Talk:The Undertaker/Archive 2

message: It says kennedy cost him 2 title shots
but didnt Batista cost the undertaker his title shot on the second one?
Yes and no, Kennedy attacked Batista, which led to Batista attacking Kennedy, thus in a manner, that was Kennedy costing Undertaker his second attempt at a title shot. (MTX 01:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct me if I am wrong 

message: Why is that under his nicknames in his stat box?
:Because for a few weeks after he came to the WWF he was called Kane the Undertaker on WWF TV by Mooney and Okerland. That was the real name but it just got cut down to The Undertaker by the time Royal Rumble came arround.(Silent Jay 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was announced at his TV debut as "Kane, the Undertaker", as was just stated above, Twentyboy. And WWE doesn't talk about Katie Vick, so why should we talk about that, by your logic. -Darryl Hamlin 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If you had any knowledge then you would read the article and u would see his debut and first match was at Survivor Series —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Legendary One (talk • contribs) 00:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kane The Undertaker? 

message: Undertaker did not win the WCW Tag Team Championships in WCW. He won them with Kane, while in WWE, during the Invasion angle, before the titles were unified. Stop adding it to a seperate section for a promotion his championship partner never wrestled for. -Darryl Hamlin 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Championships 

message: I think the half Undertaker/half Badass gimmick is ruining the Undertaker, not to mention the lack of appearances. Because he's sort of doing both, I don't think fans know whether to be scared or act like their at a roll'n roll'n concert. I liked him as the Undertaker, but that was back when I thought he was scary in the 90s. I don't have a problem with his badass side, btu I think he should stick to one or another because it's just confusing to me. Oh well, he's probably rich as it gets the way the company praises them like he's God so I suppose it doesn't really matter to him. I just have a problem getting the whole 90s Undertaker vibe when he pulls off his top and raises his arm, then pulls it back on and falls to one knee worshipping the urn and Paul bearer that aren't there. That's another thing, Paul Bearer with all the faces throughout the entrace, pulling off of the coat, using the power of the urn was a big part of that whole character. I think he should just give up on being the Undertaker because he isnt' scarying anyone anymore. That character was a good one that was meant to be scary, not changed into all sorts of rockers. I know you wrestling fans who are crazy about him are going to have a tizzy over my remarks. I'll just ignore them. Twentyboy 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is not for talking about the person/character, it is to discuss what should be done to the article. Also, ignoring critics is not the Wiki atitude. THL 07:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  undertaker/badass 

message: I think it is a complete show of disrespect that the Undertaker cannot have his article as his ring name. He's wrestles under that name for 16 years. Someone needs to do something. --Mikedk9109 14:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: This new picture of the Undertaker in the ring sucks. Get a decent pic 65.31.99.71 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture sucks 

message: If anyone sees the warning on the edit page it says to not add week by week events. But that doesn't seem to stop anyone.Jayorz12 12:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol Actually, I think Enhanceddownloadbird has described the issue with articles like this one far better than I've ever seen it described. Scrapping the 2006 section seems like overkill though and besides I don't think it would work - right after it was deleted a while ago someone just went and added a line saying that the Undertaker was currently feuding with Kennedy. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: well, what I meant when I said "scrap the 2006 section" was a complete redo, just in summary form, more storylike... but it still isn't as bad as it was. everything used to have a date attached to it, for instance Enhanceddownloadbird 19:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I get it. Summary style is good, but it shouldn't have too much of a story tone as it should be grounded in real-life events. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Weekly Events

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support: Per my nomination reasons. --Mikedk9109 (Sup) (stalk me) 19:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Thanks to all the people who supported this move. Now the articles name is correct. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Is the name of The undertakers pin known as the crucifix pin after tombstone piledriver and is it a signiture move?--Wally787 23:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and yes. A crucifix pin is where the wrestler wraps their opponent's arms, one with their own arms, one with their own legs, then fall back, pinning the opponent's shoulders to the mat, and keeping them from using their arms to assist a kick-out. Undertaker's signature pin does not have a name to my knowledge, though it is often called the "Darkness Pin" in WWE wrestling video games. -Darryl Hamlin 23:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Tis true that the pin has no official name other than what video games have dubbed it as the "Darkness Pin".  Kane has a similar pin that he has referred to as the Crsifiction Pin which isn't really a crucifiction pin by wrestling standards.  He just calls it that because it looks similar to a person being held down to be crucified on a cross.  --Charles-Joseph 05:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pin? 

message: At some point, The Undertaker hung a guy in a Cage Match or something like that... (seen in the clip shown to Randy Orton during their feud) I'd like to know who's the guy that 'Taker hung.24.37.96.171 00:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Traylor died of heart problems, it had nothing to do with the "hanging" he recieved at WM XV. TJ Spyke 06:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That hanging had to be one of the worst thought up elements of a Hell in a Cell match ever, they could have at least put him on the shelf for a couple of months not have him return the next night on RAW! The Legendary One 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hanging

message: Now I'm happy with the situation and don't mean to propose a change because I'm sure this has been debated and decided by contributors wiser than myself. But I just began to wonder that why exactly are the gimmicks portrayed by wrestlers and the wrestlers themselves described under the same article? The analogy between wrestlers and actors was brought up by some when the Mark Calaway -> Undertaker move was discussed, and while the line between a wrestler and his gimmick is a bit more blurred than between an actor and his character, it is true that the whole story of Han Solo is not found under Harrison Ford.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arto Kekkonen (talk • contribs) .
::I agree! There should be two pages. One for Mark Calaway and one for the Undertaker. Mark is famous enough from the Undertaker gimmick to have people interested in who he actually is. There's a lot of information on Mark Calaway that could make a large article. All the info about his different wrestling characters, his movies, how he played basketball in highschool, his wife, kids, motorcycles, his divorce, his substance abuse problem and depression issues back in 1994 when he was on break, etc. All this has to do with Mark Calway himself. The Calaway info should not be under the gimmick character. There is a lot more information about him than what's on this Undertaker page. The info on Mark isn't a lot because this article already takes up way too much room about the Undertaker gimmick. The Calaway info just doesn't belong in this article. Great point Arto. Lonelyboy 07:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just a work, Just like Evil Kane. DXRAW 07:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Needs to be? Nothing needs to be done. This article was about Mark Calaway before it was about the Undertaker, and it still is. The name of the article means nothing; this is the article about Mark Calaway and The Undertaker. No, for emphasis NO, wrestlers get an article for their gimmick and them in real life. The two ALWAYS go together, and that isn't going to change. The fact that most of the article is about the Undertaker is actually a mistake that needs to be fixed. This article should have a balance, not be split. -- THLCCD 13:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: While I do agree a separation between characters and actors is valuable, it should be noted that articles such as "The Undertaker", "Triple H", and any other instance where the gimmick is the name of the article do not feature characters and actors.
There is a fine line of separation between actors and pro-wrestlers, and in a single word it's kayfabe. Simply put, for the duration of the characters existence, a wrestler is made to be the gimmick. Even at press conferences, Calaway takes on the Undertaker role. That is NOT true for actors at their movie premieres.
But consider this, if Calaway left WWE, and joined TNA (for example), and got a new gimmick, it's very likely that the article name would go BACK to Calaway OR take on his new gimmick's name.
It's this kind of debate that left me neutral in the name change vote, as it really can go either way.Enhanceddownloadbird 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably the only reason this article is named The Undertaker is because if you went up to any random person, and asked them if they knew who Mark Calaway was, they would say The Undertaker. The Undertaker is best-known professionally as this name. Like what Hybrid said, Calaway and The Undertaker are one in the same. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on Mark Calaway should be deleted out of this article and used in a Mark Calaway article 

message: Was the whole orbital eye injury from King Mabel and Yokozuna actually a real injury the Undertaker suffered? Did they accidentally actually hop on his face? Was the mask a way of covering up a band-aid or sitches that he had because it didn't fit his gimmick character? Lonelyboy 20:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a legit injury that King Mabel caused when he performed a clumsy legdrop and broke the Taker's eye orbit.Halbared 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mabel broke it in kayfabe. VelvetKevorkian 07:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The orbital eye injury 

message: Undertaker is now commonly referred to 'The Phenom' or 'The Dead Man'. Can those be added to the template? Of them, the first one is pronounced 'fi-naam'. Saurabh Sardeshpande 15:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is for ring names only, so nicknames cannot be added to it. Cheers, -- THL 15:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is "American Badass" in there?  65.189.210.173 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New nicknames 

message: I know that this topic has probably been argued countless times, but when searching the web, I recieve a lot of information suggesting that The Undertaker's birth date was in 1962. What age do wrestling journalists say he is? According to Texas birth records, he was indeed born on 24 March, 1965. --88.104.30.49 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: '62 is wrong, the cited source for '65 being used is the best one available, but if you have access to the bith records, that'd be a lot better. SteveLamacq43 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Calaway: date of birth 

message: On Raw this past week (Feb. 5th) Jim Ross was referring to the Undertaker as 'The Deadman of Death Valley.'  J.R. will probably begin to use it a lot (as well as the likes of Cole and Styles) and I definitely think that should be added as a nickname.
It sounded like demon to me. Anyway we aren't allowed to assume that he will start using that. Assumptions are unencyclopedic. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 03:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname 

message: can someone tell me where thet got that from look at the bottom end at 2007 it says
On the March 2nd edition of Smackdown, Undertaker announced his Wrestlemania match will be a Buried Alive Match.
now this hasent even been put into question yet so could we please take this down because there was a rumour that it was gonna be hiac (hell in a cell) but that didnt get put up also taker didnt say it was going to be buried alive he was stating that bastisa's life was going to be a living hell and that grave section was his way of saying that batista's title reign will end at wrestlemania IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BURIED ALIVE MATCH BECAUSE IT HASENT EVEN BEEN PLACED ON THE TABLE YET!!!Deadman lastride666 16:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BURIED ALIVE MATCH AT MANIA 23 

message: There seems to have been some debate about whether No Way Out and the challenge to Batista are notable and/or in violation of the speculative match guideline.
On a lesser importance, to me at any rate, is the No Way Out match. It passes notability guidelines (and whoever doesn't think so needs to get out of WP:PW articles and look at the inconspicuous tidbits all over the site as a whole), but was a crappy match. That's my opinion, but considering over the past year the Undertaker has not been in the main event PPV scene (since Armageddon 2005/No Way Out 2006 I believe, but don't hold that against me if I'm wrong) this seems notable in his career. Also count the fact he was teamed with a world champ facing a world champ. Or heck, even the fact it's one of the only physical altercations between himself and Batista in the whole feud. Something makes it notable. I don't care if you hated it or loved it, notability isn't about that.
On a more important debate, I'd appreciate leaving in the challenge to Batista. It has become common knowledge that the winner of the Royal Rumble gets to challenge for the title, and that is what I'd like to include. The definition of what I'm looking for is not "He is scheduled to face Batista at WrestleMania 23", but rather, "As a result of his Royal Rumble win, The Undertaker challenged Batista for the world title." In addition to the fact I believe the event itself is significant (looking at the start of 2006, the Undertaker challenging Kurt Angle is a significant event, even if it was more elaborate), I believe having this in there would help stop vandalism (even though the article is semi-protected off and on). The fact is that the challenge is important, whether the match happens or not (even more important if it doesn't). As such, the match itself should not be talked about until the event, and neither the match nor the challenge should be placed in the WrestleMania section until the event has occurred.
Comments welcome. Everything above was written as my own opinion towards the matter and your opinions are completely welcome and desired. I apologize if any hostility has come across as that is not my intention. --Enhanceddownloadbird 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the challenge to Batista

message: I recently edited this page twice to include information on a song I found on Limewire. It was entitled "Undertakers ECW Entrance Music *RARE*"  The song was basically Awake by Godsmack and had several of Undertakers catch phrases from his American Badass days inserted into it. For some reason it keeps getting deleted and I wanna know why. ImmortalKaine 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because a song that the source of which is unknown, and was more than likely made by a fan, is not notable for an encyclopedia article as it pertains to The Undertaker's actual life and career. Bmg916 Speak to Me 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for answering my question. I'm ImmortalKaine BTW, just forgot to log in 70.49.207.65 00:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. Cheers, Bmg916Speak to Me 00:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it important if we add to his article that he's beaten all Evolution members at WrestleMania? Zerorules677 7:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: ImmortalKaine here again, haven't logged in yet, but I RAR'd the song and uploaded it.
It's been virus scanned, 100% clean. It's really a good song so download it and take a listen if you wish.
Not sure if it's fake yet, sounds too good quality to be fake.
70.49.207.65 00:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to delete your link, sorry, possible copyright vios (since it is basically the Godsmack song "Awake"). BTW, some fake songs can be good quality, it's not hard if you know what you're doing and have the right software. For an advertising class in early 2005 I created a TV commercial for at that time, the upcoming World Baseball Classic. The teacher said that it could be taken straight from the classroom, put on tv, and no one would know the difference. Bmg916Speak to Me 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dont care if you delete it, I've already posted it on like 50 sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.207.65 (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean sites on Wiki, or independent sites? Bmg916Speak to MeLeave Your Mark 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ECW Theme

message: According to his IMDB he's born in 1962 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elif4ziggan (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Year 

message: I cannot seemed to find the event where The Undertaker had defeated The Ultimate Warrior and Randy Savage on two separate occations. Somebody find it for me.Angel 850 18:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, did it to anything notable for his career? If not, then it doesn't go in the article. Bmg916SpeakSign 18:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the fact it's being asked about means it's notable. Though for the life of me, I don't know on which occasions this would have been. Maybe you forget that the reason people come to wikipedia is to find out some of the most random things about something. For instance, Angel 850 came to the article to find out when a particular match (that was considered significant to the reader) took place, and couldn't find it. In this instance, wikipedia failed it's readers. Now if it was something that happened on a non-PPV 15 years ago, it probably isn't well documented, and can be excused, but this is my argument for notability of the small things in practice. Enhanceddownloadbird 19:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Ultimate Warrior was undefeated during his championship reign (on TV and PPV), if UT beat UW then it was a house show, and I don't think house show victories are notable. Darrenhusted 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Undertaker defeating The Ultimate Warrior and Randy Savage 

message: undertaker is now the first person ever to win the wwe and world heavyweight championship at a wrestlemania shoudlnt that be added to the wrestlemania legacy? Deadman lastride666 09:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  taker at wrestlemania  

message: I was watching the WWE No Mercy 2004 PPV a couple of days ago and right before the main-event started (The Undertaker vs. JBL in a Last Ride Match for the WWE Championship) the ring announcers Michael Cole and Tazz said that the Undertaker is probably the greatest superstar in the history of the WWE and continued giving a brief list of legends he has defeated. Only a couple of seconds before 'Taker's music was stopped and the bell rung, Tazz mentioned that he has beaten Hulk Hogan, THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR and then alongside M. Cole continued the list. Since the official WWE announcer said so, I guess it HAS to be right... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.218.49.232 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Can you please sign your posts Govvy 09:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE UNDERTAKER HAS DEFEATED THE ULTIMATE WARRIOR 

message: I Know Undertaker was born in 1962?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.18.201.165 (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No he wasn't, that is wrong. According to his High School, and there official website, he graduated in 1983 at the age of 18, which would mean he was born in 1965. Anywhere you see 1962 is wrong and taking a guess without any reliable source. Bmg916SpeakSign 14:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just searched the Texas Birth Records using VitalSearch, and found Mark William Calway was born on March 24, 1965 in Harris County, Texas, it sucks I can't cite this as a source though since one needs a username and password to access the records. The website I used is here though. Bmg916SpeakSign 15:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of Birth

message: when has 'taker been referred to as 'The Conscience of WWE'- i for one have never heard it Cradle666 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nicknames (again)