Talk:Carlito (wrestler)/Archive 1

message: The image of Carlito should not be there since it is copywritten. No copywritten work!
:That is why when you click the picture, it says Copyrighted. Therefore, you are allowed.CMC 06:09, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
::No, that's not how copyright works.  — Gwalla | Talk 06:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Issues 

message: I'm not sure how many people read the discussion page, but I think it would be best to debate Carlito's finishing move and its name here rather than endless alterations to the article.
I believe Carlito's finisher is currently an unnamed Rolling Cutter.  WWE.com claims his finisher is a Modified Swinging Neck Breaker, but I believe they had this listed back when Carlito debuted as Carlito Caribbean Cool and used this move.
It would be illogical for "Modified Swinging Neck Breaker" to describe his recent finisher as it is a cutter, not a neck breaker.  Moreover, it makes perfect sense for "Modified Swinging Neck Breaker" to refer to his older move, the Overdrive, as that is a neck breaker.
So, in summary:
1) "Modified Swinging Neck Breaker" was a description used when Carlito used a different move.
2) Carlito's older move is a neck breaker, just like the "Modified Swinging Neck Breaker". 
3) Carlito's current move is a cutter, not a neck breaker.  ~WikiFew
* No, back when he was using the Overdrive (He called it the Cool-Breaker) as a finisher, his WWE.com profile listed his finishing move as, indeed, the Cool-Breaker. It was changed to what it is now when he started using the Rolling Cutter. 82.80.43.104 18:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: on a side note a "Cutter" is indeed a neckbreaker (an inverted neckbreaker in fact) --- Paulley 14:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finishing Move 

message: Isn't it a reverse side slam? A regular side slam is a lifting STO, any way you slice it. Wouldn't his move better be listed as a reverse side slam, and perhaps a section in Powerslam made? Or would be it too non-notable? Methnor 13:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carlito's Lifting Reverse STO. 

message: I did a major cleanup in the WWE section, summarizing the main arc of Carlito's career. I am begging you, my colleagues, do not be tempted to start the "On the _____ edition of RAW, Carlito did this (insert 85 paragraphs of meaningless detail)" up again! Just because something happens does not mean it needs to be in Wikipedia. Bcarlson33 20:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I saw plenty of this, however, I did not finish. Thanks, man. Jman5 06:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a prototype wrestler page. Perfect balance achieved. Two thumbs up. Eenu  (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text Cleanup 

message: Hilarious that no one has the balls to address what I said. OsFan 14:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a pro wrestling show, so there's no need to be so argumentative. A redirect to this page for Carlito is fine, but it would be a mistake to rename the page after a relatively new gimmick. Bcarlson33 17:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. I'll let it go. I'd like to apologize for being immature. I should have gotten a consensus before doing the move. OsFan 12:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny

message: This is a section from the Revision as of 17:12, 7 April 2006
==Finishing and signature moves==
*Modified Swinging NeckbreakerModified swinging neckbreaker
*Overdrive - unofficially named the Cool Breaker by commentators on WWE Velocity.
*Figure four leglock - in OVW
*Double knee backbreaker - unofficially named the Backcracker by Joey Styles.
*Double springboard turning somersault senton splash
*Lifting reverse STO
*Somersault senton splash
*DDT
*Spinebuster
===Fan names===
Though Carlito has yet to offically name most of his signature moves many of Carlito's fans have referred to them under a variety of names:
*"Carlito's Way" (DDT)
*"Cool Crunch" (Lifting reverse STO)
*"Cool Cutter" (Modified swinging neckbreaker)
*"Twisty McDeathSault" (Double springboard turning somersault senton splash)
*"Apple Of My Eye" (Modified swinging neckbreaker)
*"Caribbean Twist" (Modified swinging neckbreaker)
*"Cabana Twist" (Modified swinging neckbreaker)
Though BionicWilliam believes this isnt needed... but i think it is... it gives good information on the offical names and unofficial names the moves are referred as... even detailing the names used by announcers (which are not offical; as correctly stated User:88.153.48.54 "even Joey Styles said it wasn't the official name, and that's just what he calls it.") Another good reason to keep the section is that it stops the adding of incorrect information on the move names which takes up most of the edits on this page.. on that note i wouls also like to say the vary next edit after BionicWilliam removed the section was the poor attempt of adding names of each move which for the most part were unofficial (see here) --- I just wanted to see what everyone else thought about it and see if we could have a vote too keep it or not --- Paulley 14:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well i wouldn't mind leaving them generic but its everyone else that wont seem to leave it alone.. plus "fan names" is in use in other articles (see Amy Dumas) --- Paulley 13:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A little after Carlito started using his rolling cutter regularly, WWE.com updated his finisher to "Modified swinging neckbreaker", before that it was "Cool-Breaker". I'd say WWE.com is official enough. 88.153.48.54 06:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if that is true then yes you can put that the Overdrive's name was Cool-Breaker --- Paulley 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fan names section

message: On the last RAW, Carlito said that he spit his first apple at his principal for wanting him to not be cool (or something like that.) He was expelled but has always carried an apple since then... is this worth adding to the page?
:No. That could just be kayfabe or a twisting of a true story. This kind of material is what bogs down Wikipedia too. OsFan 16:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi guys, I know pretty much nothing about wrestling but would be interested to know at least some basic facts. I had a look at the kayfabe article and wasn't able to figure out how, and if, it differs from simply "acting". The issue is: if it's just acting then the article could be much shorter, and if it is something different I am not able to grasp that from the article. Is it just me? --Gennaro Prota 17:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kayfabe refers to the acting; however the events are portrayed as real. For example, WWE doesn't acknowledge that Stephanie McMahon and Triple H are married, nor do they recognize their influence behind the scenes. In Carlito's case, he could simply be making up history to suit his character. Your question may be better suited for the talk: Kayfabe page, however. I'm going to copy and paste part of the discussion over there. This page is about Carlito OsFan 22:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Origin 

message: does anyone else think that the section called "personal life" should be called "trivia"? it doesn't seem to me like there is anything about his personal life, just little tidbits of info. Katie 01:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "personal life" or "trivia"?? 

message: Why has Carlito been on Heat so much lately? Katie 04:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he has immense backstage heat right now. He apparently made some comments that hurt someones feelings. Killswitch Engage 04:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Heat" 

message: How come they were done away with in this article? I've also seen this happen in some other articles as well. OsFan 01:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the members decided to use a list-based format - there was discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional Wrestling. I believe the list isn't much of an improvement though. This stuff should be mentioned as prose in the career section. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession Boxes

message: Carlito started using the Standing headscissors move, but it seems to me that his move is a Frankensteiner since he doesn't pin them, he just throws them away. Thats pretty much the exact definition of a Frankensteiner. Cheers, Dubbya9 06:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter anymore, hurricanrana has become the name for any move similiar to it --Trick man01 10:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricanrana or Frankensteiner? 

message: Do you guys think that his constant and impressive atlethic performance improvement should be noted somewhere in the article? Or do you feel that to be irrelevant? Vicius 17:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Atlethic Improvement

message: I am wondering why someone keeps editing out the Canadian information about Carlito? All of this information is factual. Carly is both Puerto Rican and Canadian. I have provided three sources proving this fact. First source, Dave Meltzer, the most well respected journalist in professional wrestling, whom stated in his Observer Newsletter that Carly's mother is Canadian, thus making Carly a Canadian too. Also, I have listed the Canadian government's official site on immigration and citizenship, which states that anyone born to a Canadian citizen after February 14, 1977 is automatically a Canadian citizen by descent. Carly is the son of a Canadian mother and was born in 1979, thus he is a Canadian citizen. Moreover, I even included an interview Carly had with the Ottawa Sun, in which he clearly acknowledges that he is Canadian, and that his mother, Nancy, is a native of Toronto, and that he often visits family while in Toronto. These sources are all accurate. If that weren't enough, my friend actually met Chris Jericho, and Jericho also stated that Carlito is a dual American and Canadian citizen. So, please stop editing out my factual contributions. I put a lot of hard work into this and it is comepletely accurate. I do not feel that it is right to eliminate such an imporant piece of information about Carly. If you want to discuss this more with me, email me at stevenguardino2@yahoo.com, and I will be glad to discuss the topic. But, if you do keep editing out this information, I will continue to reprint it because it is completely accurate.  User:Scanadiense 15:20, Dec. 8, 2006 (UTC)
:I agree. Dual citizenship is very notable, and seeing as Carly Colón is indeed Canadian this fact should be mentioned in the article. -- THLR 22:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the deletions by CarlitoCool, and am posting a note on on his talk page, which hopefully will get his attention.  John Broughton  |  Talk 14:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding editing the Canadian information about Carlito. 

message: I believe the "World Wrestling Council" section needs some cleanup, it has references to every thing that happened during every tv episode of wwc for a few weeks some of it might be unsourced and confusing for the casual reader, What do you think? Dark Dragon Flame | Talk 17 December 2006
:I agree. It isn't written in an encyclopedic tone either. -- THL 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, that saved some time. Sadly, I know almost nothing about his WWC days, so I won't be of any help. -- THL 00:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You got it. So you're saying that the section blanking may have been vandalism that inadvertently helped us, correct? -- THL 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In need of cleanup, again 

message: Ok Carlito is not the WWC champion this was clarified just yesterday, it was written that he was the champion because even though he didn't had the belt even the announcers called him the champion and he was regarded as so, this is the reason I failed to delete that and put it right, yesterday it was announced that Heidenreich will defend the belt aganist Carlito's brother Eddie Colon and he was refered to as the champion by default, I already fixed both the Carlito and WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship pages, I'm terribly sorry if this caused any confusion-Dark Dragon Flame 16:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The champ isn't here

message: Should Carlito really be under the Canadian wrestlers catagory just because he has a Canadian background? He's was born and is from Puerto Rico so that's really his nationality, not Canadaian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jetsmets713 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah please stop editing it out, it's really anoying having to revert it without a justified reason. -Dark Dragon Flame 04:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian? 

message: Article moved back. Parties interested in renaming/moving this page are kindly pointed to WP:RM, especially the procedure therein, in order to reach a consensus and do the move properly. The unilateral moves tend to screw up everything in sight, expecially creating lots of undesired Wikipedia:Double redirects. Thanks. Duja► 10:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was because a new editor moved the page, and then someone else who didn't know how to revert page moves moved it to the wrong page title. When I attempted to move it back here I discovered that I was unable to do so with the page history in tact, so I had to leave it to someone with more experience in this type of thing. Thanks for fixing it, -- The Hybrid 23:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see it was fixed, That's cool! -Dark Dragon Flame 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move war 

message: In the game Smackdown vs. Raw 2007, Carlito's Finishing Move is called " Cool Shot ", which is a lifting reverse STO...and then his secondary finisher is BackCracker. J.C. 01:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Video games are not always reliable sources for names, and since Carlito or the announcers have never labeled the lifting reverse STO as the Cool Shot, we shouldn't change it. --ProtoWolf 04:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cool Shot 

message: The article has referencing problems. I am failing this per the GA review of the Undertaker article. Quadzilla99 12:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has to be the most stupid thing I have read lately, there is no possible way we can get better sources WWE contracts prohibit wrestlers from publicly publishing this in order to keep kayfabe, so where the hell are we supposed to get them? in hell cause it's imposible. BTW writting articles about a real person out of universe that is just plain ridiculous. -凶 15:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA quick fail

message: Jerry Lawler and JR have been calling Carlito's finishing move the "Backstabber" after Carlito's heel turn? Should that be considered an alternative name for the move?
:Not until it's official in WWE.com, Lawler just does it as his job of color commentator to help sell the angle. -凶 01:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably a way to sell the angle with Flair but I will left it as it is, either way if we are following WWE.com it should be Backstabber instead of Back Stabber. -凶 01:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backcracker/Backstabber 

message: Who keeps deleting this picture?? It's perfectly valid to show under the 2007 heading. -Endlessdan 20:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you take the picture? Because if you didn't, then it's copyright belongs to the person who took it. You claim it as free use with the license, but then in the image description say it's fair use. If you did not take the picture, and do not have permission from the person who did, you can't put it here, plain and simple. Bmg916Speak 12:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scott Hall/WWC pic 

message: There were two complaints about the Undertaker article, two complaints this articl STILL suffers from, now you may want to hold your ears and go ”la-la-la can’t hear you” but frankly if I hadn’t begun debating this article I could have easily failed it’s GA nomination because it suffers from issues. Now you mention the Undertaker GA delisting, let’s look at the 2 main issues brought up and how they pertain to this article.
1) Entirely referenced to primary sources, (which in this case is either WWE.com or interviews with Carlito)
* 19 wwe.com references out of 31, an overabundance of primary sources
2) It’s written too ”In-Universe” – Which beyond writing it like wrestling is 100% real and competitive also means it’s littered with ”wrestling lingo” without explanations the first time it’s used. The following terms should be linked or explained briefly to take it more ”Out of Universe” for the reader – we’re not catering to wrestling fans but to all readers.
* Angles
* Feuds
* World Wrestling Federation is used without explaining that it’s the previous name of the WWE.
* Something as simple as putting (good guy)/(bad guy) after the first time you use the term face/heel to make it instantly understandable
* Booked
* Territory (hell what’s a ”developmental territory” if you’re not a fan you won’t know)
* Managed / Manager (the wrestling version of the term, he didn’t handle his business deals after all)
* ”a gimmick consisting of a character that spits in the face of those he does not consider cool” – That doesn’t really explain anything. Reading it he goes around and hocks loogies at everyone who’s not the Fonz.
* WrestleMania – link the main article that explains that this is the ”Superbowl of Wrestling” so that people will know why this particluar even is so special.
* Link at least one of the following terms – Piper’s Pit, ”Roddy Piper” or Rodderick Toombs.
* Eating a poisoned apple – unlike most else THIS is actually presented as real, the irony.
* ”titluar match” – what’s titluar? Did you mean titular? Even that’s a very not realy a clear way to describe it as a title match
* Pay Per View
* Vengeance 2006
* Triple Threat Match
* Either Trish Stratus or Patricia Ann Stratiagis
* Melina or Melina Perez
* Randy Orton
* "Tribute to the Troops"
* Torrie Wilson
* Money in the Bank
* Chavo Guerrero
* Gregory Helms
* World Tag Team Championship
* Turned on (in wrestling terms otherwise he ”erotically arroused” Flair)
* Back Stabber (when used in the text)
That’s the two concerns of the Undertaker GA discussion – that doesn’t even begin to address the myriad of grammatical issues of the text nor the fact that it’s incredibly hard to read and in places misleading. I’d give you a long list but since I’m not here to fail the article I’ll leave it out for now. The reason I went to this detail level is to try and explain to certain people involved the multitude of problems I see in this article so that maybe it can be improved instead of arguing with me that the following sentence makes perfect sense
The characters where booked in several matches involving the WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship, with both of them defeating its adversary in title bouts on separate ocassions (the Heavyweight Championship had an adversary?) MPJ-DK 08:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undertaker GA Delisting arguments applied to this article 

message: I read the article and came to the talk page to see what was up with the phrasing, the article is incredibly irritating to read through, and given that most of these men and women are known more commonly by their stage name than their real names, i dont think it's necessary  to write it like it is now.  24.128.53.252 07:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it means anything... 

message: Just notifying anyone that noticed a few inconsistencies in the style being used in the page that it is currently undergoing a GA overhaul dealing with the concerns in the GA review of the The Undertaker that is linked above, thanks for understanding. -凶 05:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok here is what we have done to attend the issues in GA review of the Undertaker article wich were quoted when failing this article's first GAC: I rewrote the entire article in an Out of Universe perspective, The Hybrid did text cleanup and we replaced the Online World of Wrestling references with official wwe.com reference to attend the "reference reliability" concern in the review. -凶 04:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under construction... 

message: This is a dispute about what prose style will be used to write the storyline aspect of this article. Caribbean~H.Q. 00:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mind staying on one section, I am trying to find a way to find consensus in the section you wrote avobe. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Sorry I don't understand what you mean. --Naha|(talk) 22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See my last comment above, there seems to be a way to keep the edits you made and keep it Out of Universe. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I don't think we are quite there yet.  Keep discussing. I'm also a tad upset (I admit it) because aside from all the Out of Universe stuff I changed - I made countless grammar, spelling, useage edits, in addition to some things that were (of course in my opinion) very badly worded and you reverted ALL of those edits along with everything else. --Naha|(talk) 22:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment:Kayfabe and Out of Universe writting

message: I really hate the way this article handles kayfabe, especially characters and IMO it has resulted in an unnecessarily cluttered style.  For example: "...Steven Williams under his “Stone Cold” gimmick as the special guest." There is no need to refer to Steven Williams by his real name - his name is not common knowledge, he is generally known simply as (Stone Cold) Steve Austin.
I do not see that quotemarks around a wrestler's stage name are necessary, nor the constant division of character and real person. Stage names - without quotes - are less confusing and less cluttered, and the reader can click on their stage name for further information if desired, including their real name.
Shockeroo 00:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly this is what happens when "anti-kayfabe" is taken to extremes - do you see articles on actors who use an assumed name written like this? I mean is Dean Martin referred to as 
* "Dean Martin"
* Dino Paul Crocetti using the screen name "Dean Martin"
* Dean Martin
it's the latter because that's the name he's mostly known as. Not only that but to the uninitiated they'd think his name was "Stone Cold" Steven Williams... a bit misleading MPJ-DK 06:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We just did what taker's GA review consensus stated, and the " " are nesesary if the prose is to work, there are going to be several sentences begining with Carlito did... that will just end with someone adding an in-universe tag if not done this way, people that aren't wrestling fans come here expecting to read about the man not the character, the article has a balance between reality and fiction to the point of stating several of the character's accomplishments. Carlito should be written like this "Carlito" because its a copyrighted gimmick, it can change anytime unlike actors who create themselves a stage name that they can use at will making it unstable. -凶 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I respectfully disagree with the total butchery of wrestling articles like that, in my view they should be handled in the same way newspapers etc. cover wrestling - State that he portrays the character "Carlito" if you MUST use the ", then disgard the silly " from there on, if his gimmick changes later on it doesn't retroactivly change what he did as Carlito. I mean should we go through the article on Viscera and change all references to "Big Daddy V" because the gimmick has changed? No that'd be stupid and totally misleading and in all the other GA articles it's NOT been used like that, not even the Undertaker article which you seem to base your reason for the really odd and confusing choice of writing. So please don't use the "Undertaker GA nomination feedback" as your crutch since the GA article for the Undertaker is NOT written in this way at all (neither is any other wrestling related GA article), to me it's hurting the "reasonably well written" aspect of the GA criterias as it makes it more confusing, LESS easy to understand. MPJ-DK 22:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This "style" is cluttered and makes for an extremely hard read because it is littered with gross amounts of extra text. In addition, no one can speak for all "people that aren't wrestling fans" - you have no way of know what they "expect to read." --Naha|(talk) 22:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but the style that the project proposes violates all that WP:WAF stands for, of course some tweaks can be done to simplify the text like turning "Carlito" into Carlito. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We should let someone outside the project to review this article, we are both constatly working withing WikiProject Pro Wrestling and obviously have different points of view on how to take this to GA. One more thing The Undertaker was delisted with a solid consensus of 7-0, the page is exactly how it was back then and its GAC was passed by a user that was new at the moment, I am sure if it undergoes a second GA review the result will be the same as last time. -凶 22:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ignores that no other wrestling related GA article is written like this article is either, should they all be delisted?. MPJ-DK 08:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Furthermore the delisting vote here: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 18#The Undertaker has ONE guy saying that it's too "in universe" - which can be aliveated better than this very cluttered, confusing, and cumbersome way. I still haven't seen you make one valid argument to support the way this article is written. The rest of the votes for delisting were due to sources being primary sources and other stuff of that nature - coincidently this article has 19 primary (wwe.com) sources listed out of 31, maybe it would have served the article better to find secondary sources instead of butchering the language? MPJ-DK 08:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's give someone neutral a chance to review it. -凶 08:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Down below dude MPJ-DK 08:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the anon? he on the same boat, already checked his contributions, I mean someone not really interested in pro wrestling a neutral reader. -凶 08:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello. I would like to comment on this concern about the article. Please note that I know nothing about wrestling, so I think I can be neutral. Personally, I think the quotation marks are annoying and the article is confusing because sometimes the article refers to him by his real name, and sometimes the article uses his stage name. In my opinion, and after reviewing several other wrestling articles, I think he should be referred to by his stage name, as he is probably better known by that name. It's like referring to Bill Gates as William throughout the entire article and saying "Bill" when referring to me by his nickname. However, after reading the Brian Adams (wrestler) article, which is a Good Article, BTW, I think he should be referred to by his last name, as that's probably the happy medium. If you want further feedback, ask some other people, but I'm sure they'll tell you the same. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I believe Eddie is a neutral user, and I agree with what he proposes his last name seems like a happy medium, so can we work under this suggestion? I will withdraw the nomination for now since I have been working with a page that meets the criteria and is easier to deal with at the moment, the lack of concensus here is slowing progress and I don't want to be stuck with four GACs, that doesn't mean I won't work with the page if a consensus is reached though. -- Caribbean~H.Q. 19:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One problem with this comes when the article discusses Carlito among his relatives with the same last name.  I had fixed one instance of this where it said "Colon" together with "x Colon" and "y Colon" blah blah.  That is just as confusing. --Naha|(talk) 22:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a baseless accusation, I am working in line with Wikipedia's policies I have never acted as a result of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, actually I once tried the project's way for once and what happened? it got speedy failed. However perhaps a concensus can be reached, for instance I think we can remove the "played by" part when introducing a character and replace it with something more soft for example: Stone Cold Steve Austin (Steven Williams) I have seen this used in movie summaries before, and instead of "Carlito" swithch that to Carlito of couse since nobody has come here to actually discuss a way out instead writting further critisism there is nothing I can do. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first time a wrestler is mentioned in an article, his or her name is linked to their page (if they have one) on Wikipedia. The link is there for the purpose of expanding a reader's knowledge on a subject. On the wrestler's personal page, a reader may learn many things about them...such as their real name. Wikipedia policy also states that articles about people should be named according to how the person is most well known - this is why Steven Williams' article is titled "Stone Cold Steve Austin" and not "Steve Williams."  This, together with the fact that (using the example in question), Steve Williams was using his "Stone Cold Steve Austin" persona for the match described on Carly Colón's page, leads me to the conclusion that the article need only ID him as "Stone Cold Steve Austin."  The fact that wrestling involves worked scenes, kayfabe storylines and alter egos does not need to be drilled into a reader's head over and over ad nauseum throughout every pro wrestler article. --Naha|(talk) 22:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seem to know what I'm suggesting, I am saying that we revert to the last version you made and add their real name between parenthesis to keep anyone concerned with In Universe writting at bay, this is a professional practice so I doubt anyone will oppose it thus reaching as Eddie said a Happy Medium. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I'll personally definitely settle for this suggestion at least for the time being. It is a step in the right direction for sure.  I wish more people would add some input to this discussion. --Naha|(talk) 00:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I think the lead that was there before is more convenient for GAC, there is onl a few lines mentioning the phrase 'character' and its larger. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. The former lead section had information about OVW and other "fluff" that is better suited for the body of the article. --Naha|(talk) 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So it seems consensus has been reached, if no one objects I will renominate for GAC in three hours, might as well leave the RfC open for that time period. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concerns at this point are that his biography section doesn't include any information about his life prior to or outside wrestling (not that I know what that info would be) and that there are several facts/sentences that still need to be referenced. --Naha|(talk) 02:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That info is really hard to find/source, there is a interview in IGN where he talks about his favorite wrestlers when he was a kid an stuff but all that is trivial, the ammount of personal info here is about the same size as the one on Brian Adams and that's a GA (wich is good considering all he has worked in is this), but I guess if a GA reviewer ask for it that can fill it, overall the article seems sourced enought and what was criticized last time was that the references where mainly onlineworldofwrestling.com instead of a primary source. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Championships and finisher sections are structured following the wrestling project's mos, I can't think of any way we could add prose the moves section and the championships are already covered in the article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kayfabe + Character in this Article 

message: *Can a See also section be added which lists related internal (Wikipedia) articles in alphabetical order. For instance check out the What links here page.   
*Can any of the lists be converted to prose? Embedded list  
*According to guidelines on WikiProject Biography things are starting out very well.
*Could any more sections be added to contribute to the broadness... see for example the guidelines set at :Template:Biography.SriMesh | talk 03:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Championships and finisher sections are structured following the wrestling project's mos, I can't think of any way we could add prose the moves section and the championships are already covered in the article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another comment re improvement of article

message: I am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 19, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: The article is well written and seems to meet all of the criteria for promotion to a good article. It complies with the Manual of Style.
:2. Factually accurate?: The article is very well referenced and contains no unsourced statements.
:3. Broad in coverage?: The article covers the topic well and in a good level of depth.
:4. Neutral point of view?: I can't see anything that would be considered to breach the Neutrality policies.
:5. Article stability? This was the only criteria that I really had any concerns about, and opted to pass the article with the understanding that if the article is the subject of edit warring or continuous editing with unsourced rumours etc, it can always be delisted. It's stable enough for the moment to pass it.
:6. Images?: The images used all comply with the Image Policies.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. 
— Pursey Talk | Contribs 06:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination