have re-written the article and for a chronological order instead of the past format. But instead of revertingback to the past (a plain link and date) I kept the table format and added a reference section so we can cite our work. It appears that most didn't find the current format appealing anyways. The new one is located at User:Moe Epsilon/WWE alumni. I am going to move it to the main article namespace to see how it goes from thereon. 
What I need help with is more references. I added the Citation needed next to the ones I didn't find sources for. You guys can help by adding more sources to the References section. I will find more as the week progresses, but your help is wanted. semper fi — Moe 17:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the reference section referring to? That they were employed by WWE, or when they were released? Or something else? TJ Spyke 07:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When they were released. 216.78.95.191 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format change 

message: I just recently found out that WWE.com is starting up it's own WWE Alumni section where it lists former WWE stars and where they are now and what they accomplished in WWE. Should we be on the lookout for some sort of copyright conflict? WikiWikiBoi 21:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE.com Alumni Section 

message: I know there is the devolpment rule were you cant add devolpment but Dan Rodman appeared on both heat, wwe.com and in backstage segments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyman mikey (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Rodman 

message: Someone wrote that The Sandman was fired due to an alteration with Barry Windamen but many websites are reporting Ricky Steamboat was who the arguement. I changed it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candyman mikey (talk • contribs) 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sandman Arguement with Agent. 

message: She has been released. it is just not being reported by WWE!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kristal  

message: Although no mention was ever made of Krissy Vaine (as far as I know), she was called up to SmackDown!, so wouldn't that have excluded her from the exceptions list, and add her to the alumni list? CrystallixRed 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Krissy Vaine]] 

message: Is there any reason why Russ Haas isn't included in the list of people that died whilst under contract? Poker Flunky (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Don't think he was under contract with WWE when he died. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Russ Haas

message: He should be on the list. He appeared the new ECW in two apperences.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandlerjoeyross (talk • contribs) 15:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roadkill 

message: I don't think the Fabulous Moolah was under contract recently, she was simply called on whenever they needed her to make a special appearance. Ditto with Mae Young, Mick Foley, etc...
If anyone can find out if she was under contract, let me know. Otherwise, I would probably suggest having her most recent appearance at SummerSlam being posted as a possible "release" date as opposed to "Died While Employed".
On a related note, RIP Moolah. You will be missed dearly.Jgera5 03:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moolah is actually under a lifelong contract to the WWE. ?This has been expressed in plenty of articles over time. Also Mick Foley is still under contract and has been. His picture and profile is still on WWE RAW superstars page and has never left.Aladdin Zane 04:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moolah 

message: Shouldn't we specify the gender and the occupation(i.e. wrestler, referee, etc...) of a person in the WWE. Gender is less relevant but at least the occupation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.49.9 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Specification 

message: Who keeps taking Ric Flair off the list he's supposed to be on here.--$$$Keeton D.$$$ (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ric Flair 

message: off topic, but HOW COME NO-ONE SIGNS THEIR POSTS???!!?!!!?!???!
ok, I think there should be an article on wwe alumni members who were re-signed.--Altenhofen (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: new article

message: Where is Ranjin Singh? I can't find him anywhere. He wasn't heard from since no way out 2008. He doesn't even have his own article. Was he released, because if so he needs to be added to the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.106.209 (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranjin Singh 

message: he is retired  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.137.3 (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: undertaker isnt retired thats just part of a storyline... right now hes just taking time off.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.23.53 (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  undertaker 

message: Someone needs to fix the 2008 section it's all messed up, and Ric Flair isn't even mentioned in it. I would but I don't know how  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KBD5196 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the 2008 section. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: thats because ric flair isnt an alumni. he is still under contract by world wrestling entertainment. hes just not an active wrestler.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.23.53 (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008 

message: Jimmy Hart and Bobby Heenan were not asked to take 50% pay cuts.  Heenan went to WCW at the end of his contract because it was a slower schedule and had benefits (health etc) which the WWF didn't.  Hart simply followed Hogan.
Also, Heidenreich (sp?) actually quit after family members were affected by Katrina.
74.193.14.144James Page
:heidenreich was released when he didnt call in and tell wwe he was going to miss the show due to an ear infectioin. i think that was right after katrina.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.23.53 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hart and Heenan 

message: For all we know, he could be temporary --Numyht (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point. 1362talk 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daivari in TNA? 

message: I noticed the late Gorilla Monsoon is listed twice in the 1990's column as well as the 'Died While Under Contract' column. Just a minor observation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoFan (talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gorilla Monsoon 

message: I'm a bit confused. On the WWE Employee page Johnny Jeter's listed under the "Unassigned talent" portion with his "status unknown" and yet he appears here as being released.  WWE never announced he was let go that I know of so should he not be removed from this section?  69.39.168.127 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnny Jeter

message: Just like to point out that he's listed twice in the "1990's" column as well as "Died while under Contract".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by InfoFan (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joey Marella 

message: I am is brazilian. Please, add pt:World Wrestling Entertainment alumni. Thank you. 201.2.150.178 (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other languages 

message: Add them in the list please  —Preceding unsigned comment added by  they are not gone121.120.249.93 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide reliable sources that both of them are alumni. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul London and Chuck Palumbo 

message: There was a problem in a match on ecw he was released from contract  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.38.72 (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: reliable source? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wes Adams 

message: Didn't he get released?--74.79.38.72 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got a reliable source that says that he was released? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Adamle 

message: T have a source for Daivari I looked in the PWI 500 and it said he requested a release because of not being on the card a lot.--74.79.38.72 (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daivari 

message: He was asked to lose weight source is the Rikishi page on Wikipedia.--74.79.38.72 (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rikishi 

message: Shouldn't he be in the alumni section as he was released on Dec. 31, 2008.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.185.117 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barry Windam 

message: I'm removing the "temper tantrum" claim; the reference doesn't address reasons for his release. If someone has a legit reference for the claim they can reinstate it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.251.93 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe "Animal" Laurinaitis 

message: He never appeared on TV so he shouldn't be included in the alumni section.
:And? He is still important. ₰imonKSK 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true at all. ₰imonKSK 21:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mike Mayo

message: Is he or isn't he released? look Benton  Tigers  01:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gavin Spears 

message: How come they were removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.78.247 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Referees/Kevin Thorn

message: Chris Jericho kayfabe fired as a part of a storyline he was not seriously fired  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.64.64 (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, which is why it won't be put on this list. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Chris Jericho

message: He was released source is wrestlezone and wrestleview. He should be on here because he had 1 promo on Smackdown so he should be on here.--74.79.38.72 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He had 1 promo, he didn't appear on Smackdown just in FCW so he does not get put in this article.  Benton  Tigers  17:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hade Vanson 

message: Has his contract expired yet? I think he should be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.78.247 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs a reliable source to be added. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mike Adamle 2

message: He still has a profile on WWE.com, is it a wrong report or will they just take there damn sweet time to remove it like Gavin Spears.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.27.24.68 (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mickie Henson

message: Are you sure he's supposed to be in this section?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.78.247 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt Cappotelli

message: The previous content forking of this article has violated the GFDL license under which Wikipedia works under. Please read Wikipedia:Splitting. Credit to the previous authors of this article were not given to them when the articles were splitted.
I was preparing to reformat the tables to make it more eye-appealing for those viewing the article, so no more content forking and creating problems, please. — Moe ε 16:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Content forking

message: So why exactly is the Alumni page getting a major revamp? It really was just fine the way it was before the revamp. Now, it's all confusing and you spend ages searching for the latest wrestler released or whatever. Also, with the old page, you didn't have to strain your eyes to read the writing. I don't need to do that, but I'm sure there will be people out there who will need to do that.
So who let this revamp go ahead? The old one was better organised and easier to read. I see no need for the revamp to be quite honest. It was perfect the way it was. Cool King 02:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Revamping

message: Question: What do we do for people who had multiple stints in the company? Put the last date of the last stint? Nikki♥311 23:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. If someon has been released, and then returned, then they're taken off the list. E.g. Jeff Hardy isn't on the list. Therefore it's the most recent release date that goes in the article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about dates 

message: Is it okay to add performers who may not have a Wiki article written about them but still competed on WWF/E television at some point? (ex. Brakkus, Jason Sensation etc.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.78.247 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the names that didn't have articles written about them. For example, the article on the wrestler Brakkus has been deleted 6 or 7 times as someone who is not notable. Someone who has been deemed unnotable on other parts of Wikipedia should most certainly not be added, otherwise every jobber featured in a squash match would be listed. — Moe ε 06:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Why would a unnotable wrestler be excluded and an unnotable referee/manager/etc. be included? :P — Moe ε 15:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Superstars Question

message: If this is being planned to being taken to WP:FLC, it will be quick-failed due to the unreliability of the references. WrestleView, PW Torch, Solie.org, official promotion websites, and the Wrestling Observer newsletter are the only reliable references that may be used, but if thats not the main goal, the refs can stay as stay. If they stay, the references need to be formatted correctly using  and filling out the appropriate paramaters, such as the publisher and using the YYYY-MM-DD format.--TRUCO 01:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "<insert websites> are the only reliable references that may be used"? That is a load of crap.. — Moe ε 04:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is the consensus of this project.  If you cannot abide by that, then you might need to stop work on the article until you can "bring it up to code", so to speak.  ArcAngel (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are references from CNN, Fox News, The Sun and various other websites that are most certianly reliable, even more so than the ones you named above. If you want me to stop, I can revert back to the previous revision that included defamation of individuals that most members of "the project" liked. — Moe ε 12:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: In fact, if you're going to say that, why don't you go find the references for this article? If you think finding references for this is easy, go ahead, do it. In fact, I'll give you the freedom of going outside of: WrestleView, PW Torch, Solie.org, Wrestling Observer Newsletter and official promotional site. You can go to any site you consider reliable. Find references for when, say a, Wayne Cowan or Jack Reynolds left WWE. Watch your day pass by you while you sit and try to find one reference, because your not going to find any there. — Moe ε 13:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, you need to chill. No one is depriving you of the hard work you have done to this article. I know it takes time, I've worked on over 10 featured lists, its hard work. But the featured process is strict on sourcing. I forgot to mention that newspapers, books, news outlets, and magazines (depending on who publishes them) are reliable. However, the other sources like "Online World of Wrestling", "Obsessed with Wrestling", "Wrestle truth", and "411 Mania" are unreliable. In addition, some of the refs are missing fields in the  template, like the publisher. If a reliable source cannot be found it will be best just to add a footnote stating a reliable source cannot be found to verify when this person left WWE.--TRUCO 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I planned on fixing the citations, I just wanted to post the place where I got it first. A site like Wrestle Truth, 411mania and even Lords of Pain can be reliable if they are reposting a story that was originally written and credited to a reliable source like Wrestling Observer Newsletter or PW Torch. If the story itself was written by one of those sites, that is when that becomes sketchy. I already started the footnote you were mentioning, instead i just placed n/a in the box temporarily. Later I will put a symbol and a footnote saying this. I know Online World of Wrestling isn't the most reliable, but if their claims are accurate it is a good starting place to look for better sources. In addition to that it has been proven a reliable source of information and articles such as Bobby Eaton have been promoted to featured article using that site as a source of information. — Moe ε 14:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes if those sites report it and its a reliable source's work, then it is reliable. But you got to fill out the cite web fields correctly. Lets say 411Mania.com reports something PW Torch reported, the publisher is 411 Mania but the work is from PW Torch. In addition, Bobby Eaton was passed before the sourcing guideline for the featured process was made stricter last year. So thats a bad representation, if at all, it will be removed possibly in the near future for the sourcing issue. --TRUCO 21:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many references are unreliable 

message: Don't forget to add him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.78.247 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He was added earlier today. — Moe ε 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Manu

message: Why are the wrestlers list alphabetically instead of by the date they left? It's much less efficiant e.g someone wants to see if someone has been released, they wouldn't be able to simply scroll down to the date. The Jay Experience  —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you payed attention to the conversations above, the table has a sortable wikitable feature. At the very top of the article, next to the words "Date of departure:" there is a box, if you click the box it will auto-arrange the list into choronological order so you can view it the way you want to. As to the reason I choose for it to be alphabetical is because this is a list of people, specifically alumni, not a list of events that occurred.  — Moe ε 14:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Read what I wrote above on how to read it in chronological order. — Moe ε 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, this is ridiculous. Not only is that **** confusing, but it's also making the page load up slower. Change it back NOW. Cena Jr (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Using caps and making smart ass comments doesn't make you correct. — Moe ε 06:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree, The table was much better back when it was organised by the date wrestlers left the company. No offence to the person who spent endless hours creating the table, and the people who agree with it, but it doesen't even have a date of departure box. To make it worse, it has a Tenure box, that lists when wrestlers worked for the company, that is half complete. I absolutely oppose the new table, and I am going to get Tj's opinion. Altenhofen (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only half done because of me being only half-way finished. There is no way to make the process quicker than sitting there and manually referencing it as I have for the past month. In addition, the date of departure is in the tenure box. It doesn't need a stand alone category as this article isn't about when they were released, its about a list of people. All the recent releases (meaning 2000s era) are currently sitting as a stand alone date in the tenure box until i can add references and the date they came into WWE as well. — Moe ε 23:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Very mature of me? First off, you are hardly a good faith contributor. You called me a Nazi and vandalized the article by blanking it. You make a feeble attempt at "reporting" me and you get yourself caught. I have done nothing wrong. I have removed violations of biographies of living person and verifiablity and added 300 references for information. I am hardly at fault here. On Wikipedia there is hardly a thing called publishing. There is no deadline, and there is no hurry for completion of an article. I have nothing to prove to you. I have better things to be doing other than arguing with a racist troll. — Moe ε 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moe, your act is very immature and selfish. You seek only to please your unnecessary greed. The table was fine the way it was before until you went back and changed it. Now it loads very slow and is too difficult to read. I'm reporting this to the Admin boards.Cena Jr (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, go ahead. — Moe ε 22:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly hard to fathom what I am reading here. Moe spent much of his time working on this list, and you want to report him for it. He's done nothing but make the list better quality, and the reasoning, "I don't like it" is not sufficient enough for the page to revert back to the old poor quality tables. If you don't like it, then come up with a better look in your sandbox, and propose it. However, consensus would need to be gained before it is switch. I'd like to see anybody try to report him for improving this article, because not only will it be considered trolling, people are just going to laugh. iMatthew // talk // </span> 22:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Bollocks. I can see if the article was in need of a revamp, but it wasn't. Like I said before, Moe has made it much more difficult to view the page now since it takes too long to load up. And not only that, but it's too cumbersome to look through since the order it's in is too complex.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cena Jr (talk • contribs) 03:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of pictures doesn't cause anymore of a loading time pause than without it. I have already reduced the number of pictures from 60 to 50 to 25 + 1 for the lead paragraph. I have already addressed the issue of what order it should be in. Chronological order of a list of people is not logical, and despite your apparent frustration, alphabetical order is not that hard to comprehend. — Moe ε 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Who died and made you consensus? Majority of us thought it was best left as it was. Just because you have nothing else better to do to occupy your time gives you no right to butcher an article that had no problems to begin with.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cena Jr (talk • contribs) 04:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus lies in policies like WP:V, WP:BLP and guidelines like WP:RS that say to remove crap that is harmful to the encyclopedia, not in the editors of this site who come here to look for the latest happenings. And by the way, the article did have problems, many problems. Ones you fail to realize since you aren't an established editor on this site. — Moe ε 05:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: If it makes you any happier, I removed 5 more images, making the total, 20, with 1 in the lead. There is absolutely no concern in relation to load time with the number of images. If there is something still causing your computer to see the images differently or causing you to load it more slowly (like an outdated browser), I would troubleshoot that first, as opposed to the article. — Moe ε 05:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was easier to read previously. Is there any way to combine the two styles?Qazox (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If your referring to it being in order by date which the were released as compared to now, you can still read it in that order by pressing the box next to the word "Tenure(s)" at the top of the wikitable. — Moe ε 06:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Or you can just change the article back to where people can read the damn thing.Cena Jr (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still perfectly readable. Sorry, — Moe ε 07:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh YES, it is SOOOO readable with the 30 seconds it takes to load the ****ing page up with all the unnecessary images. And you better leave my posts along and stop deleting them, otherwise I am reporting you as vandalizing.Cena Jr (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly encourage you to stop trolling, and making silly threats. iMatthew // talk // </span> 21:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not making threats. Perhaps if he stop erasing my comments, then we wouldn't have this problem. But, I'll be glad to report you as well for harassment if you want me to.Cena Jr (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Organisation

message: I don't think he belongs on the list as he never made it to television.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.78.247 (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed that pseudo rule from the article. Regardless if they were on television or not, they should be able to be listed. If they meet Wikipedia's policy on Notability by having a Wikipedia article and they were contracted, they should be listed. Besides, the first WWE television program wasn't until the 70's, if we base criteria of listing people on that, everyone from the 50's and 60's would be deleted from the list. — Moe ε 02:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Sure, I'll add Dominic DeNucci. I'll add dates when I reach his name, right now I'm going in alphabetical order and have only reached C so far. — Moe ε 19:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

text: First, the images are not copyrighted as you tried to claim, if you even know copyright is. Second, Every good list on Wikipedia generally has images to make the article look better. So they do have a purpose.. — Moe ε 07:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What a load of hypocrisy. This guy gets to alter the page just because he has nothing better to do, and you people praise him even though he did not act on consensus?Cena Jr (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well overall the majority of us agree with his edits (a consensus in a way). Also, he is editing the tables which were brought up on by a consensus at WT:PW. You disliking them is your opinion and you can abide to that but his edits are consensus enforced.--TRUCO 21:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: You do not know what consensus is. You do not see consensus. If moe's edits are consensus, then why are people complaining about the ****ty way he chose to do the article with those images?Cena Jr (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mike Mayo Jr./Mike Kruel

message: This article takes a very long time to load (about 45 seconds, 35 of which is spent parsing it by the Wikipedia server, and 10 of which is spent by my web browser parsing and rendering the resulting HTML).  Is there some way to break it up into smaller lists? --Carnildo (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought because it also takes me that long for it to load. Its mainly the wikimarkup that does it.--TRUCO 23:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is more than likely the large number of references that is causing it, not the size of the list itself. I tried to find a smaller version or more compact way of listing references, but I was unable to find one. =/ In addition Carnildo, there would be a few angry wrestling fans riding my ass for splitting the article (since it is already, albeit correctly, semi-controversial that it is in alphabetical order at all). Sometime before I am finished though, I think I will ask WP:PW on whether the article should split in half for the sake of the load time. Something like the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people article could be appropriate here, but not in so many articles (maybe two). — Moe ε 04:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Split so I could get an early consensus before I return to editing (I am briefly stopping due to illness and will probably resume tomorrow sometime), feel free to comment there Truco and Carnildo. My recommendation there is to split it most preferably at A-H, I-Q, R-Z (this would help with template limits since my tests said they would almost get to be too much by the time I reached letter H) or less likely A-M and N-Z. — Moe ε 05:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh, so now you realize I'm not crackpotting here. The page loads because Mr. Genius here got the bright idea of loading the page up with all of those images. Apparently, he thinks it's a "good" idea.Cena Jr (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew the page loading time was a little more than usual for articles, but I know why, it's because of the massive number of citation templates, not because of the images. 21 images is hardly anything. In addition, you make sarcastic comments, edit war, and are just blatantly trolling with your reverting of the articles images claiming load time or some kind of non-existent copyright violation, so any of your opinions are pretty baseless to me. — Moe ε 00:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Load times 

message: Now the page is even more confusing than ever to read. Honestly, what the **** was the point in changing the page in the first bloody place?Cena Jr (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To make it look better? And do you really need to go after this now. What's done is done. Get over it. I think it looks better now. SimonKSK 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mhm, go on and mess up more Wikipedia articles while you're at it.Cena Jr (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cena Jr, you are entitled to your opinion. But per WP:LIST, this type of information is best represented in table format. Per that guideline, this article follows that formula. --₮RUCӨ 04:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Aka, the article was changed because of an ediotr not acting on consensus. Gotcha. Oh while we're at it, let's change John Cena's name to his real name. Ooh yeah, that would soo be policy bound.Cena Jr (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, consensus is with him now, so I suggest you move on. Oh, and by the way, John Cena is his real name... ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for acting on consensus 

message: i liked the older version more  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.138.142 (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The general consensus on how to make articles agrees with this style. — Moe ε 22:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm but as a human I have an opinion, and this is I like the old version better.  Organization by year is better than by name.  By good job with the whole general consenus thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorlizard (talk • contribs) 18:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As a human, you are entitled to your opinion, but when the opinion of the entire community is taken and articles are agreed to be written this way so they can be featured, your opinion has little merit. — Moe ε 07:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: You know, your comments are starting to be provocative, telling someone their opinion has no merit.Cena Jr (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: old version

message: This article has been frickin' ruined!!! Come on, first the table is made twice as large, making load times 10 ties longer, then a billion images are added making it load longer. Now we split it up into like 5 diferent pages, ORDERED ALPHABETICALLY. What the heck? WHy not by Year? We have the key that says the eras of the WWE, so why don't we order them like that? We make a page called WWE Alumni (Capitol Wrestling Corporation), then WWE Alumni (World Wide Wrestling Federation), then WWE ALumni (WWF 1979-1980), then WWE Alumni (WWF 1981-2002). If not, something that isn't alphabetical. WE NEED to organise this by date, it will make it WAY EASIER to understand. One more thing; What happened to the "Employees wo died while under contract" section?
Seriously.Altenhofen 03:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest this is not the most mature way to address the situation. In any case - it's been improved, stop complaining. iMatthew // talk // </span> 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The article is just as easy to understand, it is just in a different order. This article is a list of people, not a list of events, thus it needs to be listed alphabetically. This article and Wikipedia are not places to find out the latest happenings in WWE. If you want that, I suggest you find a different website. In reply, employees who died while under contract, are in alphabetical order, along with all other alumni.. — Moe ε 05:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh WOW, I guess someone forgot the purpose of an encyclopedia. I agree that this ridiculous format for the article is silly and pointless. The older format was 10x better than this hack job. And the editor did not act upon consensus nor did he even bother to discuss the issue first. And he shows his maturity by deleting comments, which landed him a 3RR warning once before.Cena Jr (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see this 3RR warning I received, because I never got one.. Anyways, your bitching and moaning has gone on quite long enough. The old format is gone, and no one else from the Pro Wrestling WikiProject wants to change it back, so I suggest you quit pressing the issue before your account is re-blocked for trolling this talk page with your inane comments. — Moe ε 03:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I can voice my opinion how much I hate that hack job as much as I like. It's not against the rules. And if you tire of me bitching and moaning then don't read my comments. Simple as that. The old format is gone because someone chose not to act on consensus. And funny because the last time someone had me blocked, they got warned for it for blocking me improperly, which they never formally apologized for.Cena Jr (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disruptive editing is most certainly a blockable offense. Drop it. — Moe ε 16:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Except I'm not editing anything, so no. We're still discussing the article in question.Cena Jr (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk page discussions require editing, sorry to burst your bubble, and btw, the discussion is over. — Moe ε 21:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Gee, thanks for pointing out the obvious. But I was under the impression we're talking about the damn article. And no, the discussion is not over. I am a user just like you, so I have the right to voice my opinion on how much I dislike the page.Cena Jr (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the Heck? 

message: I found a new name that you can add to the alumni section: Harry Del Rios. He appeared in the WWF in the mid 90's as Phantasio.
: Added Harry Del Rios to List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni: N–R under "Rios". Thanks, — Moe ε 23:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Phantasio

message: So, if I am looking for a wrester and I do not know the name, I guess I have to look through the ABCs because the list is too cumbersome to find a certain wrestler, plus the list was better when it was organized by dates.Cena Jr (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are looking for a wrestler by name, how would chronological order help? If anything, by date would make it more difficult to find a particular name. Anyways, the list isn't going back to chronological order. Featured lists of people are generally listed in alphabetical order, and this article should be no exception. The article isn't about lists of dates, its about a list of people. — Moe ε 00:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the chronological order was better, course some of don't have unlimited "free time" to bastardize articles just because he thinks it's a science project. And feature articles? LMAO, I see nothing that would make it feature material considering that the arthor's attitude is poor at best. It's going back.Cena Jr (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Go ahead get blocked. The article can become a Featured List. If it has a good well written prose, is reliably sourced, and passes all the Featured List criteria. This article isn't long enough to be an FL, but the rest can. Anyone has the right to expand the article to a higher class, which is one of the made reasons of working on here, making sure all articles are at their best. Going by dates didn't make it the best it can. It was unorganized. Just catering to wrestling fans. An encyclopedia is not supposed to cater to anyone. Take your problems to WT:PW if you want it to go back. There a consensus can be made. Whatever is determined their is the final decision for now. You'll have to deal with it.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 04:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And an encyclopedia caters to everyone, not some guy who wants to butcher articles for his enjoyment. And don't feed me this consensus bull**** because he did not act on consensus.Cena Jr (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: What I'm stating is: take your problem to WT:PW. Say lets have a vote on which format we should keep. Have a discussion, make a consensus there. Otherwise you are just whining which is going to solve nothing. He wanted to improve the article in his mind, there is nothing against that. Only big changes are to be discussed. I expanded Lockdown (2008), Sacrifice (2008), Slammiversary (2008), Hard Justice (2008), No Surrender (2008), Victory Road (2004), Turning Point (2004), Final Resolution (2005), Against All Odds (2005), and List of TNA X Division Champions all without a consensus that we should expand them. Also I created Against All Odds 05, Sacrifice 08, Hard Justice 08, and No Surrender 08 without asking the project. Major changes took place there. He was well in his right to not have to ask since it didn't effect the project as a whole.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!) 07:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating articles =/= reworking them, genius. He went on ahead and made "major" changes without acting on consensus. What the hell are you supposed to be, his lawyer? He made the list too difficult to read. I know, why don't I go and realter the article I was expanding, piss off the ones who were reading it.Cena Jr (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is ever changing. Maybe Moe acted without consensus, but the overall majority of people agree with his edits, therefore the new consensus is that the list is better as it is. How is the list difficult to read, by the way? -- Darth Mike (talk)</span> 21:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The list isn't difficult to read, Cena Jr is just the remains of the few people who came to this article and Wikipedia to read 'who was recently released' He hasn't had anything to do since January but sit there and whine and try and make excuses about the article, hoping it gets changed back. — Moe ε 14:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Exactly. Only ones who agree with those bs edits are Moe and his little fanclub. But even one of them had the balls to finally admit that Moe did not act on consensus. And a lot of people have said the old format was easier. I am free to voice my opinion on how silly and pointless this new format is. And moe's attitude in deleting posts isn't exactly "mature" you know.Cena Jr (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Question: Are you going to take this to WT:PW to make a real consensus, or are you going to keep whining? Because right now, I couldn't care less that you don't like it. I would rather the lists go by year, but if the articles get one step closer to FL then so be it. The only way you can get the articles to go back the way they were is to get a new consensus reached, since a consensus was agreed when multiple editors were fine with his edits, which made a consensus. A consensus does not have to be the result of a vote or discussion. You got one option, take it or leave it. Otherwise, I believe everyone is going to quit replying and you'll just be talking to yourself.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!) 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm discussing it on the talk page. I don't recall Moe doing the same thing by acting on consensus, so I don't see why you're jumping down my throat about it.Cena Jr (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you fail to understand the concept that consensus can change. — Moe ε 20:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I find the format difficult

message: The old format was much better than this new format. It is too hard to find out who has been released in the past few months.
The list should be organized by stage name not the wrestlers real name. Hulk Hogan should be under H, nobody is going to look for him in the Bs.
I also liked the old list because it was organized by time period, like late 90s/early 00s. so I can look up a bunch of wrestlers from a certain period and see whatever happened to them.
I just think the old format was more user-friendly, while the new format is more the project of a few people who want to be featured on Wikipedia, which really doesn't matter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.76.193.46 (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a featured list doesn't matter? I think the entire Wikipedia community disagrees with that sentiment. This list is by list by alphabetical of their real last name because 1) By dates, it is logically incorrect, since this is a list of people, not a list of events that occurred and 2) It's not in order by ring name because people often use multiple ring names. Even your example, Hulk Hogan, has gone under the ring names Hollywood Hogan and Mr. America and Sean Waltman has used 5 or 6 names during his time with WWE. — Moe ε 23:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Being a feature article is good and all, but it does zero justice if the readers can't understand the format. Not many people know wrestlers real names, so it would've been better to use the name they were more remembered by. And the older format made it easier to figure out who got released lately. Weapon XXY (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Individuals real names can be found on their respective biographical articles and this article isn't for the purpose of knowing "who got released lately". If you want to know that, I suggest you find a different website. — Moe ε 23:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text: And how do you propose people "find" them in this article if they do not know their real names? And last I remembered, Wikipedia has also been posting current news, so I suggest you to take it elsewhere.Weapon XXY (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I completly missing something here? The ringnames are listed so you can search for them, and the "Tenure(s) with WWE"-row is sortable so it's easy to se who were released recently? --aktsu (t / c) 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Accept, it's been broken down into alphabetical order, which many people have expressed is more difficult. May I remind you that the "point" of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia for information, not to see who can get an article "featured" because I won't matter if a reader can't understand the damn thing.Weapon XXY (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Took another look, and seems like checking for who was released recently would be easy had the sorting been working properly. If you sort it in ascending order, so that the most recent are at the bottom, it's working - but when soring in decending they get mixed up. Hmm... --aktsu (t / c) 00:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was on S–Z btw. Edit: nevermind, it's not working in ascending order either... --aktsu (t / c) 00:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, right now, a couple of the lists for chronological order are messed up. I haven't had much time lately to correct it. I'll get to it as fast as I can. I'm going alphabetically, so S-Z will be the last of it I fix. — Moe ε 19:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yet you had ample amounts of time to reformat the article so it can be a feature with zero info to the readers?Weapon XXY (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been improved. It is no longer an unsourced table that is only used by new users and ips to get the latest gossip so they can go to forums and speak about who got released. There are plenty of other sites that give that info, WrestleView is one of them. This is an online encyclopedia made to improve information. A encyclopedia wouldn't have information on alumni from WWE in the most recent order. It would be alphabetical. It is very hard to edit articles to make them much better. Maybe you should try it. Write an article, reliably source it, make sure it is wikipedia's best work, take it to GAN, FAC, or if it is a list, take it to FLC. It takes a bit of practice before you get the hang of it and is time consuming. The article has improved from what it once was and is expanded to a point any book encyclopedia would have it be. Sourced better as well, considering it wasn't that well sourced in the first place. We should expand articles to their very best and not be lazy because people want to know who was released lately, when people can go to WWE.com to find that out if they want.--WillC 05:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Except, 1. it was more of a table and 2. There were numerous sources for the original format. And yes, an encyclopedia is an alphabetical order, but Wikipedia does a lot an encyclopedia doesn't. You do not get to discuss edits and how an encyclopedia is printed and such, but you do with Wikipedia. The last format made it easier for people to actually see the Alumni rather than cram them all into lists that makes it difficult to find a wrestler if you do not know their real name.Weapon XXY (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The finding the wrestler excuse doesn't work. If you are looking for Randy Savage, which number one what would be the point anyway, and you didn't know his real name, wouldn't it just be smart to type in the search bar Randy Savage? It tells on that article everything that is told here. The day he was signed, the day he left. His ring names, his real, etc. Plus the table isn't much different, that wasn't technically a table. It just was a column. This format has more refs from reliable sources. More is better than less.--WillC 06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said it did, but neither does your excuse work as well. The whole point of the list was to list WWE Alumni in a format easily understandable for Wikipedia readers. People want to access the info quickly, not go through the whole article's page just to find it. Table, column, big deal. Just because you didn't think a source was reliable doesn't mean it is not reliable. Need I remind you that it does no good for an article to be "featured" if people do not like it in the first place.Weapon XXY (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not getting this. What is your current problems with the format? You can (or will be able to when it's fixed) sort chronologically - so to find the recent releases is not a problem, and the ring-names are listed so you can search for them. What else? That it's split isn't an issue because it pretty much would have to be no matter what the format. --aktsu (t / c) 15:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The info is accessed quickly. I found Randy Savage as fast or faster than the old format. I know the first letter is R, so I looked at R. And looked at the ringname section until I saw the Randy Savage. There is really no difference between this format and the old. The old went by real name and this one as well. There is nothing wrong with it besides all the marks don't get to know who was released lately, which this list is not for. If it was, it would be called, List of recent WWE releases.--WillC 21:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: First you all are using this list all wrong. It does not say recent releases from WWE. To find out when someone was released, check wwe.com, WrestleView, etc. Wikipedia has a list of alumni, not dates of people being released. It isn't going back because of that reason.--WillC 17:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We're using the list as it appears. Wikipedia can also be used as a list to see who was recently released as Wikipedia also refers to current events, or are you saying Wikipedia's contradicting themselves? And like the above person said, the guy should've waited until the list was complete rather than leave it half empty and expect someone to know what to add. The format is built for reliable sources, but it does no good if readers don't give a damn about it.Weapon XXY (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Not only that, but the editor's attitude of deleting the discussion because overwhelming support of changing the article back is much to account for. And let's not forget that the editor never finished the article nor did he attempt to finish the article. Like I said before, a feature article is worthless if no one likes the format or anything.Weapon XXY (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't know what is keeping Moe from finishing the article, but three people, them being two possibly new users and an ip against the entire project seems like the majority is for the format. In fact this format was used to change the TNA one as well. Just because you don't like the format doesn't mean no one will like it. And for the final time if you want to know who was released lately go to WrestleView or something along those lines.--WillC 23:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny thing is some people like to "delete" contributions whenever he feels they do not agree with his statements. The whole purpose of the talk page is to discuss edits, Moe, so I do not see where you are going with this. You earlier deleted the discussion without giving a more thorough reason. That doesn't really help your cause at all. And why doesn't the above editor show some kind of proof that the overall majority like this awkward new design. Until then, I see no reason in trying to not resolve this issue and get a much "better" format for this article that was much better in the beginning.Weapon XXY (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The proof is the fact it has not been undone. Also that the format was changed on the TNA one by an admin who is veteran of the project. If this format was not agreed upon by the majority then it would have been undone along ago and a mega discussion would have taken place already.--WillC 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: So what do you call this then? We are discussing the edit and a lot of us are disagreeing over it.Weapon XXY (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: This isn't a discussion. A discussion is trying to find alternatives and which format is better suited for an encyclopedia. All I see is complaining the old format was better but no reason why, just we want to know who was released lately. That isn't a good reason. Fuck that reason. It isn't going to change anything. If you want to make a consensus, go straight to WT:PW and give good reasons why the format should go back. Not we want to know who was released lately which isn't going to influence any votes. There we will determine this once and for all. Then if it is changed back, you will get the duty to change every article back to the old format, by changing the tables, sourcing the article, putting all the information in one article, and getting the extra lists deleted or redirected to the main article. There is a good weeks worth of work there.--WillC 04:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you been paying attention at all? We never said the only reason why the old format was better was because we could see who was released early. It's was better because it was much more easier to navigate and find wrestlers. And the fact that you're resorting to cussing doesn't really do much for your point. You do not speak for the masses. And the old format had sources. Just that the definition for a credible source is highly loose..Weapon XXY (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All I've heard is I can't find who was released lately. You can find any wrestler easily. I can find anyone you ask for very quickly. The old format was sorted by year they were released and not ring name so this format is no different. I cuss all the time, so it isn't any different here. This format has more sources.--WillC 04:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Or you've heard only what you want to hear. Just because you can do so doesn't mean anyone else could. And yes, it makes a difference when you're trying to have a mature discussion about this ridiculous edit. Oh yeah, as if having 100 sources is going to matter if the article itself is cumbersome to read.Weapon XXY (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Likewise, just because you can't doesn't mean others can't. Just because you think it is hard to read doesn't mean others think so as well or that it is true on either case.--WillC 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would be true, except several people, including me, have said that, so for it to be used as a counter to my argument is redundant.Weapon XXY (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the new format, is not valid. The old format was for the purpose of locating the recently released, which this article and Wikipedia isn't for. The article also had issues with reliable sources, verifiability and biographies of living persons. The only argument for putting it back now is because its too 'cumbersome' to read, which is just ignorant. This is a list article, even if it was listed by date, it would be just as long and the article would still have to be split into multiple pages because of the length. Don't you see? The majority of the names on the list were released in the modern era 1990's - 2000's) whereas the number of the previous era names (1950's - 1980's) are a lot smaller. There would be like 3 short articles covering three decades of wrestlers and two really really long articles covering two decades. It just doesn't make sense to do that when alphabetical order is easy to adjust for the size of the articles. — Moe ε 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Just choosing one format to please the standards is bullshit. It would've been better to list it by years or by century like 1990s and 2000s, but rather you just a half-assed format that makes it difficult for us to find wrestlers. What if we wanted to see who got released back in the later parts of 2007? But no, impossible now since we have to look for the wrestler with names that some of us never even knew about. I think it's majority of us have agreed that this new format is ridiculously flawed.Weapon XXY (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once it is finished, the sortable wikitable function will allow you to search names by year on each article by clicking the square at the very top of the tables next to the Tenure(s) in WWE section. Your argument for change is moot. And who is "us"? People who view Wikipedia who come here looking for the recently released who came to this talk page to bitch? Well yeah, you guys would all agree that you don't like it. However, we, as in the Professional wrestling WikiProject, tend to disagree with you. Deal with the change and move on, unless you have something new to discuss other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT — Moe ε 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the opinion of the majority is more important than that of the members of a wikiproject. I think it is pretty obvious that this article has little to no use to anyone unless you are looking for a specific wrestler and even if you are, it would probably be quicker just to search for their wikipedia article. The ability to sort the list by other criteria is almost nonexistant because the article has been divided up into subsections. Sure, you can argue against us using technicalities but when it comes to (the dangerous concept) of common sense, there is no arguement against us.58.167.63.195 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I dont like this format

message: This new format is ridiculous. It's supposed to be a LIST, not a damn collection of links to separate articles. If I wanted articles, I'll read the superstars' page. It was much easier as it was before.Mafuda (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree 

message: This used to be such a good article. Too cluttered now. --Monkey-Boy (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me too 

message: Don't forget them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.66.75.82 (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Umaga/Vickie Guerrero