This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Professional wrestling Mid‑importance The Shield (professional wrestling) is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

• Lead 1 supported by AmericanDad86: The Shield is portrayed as a terrorist gang that has no qualms with taking unjust, immoral measures to righting all the many wrongs they believe to be existent in the WWE. Often, the heel stable is seen ambushing, outnumbering, and skillfully exploiting chaos. Garbed in personal armor, each of the group members take on the appearance of riot police. The Shield's trademarked promos are held in electrical rooms in which they hold a hand-held camcorder close up to their faces one by one and express their intentions. As another trademark of the stable, their entrances and exits are typically made by coming through the audience as opposed to using the aisle way. The Shield's catch phrase is "Believe in the Shield!"
• Lead 2 supported by Starship.paint: The Shield are known for wearing and wrestling in black gear with protective vests, making their way to the ring through the live audience and their first-person hand-held recorded promos.^[1][2][3] In the ring, the Shield are also known for their superior teamwork, willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of the team and forcing victories by overwhelming opponents with superior numbers after incapacitating their team-mates.^[4][5][6][7]

Starship.paint see WP:LEADCITE. Leads don't need sourcing unless they contain particular controversial information. The information in the lead is common knowledge if you are a wrestling fan. The attire information doesn't need a source as there's a photo directly beside it that supports it. Your revision of the group solely wearing protective vests is incomplete.

The fact that they ambush and terrorize superstars in the WWE doesn't need to be sourced as it's corroborated by the rest of the material within the article, which points to numerous instances in which the Shield has ambushed and outnumbered superstars. For example, the following is sourced within the article:

the Shield soon expanded their ambushes to other faces, such as Tommy Dreamer and Ricardo Rodriguez.[7][8][9] The Shield's attacks were also used to write off wrestlers from television via injury angles, such as Randy Orton and Sin Cara, who were already suffering from legitimate injuries

Excessive citing in the lead is NOT required. And not only that, the changes are senseless. What exactly is a "first-person, handheld promo" or even "recorded promo"? All promos are recorded. These edits make absolutely no sense to anyone skilled in the English language. Essentially what you've done is you've taken the information that was originally there and worded it poorly and intelligibly. The edit is unconstructive. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I added the leads before your comment for clarity. I also removed both leads from the article until this is resolved. Firstly I feel a huge problem with Lead 1 is Original Research. It makes claims which I don't think are backed up in any of the articles' sources - so I challenge you, AmericanDad86, to show me the current sources in the article, which backs up...

• The Shield "is portrayed as a terrorist gang"
• The Shield "take on the appearance of riot police."
• The Shield are often "skillfully exploiting chaos".
• The Shield's "trademarked promos are held in electrical rooms"

You can't just say "The information in the lead is common knowledge if you are a wrestling fan." No, you need sources somewhere, even if not in the lead so those sources need to be in the body, so where are the sources? I will address your problems in my lead in a moment. Starship.paint (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Now, let's talk about your problems with my lead. Yes, the attire I wrote is partly supported by the pictures in the article, but I feel that an additional text citation does zero harm to the article and adds more credibility to the statement. Yet, you also mention that "Your revision of the group solely wearing protective vests is incomplete." How is it solely protective vests? It's "wearing and wrestling in black gear with protective vests". You imply that I missed something they wore out, so what is it? Black pants? Black singlets? Those fall under black gear. What other "personal armor" do they wear, if we were to cite your lead you support, and what sources can back up the additional "personal armor" items?
• "The fact that they ambush and terrorize superstars in the WWE doesn't need to be sourced as it's corroborated by the rest of the material within the article" - yes, that is corroborated - no, it is not mentioned in my lead. I was not referring to this when I said there needs to be sources. Instead refer to the four examples I have brought up earlier.
• Excessive citing in the lead is NOT required. - yes, but what is excessive? I quote seven sources. Each backs up a statement made in Lead 2. Source 1 > Black gear. Source 2 > Crowd Entrance / Protective Vest. Source 3 > First-person promos. Source 4 > Superior Teamwork. Source 5 > Sacrificing for each other. Source 6 and Source 7 > Manner of match victories by overwhelming opponents with superior numbers after incapacitating their team-mates. I've only used more than one source for the last point because there's no point concluding how the Shield wins a match from one match alone, there has to be a wider sample. I could have added a third source for the last point but I did feel, that would be excessive citing. I feel that points 4/5/6 are not explicitly mentioned in any other sources in the article, and to have such clear sources that I can even quote from is valuable.
• What exactly is a "first-person, handheld promo" or even "recorded promo"? I merely directly quoted a reliable source, as such it would be the most accurate information. What I can infer is that their promos are from a first-person video using a handheld device. I do not find it very hard to understand. We can re-word it to "their promos conducted via hand-held camcorders".
• Essentially what you've done is you've taken the information that was originally there and worded it poorly and intelligibly. The edit is unconstructive. Poor wording is at best for one sentence, and that was a direct quote from the source. It's so easy to dismiss my edit as nonconstructive, despite the sourcing backing up all the info in lead 2, despite lead 2 bringing up additional information from sources 4/5/6/7, despite the sourcing being archived. WP:LEADCITE: "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." Instead you choose Lead 1, which makes many statements which I have yet to be seen backed up by sources. I'd rather have the sources for Wikipedia:Verifiability than have none. Starship.paint (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead 2 is better. Too much OR and wordiness in the first. "Terrorist", "immoral", "unjust" and "skillfully exploiting" are unverifiable judgment calls, and the sentences run on. But no, there shouldn't be citations in the lead. And it should be "The Shield", not "the Shield". InedibleHulk (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starship paint, the edit is to remain as it originally was until the matter has been discussed in full. Please do not unilaterally delete the information within the article until the matter has been discussed in full. Now at present, I have a get-together I need to make with a friend and am unable to read your extended message at the present and will get to it later, but as of right now, the edit is to stay as is until discussed. That's according to Wikipedia policy. Thank you. I'll return tonight to give you my rebuttal as to your post.

InedibleHulk, I'm not sure if you're the best person to provide input on the issue seeing as how you took to uncivil behavior with me that led to an extended dispute not long ago as you had a lesson to learn in that I'm not to be spoken to any kind of way by you. While all opinions are welcome, yours could easily be construed as nothing more than petty spite and vindictiveness. It's my recommendation that you stay out of it. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend anything uncivil. I like how your version says they're heels. And the ring entrance thing is probably worth a mention. But my edit had absolutely nothing to do with this dispute. I just removed a useless Wikilink, like the MoS says. Look before you revert. And have a pleasant get-together. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right InedibleHulk, you are right. My apologies. :D AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this discussion is over, and made the changes. If I'm mistaken, I apologize. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your version is better. It explains better what is The Shield and, If you have sources, good. Also, what's wrong with the jargon? It's an encyclopedia, we talk for clever people, not for children. Adult people know what is a " first-person hand-held recorded promo" and if the people don't know, they can find it, but erase it because is "jargon" I see stupid. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think that his "verion" is better, huh? These same adult people who you describe as finding it understandable to say "first-person hand-held recorded promo" are probably the same individuals to find it understandable to say "verion" and "is jargon I see stupid." AmericanDad86 (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HHH Pedrigree originates from Spanish Wikipedia / Commons. I'd give him some leeway on his spelling. I'm still waiting on your rebuttal which you would give tonight. Also, feel free to propose a replacement for "first-person hand-held promo". And Hulk? Why don't you agree with citations in the lead? These citations are for the characteristics of the Shield which are not as explicitly said in the rest of the sources. If anyone thinks the citations are ugly, Id suggest Bundling citations. I just think that it's better to have the explicit citations saying "The Shield have better teamwork" / "The Shield sacrifice themselves for each other" than not. Starship.paint (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the citations are necessary. The citations means that we don't imagine the article. "Shield have better teamwork" needs a citation, because we can use for every tag team without a citation (every tag team/stable means The Hardys, New Age Outlaws, Santino and Kozlov and Men on a Mission). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is meant to summarize the key points of what's already detailed in the body. Of course we need sources, but those should be (or at least typically are) cited in the body, not the lead. If there's something mentioned in the lead that isn't in the body, it should be added where relevant. I can't click your citations here without a reflist, but I'll look into them and help how I can. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one of your sources to the bit that says they come through the crowd. I don't think their outfits need a citation, since we have pictures in the article that speak a thousand words. I'll be back later to do the rest, but if you'd like to beat me to it, feel free. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.Paint, I've bowed out. You all can do what you will with the section in question. AmericanDad86 (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Shield really disbanded? Not due to disbelief but due to the fact that Rollins walked out but Reigns and Ambrose are still in it. Does it count when there's only 2 members left? And I'm sure they won't really be broken up until either of them faces Rollins in a match. I am willing to be proven wrong about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 13:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, him leaving them does NOT mean the group has been disbanded anyways. That's assuming way too much. What if he was doing tough love? Aren't two people still in the Shield? Where's the credible source that states they're officially disbanded? This needs changing. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 15:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is out, not even Rollins... yet. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, due to the events from last night, I think it's safe to say they are now disbanded. There can be no Shield without Rollins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose and Reigns can remain as a tag team called the Shield. starship.paint "YES!" 02:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the episode of RAW that aired on Monday and I cannot understand why someone would remove the addition of Face turn for The Shield when that's exactly what happened. Jerry Lawler was called into the ring for punishment by Kane but the Shield turned on and attacked him instead of King. How does this not warrant a face turn addition to their page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs) 13:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's approach this with caution. I would really rather wait until the next Raw is completed, or actually even after WrestleMania. We have to look at this long-term, how do we know that their "turning" is not a temporary thing and that they're not going to turn back before or by WrestleMania? Essentially we need more actions to confirm that they're faces or tweeners long term (also, we need reliable sources to confirm this)

Look at the Miz, he apparently turned at least three times since November 2013 when he feuded with Kofi Kingston. Then he fought heel Clay, face Ziggler, heel Fandango? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound condescending but wouldn't an attack by Kane, The New Age Outlaws, Ryback, Curtis Axel, and The Real Americans(all heels) require the Shield to be faces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidorulz (talk • contribs)

It does really look that way. But you saying "require"... is not important. What's important is a reliable source saying that they are so. Raw's happening in two days. There should be more storyline confirmation of their face (or tweener) status. I still think we would be best left judging after this Raw. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since RAW has yet to air in my time zone, can we have a reliable source that confirms this turn as official? I am getting tired of the speculation and the current source only says that they were the "face team" in a single match and it seemed that WWE was going in that direction with them. That does not confirm anything. Through a google news search I am only seeing rumor mills such as BleacherReport. STATic message me! 01:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just read the results now what has at all changed? Nothing significant happened, it looks like it is not even clear that The Shield have left The Authority (professional wrestling). So per WP:BRD, discuss CRRaysHead90. STATic message me! 02:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna leave this here. Draw your own conclusions. I'm just sick of your point-y, antagonistic attitude. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 02:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What possible verifiable sources could there be for a face turn? WWE aren't going to officially announce it, and other sources are dismissed as unreliable or 'rumor mills'. This overzealous moderation policy for wrestling pages is ridiculous and totally self-defeating, and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Dannys-777 (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PW/SG We have a list of sources that are reliable, and those that are would discuss it, if it was factual. Sorry for the "overzealous moderation policy," but this is meant to be a encyclopedia of reference, not some random forum, blog post or wikia. We do not need to write "THEY ARE FACES NOW", if you read the article you can tell. This is not an IWC written bio, this is supposed to be professional and everything must be verified by reliable sources. STATic message me! 06:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to realize time and time again, Static, is that you will never find a source, reliable or otherwise, outright saying an alliance change of that type. Never. Yet Wikipedia still reliably mentions it. You seriously act like the king of the wrestling articles. Discuss, don't revert. Assume good faith, don't be Antagonistic. And remember, policies are rules, but rules are made to be broken in the right circumstances. Finally, relax, Wikipedia is not gonna become any more or less reliable simply over this circumstance where's there's not a source to verify something that is obvious to anyone watching the storyline. Stop over thinking it, this is supposed to be fun, not a job. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 07:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every post of yours makes it painstakingly obvious that you do not understand WP:V or WP:NOR and it is quite sad. So as the more knowledgeable of the policies here, I am just going to ignore the personal attacks. If you think the Wikipedia policies are meant to be broken, then you really should not be editing here and it sounds like a very bad WP:ANI thread will be in your future with that attitude. The burden of proof is on who adds the content. Discussion has been on going and there seems to be no consensus to list it. STATic message me! 12:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never made a personal attack, nor did I say I favor OR, invarifibilty, or breaking the rules at a whim. You said I said that. The inability to source something immediately has never stopped this project from adding something before when it was obviously true. You are the only one reverting the reliable addition of the face turn. It became even more obvious last night when the WrestleMania match was set. So, with all due respect, I honestly think a reasonable case can be make to use IAR to add this and source it when a source is available. Wikipedia is not permanent and if something drastically changes, it can be fixed. Also, I'd like to point out that is the link I provided above and former member of PW Torch called them babyface's in his live review. ne last thing, I will give that they COULD be tweeners, but they have most definitely ceased to be straight up heels, as the link I provided notes. What say you, all that said. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 00:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Calm down guys, we'll see what I can pull out of the hat ...
• History of the Shield is up to date and reliably sourced ..
• Let's see if I can find reliable info on a face turn ... There! That's done. That wasn't hard to find. Now to search on a tweener status during the Wyatt feud.
• Never mind, instead, I sourced from PWTorch that the feud btw Shield and Wyatts was heel vs heel, but WWE positioned audience to root for the Shield. All happy now? Analysis of editors' actions above to come later. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See that was all that was needed, a reliable source to confirm the information. Abiding by WP:V is not that hard and it is not too much to ask in the slightest... Glad to see you stuck with the section header we talked about. STATic message me! 05:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure everyone who's been trying to add "face turn" (recently) is doing so in good faith. The problem is that you're not doing it correctly. STATic has every right to remove any information that is not backed up by a reliable source. This is a core principle of Wikipedia - no original research. In STATic's defense, he's just trying to keep Wikipedia professional - although his no-nonsense policy could be viewed as dick-ish by those trying to add content in good faith. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CR90: @Dannys-777:, @Guidorulz:, @THECONOLSEN: and @Jgera5: - all of you could have added the content I added. The problem is, you couldn't find the reliable sources. I am not sure why.

1. Here is the list of reliable sources. Pick one like I did (PWTorch), go to Google Search.
2. In the search box, type "site:pwtorch.com". You are now only searching PWTorch's website.
3. Type in the keywords, in this case, I typed in "Shield" and "babyface", or "Shield" and "face".
4. Click search. See if the results produce anything. You can further fine-tune your search with "Search tools" - like defining the time period. In this case I knew that Shield didn't turn before March 7. So I set a custom date range from March 7 and later.
5. If nothing comes up in PWTorch, repeating with the other reliable sources: "site:slam.canoe.ca", "site:f4wonline.com", "site:wrestleview.com". I'm trying to get PWInsider confirmed as a reliable source as well, and maybe Pro Wrestling Dot Net after that.
6. If, and only if, all present reliable sources are exhausted, then maybe we could discuss "ignore all rules", but really, don't expect much success. This was clearly not the case here. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrose debuted a new theme and attire, and Reigns debuted a new theme and tron, plus Reigns is in the title picture and Ambrose is in a separate storyline with Rollins, so... I guess that kinda means they've quietly disbanded now? Kattastrophic (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pls lemme edit the details cause there is news tht john cena is going to join the shield. i will add john cena in the members and write probably in the bracket

59.91.231.19 (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable secondary sources are clear. The Shield quietly separated on June 20. They are sourced in the article. PWTorch, for the June 20 SmackDown, indicates that Ambrose and Reigns were "separating ... at this point" and that WWE were "having them on their own" with the change in Ambrose's theme music and attire. Canoe.ca says for the same episode that "I guess the Shield is now just Reigns". It's even more clear from the June 24 Main Event, PWTorch reports: "Reigns said he ran this yard with the Shield and he still runs this yard on his own." Ran is past tense. Runs is present tense. Therefore, the Shield is done. The clincher, WWE.com for the June 24 Main Event Reigns ... the former Shield member. starship.paint "YES!" 07:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STATicVapor, you added the lead too long tag to the article, so I thought I want to hear your opinion, do you think a summary of their history is appropriate for the lead? Or, what do you think should be done about the lead? starship.paint ~ regal 15:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD could answer the question generally. Yes it is okay to summarize their history, but it does seem quite excess at some points, and the overall length of it is too long. Also from WP:LEAD, "it should ideally contain no more than four paragraphs". You should not have to scroll down to keep reading the lead section. STATic message me! 17:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STATicVapor, I believe the lead is more satisfactory now. I don't think I can cut much more. starship.paint ~ regal 03:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is settled then since STATic agreed. starship.paint ~ regal 00:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed quite a bit to this article's History section and the lead so they should be in good shape. All we have to do is tighten the rest of the smaller sections and this can be a candidate for Good Article status, since the stable has dissolved and no big future updates seem to be coming. A possible DYK hook after GA could be .. that the Shield have twice gone on to fight a former employer of theirs? starship.paint ~ regal 00:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still count the team of Ambrose and Reigns as an incarnation of the Shield? That's what the lead paragraph and infobox are both inferring. I personally don't think it counts as the Shield operating under the name "Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns". MisterMorton (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was about to say, Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns are not a tag team either. They're just friends now who have got each other's back. Roman is the only who hasn't moved on from his shield days :p I suggest that we remove their names from the page. 125.63.110.159 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely not. I agree with you, MisterMorton and 125. They have not reformed the Shield. They are different characters now. New themes and new attire. The Dean Ambrose and Roman Reigns article is available. In fact, I don't even think they are a tag team. Like 125 said friends now who have got each other's back. Do they have a shared Titantron? starship.paint ~ KO 04:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reigns and Ambrose have very frequently been teaming up. And Id say they are a tag team, even if they arent the shield. We need a "Current" section talking about Reigns and Ambrose teaming up.

Another thing this article needs, is to mention the verious "one off" reunions of the shield. There have been a few.

It doesnt need much, but it needs a small section talking about the current 207.119.118.172 (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless they reunite as the Shield, it's not really relevant to this article, which is about the Shield. So, get some reliable sources or better WWE.com that there has been an official Shield reunion. starship.paint ~ KO 00:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the idea to start the merge has more supports, should it be merged now or wait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I will merge them when I have the time. Thanks for your support. Heytherehowsitgoin (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major issue that needs to be discussed, Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose are two out of the three members of The Shield and they continue to tag together, so should The Shield page be changed to say Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - they were two out of the three members of the Shield, which is defunct since June 2014. They do not frequently tag together, and they have achieved nothing of note as a team. This radical change needs consensus. Changing the article from focusing on the Shield of 2012-2014 to Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose of 2015 is ludicrous. Nuke the Post-split and legacy section while y'all at it, will ya? Keep this article to 2012-2014 stuff and this shit will go away. All other stuff goes into Roman Reigns individual article and Dean Ambrose individual article. starship.paint ~ KO 03:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do mean they don't frequently tag together? they have been teaming since The Shield broke up, it would make perfect since to change the article name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose - like starship.paint said, they were members of the shield. The article is for The Shield and the name has not been used since, nor has there been any kind of reformation. The Shield consists of Rollins, Ambrose, and Reigns. Rollins' betrayal marked the end of the Shield and there has been nothing of the Shield since. This was previously discussed in the merge discussion, which was why the now nonexistent Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose article has been merged here. They are NOT a team. They are NOT The Shield. They are however singles competitors, as they fight for singles titles. They are often seen in matches together, yes, but that is because they are allies. All events that are relevant to the Shied topic (including the teaming of Ambrose and Reigns), go into the "Post-split and legacy" section. Heytherehowsitgoin (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Brothers of Destruction are singles competitors too but they are still considered a team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Brothers of Destruction achieved multiple tag team championships as a tag team. Ambrose and Reigns have never even had a tag team championship as a team since the split, nor have they had a tag team title match. They have achieved nothing as a team except ONE feud win against the Wyatts. Heytherehowsitgoin (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that the feud ended with a singles match between Reigns and Bray shows that the feud was never really about the duo of Ambrose and Reigns against the whole Family, but really a singles feud with add-ons. starship.paint ~ KO 08:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They also feuded with The League of Nations and The Authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dean Ambrose was feuding with Rollins and The Authority, a feud Ambrose lost after many failed attempts to capture the defeat Rollins at the PPV. Although occasional help from Reigns, it was Ambrose vs Rollins and the Authority. As for the League of Nations, that is a feud still in the works, with no conclusion, and that feud is Reigns vs The League of Nations and the Authority, with occasional help from Ambrose and The Usos. Reigns and Ambrose are in separate feuds, defending their titles and have never been a tag team, their only successful feud being against the Wyatts. As said before, they are singles competitors that have each other's backs. Heytherehowsitgoin (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dean and Roman both feuded with Authority and League of Nations and were put into tag matches with both groups on multiple occasions, and it doesn't matter if they were successful in the feud or not, and just because they both hold singles titles doesn't mean they are not a team, take Triple H and Stone Cold for example, they held the Intercontinental and World title individually and were still a team before winning tag titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said that singles titles meant that they are not a tag team. The point I am trying to make is that although they are put into matches together, even on multiple occasions, does not automatically make them a tag team. Ambrose and Reigns never had a tag team title feud. Being allies does not conclude tag team. As said before, Ambrose and Reigns are not The Shield. The article is about The Shield. Relevant post-Shield info (including the multiple Reigns and Ambrose encounters) goes into "Post-split and legacy". Heytherehowsitgoin (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Roman and Dean ARE the Shield, they are only two out of three members of the group, they just don't use the shield name, that's the reason they had their own tag team article in the first place even though they were never in a tag title feud, so everything you are saying is invalid.

• The article proves they aren't the Shield. It was titled Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose. If they were the Shield, the history section of the Shield article would continue as some sort of reunion, which is absolutely not the case. A two out of three member alliance does not solidify a reunion whatsoever. The creation of the tag team article for Amrose and Reigns was merged here for a reason, because they are not a tag team. Heytherehowsitgoin (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They "are" a tag team, that's the reason they had their own "Tag Team" article before it was merged and if you saw the article, in the names column, what name was there beside Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose? Oh, that's right, THE SHIELD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article of Reigns and Ambrose was merged for a reason, as said before... They aren't a tag team, and are not the Shield. Even the Shield article states, "While Ambrose and Reigns did not fall out with each other, they did begin to take separate paths" AND "On the June 24, 2014 episode of Main Event, Reigns confirmed that he was on his own and no longer with the Shield, thus confirming that the Shield had dissolved.". Not once were they recognized as a team by WWE. They are not a reunited duo that isn't using the Shield name, as they aren't a tag team at all. Please understand what all of these opposes are saying and understand what you are trying to fight for, as I have said way more than needed. Heytherehowsitgoin (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• But yet it still had their name as The Shield, and if you go to WWE.com, it says that they are teaming tonight, Reigns and Ambrose ARE the Shield, just because they don't go by the name anymore doesn't mean they aren't the Shield, and the only reason Reigns confirmed that he was no longer with The Shield, is because he didn't know that he and Ambrose were going to be teaming up anytime soon, but they did. And if you are to go to this website: http://www.inquisitr.com/2388844/wwe-rumors-tag-team-to-be-repackaged-and-given-new-gimmick/ It has Roman Reigns and Dean Ambrose listed as a tag team, and this website has all the proof I need: http://www.christiantoday.com/article/roman.reigns.and.dean.ambrose.eye.wwe.tag.team.titles/63078.htm , not to mention, List of current WWE tag teams and stables has Roman, Dean, and The Usos, listed as a team. So I have all the proof I need that they are are/were a team, YOU on the other hand have NO proof. And if that's not enough, then here's a something eles: http://www.inquisitr.com/2363115/wwe-news-roman-reigns-and-dean-ambrose-to-go-after-wwe-tag-team-championships/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - If anything should be done, the post shield stuff needs merged into Reigns and Ambrose's pages like the person above said. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: They aren't a tag team. They are two faces that help each other. We supposed to make a team for any random amount of faces and heels that team. What next? Include the Usos as Shield members because they were in tag matches together? We supposed to include Jericho and Orton too? The rationale for this idea is lacking and obviously someone didn't think this through.--WillC 23:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • first of all your comment is invalid, because Orton and Jericho teamed with Reigns and Ambrose for one night, whereas Roman and Ambrose have teamed more than many times, The Usos on the other hand could be in the members section too if they had their own individual articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale behind this is that the two have had matches together. Not once called a regular tag team or anything. They just were in matches together. The same applies to Jericho and Orton. The only reason this is being discussed is the relation to the Shield. If they had no connection to one another, they wouldn't be called a tag team.--WillC 07:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • They had their own tag team article before it was merged with the shield page.
• Strong oppose per paint. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What?

• Strong Agree - They are only two out of three members of The Shield, I could see if there were more members but it's just three, so it would make a ton of since to change the name of the article since Dean and Roman still do team together, not to mention they both come down to ring at the same time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk)
  • They do not come down to the ring together, they come down separately at different times, to different themes. This also shows that they are not at all a tag team. Also, you really shouldn't strong agree to your own discussion. Just a heads up. Heytherehowsitgoin (talk) 06:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must not have been watching Raw because Roman and Dean have came down together on more than one occasion and to Reign's theme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is rare, I admit they do it on occasion, but not all the time. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not rare at all, they have done more than a few times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's the exception rather than the norm. starship.paint ~ KO 08:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway 24.214.94.65 do you get what you are really proposing? Changing the focus of the article to the duo of 2015, instead of the trio of 2012-2014. starship.paint ~ KO 08:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do get what I am doing.

Looks like The Shield may be coming back to the WWE. Qewr4231 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it but anything is possible, have to wait and see Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me}

The kayfabe rumors in the wrestling world is that The Shield will get back to feuding with The Authority again. Look what happened on the last Monday Night Raw. Qewr4231 (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Angle is not a member of The Shield. Being made an honorary member for one night of a PPV does not make him a member of The Shield. Lets be real here folks, Honorary is not considered a member.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree kurt angle is a member, but the problem is my changes keep getting reverted by some troll and vandal. i have contacted people but nothing is being done about this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo0505 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they teamed once at a pay per view does not make Kurt a member. it was one time thing what is wrong with you people? 98.227.178.233 (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly no one is using their heads here cause people keep adding him as a member, one couldnt even spell his name right for god sakes. what is wrong with people, I mean seriously? 98.227.178.233 (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone thinks they are right and doesn't look at the facts, watch how you say and word things it can be taken as a personal attacks. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC

Not trying to personal attack anyone, just cant see why people have to act so ridiculous and make up stuff that clearly isn't true. 98.227.178.233 (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cant we add kurt angle as a member and in bracket say one night only? like this- Kurt Angle(One night only). I am saying this because he entered TLC with shield and with shield music. he also were shield attire he was a member for one night 103.248.78.29 (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2017 (BDT)

Given that the page for the Machines lists members who were in the team for only one match, I think that Kurt Angle qualifies for this page. Laurellien (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not even remotely the same.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 13:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt shouldn't be listed as a member. It's okay to say he was the last minute replacement for Reigns, which is what we do now, but we should not put him in the infobox or lede.LM2000 (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let be real here folks they said in you tube mecury was the 4th never of the shield triple h was a member in the house show orton helped Ambrose and reigns in a house show Kurt angle you should be (Kurt angle one night) Jhonh3360 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was auto correct for member and they to change to never Believe me here folks Jhonh3360 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First there has already been discussions about this, they were not and are not official members. Secondly when you are editting an article do not remove the info box, edits like that can be considered disruptive and or Vandalism to an article. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 21:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like that going to make a fucking difference whatever Jhonh3360 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about you choose to become as constructive editor instead of what you're doing now? That would make a huge difference for everyone else.★Trekker (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The title reigns section is missing Dean's Intercontinental Reign. Should we add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.20.234 (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not part of the Shield. The hidden message says it clear. Nickag989^talk 19:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Show it because he won it 3 Times Jaheirwwe18 (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this stuff is scripted, terms like "betrayed" should be in quotation marks. I suppose that applies to victories and defeats as well. Drmies (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:C7F:C460:E400:502A:89D6:1DD5:958E (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:C7F:C460:E400:5458:AAA8:7550:4E2F (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change that? Dean Ambrose came back yesterday! :) (Welcome back Dean Ambrose!) Pancakes654 14:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs)

Dean Ambrose returned on the Raw before SummerSlam The Shield is not on hiatus anymore and Dean Ambrose is no longer injured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:57F:59A0:2975:48FB:5133:86B (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

His Contract is gonna expire in 2019 after Mania 35, and not renewing it. 103.18.20.255 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph needs to be changed to past tense as the group has disbanded 2601:4C4:4000:CFE0:5493:F9DF:C30D:34EF (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WWE is promoting yet another "final" Shield match at the upcoming Shield's Final Chapter event.

The article should be updated accordingly.

In the "Championships and accomplishments" section, can someone please remove Dean's Intercontinental title reigns? Because they were NEVER part of the Shield. 2A02:2F0D:20C:D600:F1F5:B532:3D6F:3568 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under the championship and achievements section, add in Jon Moxley's (fka Dean Ambrose) 3 Intercontinental Championship reigns MTNewKiD (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: He did not win the title while he was with The Shield. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dean ambrose has won the intercontinetal championship 3 times but it is not listed Hishamabd950 (talk) 09:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil brooks is full of it . He was never involved in the sheild , 208.118.203.148 (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

in championships and accomplishments section, change "NXT Championship (1 time) - Rollins" to "NXT Championship (1 time) – Rollins" to make it formal. 27.2.132.168 (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lewcm Talk to me! 13:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions to the "History" section, including the "Subsequent Reunions" sub-section, cover all the information in "Post-Initial Split and Legacy". The overall assessment of their championships is useful, as would be any discussion of their influence on subsequent stables or how Reigns and Rollins's shared history was used to build both of them as singles stars. (A counter-example to the "one becomes a top name, the other becomes Jannetty" theory of tag-team splits.) But the 2014-2017 details covered in the section are already in "History". A major clean-up seems in order. 2600:1700:F070:AB10:214C:9205:4018:90B6 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]