DaMonkeMan
He/Him- 17,847
- 15,275
Why isn't DT in that list? Is it because he didn't outright vote?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The man didn't vote, yeah.Why isn't DT in that list? Is it because he didn't outright vote?
We can yeet Logan Paul if that's what it takes to keep the verse.Well, I am currently neutral, but leaning towards keeping the WWE as a whole, but do not want pages for any greatly reality-integrating celebrity stage personas such as Logan Paul and Donald Trump.
See here for further information:
I will follow through, brotherI just logged in, if we are discussing deleting WWE as a verse I want involved. I probably can’t talk tonight but I am BEGGING the people here to hold off on any potential decisions being made (I haven’t even had time to read this thread)
While this isn't about bargaining, and moreso about deciding where site policy falls, the consensus seems divisive over whether WWE ought to stay (though leaning slightly, currently, in favor of deletion) and strongly in favor of deletion of Logan Paul. I find that latter bit to be a strange thing, but I realize some people are voting on the basis of the man being a problematic specific case rather than the greater issue of site policy.As for Logan Paul, I think he should stay but I’m not massively invested in the profile’s survival. I don’t think he breaks any rules but it’s very borderline so I have no issue with deletion, even if I technically oppose it (And if it’s a question of deleting the profile to save the verse I would do it in a heartbeat)
I don't know if it works like thatTwo admins and a thread mod vote generally in favor of deleting WWE. One admin and two thread mods vote in favor of keeping. I dislike pulling rank here, but it doesn't really matter- as I said, the matter is divisive- but by that math what I said was right. It is slightly in favor of WWE deletion.
A butchering of the verse’s status entirely. WWE has an established series of plots, narratives, sagas and storylines, with numerous characters with their own fictional premises and backstories. They’re hardly “shownames”"Do we consider WWE, a verse comprised solely of stage cameos and shownames,
Spider-Man is a web-slinging vigilante superhero played by Tom Holland in the MCUWWE is not equal to movies, for sure. Vin Diesel's stage persona is not Dominic Toretto, Tom Holland's stage persona is not Spiderman- these are characters they are hired to play. It is not equivalent to the Undertaker, which is just Mark William Callaway.
^ For the record I agree with this point, these summaries are copy pasted from Wikipedia im pretty sure, they suck, they completely fail to describe what the profiles actually are, and I have been meaning to get around to their deletion since the verse’s inception. Scrap them and replace them with something that describes the actual character, not the actor.Are you intentionally linking me to a profile showing a real person with their real information as a counter argument to them not just being real people assuming stage personas lmao
"Ah yes, my favorite totally fictional character, Windham Lawrence Rotunda, born May 23, 1987, also known as Bray Wyatt after he signed a contract with definitely-not real-world organization WWE"
You don’t like the verse and that’s fair, there’s always been people who oppose this verse existing but “an embarrassment” is just a joke of a comment to make.WWE profiles are an embarrassment for the wiki and its policies, little else.
WWE is much closer to theatre than YouTubers. As for “supernatural” elements not inherently guaranteeing validity, I agree, but the situation isn’t the same between the likes of Anti-YouTubers and WWE characters. Those elements do not grant validity of profiles because those characters are inherently tied to regular people. Markiplier is just himself, and Darkiplier is the fictional alter ego of Markiplier, a regular dude. Markiplier isn’t a character, just a name. There’s nothing more to it, whereas there is much, MUCH more to the likes of The Undertaker, who’s entire lore, backstory, personality has ZERO ties to Mark William Callaway. If Darkiplier was a unique character with no lore involving real life people with no distinction then he’d be much more likely to be fine than in reality.though plays also aren't really as good and pure a comparison as other personas- YouTubers are a great choice. Individuals like Markiplier and Jacksepticeye absolutely integrate faux supernatural elements into their routines (the whole Darkiplier and Anti shit from ages past), we would not allow a profile for them.
And The Fiend is a character. Mark Windham Rotunda has played The Fiend as long as the character existed, but someone else could pick up that mask and lantern and play the exact same CHARACTER.James Bond is a character. He is James Bond regardless of who portrays him.
Psssst you forgot the part where John notes he’s breaking the fourth wallWWE At 8:44 directly mentions he appears on Daily show
Celebrity cameo, happens in Family Guy, The Simpsons, and countless other versesHECK This verse made movie star Johnny Knoxville a Freaking movie star part of Wrestling PPV multiple times.
Horrible point, The Rock and Dwayne Johnson are different things, and he isn’t even contracted to WWE afaik, nor was he at the time of this movies releaseAnd WWE ACTIVELY USES Hollywood
The Rock (Dwayne Johson) appeared in RED NOTICE
there IS a 4th wall in wrestling, its… different (to the point it has its own name) but kayfabe is the distinction between real and fake you are looking for. In the same way we don’t punish verses for breaking the 4th wall, non-kayfabe complying segments are little evidence WWE as a whole is non-fictional (or not fictional enough, at least)without any 4th wall to start with.
The content aproval rules say nothing on rank, for what i see all of them have the same evaluation rights"Kill" was mainly meant to show those in favor of removing Paul, but fair enough.
Two admins and a thread mod vote generally in favor of deleting WWE. One admin and two thread mods vote in favor of keeping. I dislike pulling rank here, but it doesn't really matter- as I said, the matter is divisive- but by that math what I said was right. It is slightly in favor of WWE deletion.
Based on this, would it be wrong for me to assume that the majority of staff are leaning towards keeping the verse, but are neutral in deleting Logan Paul?Kill: Mr. Bambu, Deagonx (Logan, leaning towards it for WWE as a whole), Damage3245
Keep: Qawsedf234 (Including Logan Paul), Tllmbrg, Agnaa, LephyrTheRevanchist, KingTempest (Neutral on Logan)
Neutral/Don't Care: ByAsura. Antvasima (Leaning towards keep WWE)
This is taking into account Ant's most recent post where he changed his stance (And yes I copy and pasted Bambu's previous tally for convenience, bite me)
It actually looks relatively even, though arguably slightly in favor of WWE depending on how we count it as when people say they are leaning a certain way. Unless I'm counting wrong, on the subject of WWE as a whole, that's 2 people 100% for WWE's deletion, and 3 people with Full Voting right's 100% for keeping (Two people who don't have as high of Voting Rights also supporting keeping it), with one person each leaning toward's Keeping or deleting (You may please correct me if I'm wrong, just trying to keep a updated track on the vote's and opinion's)
Though I know his time is likely limited, and his response is arguably predictable, getting a official vote from DT (And any other Staff that have commented but aren't counted as having given Official Vote's) doesn't sound like a bad idea
Actually they do.The content aproval rules say nothing on rank, for what i see all of them have the same evaluation rights
- Discussion RulesThe concluding evaluations must be handled by Thread Moderators, Administrators, and Bureaucrats, who should make an effort to base their evaluations on valid arguments, not personal opinions.
Improv, as a concept, actually has all of these things, too. The line is drawn, as it has been drawn by others, at where we consider a verse entirely fictional- WWE, I feel, falls to the wrong side of that line. They're shownames.A butchering of the verse’s status entirely. WWE has an established series of plots, narratives, sagas and storylines, with numerous characters with their own fictional premises and backstories. They’re hardly “shownames”
Something of interest I found when I looked it up. Do you know that it was only in 1989 that Vince McMahon admitted the game was not real? Not that anything was changed by that point, he just testified that it was, indeed, fake. It's the same year the Undertaker joined, but that's not a particularly important point. Up until well after the 2000s, there was still public discourse over it was or was not real- I was never much of a WWE guy but I knew adults who would debate it.Spider-Man is a web-slinging vigilante superhero played by Tom Holland in the MCU
The Undertaker is the undead supernatural brother of Kane (a literal demon) played by Mark William Callaway
Mark William Callaway was an actor hired to play the part of The Undertaker
Tom Holland is an actor hired to play the part of Spider-Man
They are hardly 1:1, but saying the two are complete opposites and that The Undertaker is not a “character” is odd.
I'd like it known that Wikipedia portraying the individuals as being 1:1 with their wrestling personas ought to be a pretty good indicator of the more public view, disconnected from this case.^ For the record I agree with this point, these summaries are copy pasted from Wikipedia im pretty sure, they suck, they completely fail to describe what the profiles actually are, and I have been meaning to get around to their deletion since the verse’s inception. Scrap them and replace them with something that describes the actual character, not the actor.
I don't have any particular malice or distaste towards the verse off-site. I'm not a sports guy, I wouldn't watch it, but it's there. I used to reference Rey Mysterio a lot, because it was funny.You don’t like the verse and that’s fair, there’s always been people who oppose this verse existing but “an embarrassment” is just a joke of a comment to make.
I disagree, unless we were to take improv theatre into account, since wrestlers do and have taken part into a great deal of theatre- even then, improv has such a small disconnect from a bit like King of the Squirrels that I think the point poor in the making. Nobody over the age of 14 is taking Sweeney Todd as a real event. There are grown ass men who take WWE as real- not the lore, but the combat.WWE is much closer to theatre than YouTubers. As for “supernatural” elements not inherently guaranteeing validity, I agree, but the situation isn’t the same between the likes of Anti-YouTubers and WWE characters. Those elements do not grant validity of profiles because those characters are inherently tied to regular people. Markiplier is just himself, and Darkiplier is the fictional alter ego of Markiplier, a regular dude. Markiplier isn’t a character, just a name. There’s nothing more to it, whereas there is much, MUCH more to the likes of The Undertaker, who’s entire lore, backstory, personality has ZERO ties to Mark William Callaway. If Darkiplier was a unique character with no lore involving real life people with no distinction then he’d be much more likely to be fine than in reality.
Have they? Asking earnestly, has anyone picked up the moniker of another wrestler? When Austin Theory goes, will another person become Austin Theory? When a Wrestler dies, are they, in the story, written off as died in battle against X or Y? I'm genuinely curious.And The Fiend is a character. Mark Windham Rotunda has played The Fiend as long as the character existed, but someone else could pick up that mask and lantern and play the exact same CHARACTER.
The rule is not outdated as me and staff members have updated it before some months.well at that point you're refusing to comply with user demand. which isn't really a good thing, mind you. and would rather go by outdated rules that have been and will continue to be broken as time goes on. the rule might as well not exist as we have TONS of profiles that go against the rule.
So, disagree with deletion of WWE, neutral, leaning towards agree with deletion of Logan Paul?I think there's a lot of arguing that can be done over the specifics, but given that ultimately Bambu is right in saying that the main concern is where you draw the line, and I don't think WWE crosses that line.
It's fine to stay IMO. It obviously behaves a bit differently from most things we index here but quite frankly I can't look at the goofy supernatural shit that happens in it and take into account "oh some people actually think this is real", some people think the Earth is flat man. It's blatantly just fiction and it never is and never was meant to be thought of as anything other than that (outside of maybe the very early days, I don't know about those), kayfabe culture is just very strong and some people are too stupid to be in on its joke (or have just never thought much about it).
Similarly I think the improv elements are being very overstated here, they exist but more often than not matches are planned pretty thoroughly, and no matter what their overall "storyline" always is, which is... just not what improv is.
That said, Logan Paul's presence is questionable for a variety of reasons.
who does?Neutral regarding Logan Paul because I don't really have an opinion, I just don't like the guy
See, that's what I don't get about the WWE's inclusion in the wiki. These are real-world people we putting up here. Why are we not only separating WWE wrestlers from the real world, but also wanking them beyond belief?The question there, really, is "Do we consider WWE, a verse comprised solely of stage cameos and shownames, a legitimate verse?"
We have rules against such things but most people have preferred in the past to classify it as a special exception.
For my part, I would rather see it gone.
Then we should delete Vtuber verses.I obviously strongly agree with the deletion of this page. We should not blur the line between reality and fiction.
See, that's what I don't get about the WWE's inclusion in the wiki. These are real-world people we putting up here. Why are we not only separating WWE wrestlers from the real world, but also wanking them beyond belief?
wanking
I would agree with this, personally, yeah.Then we should delete Vtuber verses.
Like if you really think about it, they operate on the same logic.
Exactly. This is one that bothered me more than WWE, personally. At least WWE did some legit combat stuff. From what I can tell from Hololive at least, VTubers are is basically anime girls having the collective IQ of two-and-a-half while playing video games.Then we should delete Vtuber verses.
Like if you really think about it, they operate on the same logic.
Full stop right now. Please actually read up what our Hololive profiles are about before any off you even try to "lulstreamerprofiledelete" them. Our Hololive profiles are striclty, and I MEAN strictly about the official Hololive anime produced by the Corporation behind Hololive, Cover. We do not feature ANY information from livestreamsExactly. This is one that bothered me more than WWE, personally. At least WWE did some legit combat stuff. From what I can tell from Hololive at least, VTubers are is basically anime girls having the collective IQ of two-and-a-half while playing video games.
Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn are currently champions in WWEIs it fictional storyline that has absolutely no bear to the real world?