Talk:Bill Goldberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Undefeated streak[edit]

I propose removing the undefeated streak list from this article as violations of the following Wikipedia guidelines: Wikipedia:Too much detail, Wikipedia:Fancruft, and Wikipedia:Article size. This list is excessive detail that would only be of interest to a small number of people. I'm not saying his streak itself isn't notable, but a list of 155 matches (most of which are house shows or non-title/non-stipulation matches) is a bit much. Mention the streak and important matches in the text. Thoughts? Nikki311 03:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, 155 matches overtakes the article. If it were independently notable I'd recommend splitting off, like The Streak (wrestling), but I don't think it's at that level. Best to just discard it.LM2000 (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the removal, Goldberg's streak had a two-year period, and most of the wrestlers that he defeated were mostly jobbers or from the undercard. Nickag989talk 12:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, too much detail. McPhail (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also assumes original research as to how the matches were counted. The WCW reference does not match any matches to numbers, and the current table results in a record of 155 wins instead of 173. There's an attempt to construct the streak on genius.com [1] and there are debates over counting wins at random forums. [2] The exercise is kind of like estimating power levels in Dragon Ball Z, only some matches have a number of victories in the streak attached to it and the rest are interpolated or extrapolated. This could be added as an external link though if there is a reliable source documenting his matches, but this is generally fun stuff to debate over at a wikia and not Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 22:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agrue that even if there were not original research concerns the list would still be too excessive even if it could be properly sourced. Some of the more significant wins during the streak (ie defeating Hogan for the title) can be mentioned in prose though.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
disagree. I think it is an antisemitic spear to be taking this away from da brotha 2601:14D:8B00:6000:50E7:842C:7284:450E (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
smear* but spear works given da subject lol 2601:14D:8B00:6000:50E7:842C:7284:450E (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can make his own section, his Streak is relevant. However, don't to list every singles match he had. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The biography section already covers the streak and the most notable matches for it, as well as analysis on whether it was an actual streak by number of matches counted. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. It has been a week. That section has been deleted. Nikki311 18:09, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The win streak was researched primarily on Graham Hawthorne's History of WWE site, which has a comprehensive listing of match results for WWE, WCW, ECW, ect by year. He's also written several books detailing promotional histories. Most of the wins came from there, the rest were researched from various other sites. The attempt was to put together a definitive, sourced list of The Streak and to attempt to answer firmly just exactly what the streak was, versus what was reported on air. The results did not come from forums. As for it taking over the page - that's why I made the list collapsible. Marino73 (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg Retired ?[edit]

Did Goldberg retire at the Hall of Fame ? Edward the Artist (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Jimmyy68 (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg in 2015![edit]

Goldberg returned to wrestling in a Legends To Wrestling show in 2015! Jimmyy68 (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a WP:RS that he WRESTLED there - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 14:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is talking about the event where he speared Scott Steiner. However, the match was between rvd and steiner, Goldberg just speared him. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, which does not make him an active wrestler. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well why 1996? Jimmyy68 (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Goldberg and CFL[edit]

Is there any source for Goldberg actually playing in the CFL, not just on a practice roster or something? I do not see any stats for him in CFL and his name is not listed under either Sacramento[1] or San Antonio. Also I notice the page claims he played in 1993 in CFL, yet also claims he played 1992 to 1994 in NFL. This would be pretty much impossible unless he signed three one year contracts since both leagues have games playing at same time in the fall. Kav2001c (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)kav2001c[reply]

References

Greatest Jewish wrestler[edit]

Why do y'all keep taking dat out? 2601:14D:8B00:6000:50E7:842C:7284:450E (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep adding it, without a source or an explanation of how that's important. Is there a greatest Methodist wrestler? Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced it! And he takes pride in it in an industry that don't be having a lot of jewish brothas 2601:14D:8B00:6000:50E7:842C:7284:450E (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Sportskeedia is a reliable source? Just asking. In any case, MOS:ETHNICITY discourages mention of ethnicity or religion in the lead of the article unless it's central to the subject's life; for example a cleric or religious scholar, not a wrestler. And please stop trying to write in dialect. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's citations for WWE.com and Sports Illustrated. Idk that they are much better, particularly wwe
Would it be amenable to move this to the "legacy" section? 71.200.16.180 (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
following up 2601:152:981:54B0:2431:5537:B9BD:BA7C (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's probably more appropriate there than in the lede. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]