Talk:List of WWE personnel/Archive 7

message: where are the hardys?user:sub619 17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardyz 

message: As much as I find it ridiculous, Stone Cold is in the RAW roster page on wwe.com, and Mick Foley is not. 
Mick Foley hasn't wrestled a Raw show, and Vengeance isn't either a Raw show anymore. So, we cant just put him under Raw because he appeared there and said he was. Then The Rock should be here, because he mentioned that "the rock is coming back to monday night raw". Now, Stone Cold shouldnt be on wwe.com's roster page in the first place, he should be in the Alumni page. Lex94 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair Mick did wrestle on Raw against Umaga and since he is in the running for the title he should be a member of the roster page. --Duality344 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stone Cold, Mick Foley 

message: O.K his profile is on OVW.com anyone think he should be added to the roster? gravediggerfuneral
:No, because he's not under contract to the WWE. Dahumorist 18:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nick Sinn

message: I might as well post this on here in advance. No, he's not in WWE. Get over it. ;) -- Oakster  Talk  22:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: King Leonidas

message: stop taking the hardys of of the raw stables! user:sub619 15:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  raw stables 

message: If Harry Smith won a 21-man battle royal to become the Heavyweight Champ, who were the opponents? There are only 19 people in the FCW roster on this page. Are two missing from this page, or were the other 2 wrestlers from OVW, or local? Lex94 05:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: email FCW or WWE otherwise we would only be speculating AfTaDaRkCrU 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FCW

message: Promos are airing for triple h's return, this should be reflected on the roster page.
:only in that it should be noted, he should still be "inactive" until he actually returns AfTaDaRkCrU 18:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple H 

message: Im new, and I cant edit anything. this sux JoseValentino 05:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: Shawn Michaels and Triple H make up DX on Raw. DX is a tag team. Shouldn't they be under stables and tag teams? Even though they are injured. Meanwhile, Domino over on smackdown is injured and they won't be wrestling as a team until he is better. But they are still listed as a tag team.
HHH and HBK are injured, so they're not listed as a stable. Domino being injured is a different story, they still need to be listed as a tag team, since they hold the belts. Gavyn Sykes 22:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DX 

message: hasn't he wrestled against boogeyman and little boogeyman on smackdown? doesnt that make him a wreslter? he should be under male wrestlers for smackdown. correct me if i'm wrong.
Not really, since there really isn't anyone else that he can wrestle against besides Little Boogeyman, and since the Boogeyman is on ECW now, I don't see Hornswoggle wrestling anytime soon, good point though. Gamer928 18:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a good choice but will be interesting to see what they do to his character and the belt. --Mikecraig 01:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hornswoggle 

message: these three are listed as the new breed. the new breed is no longer as matt striker is now feuding with the boogeyman. burke and cor von have not been a tag team in a while. also, one episode of ecw, tazz addressed burke as FORMER new breed leader. he also addressed striker as FORMER new breed member.
Striker was thrown out of the NB some time ago but as far as i know the NB hasn't officially split.AfTaDaRkCrU 20:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Striker, Elijah Burke, Marcus Cor Von 

message: Rey wrestled on the raw mexican tour, therfor he is not inactive any more
True, he has wrestled. But that does not make him active until he returns to television. Every returning wrestler does some sort of tour or house shows to get ready for their return. P.S.: Please sign your posts, people. Gamer928 16:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rey Mysterio 

message: i think that the divas on each brand should be listed in subsection. they shouldn't be split up in female wrestlers and other on-air talent. on wwe.com they are all listed as divas. not female wrestlers and other. there should be a diva section for each brand, and if there is something notable about them it can be noted next to their name.
example - in the raw diva section it should look like:
DIVAS:
jillian hall
mickie james
maria
melina
candice michelle
beth phoenix
lilian garcia - ring announcer
queen sharmell - valley of king booker
not really, as someone like Sharmell never wrestles so should be listed simply as "other on-screen talent" where as someone like maria actually wrestles, even if its not all that often. AfTaDaRkCrU 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Personally, I'd like to avoid even using the term "Divas" on the page. It may be WWE's term for it, but that doesn't make it politically correct. "Female wrestlers" makes more sense and then the other talent. Gavyn Sykes 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia doesn't have to be politically correct. If the term that they use makes sense, then we should use it. Cheers, The Hybrid 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  yes but they dont call it the "Diva's" division, its the women's title so female wrestlers is more appropriate. AfTaDaRkCrU 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user was proposing it so that we could group all of the women together, rather than having the female wrestlers in one section, and the backstage talent in another. For a compromise, perhaps we could simply say Females. That way the issue of the non-wrestlers is addressed while remaining politically correct. Does that work for everyone? The Hybrid 18:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: in that case then it should just say Males as not all the men wrestle, both spilt or both together ...AfTaDaRkCrU 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for even bringing up the political correctness comment. Not really the place for it. In the spirit of being encyclopedic, the WWE does refer to them as "Divas" and most of the time specifies when the match is contested between two divas by referring to it as a "Divas match/contest." So I suppose my comment is rather null anyway. Gavyn Sykes 18:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so does Divas work for everyone? There are way more men than women, so both split or both together doesn't really seem to apply either. The Hybrid 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: no but by the same score J.R isn't called other on-air talent either but it doesnt change the fact thats what he should be listed under.AfTaDaRkCrU 16:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE DIVAS 

message: his contract has expired with the wwe. he should be taken off of the page. 
also. edge is now inactive. he needs to be moved to the inactive talent section.Hardyboyz27 00:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob Van Dam is no longer under contract, SO STOP ADDING HIM TO THE PAGE. AfTaDaRkCrU 18:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rob van dam and edge 

message: has it been confirmed that they have formed in FCW? if not can people please stopp adding it to the section. AfTaDaRkCrU 06:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hart Foundation 2.0 

message: They are listed under tag team or stable. That means they are one of the other. They are not a tag team since they have not been in a tagteam match, and there is no more tag team division on ECW. The only thing left in that category is stable. A stable has two or more members. There are only two in Big Daddy V and Matt Striker. That means they are not a stable. They should be taken out of that group. Next to Big Daddy V it should say: Also bodyguard of Matt Striker. Hardyboyz27 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you contradicted yourself there, 2 or more, there are 2 therefore they are a stable. AfTaDaRkCrU 21:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: according to the raw royal kingdom discusion topic, a stable has more than two. 68.195.109.116 22:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: yes but we are not talking about a wrestler and a valet, we are talking about 2 wrestlers... AfTaDaRkCrU 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Daddy V and Matt Striker 

message: Josh Matthews is also host of Afterburn and the Experience , and the back up play by play commentator of HEAT.
Max Bretos is the secondary interviewer of Smackdown.
Kristal is the main interviewer of Smackdown
Todd Grisham is also the main interviewer and back up commentator of Raw.
Maria is the secondary interviewer of Raw.
and your point is? AfTaDaRkCrU 17:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if your trying to suggest that what you wrote should be added next to their name. its not necessary. it doesnt need to become complicated. Hardyboyz27 19:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Josh Matthews, Maz Bretos , Kristal Marshal and Maria

message: Why are Shad and JTG on the OVW roster?--Tommyf10170 02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cryme Time

message: i think that the champions from each brand should get their own sub section under their brands section.
like for raw, john cena, umaga, trevor murdoch, lance cade, and candice michelle should be pulled out of their current groups and put into a subsection called raw champions. or just champions.  i think its a good idea so that if people are looking at the roster pages, it says right there who the champions are. Hardyboyz27 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: they already have that on each brand's page, this is not a WWE site so its not relevant to the article, its been discussed before and this was the consensus. AfTaDaRkCrU 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to be discussed again.--Monnitewars (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Put it to a consenssus vote...it might surprize you.--Monnitewars (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: because i dont think it needs mentioning at all, but you seem insistant that it does.Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why did you suggest it?--Monnitewars (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  champions 

message: The section for Chad Patton is up for deletion so the link to it should be deleted.24.0.47.244 12:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chad Patton Is Gone 

message: As of last night William Regal was named New GM of RAW, so I think he should be removed from the active talent list.24.0.47.244 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well he wrestled last night we should wait to see weather he continues to or not 1st. AfTaDaRkCrU 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Regal Now RAW GM 

message: On the page, it says Undertaker will be out until Jan. 2008, but the huge rumor is, according to the Unforgiven poster as well as PPV advertisements suggest he is returning in September 2007. Is there a source that states he will return in 2008, because if not I think we should put rumored to return at Unforgiven or something. Virakhvar321 18:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: commercials in memphis are promoting the return of the undertaker as the main storyline for unforgiven. if this wasn't true. all promotions would have been taken down by now 76.160.118.126 19:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  all wrestling cards are run with the tag "subject to change", until the promo's air on T.V. it shouldn't be mentioned. AfTaDaRkCrU 23:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undertaker return date 

message: We need another section for people who are not brand specific like Simmons and McMahon (even though his profile is on the RAW Superstars page) who appear on multiple brands. Simmons will be the Best Man at the 'wedding' on smackDown! FYI... SAH-DennyCrane 11:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Simmons & others who appear on multiple brands 

message: Ric and Batista have bin tagging latly,shouldnt they be on tag team
Tagging twice doesn't qualify as I team. Generally they have to have been tagging consistently each week, come out to the same music or hold a tag title to be considered an actual tag team. Gavyn Sykes 00:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ric Flair and Batista

message: I happen to know a guy named Vance Desmond who books the shows for a promotion in southern Ohio and he works matches in OVW.I added him to the roster but he got removed.Why?
Because you provided no source Gavyn Sykes 03:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vance Desmond 

message: I would just put this up, but I don't want this to be deleted, so I can make my point here.
Now, on the WWE Superstars page, Stone Cold still appears on the roster for RAW, with his own superstar page. He makes appearances on special occasions, such as Wrestlemania 23, or more recently, Saturday Night's Main Event. I think Stone Cold should be added to the RAW superstar list, not to the male wrestling talent, but maybe to the "Other On-air talent" section. Perhaps with "Appears sporadically and at special events".
Any arguments?
TheGuitarHero 00:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stone Cold 

message: Somebody put a section for female wrestlers in ECW. The only females are Kelly Kelly, Layla, and Brooke. They never wrestle on ECW, but they will at SummerSlam. For now, I wrote - Will be wrestling at Summerslam in the diva's battle royal. If they start to wrestle on a regular basis, then we can put them in their own section, "Female Wrestlers."  Hardyboyz27 00:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme Expose - Number 2. 

message: I think on the inactive list it should include the 10+ wrestler who have been suspended for violating the wellness policy.Go to [] and get the list there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.177.37 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Better source is located here, as this is an offical news source. — Moe ε 10:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: i have undone all the inactive statements until confirmed by WWE, or the people not appearing on TV next week. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 12:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Can anyone protect the page. So much vandalism --KingOfDX 05:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The Sports Illustrated article means nothing in terms of officialness. The article specifically states, and I quote, "While the WWE declined to release the names of the suspended athletes, SI has learned that a dozen professional wrestlers have received steroids and/or human growth hormone through the drug network. The WWE would not confirm which, if any, of the following wrestlers are among those suspended." Sports Illustrated did not suspend the wrestlers, the WWE did/will. We should not say anyone is suspended until WWE releases a statement. Virakhvar321 07:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Theres a difference between marking someone inactive and suspended. Not being active is enough evidence to mark them as inactive without non-kayfabe reason. — Moe ε 05:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You don't get it. Saying someone is inactive doesn't mean someone is suspended. Saying they are inactive means just that, they are inactive, as in not wrestling. Give proof that these wrestlers are active at house shows or any WWE Live event, because reports from the live events say they aren't. — Moe ε 02:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? Most of them do wrestle at house shows or live events like Raw or SmackDown!. WWE doesn't state if someone is "inactive" or not, so theres no guarentee that will ever happen. Making arbitrary rules doesn't trump long established practice at this article, which has been fine before you long existed on Wikipedia. — Moe ε 07:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspended Superstars 

message: Not that its that important, but I keep adding "Active" to the Male Wrestlers and Female Wrestlers sections, because just writing "Male" or "Female" is too general (it doenst exclude inactive talent). So I believe Active should go before each. Lex94 01:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I Agree.--Monnitewars (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Active Talent

message: With the recent rash of WWE suspensions, I'd like to point out that WWE has only asserted any sense of verifiability starting in November.  That means that by that time, we can add a suspended list.  After all, right now, for all we know, these "outgoing due to suspension explanation" storylines may have been what was originally intended.  Although I find whatever counterargument to this as plausible, the fact is that this doesn't cut the mustard at Wikipedia.  If one of the suspended came out and openly say that they are suspended, then we can add it right now, but who will fess up to this?  Besides, we do not know whether the suspension terms start following the announcement date, the date of the next live event, the date of the next TV taping, or the end of the next TV airing, or whether existing suspensions (seeing that one is rumoured to be 60 days, which would mean their term would end at least at the start of November) will be made public at that date.  Furthermore, WWE has not stated that, when announcing who has been suspended, whether other information (such as length of term or existence of previous suspensions for whatever reason) will be divulged.  For all we know, it could be a form statement whenever a superstar has been suspended (like those that they have whenever someone is released).
Back on topic: WP:V is very hard to get in the world of PW.  November 1 may be the day that all of us will be waiting for - just so we can inject some of it.  Then again, we will not have nearly enough - that's the nature of the business.  The day that the Entertainment releases boxed sets with DVD extras such as writer interviews and candid non-kayfabe interviews from persons involved in storylines is probably the day when we can get a good article out of any professional wrestler (I'll use Hardys-E&C match from No Mercy 1999 as an example, as such a "backstage expose" had aired on Heat for some weeks, IIRC).
I'm just going to op-ed for the next bit, but hear me out: it seems that running a wrestling promotion today is prohibitively expensive, and it might be something that not even WWE can afford.  Think about it: ideally you'd like WWE to adhere to strict WADA guidelines, right?  Where everyone is checked after every show (live event, TV, and PPV) and where the first suspension (ie. the two-year ban) is likely to end your career due to a complete and total burial in storylines (if the humiliation of being caught isn't bad enough), to account for a release (which would face you into obscurity), which leads to industry blacklisting (if you could find a way to return) and severe ring rust (if you did find a way to return)?  Putting the "sports" in "sports entertainment" is getting costly...
Finally, anyone think that the greatest beneficiary of this whole situation (with the drug-related suspensions, not the recent industry downturn and scrutiny) is CM Punk?  It seems that he's one of the guys who will be in WWE for the rest of their career (ie. time filler/utility player roles like Benoit and Guerrero in their times, or the Hardys today), not to mention that the guys "higher up on the card" have been dropping like flies means that in both short-and-long-terms he's going to get top billing (we'd like to think that it would be inevitable that he'd win some major accomplishment that will cause Styles or preferably JR to completely mark out, like a big Mania win or MitB/Rumble/KotR/etc).  After all, for however "shoddily defined" the WP has been, it fits well with his lifestyle, and he benefits from anyone on the ECW roster (possibly SD, but Raw is a distinct possibility around Mania time) who does not do likewise.
kelvSYC 04:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspensions 

message: I think it can be confirmed that Mr. Kennedy, Umaga, William Regal, Charlie Haas, and King Booker are all suspended. I think we should leave the on the active list, but write next to their name (possibly suspended). We should write that because considering WWE has not announced it, those superstars were not present at all during the South Africa. Also, some of their characters have been played off. King Booker didn't even appear on RAW this week.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.218.83 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, unless WWE announces it, we can't post on it. After November 1st, we will never have to have this discussion again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zii XFS (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no we wont, the November 1st thing Effects all FUTURE suspensions not previous ones. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furthermore on the suspensions 

message: There seems to be a lot of arguing over what sources are deemed "reliable", especially by user Moe Epsilon. Fact of the matter is this, sources like Wrestling Observer, PW Insider, Rajah, and 411Mania have proven in the past to be reliable and typically do not provide much false information. On the occasion that information is provided that is proven false later on, it is usually retracted in a timely manner. These have been the ONLY sources for signings of new superstars and developmental talent, so we can't honestly say that WWE.com is our only source, or even a reliable source as oftentimes they are in kayfabe. If a character was "fired" on television, WWE.com would report that as fact, despite it being strictly part of the storylines. These wrestling fansites are truthfully the BEST source for information and have proven to be useful for YEARS. So why the arguments over stuff like that? Dahumorist 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nothing is confirmed. Proven reliable in the past doesn't mean it's reliable now, it violates WP:BLP given the names have not been outed except for leaks which are unconfirmed. Readd them again and I'll see that the page is fully protected from no editing except for administrators. — Moe ε 05:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But fact of the matter is WWE.com is NOT a reliable source. It doesn't report all injuries, suspensions, hires, or even releases. The only thing we have to go on are these other sites. Perhaps these people should have waited until this week to see who has been "myseriously" written out of storylines to truly "confirm" their absence from television. But chill out, man. Nothing is ruined here. Nobody is getting hurt. Don't take these things so personally. Dahumorist 05:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wrestling rumor sites are not more reliable than WWE.com, although they are just as reliable as WWE.com. In regards to the suspensions, this is being picked up in serious news media as well as those sites, and secondary reports will always be more reliable than rumor sites like Observer and 411mania. Secondary reports state no names are confirmed, and unless you can provide one, the information won't be added. End of discussion. Violating WP:BLP is a very serious issue that deals with slander and libel, and saying someone was prescribed steroids and suspended from WWE is more serious than you're making it out to be. — Moe ε 03:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whoa whoa whoa whoa. Hold on there, slugger. I never said anything about saying that these people should be listed as inactive for the reason of wellness policy. I was just saying that we should not be disregarding the wrestling fansites on a regular basis, as (as i've already mentioned) they provide much needed information in the ways of new hires, etc. Once again, I gotta say, chill out, bro. Loosen your tie. Geez... Dahumorist 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable sources

message: A note to any admins or whoever can still edit the page, The Sandman was released today, http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/sandmanreleased , so when anyone gets a chance, please remove him. Thank you. --Zii_XFS 00:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Sandman should be removed from this list. — Moe ε 00:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's not protected. --MZMcBride 10:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandman 

message: you cant Keyfabe lose,he did lose (Chavo) He Keyfabe quit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.24.105 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I Quit

message: He wrestled a match on Heat this week. Does that mean he's on Raw now? --61.68.57.102 12:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardcore Holly on Raw? 

message: I know it's just a minor detail, but are we referring to his name as 'CM' being his first name, and 'Punk' the last? Because I think that CM Punk as a whole is more of a stage/ring name and should be alphabetized as such, between Burke and Dreamer.. anyone else agree? Miztahrogers 10:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CM Punk's name. 

message: The last few weeks Tony Chimel has been ring announcing on ECW and Justin Roberts on Smackdown. Should the change be noted on here? Don.-.J 10:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Chimel and Justin Roberts 

message: When was the last time he appeared on television? I can only remember in July, but I'm not too sure. should he be moved to the Inactive list? 76.21.249.103 02:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter on television time. He is still wrestling on house shows so he should still be considered an active member of the Smackdown roster.Soopafred 04:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave Taylor 

message: I Think we need to acknowledge the champions in the roster, e.g, beside John Cenas name, write in italics "Current WWE Champion", whoever agrees with me, plz reply  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.9.8 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Champions

message: can someone add Krissy Vaine to the smackdown roster she debuts this friday.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.233.105 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Krissy Vaine 

message: I'm tired of coming to this article and finding violations of WP:CRYSTAL here. If anyone adds spoilers, and I'm there to revert it, I'm handing out  templates, because it's ridiculous. If you see "returning on", "returning in", "debuting on", or any kind of violation of the sort, revert it please. — Moe ε 00:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:CRYSTAL]] violations

message: I was at a Smackdown/ECW house show last night in Hammond Indiana and both Chris Masters and John Morrison were in action.  Should they be moved back to the active roster, or do they have to appear on television first?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.85.4 (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a link to verify this, please? — Moe ε 14:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: they need to appear on T.V before they become active again.Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Morrison and Chris Masters 

message: HBK is back he was on raw this week and kicked ortans head off put him on the active list also if HBK is back doesnt that mean that DX is back together  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.129.190 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: don't add DX back to the stables list until they re-unite on tv. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 09:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they never officially disbanded. We should probably add them back, but with some kind of disclaimer. The Hybrid T/C 10:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, they seem disbanded to me, I would say wait until they officially re-unite on TV (per the sake of WP:V). Their run was supposed to end soon after Trips got injured anyway I think. Bmg916Speak 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with BMG. Two injuries (or even) one would signify a disband, in my opinion. We have no idea if they'll reunite again or not (hopefully not). Gavyn Sykes 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: he didn't do any chops, waasn't wearing any DX logo's DX is dead for now. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 22:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: well during Triple H's second match with Ortan at No Mercy, right before he fell down for the 10 count, he leaned back on the ropes and did the DX crotch chop. 24.191.218.83 23:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I won't argue, but my response is the breakup was never official. The most convincing argument to not put them on the page is that HBK is not yet cleared to wrestle, so they can't be an active stable, even if they are still considered together. Due to that I won't argue, but Moe, I'm afraid that I completely disagree with your argument. The Hybrid T/C 06:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how you can classify as any break-up of any stable offical unless you see them compete against eachother. Do teams that don't appear together on-screen for a month considered a non-offical break-up? The term unofficial is really ambiguous. Not on-screen together is really the only way to measure that. — Moe ε 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HBK