Talk:Triple H

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Triple H article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Triple H has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 7, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
April 6, 2008	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography GA‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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 Wikipedia 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 article was the professional wrestling collaboration of the week between November 25 and December 1, 2007
Please help to continue to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling article.

DVD listings?

Is it really necessary to have a listing of all Triple H's DVDs? The wording seems a tad promotional, and it doesn't add any notable information to the article. I could understand using them as sources, but I don't really feel that it's necessary to have them included in the artcle. Agree? Disagree? Hazardous Matt 13:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I think that it is notable to include, as it shows they he appears on more than just Raw/SmackDown/PPVs/etc, and I've reworded it slightly to make it less promotional. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was referring to this revision but it looks like someone's already cleaned it up. Hazardous Matt 16:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, it looks like problem solved. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punt

Is the punt necessary to be included in the "King of Kings" section? Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say no, simply because the punt had nothing to do with how Cena got down for the pin. –L A X 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a better fit in Orton's article. This article could simply state "...Orton pinned Cena to retain the WWE Championship." Hazardous Matt 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was my feeling on it; I was, however, going to re-word it, but I did not want to enter an edit war. Does anybody agree that it should be worded properly? Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 20:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be putted taht he has the record of most World Heayweight Championships and most WWE championships (with The Rock) and it's not a bad idea to put that he was the first world heavyweight champion, other articles have got it with other championships. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.35.138.65 (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Triple H's win relevant to what's stated in the "King of Kings" section? Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crossface

Triple H seems to be using this move regularly, it was even used last night as a finish. should it be added to the signature moves section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.100.169 (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only heard of him using it at Backlash and last night's Raw. I say give it another occurrance or two. Hazardous Matt 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Triple H use the crossface last week on cena during the 8 man tag mach , so doesent that make it his sub move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.218.21 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant if every "new" moves comes to light. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually i think its a silent tribute to chris benoit. if you go back and watch backlash, someone did a crossface in almost every match, i noticed this and thought it was interesting. Darcphoenix2 (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Shawn Michaels and Triple H have the Crippler Crossface as regular move. --KingOfDX (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a known move, just an occasional one. Zenlax ^T ^C ^S 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Triple H is known for Pedigree. He doesn't use the Crippler Crossface as regular move. The gen-X (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has been including it in his moveset more and more often, usually in his longer matches on PPV. It was used again at Night of Champions. --Maestro25 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

king of kings return

put more informaition you missed out survivour series,cyber sunday and judgement day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.137.3 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not notable, not notable, and not notable. –Cheers, L A X 13:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order of finishers. Can apply to any wrestler, not just HHH.

Now I remember a long time ago, when the finisher/signature move lists were in order of importance, when a wrestler's most known finisher, one he used every week and has built his movelist and gimmick around, was at the top of the list. Someone who was looking for someone's most famous move need only glance at the top of the movelist to get convenient information. But of course, this is Wikipedia, so the convenient information was ushered out in favor of strict rules that some guy who no one has actually met made up in the "interest of formality," not realizing that this is the internet, and away from it boasts a magical world full of nature and emotion and water that falls from the skies, where people actually live who only need quick information, not something that has been lost in a sea of regulations, like so much chemical waste jettisonned out to avoid proper disposal fees. I speak for the common man, one who believes in order by importance. Please, bring some clarity to the maelstrom that is this wireless universe!

And don't give me some stock cut-and-paste response or so help me...

Donco (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, rather than go off on some eloquent yet melodramatic and greatly over-the-top tangent about the nature of Wikipedia, rules/regulations, and the like, how about just asking us to explain it or change it point-blank. Anyways, I agree, this order for move sets is completely absurd. Present-to-past is certainly more logical than alphabetical order, as it puts a greater emphasis on th changing nature of the move set, as well as being just plain more efficient, as you pointed out. I shall now change it. Cheers, The Hybrid 08:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there are invisible notes saying not to change it per WP:MOS. Would someone care to show me which part of the MOS this is from? If it is somewhat questionable whether or not it applies, I'm ignoring it in favor of common sense. The Hybrid 08:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WT:PW has the discussion, MOS is for alphabetical. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found it, it cited WP:LISTS#Organization. It only mentions alphabetical order as a simple possibility; it still allows for alternate forms of organization. It even mentions use as an alternate possibility in the section. I would prefer this, but it looks like all of the articles have already been rewritten. I am too lazy to go through and change them, or to try to garner a consensus :P. I'll just leave it. If someone else wants to propose it, though, that's fine. Cheers, The Hybrid 08:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who changed most of the articles to comply with the above. If anyone would like to suggest an alternate way of sorting them that makes sense and complies with the above MoS link, I will gladly go back and fix them again. If you have an alternate way, feel free to bring it up at WT:PW. In addition, the current way they are listed is very clear when each finisher was used. I don't believe not having Pedigree first makes the article look any worse, it simply requires slightly more reading. Also, wouldn't listed by order of importance conflict with WP:OR and WP:NPOV? In the interest of consensus, I shall stop reorganizing lists until a new consensus on the matter is reached. Regards, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 12:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Title

where does it say that the wwe title will become smackdown exclusive? john cena is going to win that title @ NOC because he is the superstar that represents the company. the face of the wwe should have the wwe championship, not the world heavyweight championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princesslucky105 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWE.com's SmackDown superstars section listed the WWE Championship as a SmackDown Exclusive title. The fact that you say Cena will win the WWE title at NOC is original research. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, it lists triple h who just so happens to be wwe champion as a smackdown superstar. the rest is your own speculation and is neither proven nor relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.139.197 (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]