Talk:The Undertaker

Real Name

When you search for Undertaker, you will notice that there (and in the direct link to this page), his name is spelled as Calloway (incorrect), instead of Calaway (correct). Could someone please correct this. AngryFruitfly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.105.182 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nickname

Isn't one of his nicknames "The Phenom" they keep calling him it Bam123456789 (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that still relevent on here? Bam123456789 (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, just a clue in Wiki is not a forum for general discussion ;) NimiTize 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The nick-name is listed under the "Nicknames" sub-section in the "In Wrestling" section. Mayankeagle (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Week by week

I was just reading Calaway's career biography, and it's littered with week-by-week info. Someone should clean it up and leave only the most important information, as Calaway's career is long enough as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstebbins (talk • contribs) 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should we keep it short? i think the more we add new informatin the better this article will look, besides, almost all his matches are very inportant and too personal to be left behind undocumented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.48.82 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the bigger it is the more messed up it gets. but the article is a pretty good one and, I think that it should be extended.Altenhofen (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

double chokeslam

Just finished watching Smackdown and saw Taker do a double chokeslam on Hawkins and Ryder. Was wondering if he has ever done it before and if not it might be worth mentioning. He has tried to do it quite often but I don't think I remember him ever actually succeeding before68.164.85.197 (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC) callum sturt

He has done it before. I'm pretty sure about that. It was a match he had with these two guys but I forgot their names. At some point of that particular match, The Undertaker was able to deliver a double Chokeslam.--96.232.48.82 (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It has happened several times before. The first one which I remember seeing was in 1997 or 1998 where he gave a double chokeslam to Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels simultaneously, one with each hand. Mayankeagle (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is The Last Ride before the chokeslam

The Undertaker uses the chokeslam more than The Last Ride.So why is the chokeslam after it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellop115 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Hellop115 (talk)

he has done it before well after that tag team match he done it to randy orton and JBL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.80.151 (talk • contribs)

The Choke slam is a Signature, Last ride is a more POWERFUL move and is considered a FINNISHER.Altenhofen (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The Undertaker has finished many matches with a chokeslam (e.g., a recent match with Mark Henry in 2008), and he has used it much more than the last ride because the choke-slam in his arsenal right throughout the 90s. It should be listed before the last ride, just below the tombstone piledriver. Mayankeagle (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why Is Gogoplata before tombstone

Before anything, everyone knows tombstone is undertakers best finisher. It is also his number 1 finisher before gogoplata, which should actually be called the "Death Valley Vice." And gogoplata is a semi-regular finisher for the undertaker whilst tombstone is his number 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj157 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not listed by which finisher is "best". And he's used the Gogoplata more oftenly than the Tombstone to finish recently. --Kaizer13 (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

he did an double choke slam with his brother and to his brother and there was also the time last week the borthers of destruction did it to chavo and edge

by double chokeslam I meant the Undertaker chokeslammed 2 people at once by himself. When has he ever successfully done that before?68.164.85.197 (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He did it to Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels simultaneously, one with each hand (in 1997 or 1998). Mayankeagle (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the name the death valley vice, because the submission move he does is not a gogoplata, it looks similar so it can be called a modified gogoplata, however wwe.com calls it a "mysterious submission hold" so it does not have an official name. I would edit the move to "modified gogoplata" until there is an official name for it. Darcphoenix2 (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Royal rumble Streak

Undertaker won 7 Royal Rumbles in a row between 1997 and 2003. He has beaten the recored for Royal Rumble wins by 5 (Stone Cold Steve Austin with 3)

Whats your point? Also, please sign your posts! iMatthew 2008 20:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What? Taker won a SINGLE RR - 2007. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Taker has won only ONE Royal Rumble 30-Man Battle Royal; Stone Cold holds the record for most wins of that certain match with three. User:deeds619 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.68.181.138 (talk)

Table

Why is the table so horrible? WrestleMania streak one. You can't even read that shit.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, should his WrestleMania streak really be listed under WWE awards? There's people with 1-0 streaks, and they're not listed. Sure, it's small, but by the logic of this article having it, others can, too.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Undetaker's streak is unique, and no other wrestler has such a streak, it is always mentioned now in the run up to WM. It does not mean that other wrestlers will have streaks listed. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The comment part of the table looks so bad.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is notable because it is the greatest WWE record - http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/wwerecords/ Mayankeagle (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Accomplishments

Undertaker is the only Superstar to win both the WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship at WrestleMania (WWE Title at WrestleMania 13 and WWE WrestleMania 23) He's the only superstar to win the World Heavyweight Championship at two WrestleMania's and 363 days apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.187.54 (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting tidbit, but that's all it is. It's certainly not worth adding to the C&A section of the article.Odin's Beard (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Gogoplata

While the undertaker may use the gogoplata as his finishing move now, shouldn't we call it by the name that WWE uses, the "That submission maneuver". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.167.200.173 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The WWE commentators know what the move actually is, but they feign ignorance as part of getting the Undertaker over. The commentators go on about the evolution of the Undertaker. They'll talk about his leaner physical build and moves and offense that he hasn't used before like the triangle choke and the gogoplata and all that. Also, simply calling it "That submission maneuver" is kind of silly. If I were skimming over the article and saw that in there, I'd think it was vandalism.Odin's Beard (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be worth noting somewhere that it's unnamed on the show - 3pointswish (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

eventually they'll give it a name. Why not wait til then?68.164.85.197 (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

a source says that it has been dubbed The Graveyard Shift, it may not be true but i hope this helps--Hype-TDB (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you post a link to said source? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, sorry --Hype-TDB (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the name the death valley vice, because the submission move he does is not a gogoplata, it looks similar so it can be called a modified gogoplata, however wwe.com calls it a "mysterious submission hold" so it does not have an official name. I would edit the move to "modified gogoplata" until there is an official name for it. Darcphoenix2 (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Title wins.

Isn't Taker one of, if not the only person in the WWE, to win the same major title twice at two consecutive Wrestlemaina's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armedhamster (talk • contribs) 06:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably, but it's not really very notable. It's trivia, not a major accomplishment.Odin's Beard (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been one other: Steve Austin. But still not notable.LifeStroke420 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Until, or rather if ever WWE names the accomplishment something, like "Double Dip Champion" or whatever, I say no. --Kaizer13 (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a small mistake

In the Brothers of Destruction reunion (2006–2007) section, it says that Undertaker defeated Kennedy at Survivor Series 2006 but it was the other way around.

81.145.242.116 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. –LAX 01:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not Mohammad Hassan matchs not documented?

Why Shawn Daivari and Mark Copani matches are not documented? I know those matches had sensitive issues involved, but that doesn't mean it did not happened.

Everything that happened are facts, and all facts should be recorded.

Hey, you can always do it yourself. Not that I think every little feud should be included in every wrestler's article but I think it deserves mention here. --Kaizer13 (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all facts should be recorded. Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a Wikipedia policy. Only the most notable feuds and matches, which significantly contributed in his overall career, should be mentioned. Nikki311 18:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Weight

His billed weight should be changed. It was announced as 305 pounds on the 4-21-08 edition of Raw. 129.120.244.157 (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No source, no dice Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, they announced him as 299 again last night on Smackdown.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! Since a match he had before the SS vs. Khali, he dropped from 305 pounds to 299. Now, of course that's only his billed weight since his real weight is around 280 pounds, but we should follow the WWE version. They officially "own" the right to play around with Taker's info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.49.143 (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention

should it be mentioned that he has face some of wwes strongest superstars in the past 4 weeks 172.209.190.102 (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That's week-by-week and not relevant/notable/important enough to be added to the article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is dead...

Should add Backlash info and then delete when the results come in?SimonKSK (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No. We don't add future events to articles. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

THIS GUY KICKS ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.113.74 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please use this page to discuss issues withe the article. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he kicks ass, but as mentioned before Wikipedia is not a forum. Thanks, Nici. But are you sure there isn't anything we can add?SimonKSK (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure. Anything added would be week-by-week, and would be deleted almost immediately. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

'Taker vs. Batista

Although I am a strong believer of the idea of not adding week-by-week results, since this would make this article way too long (as if it isn't long enought), I think it's important to document the match between Batista and the Undertaker that took place on SmackDown! just before Backlash because this was a world-title match, therefore being important. Besides, this has happened just this month and so it's pretty fresh. Maybe, in future, when his career gets even more "complex" we can delete it!--96.232.55.218 (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

*SPOILER REMOVED*

Taker was stripped of the title at the tapings I went to tonight. Do we update this now or after it airs? Linknumbers (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source? If there is a source, then we update now. Otherwise, we don't. Cheers, SexySeaBass 05:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw it on PWInsiderelite.com. Uber-reliable website, but I don't know how reliable the independent fan who watched the event is.--Bedford 06:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. No spoilers are to be posted until SmackDown! airs on TV.--~SRS~ 14:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Spoilers are allowed if there is a reliable source! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's the exception. And Reliable source would be from WWE.com, like when Edge won the WHC, and they spoiled it for us on WWE.com.--~SRS~ 14:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I went there myself, I think thats a damn good source. Also F4W lists as such here http://www.f4wonline.com/content/view/5331/105/Linknumbers (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's a dirtsheet website, which is not reliable.~SRS~ 22:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

SRS, the policy of no spoilers died a long time ago. I should know, as I pulled out all the stops to try to save it. It was settled with an RfC. If you want more details, ask Lid. SexySeaBass 05:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought consensus later was that info could only be added if its from WWE.com or on WWE TV (anywhere around the world)~SRS~ 14:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It used to be, but that changed four or five months ago. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha.~SRS~ 14:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just seen Undertaker been stripped of the title on Fox 8 (in Australia). Should we just add it in and leave it there and wait until the wwe updates it on their website? 11rey619 (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

put it up with a scoures also the scourcs is related to pwiinsider for more referance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devil Thunderbolt (talk • contribs) 17:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it best to add things like this after the event has aired in every country, as I just read about the title strip, right in the middle of the May 2, 2008 episode of Smackdown. Spartan198 (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Divorced

I've been reading on a few wbsites that 'Taker and his wife Sara are divorced, and apparently it's true according to the photoshopping of the 'Sara' tattoo on his throat and on SmackDown the tattoo has been disappearing as of late. Does anybody know if he has made it official or not? Weasley20 (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasley20 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue why they would get divorced. They even mentioned in interviews that they are perfect for each other. But, until you find a reliable source it's not gonna be put in.SimonKSK (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If Undertaker's Sara tattoo is being photoshopped or hidden it's because of his gimmick. Keep in mind that he had the tattoo before his American Bad Ass gimmick (where it first became visible on WWE tv) Phoenixmuffin (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that there was mention by Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observor newsletter that Undertaker and Sara did seperate and Undertaker was apparently cheating on her on the road with Michelle McCool. Last I heard Taker and Mccool were still dating.. this was around Wrestlemania time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.220.220 (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Theme Music

Although I doubt this even needs discussion, I'm adding his past entrance themes to the "In Wrestling" segment of him. THE $R$ 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

The name of this article should be Mark Calaway Instead of The Undetaker. Because that's his real name. Srmagnetismo (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NAME, article names use the most recognizable name someone would be know as. Calaway is most well-known as The Undertaker. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See HERE.Srmagnetismo (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that because the Spanish Wikipeida does so, we should too? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I think that all wikipedias should have the same aspect, name, etc. Srmagnetismo (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy is policy, and he is best known as The Undertaker. Perhaps, the Spanish Wikipedia should change the name of their article. Nikki311 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all Wikipedias obey the same policies. While you may think this fact is unfortunate, it is a fact. All we can do is obey our policies. If you want to change the policy, you are more than welcome to start up a discussion on that policy's talk page. As for this article, however, the policy will be enforced. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 22:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me take the exact quote from WP:NAME, Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things;, so in that case, since The Undertaker is a human being, his article should be named by his most common name, which is The Undertaker and not Mark Calaway.~SRS~ 22:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the name of the article should be The Undertaker. Aside from the fact that the policy states that the most well known/recognizable name be used, it makes perfect logical sense as well. If someone, for instance, just begins watching WWE or TNA programming and are curious to know more about a wrestler's career in depth, they're going to use the wrestlers ring name. They're going to type in The Undertaker, Samoa Joe, Ric Flair, and Hulk Hogan and not Mark Calaway, Nuufolau Joel Seanoa, Richard Morgan Fliehr, or Terry Gene Bollea.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

God, you guys allways find something to fight about. This is the most unnecessary discussion i've ever seen here. Since both, The Undertaker and Mark Calaway link to the same page - what difference does it make? Just to let you know, Adam Copeland, Eddie Fatu, Glen Jacobs and Dylan Postl are all better known as Edge, Umaga, Kane and Hornswoggle. Still, their articles are named by their real name. you wanna know why? because no one cares! So stop telling everyone about the policys, since no one cares about them anyway. Diivoo (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you. At least someone who don't give much crap about the shit policies man!BestBenoitFan (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Edge and Kane's articles are named after their real names because their ring names both lead to disambiguation pages. Umaga and Hornswoggle are both also known by other ring names. Mark Calaway is universally known as The Undertaker and I would dare say it's a household name. Phoenixmuffin (talk) 08:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for proving my point. Many ring names lead to disambiguation pages. So, the consensus should be, that all pages should be named by the real name. Since the ring name allways links to the page, it just makes no difference. The only difference would be that we have a common standard if we name the articles after the real name. Diivoo (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Birth

His birthday according this the page says "March 24, 1965" which is incorrect. His real birthday is "March 24, 1962". Could somebody correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkdude7777777 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, his profile on The Internet Movie Database, www.imdb.com lists him being born in 1962. His profile on www.tv.com lists him as being born in '65 as does his MySpace page.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The IMDB profile is not reliable. It even lists that he appeared in a Hindi movie "Khiladiyon Ka Khiladi" as "Undertaker" (a villian with the same name and similar character), however in reality it was Brian Lee (who wrestled as the false Undertaker) who starred in the movie. Mayankeagle (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Billed as 305 lbs.

On the May 16, 2008 episode of SmackDown!, Taker was billed 305 pounds as he was coming to the ring for his 6-on-1 Handicap Match. So, does anyone think we should change back his weight from 295 lbs. to 305 lbs.?--96.232.57.198 (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Not unless WWE.com's bio on him changes it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Personas/ Characters

We earlier had a Personas page for the Undertaker but now it redirects back to this page. Should we not add information which was present in the erstwhile Personas page (like nick-names, descriptors, signature-taunts) into this one? Mayankeagle (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of other wrestler pages contain nick-names (e.g., Kane's contains "The Big Red Machine", "The Big Red Monster", etc) - I don't understand why they can contain nick-names but the Undertaker's page cannot contain nick-names like "The Phenom", "The Deadman", "The Demon From Death Valley" which are his most popular nick-names. Why do we want to give less information on specifically the Undertaker page when his page should contain more, considering that he lasted longer in the industry than the others? Mayankeagle (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Kane's page contains precisely two nicknames, and they both carry references, this page is not for listing every name anyone has ever called the Undertaker by. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is largely focussed towards his career, but just like we do mention every signature move he has used and every finisher he has used, we can at least enlist his most common nick-names along with references from WWE.com if required (for "Phenom", "Deadman", "Lord of Darkness" and "Demon of Death Valley", we would get the references anyday - I'm not counting many others like "American Bad Ass", "Big Evil", etc if we don't want to put too many). However, I think we should put some nick-names because it makes easier for readers to relate to him, otherwise all nicknames should be removed from all Wikipedia pages for wrestlers to keep it consistent. Mayankeagle (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames are listed when there is a source, find a source and you can list whatever you like. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Conscience of the WWE is a popular nick-name for him - why was it removed (it had a WWE.com reference too)? Mayankeagle (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a nickname, like The Phenom is. It is something that commentators occasionally say. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you differentiate between nick-names and descriptors? I understand that some other descriptors like "the most respected athlete in the history of the WWE", "the greatest phenom in the history of the WWE", "the greatest mind-gamer in the history of the WWE", "the best pure-striker in the history of the game", "the most dominant force in the history of pro-wrestling", etc are descriptors as they are too long and used by commentators in the match sometimes while referring to him. But then "The Demon from Death Valley" is also a nick-name and "The conscience of the WWE" isn't? Mayankeagle (talk) 13:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Judgment Day 2008 results?

I added information about Judgment Day 2008 results where the Undertaker defeated Edge via count-out but then Vickie came and announced that the title was still vacant because he won the match via count-out. I had also provided a link to the WWE.com page which had published the results. Somebody removed the entire thing (I guess it was Darrenhusted) - not sure why. It is a PPV result, and a lot of PPV results (for even non-title matches) are included on this page, moreover this is also a part of the Undertaker/ Edge story-line, so it should be kept on this page - why was it removed? Mayankeagle (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Undertaker has been appeared on hundreds of PPVs, not every result is notable. I have removed the whole Judgement Day paragraph several times in the last few days because until we get a couple of months perspective the result may be meaningless and have very little impact on his career. This page is not a results page, the PPV pages contain the results. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Every PPV result is not notable, however this one is because it was for the World heavyweight championship, and it is a continuation of the story-line which mentioned that he was stripped off the title. Mayankeagle (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, every PPV is not notable. The feuds need to be looked at in the context of his career. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a continuation of his career feud with Edge with an important future stipulation - now its been taken to the extent where Vickie has stated that Undertaker should face Edge in a TLC match at One Night Stand and if Undertaker loses, he will be fired - that's going to be announced this Friday on Smackdown!, however it has already been reported on wrestlezone.com and phenomforever.com spoilers. I guess after that match (which is likely to be the end of the feud), we will have enough to post about. Mayankeagle (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

None of this is notable. Wait until they have finished the feud then it can be summarised if it turns out to be notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mentioned, we will wait until the feud culminates instead of adding to the article right now, hopefully it would be at One Night Stand. Mayankeagle (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Veering away from what a talk page is I think that Night of Champions will feature the blow off match between Edge and Undertaker in Hell in a Cell. But you will need to wait until July before any of this is worth noting. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They've announced a TLC for One Night Stand which is Edge's speciality, probably in an attempt to make it look like Vickie & Edge tried whatever they could to keep him away from the title (and even WWE) but the storyline would be that he kept coming back like a dominant champion. The Night of Champions poster also has his photo on it with the title, so I'm hoping he will win the title at One Night Stand :-) though I would hate to see Undertaker vs Edge in 4 PPVs consecutively. The draft is due in a few weeks, and that's probably going to bring some Raw talent like Umaga to Smackdown. I read there's going to be a Kane vs Big Show main feud on ECW and an Undertaker vs Umaga main feud on Smackdown (perhaps planned for Summerslam also). For more discussions, log on to phenomforever.com Mayankeagle (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com awards

There are several recognitions which Undertaker has received on WWE.com either through fan-voting or the WWE's internal expert-ratings. One of them has been that he was selected as the Greatest Superstar in Raw History during the 15th anniversary of Raw - http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/raw15/exclusives/raw15pollresults/. Another is that Undertaker vs Batista was listed as the # 1 "Wrestlemania match which made us sweat" by "List! This" on WWE.com - http://www.wwe.com/inside/listthis/maniamatches/maniamatches1. Should we include this in his wrestling accomplishments/ awards, because essentially they are related to his career and convey a big message about the same? Mayankeagle (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not. I think we should add some info, because the only thing mantioned here is his Wrestelmania record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.82.93 (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

sound like it should be noted i dint know he was voted the best raw wrestler of all tyme considering he is on smackdown it deserves mention 172.159.163.221 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No because those are not notable awards, and are not considered awards, they are just lists and poll results, not officially awards. --SRX^--LatinoHeat 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That way, even the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards are more like opinions and not real awards (by the way, what about listing the Slammy awards? At least they were "real" awards). By the way, whoever posted from "172.159.163.221" - he's been on Smackdown since a few years but earlier he was on Raw for several years (in fact, he was in the main-event of the first ever Monday Night Raw), and the impact Undertaker's dominance had on Raw at that time also was notable. Mayankeagle (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible leave

During the One night stand PPV 2008 he lost a TLC match with Edge for the world heavyweight championship with the stipulation that if he loses, he will be fired from the wwe, very notable, though i understand if it is not included immediatly as this happened within the hour.

He was forced to leave WWE after losing to Edge at One Night Stand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bass master13 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Kayfabe. He hasn't been fired. The only thing notable here is that he lost the match.--WillC (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I know its kayfaybe but i was wondering if he has retired or something, because mick foley said 'he will never come back if he loses, he wont just reappear in a couple of weeks on another brand'

They have the WWE Draft coming up soon, rumor is they are getting him to come back on raw and start a fued with HBK to build up for Wrestle Mania XXV Taker V's HBK let them just go at it to see if he can end the undefeated streak, taker is expected to retire shortly after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.113.133 (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Though, the WWE made one mistake here in the on-screen story-line (they said that he will be banished from the "entire WWE", they should've said he will be banished from Smackdown if he is scheduled to come back to WWE's Raw roster after the draft). My guess is that he will return at Summerslam as the draft is going to happen in a few days time, and I don't expect him to be formally shown as a part of the draft so immediately. We don't know what will happen at the draft, so it is too early to predict. Going by WWE's gimmick-based storylines and the history of Undertaker's character, he will probably come back to whichever roster Edge is signed on after the draft to continue and end his rivalry with Edge, then focus on other planned rivalries (I read one of them was with Umaga). Undertaker vs HBK would be good for the next Wrestlemania but I doubt if it will stop the streak - WWE's business will get impacted and they'll lose money if it ends as its listed as the greatest WWE record at http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/wwerecords/). Anyway, all this is just a speculation. We'll have to wait and see. Mayankeagle (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There would be several ways for Taker to come back. Vickie could be fired and his firing lifted by the new GM. Vince could override Vickie's decision. He could just appear from the crowd, but not as an "official" wrestler sotryline wise. Or he could be fired and rehired on a seperate brand. If he is still contracted to the WWE, it should be put in the article that he was (kayfabe) fired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.202.81 (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Look. If WWE left Undertaker as permanantly retired, They would lose so many fans and ratings. On a match edge cheated at, (with his La familia Thing) And undertaker just leaves, and BOOM! done. That is not WWE. Get this. He. Does. Not. Rest. In. Peace. I think he will come back this upcoming Smackdown, or Be re-drafted in the draft. Taker has been known to defy every odd. We will have to wait. -- Demonworks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.202.195.179 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I dam sure hope taker returns or else imma be pretty pissed, one way he could return is in the badass gimmick and be forced to kiss mcmahons ass - that'd make him the 10th guy to join the kiss my ass club, I've heard rumors that he's gonna return at royal rumble... no idea whats gonna happen tho but no1 wants taker gone thats 4 sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsem (talk • contribs) 21:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Last part of Undertakers biography in Alumni

At the link of Undertakers biography in the alumni section in wwe, it has a rather curious statement. Here is what it says.

 Throughout it all, Undertaker has remained one of WWE’s most popular Superstars while becoming one
 of its most decorated – another trend that should continue until the day The Deadman’s illustrious 
 career finally does rest in peace.

This almost sounds like his career is not over in the WWE. Maryslove 01:31, 2 June 2008

This is not proof enough, because some of the WWE.com profile pages are not edited very frequently. If you look at http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/wwerecords/, it still mentions only about his Wrestlemania 23 victory against Batista but not his Wrestlemania 24 victory against Edge (it says "many wonder whether if Undertaker will be able to continue The Streak in Orlando" - we all know that it did continue). However, you are right that his career is not over. Mayankeagle (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's some possible proof. For the Survivor Series tour of the U.K. he is advertised to take part in the Smackdown brand live show in November. Now i'm not an expert on advertising laws but if he were to have retired wouldn't it have been a misleading advertisement therefore breaking the law?

This is not a forum for this kind of discussion - I guess that kind of discussion will be better off on a fan website like www.phenomforever.com. However, in response to your point - he was also advertised as the champion (holding the WHC belt) in the promotional poster of Night of Champions (Vengeance), however I guess that's not how it is going to be when the event happens. Don't trust what they show in ads as things can change in the future. Mayankeagle (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Four words: Card subject to change. Tobythegreat (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Retirment

Someone edited his article and stated that he is retired.I don't think so.You must see this http://www.wrestleview.com/news2008/1212346268.shtml.Pavlen (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, look at this. http://www.wwe.com/superstars/wwealumni/undertaker/bio/

His profile is now in the Alumni section, and read the bottom line, too. I think WWE.com is the most reliable source for something like this. It didn't let me do it, so I ask that someone replace his profile link with what I just provided, because it's a dead link for now.--Lord Dagon (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done but let's all remember that WWE uses WWE.com to advance storylines etc. This doesn't really prove anything. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I just wanted the link fixed. It bugs me how people look at news sites first and try to bring all of it here, so I took it upon myself to look at the actual site first and thats how I came by the dead link.--Lord Dagon (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)