Jump to content

Talk:Cody Rhodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCody Rhodes 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.
Good topic starCody Rhodes is part of the The Legacy series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 10, 2009Good article nomineeListed
September 22, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
June 27, 2019Good article reassessmentKept
March 2, 2019Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Infobox picture size

[edit]

The picture accompanying the infobox is too large. I have no idea how to reduce its size, but I wanted to post my concern here for someone with the requisite experience. fdsTalk 21:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I figured it out. fdsTalk 21:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Dust Busters moniker

[edit]

If someone can find some shred of proof that this is actually used, go ahead and re-add it. But since I have been watching WWE for weeks now, WWE is NOT promoting it, choosing instead to use "Gold and Stardust". 65.24.40.85 (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Alliance

[edit]

Announcers mentioning this on the pre-show, is this a synonym for Cosmic Wasteland or something? Ranze (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Stardust (wrestler)?

[edit]

According to Cageside Seats, WWE is not interested in bringing back Cody Rhodes back, and seems that Stardust is permanent. Should this page be moved to Stardust (wrestler) due to this?

Rewind Wrestling (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Most of his success was as Cody Rhodes.LM2000 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cody Rhodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Cody Rhodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IR

[edit]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
moving it to community reassessment. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is missing to many references and fails GA criteria. I am keeping it on hold for minimum 7 days, depending on the the progress of improvement. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ImmortalWizard Hey there. I'm not an editor of this article but am interested in the GA process generally. Could you be more specific about what references are missing and which criteria is missing? Giving specific guidance is generally more helpful. For instance he's a review I completed today and here's a review which passed today which has an written by an experienced GA writer. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. I have made quite a few GA reviews. Obviously, there is a slight difference between a review and a reassessment. I tend to be really specific and have spot checks, if not, full fact checking.
Here, the specific criteria that fails, which is essentially you asked for I presume, are the following:
  1. Improper prose: Especially in the latter parts of his career, the ones added after the first GA review.
  2. Many missing citations. I marked them in the article.
  3. Use of unreliable sources according to WP:PW/MOS, such as Online World of Wrestling.
  4. Desperately requires an update in the some of the sections.
  5. Content really isn't disputed, but there is some issues with his newly established business career.
These are all the comments I can give. Barkeep49 if it were to be a typical GA review, I would input greater details with active communications with the nominator. However, in this case, if I see any participation by any editors, I will try my best. I hope this was what you were looking for. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ImmortalWizard Thanks. I am asking because when it came up and I saw thiis comment if I were intent on improving the article (and I'm admittedly not) I'd have felt unsure where to start. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Community reassessment

[edit]

Cody Rhodes

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Though the issue of the tagging still needs to be resolved, this is not sufficient to disqualify the article from "good article" status. The article is already well cited, and the consensus of the comments below indicates that any remaining issues can be dealt with without delisting.StoryKai (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)​[reply]

Based on my comments at Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA2. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This has a few tags on it, but I am not sure if the article is really that bad. For example there is an orange tag asking for additional citations in the Professional Wrestling Career, but the section is pretty well cited. An expand section tag for a section that is only a few months old. Another expand section tag that is for a section that has subsections covering the extra years. I feel it has been tag bombed. There are some issues, but I don't think it is as bad as the tags suggest. AIRcorn (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't think the orange level tags are justified here they still need to be addressed. We can't have a good article siting around covered with them. They can be removed and replaced with more focused tags (or better yet removed when the issue is no longer present). Hopefully some of the wrestling focused editors here can address them. BTW my comment is not a keep or a delist at the moment, it was more an initial assessment of the tags. I haven't done a proper assessment of the article yet. AIRcorn (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with the assessment, a lot of the tagging was done by the same person who then turned around and nominated it for GAR. The same editor who had ANI problems and blocking, in part for behavior around GAN. In fact I thought there was an unblock condition of not doing GARs, but I could be wrong there. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MPJ-DK: They are not topic banned it seems. An admin closed the post saying, we will see what happens when their block ended. Any more disruption needs to be reported to ANI immediately though. StaticVapor message me! 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Agreed. The The Brotherhood (2013–2015) section is basically unreferenced, but I don't think it's hard to source. The section on NJPW could do with being put into paragraphs (filmography needs citing too). Nothing that should really cause the article to be demoted. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above. If anyone has any major issues that is going to require delisting, hopefully someone would be able to work on it. Otherwise I don't see reason for delisting. StaticVapor message me! 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legally changed his named?

[edit]

Cody mentions that his legal name is "Cody Garrett Runnels Rhodes" and says it's on his ID. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is not legally changing your name? To legally change your name you have to do so with your local court and it's quite a serious process, not just putting it on your drivers license. Is there any evidence that he legally changed his name?

Updated Results

[edit]

Add that Cody Rhodes defeated Shawn Spears at All Out Strikez YT (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request and provide reliable sources for any claims made. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

[edit]

At the top of this article, the word known is incorrectly spelled as 'know' when referring to the fact that Cody Rhodes is known for his time in AEW. 2603:6011:AA24:6F3D:CCD5:CBC4:C92B:1032 (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cody long time wresling fan

[edit]

if you go to wwe you a spiting on your legacy and your fathers . look at all the work you and brandy did for AEW yes some not so good hiring washed up wwe guys if you go to wwe we will never watch a rhodes in a match again please dont be a sell out 2601:344:100:4C96:3843:D7EF:1059:69B1 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Return to WWE

[edit]

WWE has not confirmed Cody returning to the company, it is wrestling news site that have claimed that WWE sources have confirmed he has re-signed with the company, but I don't think we should add it to his Wikipedia page until WWE themselves confirm he has signed. ComputerFreak34 (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! It's rumor, not a fact. VerifyingFacts (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandal (HHH Pedigree)

[edit]

A user named "HHH Pedigree" continues to add "currently signed to WWE" to Cody's opening sentence. This is based on a report from PWInsider, a source which has provided no documentary evidence or proof for the claim. Neither Cody nor WWE has confirmed that he is signed with them, so at this point, it remains unencyclopedic to claim he is "currently signed" to WWE, as we have no documentation for the claim. Something needs to be done to stop this persistent unencyclopedic editing of this entry. CMChuck (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The info is sourced by a reliable source (PWInsider, which gave info in the past like Morrison and Eva Marie coming back). Info is properly sourced and, per WP:INDEPENDENT, we include it. Don't remove. Stop claiming a confirmation given by a reliable source is not reliable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1.) You do not provide a source link for the "currently signed to WWE" claim, so it is not "sourced." It is dishonest for you to claim so.
2.) PWInsider has claimed Cody has signed with WWE, but they have not provided documentary evidence or proof for the claim. Neither Cody nor WWE have confirmed he has signed with WWE. While he most likely has signed with WWE, it has not been documented or confirmed by any official source, and thus it is unencyclopedic to make this claim in a Wikipedia biography.
3.) Multiple editors have reverted your unsourced and unconfirmed claims.
CMChuck (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The info is sourced by a reliable source (PWInsider, which gave info in the past like Morrison and Eva Marie coming back). Info is properly sourced and, per WP:INDEPEnDENT, we include it. Don't remove. Stop claiming a confirmation given by a reliable source is not reliable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're shooting yourself in the foot with the Morrison reference, as the page was protected when people kept linking to the PWInsider report (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Morrison_(wrestler)&oldid=921449633), and no mention of him being signed to WWE was allowed without being reverted until it was officially confirmed on WWE Backstage on December 3. Educate yourself. CMChuck (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately from what I can see this is a source that the community has decided is reliable definitively stating that Rhodes has signed with WWE. I don't see the issue with inclusion here. — Czello 12:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Define "community"? Multiple editors prior to me have reverted this guy, and no prior discussion about the phrase has been held on this talk page, so I don't see how anyone can make a claim that his verbiage is what "the community" agreed upon. Including such a claim would also defy prior precedent that the community did establish with other performers like John Morrison. CMChuck (talk) 12:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By community I mean the Wikiproject. If you visit WP:PW/RS you'll see we list PWInsider as a reliable source. If others who have reverted HHH want to contribute to this discussion and establish a consensus to remove, they can do so. For now though I agree with HHH in that it should remain. — Czello 12:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Protected

[edit]

I did consider simply blocking HHHPedigree and CMChuck since you're both way past 3RR but I figured that since they're not the only actors here, it would be easier to simply protect the article for a few days. Maybe you can find some consensus (though looking at the above section, maybe not). However if edit-warring should continue when the protection expires then blocking will probably be the method applied to stop it next time. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that this is the same story. A reliable, independent source reports something, but online fans remove because the promotion doesn't annouce it, breaking WP:INDEPENDENT, claiming reliable sources are just full of rumors and waiting a company with their own interest make the announcement. It happened with John Morrison, Eva Marie and Swerve Strickland. Seriously, a highly rspected, reliable source says "Cody Rhodes has signed with WWE, multiple WWE sources have confirmed" but the answer is "it's a rumor". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's not right, sorry.
1.) You do not provide a source link for the "currently signed to WWE" claim.
2.) PWInsider has claimed Cody has signed with WWE, but they have not provided documentary evidence or proof for the claim. Neither Cody nor WWE have confirmed he has signed with WWE. While he most likely has signed with WWE, it has not been documented or confirmed by any official source, and thus it is unencyclopedic to make this claim in a Wikipedia biography.
3.) Multiple editors have reverted your unsourced and unconfirmed claims prior to me.
4.) It defies previously established precedent, when John Morrison's page was protected after PWInsider reported that he signed with WWE on 9/26/19. Editors like yourself kept adding "signed to WWE," resulting in the aforementioned protection. No mention of WWE was allowed to be made (without being reverted) until it was officially confirmed on WWE Backstage on December 3.
This is an open-and-shut case. This is an encyclopedia, and taking a claim from PWInsider (which has been wrong in the past) and using it to make a claim in the first sentence of a biography (without even providing a link) is simply unencyclopedic. Rhodes most likely is signed with WWE, but "most likely" (and "PWInsider reported") is not encyclopedic. CMChuck (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PWInsider is a reliable source and they confirmed Rhodes signed (not likely, confirmed he signed). That's all. Morrison was reported, people cried a lot and, a few weeks later, PWInsider was correct when he made his return. WWE has a personal interest into hiding Rhodes until the big return, PWInsider is reliable and they reported after a confirmation by several WWE sources (sources they don't have to tell you). Wikipedia is independent and neutral and there is no point to be under WWE control. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PWInsider did not provide documentary evidence or proof that he signed. It's a credible report, sure, but a credible report is not confirmation, and it's certainly not grounds to state it as a fact in the opening sentence of the man's biography. If you want to write a section saying "PWInsider has reported that Cody Rhodes has signed with WWE," then be my guest. But it is simply unencyclopedic to state it as fact when no official source has confirmed it, and no wrestling news outlet has provided any documentary evidence or proof for the claim. This is an encyclopedia, not a news article. There's a different standard here. CMChuck (talk) 12:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PWInsider had the confirmation, they don't have to gave YOU nothing (no documentation or proofs, they made their job). It's a reliable source and the got confirmation by multiple sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HHH. Ultimately WP:PW/RS states PW Insider is a reliable source, so unless CMChuck gets consensus to delete this then it should remain. — Czello 12:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Czello. Seriously, the project has a HUGE problem if the idea is to wait until we have a company (WWE, AEW, Impact or whatever) blessing to include information. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With previous wrestlers who were reported to have signed with a company by one wrestling news source, a sentence was not added to the very beginning of their bio claiming it to be a fact. Sure, PWInsider, Wrestling Observer, etc., are reliable; but generally, that's in the context of reporting on events/history that have already occurred, not events that have yet to happen. Adding in a sentence of "signed to WWE"--as if it were fact--based on one report is not what is done in an encyclopedia. Writing "PWInsider reports that Cody Rhodes has signed with WWE" is fine, but claiming it as an established fact--when it isn't, at this point--is not what's done in an encyclopedia. CMChuck (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with CMChuck, with one caveat. Let me break this down:
Encyclopedic: "On March 18, 2022, it was reported by multiple sources that Rhodes had signed a contract with WWE."
Unencyclopedic: "Cody Rhodes is currently signed to WWE" or "it was confirmed that Cody Rhodes has signed with WWE."
Noting that PWInsider and others have reported that Cody is signed with WWE is important (this is where I disagree with CMChuck a bit). However, calling it a confirmed fact at this point is simply encyclopedic, as 1.) we don't have any evidence or proof of these claims, and 2.) it is not standard Wiki procedure to treat reports as absolute facts ahead of an event actually occurring.
One example: shortly before Kamala Harris was announced as Joe Biden's vice presidential nominee, several sources reported she would be the pick. However, her page was not modified to read "...current Democratic vice presidential nominee." Why? Because that's not how an encyclopedia functions. Reports based on anonymous sources are not the same as confirmed facts. Encyclopedias traffic only in confirmed facts, not reports based on anonymous sources.
Throw into the equation that pro wrestling journalists tend to be wrong quite often (plans change frequently, after all), and it's a pretty egregious violation of how encyclopedias work to state this as a confirmed fact in the opening sentence of his Wiki bio.
Hope this sheds some clarity on the subject! CinnamonCinder (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You say we "disagree a bit," but we agree 100%. I'm fine with "PWInsider has reported..." verbiage. I just don't think it should be stated as a fact in the first sentence of his biography, for all the reasons you state (and all the reasons I stated above). CMChuck (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it's different to be appointed to the fact of signing a contract. Pwinsider is not an anonymous source. Per their previous history, fact checking reputation, it's considered a reliable source. They reported the fact that Rhodes signed with WWE. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely wrong in your logic, it doesn't matter how reliable Pwinsider has been in the past there has been no OFFICIAL confirmation on the signing from WWE themselves which should always be the standard take other athletes articles for example, Jadon Sancho had his move to Manchester United announced by the highly reliable Fabrizio Romano before Manchester United and Borussia Dortmund announced it, his Wikipedia article was not changed until the clubs announced it, regardless to the fact that it was announced by the aforementioned highly respected and often reliable Fabrizio Romano Wikisneediaformerlychuckia (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Per my previous example: major news outlets were reporting that Joe Biden would name Kamala Harris his running mate. Was her Wikipedia edited to state that she was officially the VP nominee? No. Because it was not a documented fact, only a report. in fact, this would ***never*** happen on Wikipedia for any news story or individual of major import. The only reason we're having this conversation is because it's for a wrestler, and thus there aren't as many eyes on this page (nor is there as high a standard).
In no way should the lead sentence of his bio state that he is "currently signed to WWE." The intro shouldn't mention WWE at all. You can keep the "return to WWE" section, so long it is edited to say "On March 18, 2022, it was reported by multiple sources that Rhodes had signed a contract with WWE." A report is different from a publicly verified confirmation.
CinnamonCinder (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same. Several sources pointed that Harris 'would be, but no confirmation. Just like some sources pointed that Sid or The Steiners would be Hall of Famers this year. But this is the confirmation he signed a contract. Again, what's the point of WP:INDEPENDENT if we have to wait until a company announced it? There is a huge issue when users talk about independent sources as rumors and dirt sheets despite their proved reliability. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not confirmation because no OFFICIAL source has confirmed it. How you can argue that a non related WWE entity should be considered a confirmation is absurd Wikisneediaformerlychuckia (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why WP:INDEPENDENT exist. WWE has own interest to hide things, which is no neutral. At the end, it's just repetition of WWE narrative. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDEPENDENT isn’t relevant here, your obvious bias against WWE is. None of the independent sources matter until there is official confirmation. Keeping the reports in a post-aew section is fine considering the validity of the journalists who broke the Cody news but to say that he’s officially signed when he isn’t is wrong and is not done in any sort of other Wikipedia article that deals with athletes moving to other organisations. Wikisneediaformerlychuckia (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying you need to hide the reports. There's still a section that says "Return to WWE" which literally says "multiple sources reported he re-signed." This should satisfy your desire to address the news in his entry; no one is attempting to parrot WWE's "narrative." But it is simply unencyclopedic to include the line "he is currently signed to WWE" when there is no publicly available proof or evidence of that fact. This isn't debatable. CMChuck (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A report is not the same as a confirmation. Until PWInsider provides proof or evidence that Cody has signed, it remains a report. That's how journalism works. This is an encyclopedia; biographies of living persons do not get updated with reports based on anonymous sources that cannot be publicly verified. That does not happen with Encyclopedia Britannica, nor does it happen with any other Wikipedia page of major import. CMChuck (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PWInsider confirmed the information with his sources. They don't have to show you NOTHING. Do you know how journalism works? If they show their sources, they will never talk again. PWInsider is reliable source based on his previous work, his career, his fact-cheching reputation, so if they confirmed an information and published, it's reliable. Stop with the annonymous stupidity, they are not going to reveal their sources. No serious newspaper does. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDEPENDENT works in every wikipedia article. Clearly you don't understand wikipolicies. Not bias against WWE, same with Swerve signing with AEW. Fightful confirmed his contract with AEW and, a few days later, he made his debut. If an athlete leaves a team and signs with another and a source CONFIRMED the info, why it's necessary to wait until a company decide to make it public? Are we following a company desires? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A report is not the same as a confirmation. PWInsider has reported that Cody is signed. That is relevant to include in the entry. But unless they provide documentary evidence or proof (or an official announcement is made), you cannot say "he is currently signed to WWE." @CinnamonCinder's Kamala Harris analogy is apt. This isn't a debate, this is basic encyclopedia rules. The "Return to WWE" section still exists and it still mentions that multiple sources are reporting it, so this isn't "following company desires." It's following encyclopedic guidelines. Educate yourself. CMChuck (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a votation. Educate yourself into WP:CIVIL --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the conversation is over, but I wanna note something. CMChuck, CinnamonCinder, and Wikisneediaformerlychuckia all have one thing in common. CMChuck has "Chuck" in his name, CinnamonCinder's user page used to say his name was "Chuck", and Wikisnediaformerlychuckia also has "Chuck" in the name. I have a suspicion that all 3 are the same person. CMChuck and CinnamonCinder are confirmed, but not the other. Thatoneguylol101 (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 28 March 2022

[edit]

He has not appeared 9n any wwe show And I had not been said if he was signed 2601:242:C103:B9F0:4D5A:1DA4:5DA7:ADB8 (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unclear what change you would like to be made exactly. Please see the threads above this one for further debate on his WWE status. — Czello 07:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 29 March 2022

[edit]

Remove the statement that he is currently signed with WWE from the top of the entry, it's ridiculous that editors are deciding to take REPORTS as fact here there has been not a single shred of official confirmation that he has signed. Wikisneediaformerlychuckia (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, came here to say the same thing. wrestling wikis are gonna get out of control if news sites reports are immediately accepted as fact. 69.116.227.170 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - the page is no longer protected, please ensure that contentious edits are discussed first (c.f. WP:BRD). — xaosflux Talk 13:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: Is Cody signed to WWE?

[edit]

FWIW, Dave Meltzer is saying that Cody might still back out of it. Should we add that to the article?

https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/tsmu4z/interesting_tidbit_from_an_interview_with_dave/ --Theotherchairduck (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see pedigrees opinion of this, probably would ignore it because it contradicts the hill he is dying on Wikisneediaformerlychuckia (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL. No need for hostility here. — Czello 09:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 April 2022

[edit]

On April 2,2022 Cody returned as the American Nightmare at Wrestlemania 38 to face Seth Rollns 170.203.128.116 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s also been confirmed by WWE’s Twitter account which should be more than sufficientto confirm this https://twitter.com/WWE/status/1510439731938607107?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet.--65.93.195.118 (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 April 2022 (2)

[edit]

Cody Rhodes is An American Professional Wrestler currently signed to WWE CSUNLIMITED (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cody is fully signed now

[edit]

Please if you will say on the article that Cody is currently signed to WWE due to Wrestlemania return it will be nice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydenstyy (talk • contribs) 02:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 April 2022 (3)

[edit]

Cody is now signed to WWE. HE RETURNED AT WRESTLEMANIA 38 AS SETH ROLLINS MYSTERY OPPONENT. TJMONEY515 (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 April 2022 (4) change to currently signed with wwe

[edit]
WETHEMAN (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 April 2022 (4)

[edit]
Theccorrectguy67 (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change, no vandalism I promise!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 April 2022 (5)

[edit]

Currently signed to WWE 2601:483:400:2940:F88D:2006:3E7E:BC61 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please update page. Cody WWE Superstar Page

[edit]

Can you please update the article to indicate that Cody is now officially part of WWE. He now has a WWE Roster Page. https://www.wwe.com/superstars/codyrhodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 April 2022 (6)

[edit]
82.43.135.218 (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He is currently signed to WWE"

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 April 2022 (7)

[edit]

Please edit as he has already signed with wwe 202.186.250.63 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlemania 38 Debut

[edit]

He now debuted at Mania this Saturday! He has signed with WWE! https://www.wwe.com/superstars/codyrhodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.116.116 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 3 April 2022 (8)

[edit]

Cody Rhodes has returned & signed with WWE, as he appeared at Wrestlemania, so this page should be updated to reflect that. 2601:986:8002:24E0:4B7:9528:BF02:252 (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Rhodes is on WWE. Pls edit this page

[edit]

Cody has recently returned to WWE on Wrestlemania 38 and if you want proof of that look at this link https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/cody-rhodes-wwe-wrestlemania-38-interview-1235221061/ So plz whoever is the administrator of the page pls edit it so it is accurate and is true the rumor has recently happened so please do it many people and the WWE mind you have shown on social media pages that he has returned so if you would update the page for once it would so very kind of you to do so. Thank you and please do it fureal this time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydenstyy (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done A cited sentence has been added. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

[edit]
Theccorrectguy67 (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No request made. — Czello 19:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U are the Best ever@ 41.116.48.12 (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make public page to talk

[edit]

Please make this a public page to add information, if vandalised then users should be banned from Wikipedia. Theccorrectguy67 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Math

[edit]

He's half Cuban on his maternal grandfather's side? If we only know that his maternal grandfather is Cuban, then we don't know if he's half or a quarter Cuban. 2601:483:4B80:8760:8591:BD55:F5E:B3F9 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to update the page.

[edit]

Cody is now a Triple Crown Champion as well since he has held the WWE (current), IC & a Tag Team Championship 2601:806:C300:3140:48C2:BC90:CCF2:5A5 (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Name?

[edit]

In order to avoid assuming such an addition to this article is vandalism, can anyone find a source that references Rhodes under this name? Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 06:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a graphical error on screen a few days ago. It's not, nor has ever been, a ring name. — Czello (music) 06:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2024

[edit]

Stage name: American Nightmare 69.245.12.132 (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 12:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Duty?

[edit]

are we going to acknowledge that he has a pack in call of duty? 81.104.145.62 (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cody_Rhodes&oldid=1237484991"