Talk:Job (professional wrestling)

message: I have a problem with the inclusion of some of the jobbers on this list. I think the list should contain "pure" jobbers, not just wrestlers that currently lose a lot of matches that were bigger and had title runs in the past. Here are some I think should be removed. (and I used this site to help determine things a bit: http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/results.htm)
*The ECW one-offs: I think it's too early to tell if they are going to be used more than once, and if so, they should not be on here. And the stripper and the priest didn't even technically wrestle.
*Simon Dean: He has a gimmick and a theme song, and his winning percentage isn't high, but he did have a nice run of wins in his first few months, is probably a JTTS now (jobber to the stars).
*Scotty 2 Hotty: A JTTS now, but has won a few titles in the WWE.
*Funaki: See above.
*Stevie Richards/Shawn Stasiak: Both JTTS, but a lot of title runs and a fair amount of good wins at times.
*Sylvain Grenier: 4 time tag champ, I don't think he's a bona-fide jobber.
*Rob Conway: JTTS, but a gimmick and a few titles.
*Lance Cade: JTTS, but did have the tag titles
*Shannon Moore: maybe, but probably more of a JTTS, he did beat carlito
*Aldo Montoya: Not that bad, he did beat the likes of Kwang and Steven Dunn a lot
*Koko B. Ware: JTTS, had gimmick and prop, which is more than a natural jobber would have
*Al Snow: No way
*El Gran Luchadore: Only appeared 3 times, as a joke
*Nunzio: 2 time CW champ
*Jacqueline: 2 time Woman's and Cruiserweight Champ, had the occasional win vs other lower card women, but a JTTS during most of her WWE run  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.204.225.65 (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: List

message: there has to be a way of deciding who belongs here and who doesn't...WillC 22:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why make such a distinction?  This article is already headed so far in the direction of showing so few dimensions of its associated subject that there is nowhere else for it to go but full-fledged POV fork.  Mick Foley is obviously very proud of the fact that his second-ever match saw him squashed like a bug by the British Bulldogs.  You're telling me that it's unworthy of mention because he later became a main event star, NYT bestselling author, yada yada? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  09:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jobber litmus test 

message: I think this article should be moved to jobber (professional wrestling), since we should be using the noun form. The article seems to focus on the jobber, not the act of jobbing. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "jobber" 

message: would that satisfy you all, to list wrestlers who are currently booked as jobbers? WillC 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is a jobber list so important? Just let it go. A current jobber list wouldn't be right either. Several Raw wrestlers lose on Raw alot, but end up winning in Heat matches. That certainly isn't a jobber.  There isn't many that really job on a fulltime basis in WWE or TNA now. Scotty Too Hotty, Funaki, Stevie Richards and Val Venis are the main ones for WWE.  For TNA, there is Norman Smiley, Shark Boy and Jerelle Clark only I believe. So with that said, there isn't many to list. A small list is basically useless. RobJ1981 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ideally, the content should be relatively stable - a current jobber list is subject to change and contention regarding who is included on the list. For example, Shelton Benjamin was on a losing streak a while ago, but his inclusion would be questionable. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  there are current event articles on wikipedia. WillC 20:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because there are current event articles, doesn't mean there needs to be a current list of jobbers.  I don't see why this is such an issue.   RobJ1981 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ditto to you. WillC 23:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The page is fine as it is, consensus has been reached. Let's keep it like this. --Burgwerworldz 04:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your lone opinion, or even two opinions, is not a consensus. WillC 12:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Current event" articles are different since they document major events whose facts will remain static, not an ever-changing, debatable list of people. Although there isn't a large consensus regarding this issue, Wikipedia:Embedded list provides a guideline for something a list like this. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current jobbers 

message: I moved these comments down here as an attempt to clean up the page: -NickSentowski 21:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I waited a couple of days, and removed the "italian" reference to jabroni 195.62.164.225 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Random, uncatorized comments

message: As much as I love the openness of Wikipedia, children should not be allowed to edit.  Read & Contribute Here. -NickSentowski 19:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Patience Has Expired 

message: Triple H was given this role from 1996-1997 by Vince McMahon as punishment for the infamous MSG Incident.
No doubt it's true; but does anyone have a reference that can be added? (This article has no references at all). Maybe from the Wrestling_Observer_Newsletter? --Dglosser 23:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Triple H as jobber 

message: WillC feels that there should be a secton devoted to wrestlers who job commedicly on a regular basis...  Others feel that his section should be merged with the gimmicks section of the existing article...  A third group feels that this section should be omitted completely, believing that the examples mentioned are not notable.Please vote below to MERGE, SEPERATE, or REMOVE this content.This vote will be resolved in 7 days. - NickSentowski 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not delete it, ever. WillC 20:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the edit history and saw that his entry was struck, but it was not done intentionally. Perhaps we were editing at the same time and mine saved. In any case, I edited and expanded this article long before any of you were here. If anyone has a vision for this entry, it is me. If you don't want this vote to stick, that's fine. Let's go back to consensus building...the compromise on the table is that comedy relief jobbers stay, but in the gimmicks section...because that's what they are. Everybody wins. WillC 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't even jobbers, they are just one shot characters used to build up a wrestler. Don't go with this "everybody wins" thing, cause that just won't happen unless you change your stubborn ways. You can say that you didn't delete your vote, but with your constant violation of WP:CIVIL and the like, I think there's a fairly good chance that you did. The article looks better without a pesudo-example cluttering it up. Just stop editing this page, and leave it alone, it is perfect as it is now. Just because you alledgedly improved an article does not mean you own it, as the edit page says: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." --Renosecond 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Prove I was uncivil. You calling me uncivil is uncivil. You should follow your own advice about editing. WillC 20:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It was a technical glitch and nothing more. WillC 02:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTE ON COMEDY JOBBING 

message: it has been discussed previously that examples of jobbers such as the growing list are not acceptable.....WillC 00:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of jobbers 

message: He is not a jobber anymore he beat MVP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.38.72 (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kung Fu Naki 

message: does anyone else consider kane's role since un-masking to be a JTTS. he beats low-profile wrestlers, but loses every time to high profile superstars, and more recently returning superstars. ex. John Cena, Triple H, The Great Khali, Rey Mysterio etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.158.111 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kane 

message: Specifically, the history involved in the article begins approximately at the point where jobbers started to be phased out of regular usage.
I'd rather not rehash that this is another article which is far too WWF/E-slanted.  Why no mention of people who didn't work in the WWF who became semi-famous for being a jobber, such as Jake Milliman or Randy Mulkey?RadioKAOS (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another article completely lacking in proper historical perspective 

message: I removed the statement:
"It is a mark of disrespect calling a wrestler a jobber, because it means that they are a failure at their careers."
but it was reverted by user Ezequiel Matias Acosta with the rationale:
'Wrestlers like Damien Demento, Barry Horowitz, and others who were or are jobbers don't like to be called jobbers, or they don't like the term "jobber)"
Even if this is true (no source is given), it is not relevant to the removed statement, as disliking a term does not prove these men are failures at their careers. That we are discussing them long after they stopped wrestling would imply the opposite.
I request impartial mediation on this disagreement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg hill (talk • contribs) 11:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It means they are failures at their career" 

message: The three terms given as an example of how WWE addresses jobbers I find to be poorly chosen. "Local competitors" are often just that, and the other two terms are very rarely used.Greg hill (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Loveable losers" 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blading (professional wrestling) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Job (professional wrestling). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603173309/http://www.prowrestlinghistoricalsociety.com/hg-carpenters.html to http://www.prowrestlinghistoricalsociety.com/hg-carpenters.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Job (professional wrestling). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606073745/http://www.pwtorch.com/insiderglossary.shtml to http://www.pwtorch.com/insiderglossary.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212002942/http://www.wrestlingfortitude.com/info/dictionary.php to http://www.wrestlingfortitude.com/info/dictionary.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm under the impression that this article misses a point : the reason why a "job" is called just like that comes from the fact that unlike the money-making "stars", a jobber didn't have a long-term contract. They made sporadic appearances to fill the card and make the permanent talents look good, and were subsequently hired and paid on a per-appearance basis. Hence doing a single "job", not a long-term deal. Of course this is Wikipedia, I need sources to back up this this claim. I'm going to look for them, but if anybody comes across something interesting, let me know. --Tsort142  12:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a "job" really is?