Revision as of 19:58, 7 July 2006 editY2kcrazyjoker (talk | contribs)421 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:09, 7 July 2006 edit undoCrabcan (talk | contribs)290 edits →Locking the articleNext edit → | ||
Line 418: | Line 418: | ||
== Locking the article == | == Locking the article == | ||
I REALLY think this article should be locked. Some stupid fanboys keep adding the most irrevelent of details, like the color eyeliner, boots, and tights he wears on what seems like a week by week basis. Furthermore, the article keep reverting to a tone that makes it sound like it was written by the 5 year old son of a WWE writer (ie: "It was at Royal Rumble where the Undertaker would would face the most feared wrestler in the world, the 7-foot beast known as Kane, in a match that can only be described as sickening: The Hell in a Cell. Such a twisted structure had seen the most brutal of fights, bla bla bla.....!!!") And the version of the article that keeps being reverted to is not separated into paragraphs, but rather blocks of text that span multiple pages and don't have any subtitles/divisions. This is all fine and dandy if you run a fanboy website, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It would probably be in everyone's best interest if we prevented these people from editing the article anymore. ] 05:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Line 425: | Line 424: | ||
Y2KCRAZYJOKER I made u a page. go read it bitch | Y2KCRAZYJOKER I made u a page. go read it bitch | ||
Your IP and account are logged, by the way, so you aren't anonymous. I would suspect you won't be allowed to edit articles from here on out. ] 19:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:09, 7 July 2006
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Undertaker article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
Professional wrestling Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
This professional wrestling article is a frequent target for editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of storyline events, unconfirmed information, rumors, and other content inappropriate to an encyclopedic article. Please make sure to familiarize yourself with what Misplaced Pages is not, and consider whether your additions to this article will serve to make the article larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar. |
This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}.
Undertaker's height and weight
6'5? Are you smoking crack? Wow, ok ive seen this guy live ringside, and he is a lot bigger than 6'5. He is more like 6'8. Hes like Kane, he wears padded heels in his boots. -Undertakerlives
6'10? Whoever put that in was smoking crack. The guy's only like 6'5 1/2 - wrestling stats are complete lies.
Undie is two inches shorter that Nash, and Nash legit height is 6'9. I would guestimate Undie is 6'7. The WWE stats are rubbish tho, yes.(Halbared 13:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC))
Shouldn't some differentiation be made between the Undertaker's real height and weight and his billed height and weight? His billed WWE stats are 6ft 10 ins and 305 lbs (not 328, ignore WWE.com, they just haven't bothered to update his Superstar page! If you listen to the ring announcer when the Undertaker is making his way to the ring, he quite clearly says 305 lbs). However, in real life, he is in actual fact only 6ft 8 ins and 280 lbs. Luke Edhouse 02:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
The weight sounds accurate, he is in the best shape he has been in for years. Where did you get the height from?(Halbared 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC))
Actually, he's legitimately 305 lbs, but his real height is 6'8". Trosk 21:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
He isn't legitimately 305 lbs at all Trosk, it is a known fact that WWE exaggerate both the height and weight of their talent to make them appear bigger. Although the Undertaker is billed as being 6' 10" and 305 lbs, Calaway is in fact only 6' 8" and 280-285 lbs (it fluctuates slightly from time to time obviously, but he tends to remain in the 280-285 pound region these days). Luke Edhouse 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
How would you know his real weight? You work for him? Trosk 15:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- To Trosk: No, I do not work for him, but "Toxxic", a top wrestling magazine often features listings of wrestlers' real heights and weights as opposed to what the wrestling promotions bill them as. In WWE, for example, the general rule is that in certain cases, 2 inches are added on to a talent's height and 20-30 pounds is added on to a talent's weight to make them appear even larger than they already are. In the Undertaker's case, his WWE weight is 305 lbs, however, his real weight is in the region of 285 lbs (as reported in Toxxic). Also, although you'll come across a few discrepencies on the Internet, if you check out one of the top, most reliable unofficial Undertaker websites PhenomForever.com, it backs this up based on real wrestling data information sources as opposed to 'manufactured' ones I guess you could call them.
Well to be acturate the undertaker is 6' 11 and a half and i know this because i have a picture take with him and i with a height chart behind us but he's out of his undertaker get up just dressed normal before the match this was taken in 1997 in toronto . and i am pretty sure his boots cant have that much padding, but i could be wrong
- How tall would that make Kevin Nash? Or Paul Wright? I personally think that Undie is not even 6 ft 8 in, but it is more accurate than 6 ft 11 in I think.(Halbared 07:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
P.S. I recommend this Undertaker website to everyone, it is one of the best Undertaker websites you'll find and your ultimate #1 Undertaker resource on the Intetnet. Luke Edhouse 00:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Luke, stop plugging that stupid phenom site on here. How the hell would they know any of his "true" stats anyhow? .Undertakerlives
Actually The Undertaker is 6'11 305 lbs. I had a picture with him at the Wrestlemania Rage party the day before Wrestlemania XV and he was clearly a foot taller than i was. Back in 1998, They billed the Undertaker as 7 feet 328 lbs. But his correct height is 6'11. He's definitly not 6'5 because Test is 6'7-6'8 and when Undertaker fought him at Summerslam 2002, he was about 4 inches taller. If you actually saw when The Great Khali and The Undertaker stood face to face, you can tell Khali was 4 inches taller at 7'3. This person needs to get his facts straight
- Test is not more than 6 ft 5 in. I estimate that Undie is not above 6 ft 7 in.(Halbared 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC))
Kane and the Undertaker are the same height at 6'11. If you saw the match at Wrestlemania XX, you can see they are the same height. Kane WAS taller than the Undertaker in 1998 with his mask because they used more than 1 kane. The Kane with 2 sleeves had tatoos. The "fake" Kane now is not the same kane as in 199. The Undertaker is 6'11. Both of us had pictures with him
Kane is taller than Undie!
Birth date
The last editor has sent detailed information to verify the change of birth date which is quoted (incorrectly) as 1962 by several sources including IMDb. I won't paste his email here, but the information is available if needed. I've also invited him to this page to add any comments that would help. -- sannse (talk) 22:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The information sannse is refering to is an e-mail which was sent to me from the website administrator at Waltrip High School's website, the high school which Calaway attended as a teenager. The webmaster confirmed details that Mark's surname is spelt "Calaway" (note: just one 'L') and that he graduated from the Class of 1983 aged 18, born March 24, 1965. As sannse said, whilst the information is not posted here but it is indeed available if needed. -- Luke Edhouse 01:31, 28 Jan 2005
The original e-mail correspondance sent and received between myself and the Webmaster of Waltrip High School's website which outlines and confirms Mark Calaway's name spelling and date of birth is below:
Forwarded Message
Subject: RE: Waltrip High School Website Date: 28/09/2004 14:16:44 GMT Standard Time From: rlipham@houstonisd.org To: LukeEdhouse@aol.com
I stand corrected. The correct spelling is indeed Calaway. I was a metal shop teacher at the time and had him in my class. He was a real quiet but pleasant kid. As far as his age you are correct to guess that he would have been 18 at his graduation in 1983. So yes he must have been born in March 1965.
Richard Lipham
Original Message
From: LukeEdhouse@aol.com Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 9:04 AM To: Lipham, Richard W Subject: Waltrip High School Website
Dear Webmaster
I was reading the Waltrip High School website and on the Waltrip Trivia page, I came across this:
"The professional wrestler known as The Undertaker graduated from Waltrip in 1983 as Mark Calloway. He was a member of the basketball team."
I knew that "The Undertaker" had attended Waltrip High School and I've researched and written some information for a # 1 Biography site and Internet resoucre on the Undertaker/Mark Calaway www.Undertaker-WWE.com
One thing I wanted to query is that I was under the impression that his surname was spelt 'Calaway' not 'Calloway' i.e. you said that he graduated as 'Mark Calloway' in 1983 but in the basketball team photo you have put on site, his surname is listed as 'Calaway'. Would you be able to clear up any confusion on that matter at all?
Also, lastly, if Mark Calaway graduated from Waltrip in 1983, does that mean he was 18-years-old in 1983, i.e. born in 1965?
Any information you would be able to respond to would be fantastic and greatly appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Luke Edhouse
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Luke_Edhouse"
Sit up sig move?
I was just wondering since only Undertaker and Kane get up from being knocked down by chair shots etc in the 'sit up' manner could it be considered a signature move? Or for that would it have to be an actual 'attack'? Night Bringer
An update on the date of birth issue
I sent IMDb.com the detailed and reliable information on Mark Calaway's date of birth being March 24, 1965 and NOT 1962 but they aren't interested. So, a note to all readers of this page would be to just ignore IMDb's date of birth entry because, A. Not only is it wrong, but, B. They are unwilling to change it, as you can from the message they sent to me below:
Re: Mark Calaway's date of birth by - IMDb Help Desk (21 Apr 2005 11:22:39 AM)
Hello
Thanks for your message.
There are many 'official' sources giving different dates of birth for Mark, however we are satisfied that ours is correct and will not be changing it unless we receive communication from Mark himself.
Many thanks
Regards, Alex The IMDb Help Desk
- What's your source that's more accurate than theirs? NightShade 01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, IMDb even told me that their information wasn't gained from either Mark Calaway or the WWE, but is the information as posted by an IMDb member. There are lots of sources to corroborate that Calaway was born in 1965, do you want me to list them all here? For a start, he was 18 when he grdauated from Waltrip High School in 1983, do the math and you can work out what year hw would have been born. The evidence/source for that statement has already been posted on this discussion page. Luke Edhouse 23:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment
Hello, I thought I'd like to add my own bit to the mystique that is Undertaker.
The Undertaker is one of the Only WWE Characters (Then the WWF), to act in a Bollywood movie, Khiladiyon Ke Khiladi.
The actor Akshay Kumar, who is a martial arts exponent, is said to have hurt his back while lifting Undertaker high in the air, apparently for a extended bodyslam. Akshay Kumar was out of business, for six months.
- I'm not sure why you posted this on the talk page. Do you want to add this to the article? --Chrysaor June 30, 2005 21:36 (UTC)
This is incorrect. According to Percy Pringle III the real Undertaker, Mark Calaway, did NOT appear in that movie. It was a faker and was falsely billed. Dragon December 24, 2005
Old School
The base move of Old School is Flying Shoulder Breaker, not Flying Clothesline. It does look like Flying Clothesline but in fact the Undertaker is targetting the shoulder blades instead of the back of neck. And after he does the move, sometimes the victim would grab his shoulder and stalk in pain.
yeah is the undertaker a bjj studier too? bjj07
"redneck biker"?
Is that NPOV? Ctrl-F for it, you'll see it... ;-) --Jack (Cuervo) 8 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
Don't believe so, since I think he self-identified as a redneck a few times.
Article size
I see that Undertaker's article, and the articles of other WWE superstars get constantly updated, pretty much after every RAW or Smackdown show, not to mention PPV's. Should we really do it? The article is gargantuan as it is now, and I don't think that Taker's feud with Orton should be described with every new development of it... I think that all of those articles should be trimmed. (DuDe)
- what i noticed (which i also do) after some time people shorten the paragraphs as they type up new ones
Photo Request
I think a nice picture of Undertaker from the early 90s should be added to this page.
Clean up
This article needs to be cleaned up - the sections need to be summarized and there's some cluttered lists near the end of it. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Last Name Spelling
This is a point I feel great need to redress. In Journey into Darkness, Mark's last name is spelled Callaway. Given that the book was published by WWE books, and the fact that the WWE obviously had some control over this, I feel that continuously removing my edit that pointsa out that the double l spelling of Callaway may be accurate to be in poor taste and I ask that it be stopped. -- Warwolf
- This has been addressed here before. See the e-mail exchange at the beginning of the talk page - that pretty much settled the matter about the spelling. Just because the book is published by WWE, doesn't mean that the facts presented in it hold any water. Tales from Wrescal Lane and Mick Foley's Christmas Chaos were published by WWE as well - that doesn't mean we can make inferences based on them. If Journey into Darkness was a real-life biography, then it would be a more authoritative source. Considering that this book is a fictional account about the history of the Kane and Undertaker characters, it's not a good idea to make inferences based on it. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I hardly think the e-mail exchange "settled" the matter. Why would a website administrator be absolutely certain about the precise spelling of the surname of a pupil who graduated twenty years earlier? Moreover, why would WWE deliberately spell his name only slightly incorrectly? McPhail 09:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I assumed it was settled considering no one has changed the blurb about the other spellings being incorrect. Look at the Yearbook photo. A real high school yearbook is far more reliable than a work of fiction. Despite being published by WWE, the book on Kane has its share of continuity problems with WWE storylines (See Glen Jacobs#Journey into Darkness). If we want to continue to speculate, the author may have also misspelled the name as well. I'll take the word of someone who actually had the guy in his class and a high school yearbook over using speculation about a work of fiction. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, the yearbook picture is pretty conclusive proof. McPhail 17:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I assumed it was settled considering no one has changed the blurb about the other spellings being incorrect. Look at the Yearbook photo. A real high school yearbook is far more reliable than a work of fiction. Despite being published by WWE, the book on Kane has its share of continuity problems with WWE storylines (See Glen Jacobs#Journey into Darkness). If we want to continue to speculate, the author may have also misspelled the name as well. I'll take the word of someone who actually had the guy in his class and a high school yearbook over using speculation about a work of fiction. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I hardly think the e-mail exchange "settled" the matter. Why would a website administrator be absolutely certain about the precise spelling of the surname of a pupil who graduated twenty years earlier? Moreover, why would WWE deliberately spell his name only slightly incorrectly? McPhail 09:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I also remember seeing his father's obituary in the online version of the Houston Chronicle (followed a link from a wrestling site), and the name there was Calaway as well. — Dale Arnett 17:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Taker goes by "Callaway" in Shawn Michaels' new book. Just putting it out there. Maestro25 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, people can argue about the surname spelling issue as much as they want. I accept the fact that in several WWE affiliated publications Calaway's name has actually been spelt "Callaway", I'm not sure why that is. I could list a whole number of instances where is has been spelt "Calaway", whether it be on the closing credits of the 1991 movie "Suburban Commando", on the A&E Biography documentary on Mick Foley, on Percy Pringle's official website, his father's obituary in the Houston Chronicle newspaper, his High School Yearbook basketball team photo, the original e-mail from the Waltrip High School website administrator who was also one of Calaway's teachers who checked records to confirm the information. Right, I've listed all of my sources, not that it's made me feel any better. If you want to dispute the name spelling then do so, I have just as many reasonably reliable sources of information as other people claim to. There will be cynical people who will probably laugh or throw accusations of lying, but the less immature people who will have the decency to believe that I am not immature enough to lie over something so trivial may be interested to know I have a friend in the United States who has also checked official records of registered births in 1965 in Houston, Texas and "Mark Calaway" spelt "Calaway" (born March 24, 1965, father Frank and mother Catherine) is one of the names listed. Why the spelling of "Callaway" crops up in certain WWE related material I do not know, just as I do not know why some people also reference and claim "Calloway" to be the correct spelling when it is not.
- Regards,
- Sorry, in my description of the revert back to "Mark William Calaway", I typed "Callaway" by mistake, didn't mean for there to be two L's.
- Luke Edhouse 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The IMDB has now changed The Undertaker's entry to "Mark Calaway". McPhail 15:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you notice in the Biography of the Undertaker's/Mark Calaway's IMDB profile by clicking on the "More" link, they have his birth name listed as "Mark Lucas Callaway" which is completely wrong and based on information sent in by a fan. His middle name is not Lucas and the spelling of Calaway has one letter L not two. The same issue exists with his date of birth which has been listed as March 24, 1962 since the profile was first set up and information was added by, yes, you guessed it, just a fan. I have contacted them several times with the supporting evidence I have to corroborate that Calaway's birth name indeed only contains one L, that there is no documented or substantiated proof that his middle name is Lucas and that it is in fact Mark William Calaway according to official birth records for Houston, Texas in 1965 and that he was born in 1965 not 1962 but they refuse to change it and say they are no longer accepting edits to Mark Calaway's personal details unless they come from Mark himself or his agent. Luke Edhouse 02:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
To support the spelling with 1 L: His close friend and colleague Percy Pringle (aka Paul Bearer) spells his name as Calaway on his website: http://percypringle.com/Hall-of-Fame/HOF-Undertaker.html
Ericinho, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Others
Who removed the 2 Undertaker pics I posted on the "Return of the deadman" part. And why!?
- Possibly they were unlicensed? McPhail 17:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge "Incarnations" with WWE/F Section
Can someone merge the Incarnations section with the WWE/F so that the page can be organized and it takes up space.
Appearances
Shouldnt there be some mention of his guest appearances? Such as his bounty hunter role in Hulk Hogans movie, Suburban Commando? --GimpyTheGreat 09:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Ring Name At WWF Debut And Subsequent Appearances
The name used for Mark Calaway at Survivor Series 1990 was The Undertaker . For a brief time in late 1990/early 1991, he was billed on WWF TV as Kane, The Undertaker. The "Kane" portion was dropped after Brother Love was replaced as his manager by Paul Bearer. - Chadbryant 20:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure he wasn't hailed as Kane the Undertaker at Survivors? Halb
I'll back up Chad. It was just "The Undertaker" at SS. I checked the video today. BoosterBronze 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)BoosterBronze
Nope. The Ring Announcer said "Kane, The Undertaker" http://youtube.com/watch?v=dAK6jrjp1Ko Proof's in the pudding.
Both videos have been removed at YouTube, but I can assure you he was introduced as "The Undertaker" at Survivor Series. If the second video had a ring announcer announcing him as "Kane the Undertaker", it could not have been at his debut. He was not introduced by a ring announcer; he was introduced by Ted DiBiase on the house mic. I have it on tape, and DiBiase clearly says: "I give you: THE UNDERTAKER!" He was, for a short time thereafter, billed as "Kane the Undertaker" (as others have stated); so if the video has an announcer introducing him that way, it was from a smaller show after the Survivor Series. Tuckdogg 04:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Link to his Debut: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQbX13hDTLo&search=undertaker. Link will probably be dead before long. Just search for "Undertaker" at YouTube and you can generally find it posted somewhere. If it's not an introduction by Ted DiBiase (with commentary by Gorilla Monsoon and Roddy Piper), it's the wrong video. Tuckdogg 04:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Article Size
This article is a frequent target for unregistered or new editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of the subject's in-ring career. This is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. More experienced good-faith editors should watch for irrelevant additions to this article that will only serve to make it larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar. - Chadbryant 20:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Children?
Are those the true names of his two daughters? Just wondering.And does he have another child with his ex-wife? Just wondering. User:MgHoneyBee Mar.23,2006
- Yes, Chasey and Gracie are indeed the names of his two daughters with his wife Sara. He does have another child from his previous marriage, a son, born in 1994. Some websites and other sources report that Calaway has two sons from his first marriage, but there is only documented evidence for him having one son and when Percy Pringle (aka Paul Bearer) was once asked about this, he stated that the Undertaker has only one son from his marriage to ex-wife Jodi Lynn. Luke Edhouse 01:57, 1 April 2006
Thanks! Do you know the name of his son? User:MgHoneyBee Apr.2,2006
I'm pretty sure his son's name is Gunner. User:Undertakerlives
I'm not 100% sure of his son's name. Some websites report him having two sons, but I've only been made aware of one son, which was information shared by Percy Pringle (Paul Bearer). The only site to list a name for his son(s) has been IMDb.com, others have since copied the information and put it on their own websites. I would agree with User:Undertakerlives and say that his son's name is Gunner, but due to the rather unreliable nature of IMDd.com's information regarding Mark Calaway has come to light, I can't back that up.
Name change
Can't we move the article to The Undertaker for the same reasons as Triple H, Steve Austin, and The Rock? He has spent 16 years under that same ring name. Maestro25 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Name varification
I do not think that the WWE is lieing about his name The Undertaker but his real name is Mark Calloway because I tried to look him up under that name it poped up a lot of stuff on him and now they have changed his birth name. Furthermore, I know they can lie about the weight but I could see them making a mistake on the height though but I do not think that doctors know everything to the absolute fact on height and weight. If anybody has something to say you can email it to me under TripleTrinity06@sbcglobal.net or if you guys have a way to contact Mark himself give me a contact based upon his email or what not!
Sexystudd2010 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Tony
- Actually, the information about the spelling on his name was obtained in an e-mail exchange with one of his high school teachers. It's posted here on the talk page if you'd like to see it yourself. As for height and weight, a variety of sources are used. For example, Powerslam magazine, which is less likely to use kayfabe heights than sources like WWE.com. Another source is people who go to see live events, where they can properly compare heights of wrestlers, and themselves.
Is there a source that states that Mark's middles name is William? I haven't found anything yet. Thanks. User:MgHoneyBee Apr.2,2006
Calaway's surname and date of birth
I have received a message from Misplaced Pages asking me to post this information again for some reason, so here it is - it's just the same information which was posted previously on the Mark Calaway discussion page....
The original e-mail correspondance sent and received between myself and the Webmaster of Waltrip High School's website which outlines and confirms Mark Calaway's name spelling and date of birth is below:
---Forwarded Message---
Subject: RE: Waltrip High School Website
Date: 28/09/2004 14:16:44 GMT Standard Time
From: rlipham@houstonisd.org
To: LukeEdhouse@aol.com
I stand corrected. The correct spelling is indeed Calaway. I was a metal shop teacher at the time and had him in my class. He was a real quiet but pleasant kid. As far as his age you are correct to guess that he would have been 18 at his graduation in 1983. So yes he must have been born in March 1965.
Richard Lipham
---Original Message---
From: LukeEdhouse@aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 9:04 AM
To: Lipham, Richard W
Subject: Waltrip High School Website
Dear Webmaster
I was reading the Waltrip High School website and on the Waltrip Trivia page, I came across this:
"The professional wrestler known as The Undertaker graduated from Waltrip in 1983 as Mark Calloway. He was a member of the basketball team."
I knew that "The Undertaker" had attended Waltrip High School and I've researched and written some information for a # 1 Biography site and Internet resoucre on the Undertaker/Mark Calaway www.Undertaker-WWE.com
One thing I wanted to query is that I was under the impression that his surname was spelt 'Calaway' not 'Calloway' i.e. you said that he graduated as 'Mark Calloway' in 1983 but in the basketball team photo you have put on site, his surname is listed as 'Calaway'. Would you be able to clear up any confusion on that matter at all?
Also, lastly, if Mark Calaway graduated from Waltrip in 1983, does that mean he was 18-years-old in 1983, i.e. born in 1965?
Any information you would be able to respond to would be fantastic and greatly appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Luke Edhouse
Luke Edhouse 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Mark's WM stick!
Mark is the mose Wester sines Bret "The Hitman" Hart his 14 stink Jimmy Snuka to Mark Henry!
- SMX
- Sure, why not. Bcarlson33 23:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well sure, most of them do, but you still have the Jake the Snake, Diesel, Kane (first one), HHH, Ric Flair amd Randy Orton matches.(Halbared 09:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC))
Grammar
Which statement sounds better?
He went on to continue targeting WWF Champion Triple H, the leader of faction.
or
He went on to continue targeting their leader, WWF Champion Triple H.
Dbalsdon 13:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
the second one sounds way better
Never Submitted?
Taker never submitting is a bit of a misleading statement, in that while he has never cleanly tapped out to my knowledge, he has submitted to Angle as part of a draw, from Obbsessed with wrestling...
July 4, 2002 - Smackdown!: The Undertaker vs Kurt Angle ended in a NO CONTEST -- Undertaker retains! 220.239.241.191Kurt Angle had put a Triangle Chokehold on Undertaker, who tapped out just as the ref counted Angle's shoulders down.. 220.239.241.191After the confused referee discussed it with other referees, he declared the match----a DRAW! I'm gonna change it to "Undertaker has never lost a match via submission"
Undertaker has lost via submissiom(Halbared 07:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC))
When?
OK, I feel a bit amis not being able to give a date and time, but I simply can't recall that exactly, but when he was the Bad Ass character I remember him submitting, sorry I can't give details.(Halbared 08:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC))
PPV Wins
Not that it's really relevant enough to be in the article, but Undertaker has more wins on PPV than any other wrestler(he's won 75 matches). TJ Spyke 01:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
That's unique, and certainly sounds relevant to me. PhilTLL 03:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds pretty relevant to me as well. It's an obscure, interesting little bit of information. Certainly isn't gonna hurt the article to have it included. It'd probably fit best, however, if the article had a trivia section.Odin's Beard 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Did someone move the page?
Why is this page now called "The undertaker"? If someone moved it, the least they could have done was capitalize "undertaker." Poofyspikes 00:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
WHO CHANGED THE PICTURE
WHO WAS SILLY ENOUGH TO CHANGE THE PHOTO TO WON YOU CAN BARELY SEE UNDERTAKER IN. A VERY SILLY PICTURE. USE ONE WITH JUST HIM SOMEONE PLEAE CHANGE IT.
- Yeah - I don't like the choice of picture either. It is free and it does have the Undertaker in it, but whether it's a suitable free alternative to a good fair use picture is debatable. The one being used for Batista is OK, as is the one used for Hulk Hogan. This one is far too cluttered, with a huge crowd and several WWE performers in the picture. I think it should be changed as well. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Cropped it to show only the Undertaker. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
Mark Calaway → The Undertaker – Calaway has performed under the stage/ring name of The Undertaker for over 15 years, making this move comply with WP:NAME. --Oakster 14:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Survey
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Support The most successful gimmick wrestler ever, he will never change his name.(Halbared 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC))
- Support. McPhail 18:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Support, better known by the gimmick name.Oppose Actually, the gimmick name is owned by WWE, not Mark Calaway, wrestlers should only be under gimmick names if they own them. --Dubhagan 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)- Oppose. There is a large precedent for using wrestlers' real names as their wikipedia articles and, although Calaway is highly unlikely to gain wrestling acclaim under any other name and will likely be known as the undertaker to most people, this article is foremost about the person (hence the "shoot" information and discussion of his life outside of his character), and secondary about the character gimmick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemcarlson (talk • contribs)
- Oppose Luke Edhouse 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Davemcarlson. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support. WP:PW should go with ring names whenever they can - both to maintain kayfabe and to comply with WP:NC. kelvSYC 06:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Davemcarlson and the reasons I stated more fully here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Mike_Plotcheck#Discussion. Individual wrestlers should *never* be indexed under their character names. Tuckdogg 23:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, 15+ years as Undertaker and hardly anyone would know his real name.Maestro25 04:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support He is most known by that name and many wrestlers have said that he answers primarily by that name outside of the ring.--Darren Jowalsen 18:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - The only time I think a wrestler should have a wikipedia article under their gimmick name is if they have only wrestled under that name in any of the big promotions (WWE/WCW/ECW/TNA; any other big international fed including ones in asia and other areas). Mark Calaway has wrestled under other gimmicks names (for example as Mean Mark Callous in WCW) and therfore should be indexed by his real name. On a side I agree with Davemcarlson's idea that this is about Mark Calaway mainly and not the wrestling gimmick the undertaker. JohnstonDJ 17:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Why shouldn't wrestlers be allowed to be listed under their ring name? People like Snoop Dogg aren't listed under their real name. TJ Spyke 21:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: That depends on your viewpoint of things. My point (and the point others have made) is that, with wrestlers, there is a disconnect between the character (Undertaker) and the man playing him (Mark Calaway). They're acting, and their characters are not really any different than characters played by anyone else on TV. Kurt Angle is not really an arrogant prick; Mark Calaway is not an animated corpse; Mark Henry is not actually a 400lb. sex addict. They're just playing characters. The articles written here, for the most part, are not about the history of the character. The articles are about the man (or woman) behind the character. Sometimes, like with Kurt Angle or Mark Henry, the character name and real name are the same, so there isn't really a problem. When they're not, such as here, the article should be indexed under the real name, since that's the focus of the article. If someone wants to write a kayfabe article discussing the history of The Undertaker from a storyline perspective, I'd wholeheartedly endorse putting that under "Undertaker (wrestling)". But an article that discusses Mark Calaway's marriage, his children, his past in WCW and the characters he played there, etc. should not be indexed under "Undertaker" because it's not about that character. It's about Calaway the man, and should be under his own name. Just because other wrestlers customarily call someone by a readily recognizable character name ('Taker for Calaway, Cactus for Mick Foley, etc.) doesn't mean we need to ignore Misplaced Pages's status as an encyclopedic resource. Tuckdogg 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Oh, (duh), Snoop Doog. There's a difference between a stage name and a character name. Snoop Dogg selected that name for his rapping because it was more interesting than his own name. Nothing has changed about him, he just signs a different name. It's like an author using a pen name; same person, different name. They aren't playing a role, they've just changed their name for the public. Wrestlers, on the other hand, are playing characters. They act out the roles they've been given on television for entertainment purposes. These may sometimes closely resemble their real life personalities, but they are just taking the actions the script writers tell them to. Snoop can't go on MTV, shoot someone, and then tell the cops, "Dude, that was just my character Snoop. I was acting!" Mark Calaway can dress up like a zombie and bury his opponents in caskets and no one thinks, "Man, that Mark Calaway guy is strange." The actions are atributed to the character, not the man. That's the disconnect, and that's why the vast majority of wrestlers should not be indexed under their character names. Tuckdogg 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - we should use his true name.--Aldux 22:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Most people know him as The Undertaker. Simple as that in my opinion.--Yugioh73036 03:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Yugioh73036
- Oppose - While Calaway is best known for wrestling as The Undertaker, that would be like moving Richard Dean Anderson to Angus MacGyver -Darryl Hamlin 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments
Personally, I really don't think it's that important. If you search for "The Undertaker" it redirects you straight to the Mark Calaway page anyway. Although "The Undertaker" is the name Calaway is best known by, some would argue that it is common for most professional wrestlers' Misplaced Pages pages to be listed under their real names. Some may also argue that the pre-WWE career, biographical and personal information pertain to the man Mark Calaway as opposed to just the Undertaker character. I personally believe it's fine leaving it as Mark Calaway with a redirect from The Undertaker, but if majority of people here really want it changed to The Undertaker, then sobeit, I'll support that decision simply because I don't really care that much to be honest. Luke Edhouse 01:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is important - putting it at "The Undertaker" gives a little too much creedence to kayfabe, when we should be focusing the real man himself. There's a smaller gap between say, Chris Jericho and Chris Irvine than Undertaker and Mark Calaway. The Undertaker is an undead, supernatural character while Mark Calaway is a mortal guy. While the "American Badass" gimmick shortened the gap somewhat, he's returned to old character since and will mainly be associated with that gimmick. This is why I oppose the move. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- On a related note - this was raised with Chris Jericho and someone proposing to move it to Chris Irvine. It didn't apply there because the gap between the character and real life wasn't as large, but moving Mark Calaway to the Undertaker would sort of be like moving Patrick Stewart to Jean-Luc Picard. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, perhaps I'm being to unempowered and giving in in order to perhaps keep the majority happy, if it is indeed the majority? Hmm... in that case, instead of being flippant and not really caring, I'll go with what was my personal gut feeling and oppose the move as opposed to just supporting it for the hell of it. Luke Edhouse 00:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- On a related note - this was raised with Chris Jericho and someone proposing to move it to Chris Irvine. It didn't apply there because the gap between the character and real life wasn't as large, but moving Mark Calaway to the Undertaker would sort of be like moving Patrick Stewart to Jean-Luc Picard. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- A wrestling gimmick is different than a part played by an actor. Many wrestlers on here are under their gimmick name (Alex Shelley, Chris Sabin, Eric Young, Sting, Axl Rotten, Danny Doring, C.W. Anderson, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Balls Mahoney, Al Snow, Juventud Guerrera, Tazz, Rob Van Dam, Ric Flair... Need I mention more?). And according to Misplaced Pages's naming conventions, we should use the name they are best known by, which in this case is his gimmick name. --Dubhagan 03:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, wrestling gimmicks are different from actors, but they still shouldn't be confused with each other. Those other cases are exceptions, where the distinction doesn't matter as much. However, I hold that the difference between "The Undertaker" and Mark Calaway" is extremely large - particularly because because the Undertaker is an "undead" character while Calaway is regular man. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree; wrestling characters are EXACTLY like other TV characters played by actors. The only difference is that wrestling used to try and maintain kayfabe. Kayfabe is largely dead now; the only real vestiges of it remaining is the tendency to refer to the wrestlers by their character names instead of their real names (e.g. most other wrestlers call Mick Foley "Cactus" instead of Mick). The two should be kept separate in an encyclopedic resource. Check out imdb.com, another reference site, which indexes all wrestlers under their real names and lists their stage names as the "characters" they play on TV (as it should). I don't consider this an issue of indexing them under their "most commonly known name", because the character and the person playing them are completely different (even if we confuse them). I read an interview with a wrestler once that summed the distinction up perfectly: "Steve Austin is the one on TV raising hell. Steve Williams cashes the paychecks." Tuckdogg 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, wrestling gimmicks are different from actors, but they still shouldn't be confused with each other. Those other cases are exceptions, where the distinction doesn't matter as much. However, I hold that the difference between "The Undertaker" and Mark Calaway" is extremely large - particularly because because the Undertaker is an "undead" character while Calaway is regular man. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- A wrestling gimmick is different than a part played by an actor. Many wrestlers on here are under their gimmick name (Alex Shelley, Chris Sabin, Eric Young, Sting, Axl Rotten, Danny Doring, C.W. Anderson, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Balls Mahoney, Al Snow, Juventud Guerrera, Tazz, Rob Van Dam, Ric Flair... Need I mention more?). And according to Misplaced Pages's naming conventions, we should use the name they are best known by, which in this case is his gimmick name. --Dubhagan 03:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would also say that if the wrestlers noted above are all indexed currently by their character names, they should be moved, and not the other way around. Tuckdogg 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I think about it, ownership of name should be taken into consideration. --Dubhagan 05:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Cain or Kane
If I remember correctly, Cain was the correct spelling of the name when he was wrestling early on in the WWF/E. They just recycled it with the spelling "Kane" for Glen Jacobs. If anyone can shed light on which spelling is correct, like with a video with him labeled as "Cain" or "Kane" would help. MB 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- As per Obsessed with Wrestling it's spelt Kane. --- Lid 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can you give a link to the scan? MB 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the official US Patent and Trademark Office website, showing the transcript of a trademark application for the name "Kane The Undertaker" filed by WWE back in 1990 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pbk290.2.1. Hope that clears the issue up. Luke Edhouse 01:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- The link is broken, but I searched for it myself and found that "Kane the Undertaker" was indeed trademarked by the WWF/E. I could have sworn seeing a video of one of his matches where it said "Cain the Undertaker" though. MB 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's possible. WWE sometimes play around with names right at the beginning. An examples of this is Ludwig Borge/Ludvig Borga.(Halbared 09:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC))
- The link is broken, but I searched for it myself and found that "Kane the Undertaker" was indeed trademarked by the WWF/E. I could have sworn seeing a video of one of his matches where it said "Cain the Undertaker" though. MB 09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Here is a link to the official US Patent and Trademark Office website, showing the transcript of a trademark application for the name "Kane The Undertaker" filed by WWE back in 1990 http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pbk290.2.1. Hope that clears the issue up. Luke Edhouse 01:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well what I say isn't the be all and end all obviously, but I've never come across any videos where the Undertaker's name was spelt "Cain the Undertaker", I've only ever seen one which said "Kane the Undertaker", however, even when the ring announcer would announce him as "Kane the Undertaker" most of the time his name flashed up as just "The Undertaker". The only thing I will say about the Ludwig/Ludvig example, is that's a more commonly occuring spelling variation of the name because of the name's origin. However, another example of this would be Dennis Knight's name Midian/Mideon - WWE used "Midian" before deciding to go with the "Mideon" spelling. Anyway, "Kane the Undertaker" was the only trademark name that WWE registered in 1990, they never filed a "Cain the Undertaker" trademark. P.S. Apologies for the broken link - not my fault, it seems that the US Patent and Trademark Office's website doesn't allow links to pages to be stored. Still, as MB said, you can search for it yourself at http://www.uspto.gov/ and you'll find it. Luke Edhouse 15:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can you give a link to the scan? MB 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- They changed the Ludvig thing so that it was spelt phonetically. I had forgotten aboot the Mideon one, I was trying to remember Bastion Booger, tho am not sure on that one.(Halbared 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC))
- It was actually more because of where Ludvig Borga was announced from - Helsinki, Finland. "Ludwig" is a famous German version of the name spelt with a 'w' (e.g. Ludwig van Beethoven) but "Ludvig" is a more common Scandinavian version of then name spelt with a 'v'. As for the Borge/Borga bit, well, I'll shut up because I don't know, hahaha. Luke Edhouse 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- They changed the Ludvig thing so that it was spelt phonetically. I had forgotten aboot the Mideon one, I was trying to remember Bastion Booger, tho am not sure on that one.(Halbared 15:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC))
- It's because Borge was pronounced Borga by Tony Halme (there is also a famous entertainer with the same name in the USA), even though it is spelt Borge. And I guess American (going off Websters) prefer phonetic spellings.(Halbared 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC))
- Ah, okay, I see. Sorry, I'll stop clogging up this section now, haha! :-) Luke Edhouse 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's because Borge was pronounced Borga by Tony Halme (there is also a famous entertainer with the same name in the USA), even though it is spelt Borge. And I guess American (going off Websters) prefer phonetic spellings.(Halbared 16:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC))
Punjabi Prison
Alright, who linked the "Punjabi Prison" to Casket Match. What makes you think that "Punjabi Prison" means Casket Match.
- The Punjabi Prison article was a poorly written sub-stub concerning a future (likely one-off) match about which virtually nothing is known. Given that the article, which failed to cite any sources, described the match as "like a casket match", redirecting the article to the casket match article was the logical course of action. 13:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Locking the article
I REALLY like the changes made to the article. Wow, am I impressed by the sweetie pie who made the changes. He neatly separated them into years and just did excellently. As for that loser who was saying it was separated into blocks. I erased what he wrote and I neatly created it into non blocks to shut his little punk mouth up
Y2KCRAZYJOKER I made u a page. go read it bitch