Talk:WWE Raw/Archive 1

message: I don't see a reason to add upcoming or previous results of pay-per-views. This is why there is a seperate page of them. Maybe just a mention, but this is an encyclopedia, not free advertising. -- CMC 00:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with that, however I there should be a list of pay-per-views hosted by Raw.--Tqwerty 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a page for that: List of WWE pay-per-view events. Lrrr IV 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay-per-views 

message: The list of champions was reverted back to a table. The list is really simple - it just consists of the Championship name and the wrestler(s) holding that championship. While it may look better as a table, it's simple enough for a list. See Wikipedia:How to use tables#When tables are inappropriate for more information. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of champions 

message: who got off saying that the tag team champs will soon be Umaga and that Armondo guy. thats not NPOV and you know it. Im gonna change it until it happens.--Killswitch Engage 00:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Tag Team Champs 

message: Where has coach been these last week? He wasnt at backlash or WWE Raw? does anyone know exactly?
:I think the plan is for the RAW announce team to return to being just King and JR.  I've heard rumors that Coach might manage Shelton Benjamin, but those might be unfounded. Jeff Silvers 16:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right. Here is how WWE is playing it at the moment: Where is Coach? --Naha|(talk) 16:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coach 

message: Does anybody have the correct amount? JR just said the next RAW would be the 686th episode, according to Wikipedia though the next one will be the 675th. I think JR was right because the 650th episode was back in October. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs) .
:Don't know, but do we really need to keep a running count? Soap operas like General Hospital which also run on a continuous basis throughout the year don't have running count of the number of episodes. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, soap operas do keep a running count of how many shows they've ran. In addition to that, it was noted by Jim Ross on the September 11, 2006 edition of RAW that it was their 694th broadcast. Srosenow 98 06:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Episodes? 

message: In the RAW article it has under the external links a few web sites that give the results, were they made by fans and if so can i add my web site to to. http://don.-.j.tripod.com/wwemondaynightrawsite/
--Don.-.J 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference though. We included a results page as Wikipedia doesn't have one and at this point has no plans on doing so. Your site though isn't notable enough, sorry. --Oakster (Talk) 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My WWE RAW Website 

message: Is there a reason why my WWE Raw image taken from a live televised event in Tacoma was removed - twice? I think since we include a photo taken of a WWE RAW televised event at Wembley Stadium, we should also include one taken from a similar vantage point at home. The TitanTron showing Shawn Michaels' entrance is OK, but it only illustrates the TitanTron and was most likely taken in a much smaller venue than the Tacoma Dome. User:Srosenow_98 August 2, 2006.
Erm...it would make more sense to have a pic of the titantron than another photo of simply another arena's vantage point of which there is already a photo. Sure, it's a bigger arena than the one the titantron pic was taken at, but at least the titantron is a completely different vantage point of the arena. I actually came to the WWE RAW page to look for an image of the titantron. Andyroo316 12:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thumbnail Images 

message: We know that she had a baby back in july of last year.but is stephanie scheduling to return to RAW to alling w/ her brother & father if vince & shane continued their feud w/ any superstar on different brands?134.124.143.149 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephanie wasn't full-time before getting pregnant, I don't see it changing anytime soon. TJ Spyke 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephanie McMahon's return 

message: last nights raw lost power in the whole arena and had to revert to mikes with chords and lights... was that kayafabe or true? if it is true it should be added24.128.202.124 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looseing power?

message: wwe will change raw theme music from union underground to papa roach to be loved next monday here is the link to the site that says it.--Micheal21 19:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: raw theme song

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Move. Also, note the common usage of "Raw", "Fox", etc. —Centrx→talk • 17:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example is the Fox Broadcasting Company, which uses "FOX" as the "official name" of all its related companies, television shows, and other intellectual property, but Wikipedia follows standard English writing conventions and uses "Fox". Croctotheface 08:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet another example: Wikipedia uses Korn, not "KoЯn" or "KoRn", which is the spelling the band uses on their official site.  It is clear that Wikipedia policy supports this move. Croctotheface 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What about IPod? The first line in the article says: The correct title of this article is iPod. The initial letter is capitalized due to technical restrictions.. This implies that if not for the technical restrictions of Wikipedia, it would be indexed under the name iPod. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Raw", "fox" and "time" are English words independent from WWE Raw, Fox Broadcasting Company and Time Magazine, while "iPod" and "eBay" are not. Besides, capitalizing the second letter of a word instead of the first more closely approxomates standard English than captializing the whole thing.  Do you really not see the very direct similarities between Time, Fox, and Raw?  Do you really think iPod is a more similar case? Croctotheface 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see similarities, but what I'm saying is there are flaws in the guideline and as a result, I don't agree with a move until some of this stuff is hammered out.  --Jtalledo (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you disagree with the policy, you should propose changing it.  Not agreeing with a policy is not cause for intentionally ignoring it.  I don't agree with the policy that calls for commas to be placed outside quote marks, but I don't write my edits that way out of protest. Croctotheface 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a policy, it's a guideline. According to  Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Also, I'm not opposed to the guideline either, it makes sense, but the language used to describe it is not concrete enough to make me fully believe that it applies in this case. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I stand corrected on it being a policy. I don't see how it could apply to Fox and Time without applying here.  It's essentially the same situation. Croctotheface 20:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see where you're coming from here but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) doesn't really convince me here. With all the show's different names, I'm not sure WWE even uses "Raw" in the title to refer to the English word anymore. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It SHOULD go back to "WWE RAW" since that is the correct name. TJ Spyke 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt. The result should have ended with a No Consensus as only three users voted. And one of the votes shouldn't even count (Nominator). -- bulletproof 3:16 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: * Support per my own nomination. :) Croctotheface 06:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Just to make it very clear, although WWE uses "RAW" as its "official" spelling, Wikipedia policy calls for using "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment: avoid: REALTOR®  instead, use: Realtor". I already mentioned the Time magazine case.  Additionally, wrestling publications such as Pro Wrestling Torch follow a similar policy regarding using "Raw" instead of "RAW" and "Impact" instead of "iMPACT".  Croctotheface 08:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example is the Fox Broadcasting Company, which uses "FOX" as the "official name" of all its related companies, television shows, and other intellectual property, but Wikipedia follows standard English writing conventions and uses "Fox". Croctotheface 08:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet another example: Wikipedia uses Korn, not "KoЯn" or "KoRn", which is the spelling the band uses on their official site.  It is clear that Wikipedia policy supports this move. Croctotheface 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What about IPod? The first line in the article says: The correct title of this article is iPod. The initial letter is capitalized due to technical restrictions.. This implies that if not for the technical restrictions of Wikipedia, it would be indexed under the name iPod. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Raw", "fox" and "time" are English words independent from WWE Raw, Fox Broadcasting Company and Time Magazine, while "iPod" and "eBay" are not. Besides, capitalizing the second letter of a word instead of the first more closely approxomates standard English than captializing the whole thing.  Do you really not see the very direct similarities between Time, Fox, and Raw?  Do you really think iPod is a more similar case? Croctotheface 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see similarities, but what I'm saying is there are flaws in the guideline and as a result, I don't agree with a move until some of this stuff is hammered out.  --Jtalledo (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you disagree with the policy, you should propose changing it.  Not agreeing with a policy is not cause for intentionally ignoring it.  I don't agree with the policy that calls for commas to be placed outside quote marks, but I don't write my edits that way out of protest. Croctotheface 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not a policy, it's a guideline. According to  Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Also, I'm not opposed to the guideline either, it makes sense, but the language used to describe it is not concrete enough to make me fully believe that it applies in this case. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I stand corrected on it being a policy. I don't see how it could apply to Fox and Time without applying here.  It's essentially the same situation. Croctotheface 20:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I see where you're coming from here but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) doesn't really convince me here. With all the show's different names, I'm not sure WWE even uses "Raw" in the title to refer to the English word anymore. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It SHOULD go back to "WWE RAW" since that is the correct name. TJ Spyke 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt. The result should have ended with a No Consensus as only three users voted. And one of the votes shouldn't even count (Nominator). -- bulletproof 3:16 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I changed the image in the infobox back to the image I uploaded - :Image:wwe_raw_logo.png. Logos like this should really be in PNG format and :Image:3460856.gif doesn't have source information or fair use rationale on its image description page.
Also, I removed the international broadcasters from the infobox as well. According to Template talk:Infobox Television#Usage, international broadcasters should not be included here. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So how is the blurry image :Image:RAW.jpg better than :Image:wwe_raw_logo.png? --Jtalledo (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll try and find a better quality image to replace the current one. Perhaps :Image:Mondaynightraw.JPG may do the trick? Not quite as blurry as the other one.-- bulletproof 3:16 06:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That is the correct set, at least as of this past Monday. TJ Spyke 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But the set itself is still the same. TJ Spyke 01:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Will the AM RAW logo now be changed with the new WWE Raw logo? ViperBite 15:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AM RAW logo 

message: I am wondering why WWE take all the wrestlers who are good on smackdown and put them on Raw? Jackster608 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a question for a message board devoted to discussing wrestling, or maybe even a wrestling blog. This page is meant strictly for discussing THE CONTENT of the article. --CJ Marsicano 16:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Raw taking all the best wrestlers off of Smackdown? 

message: The question is in the title.
What the RAW initiales mean ?
Thanks.
::Its just the name of the show... Jeez...-- bulletproof 3:16 23:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The show's title was NOT "Raw is WAR." The show's original title when it debuted in 1993 was "Monday Night RAW" which it still is technically to this day (As both Vince McMahon, Jerry Lawler, and Jim Ross both reference it as such). It only became "RAW is WAR" at the beginning of the Attitude Era in 1997. Srosenow 98 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RAW stands for Real American Wrestling.  MISSINGNO. was here. 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  R.A.W => What does it mean ???? 

message: Back in the days before Monday Night Raw, every wrestling show that was on television was taped. (ie: Prime Time Wrestling, WCW Saturday Night, WWF Superstars, All American Wrestling, etc.) So, it's my understanding that the Raw in WWE Raw means Live where they coined the phrase, "Anything can happen in the World Wrestling Federation" as opposed to showing something that happened at a live event a couple of weeks back (i still can remember those days). Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs)
I believe the 'RAW' part, as well as simply being a reversal of 'WAR', used to signify the popularly termed 'Monday Night Wars', was a reference to the live nature of the program, significantly the 'IS WAR' extension was dropped sometime after the purchase of WCW, lending further weight to the theory.
Of course as with most things which enter pop culture, the words were giving numerous meanings. Sentinel618 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raw = Live

message: WWE Raw → WWE RAW —  The reasoning in this it's the official name, and there wasn't any consensus. If you count the nominator, the vote was only 2-1, not an all inclusive vote BionicWilliam 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't have been move in the first place since the vote was only 2-1. Currently the vote is 3-2 in favor of moving. TJ Spyke 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing my best to stay civil here, but what part of what he wrote don't you understand?  Are you just willfully pretending you don't know how Wikipedia works?  Guidelines should be followed, not ignored because it suits you personally.  If you disagree with a guideline, try to change it, don't pretend you can choose not to follow it.  Croctotheface 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The MOS also says not to invent new formats, "Raw" is rarely ever used to describe the show. TJ Spyke 20:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does this deserve an exception from the MOS?  Because you say so?  An ADMINISTRATOR already described why the argument that has been used so far is invalid and will be disregarded. Croctotheface 20:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because its not about raw meat, many TV Schedule Listing list as WWE RAW so RAW commonly used as the spelling, and are you going to change all the other Wikipedia’s to there word for raw? Probably not since raw doesn't mean raw meat in most of the other languages. Plus you do not have the authority to decide whose vote is valid or invalid. BionicWilliam 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I'll break up the bulleted list formatting here. ;) The Manual of Style isn't binding, yes, but unless there's a really good reason to deviate from it, it should be followed. There's no real good reason that the show should be the exception to the rule - articles for large corporations like Fox follow it and so should this article. WWE does not use the word "Raw" as a acronym and a new officially licensed product of theirs, WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 uses the lowercase spelling with no issue. As for films and other properties with strange formatting in their titles, that's really an issue that should be raised on the talk pages of those articles. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
* Oppose.  There was just a vote on this, and Wikipedia policy is crystal clear.  See above. Croctotheface 18:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't have been move in the first place since the vote was only 2-1. Currently the vote is 3-2 in favor of moving. TJ Spyke 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm doing my best to stay civil here, but what part of what he wrote don't you understand?  Are you just willfully pretending you don't know how Wikipedia works?  Guidelines should be followed, not ignored because it suits you personally.  If you disagree with a guideline, try to change it, don't pretend you can choose not to follow it.  Croctotheface 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The MOS also says not to invent new formats, "Raw" is rarely ever used to describe the show. TJ Spyke 20:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why does this deserve an exception from the MOS?  Because you say so?  An ADMINISTRATOR already described why the argument that has been used so far is invalid and will be disregarded. Croctotheface 20:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because its not about raw meat, many TV Schedule Listing list as WWE RAW so RAW commonly used as the spelling, and are you going to change all the other Wikipedia’s to there word for raw? Probably not since raw doesn't mean raw meat in most of the other languages. Plus you do not have the authority to decide whose vote is valid or invalid. BionicWilliam 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey 2

message: Add any additional comments:
* Comment.  This isn't a discussion, it's a requested move.  If it was discussion that you wanted, this isn't the way to go about it. Croctotheface 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll break up the bulleted list formatting here. ;) The Manual of Style isn't binding, yes, but unless there's a really good reason to deviate from it, it should be followed. There's no real good reason that the show should be the exception to the rule - articles for large corporations like Fox follow it and so should this article. WWE does not use the word "Raw" as a acronym and a new officially licensed product of theirs, WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 uses the lowercase spelling with no issue. As for films and other properties with strange formatting in their titles, that's really an issue that should be raised on the talk pages of those articles. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion 2

message: This is a dispute over whether to use Raw or RAW in connection with this article and subject matter. 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, OK.  Thats different: it's two names for the same thing, like WWE and World Wrestling Entertainment, not a style dispute.  Croctotheface 21:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Capitalization and spelling are two completely different concepts. All of these are spelled correctly: grammar, Grammar, GRAMMAR, gRaMmAr, gRAMMAr. Actually, you just argued in favor of WWE Raw because capitalization falls under grammar rules, and in the English language we render proper nouns that aren't initialisms in mixed case with a single initial capital followed by lowercase. Hence, WWE (an initialism) Raw (a word). – flamurai (t) 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: When I tried doing that, Croc reverted it and tried to call it vandalism. TJ Spyke 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted it because it's incorrect per the MOS.  Additionally, the matter was and is being discussed in the requested move.  To go ahead and make the move anyway, despite the fact that the matter is under review, not to mention despite the MOS and the words of Nohat, who is an administrator, struck me as not dissimilar to vandalism.  I may have been wrong in calling it that, but I was not wrong to revert it.  Additionally, I see no reason that the MOS would support using the spelling RAW under any circumstances.  This is not a case where two variations are equally correct per the MOS: one (RAW) is wrong, and the other (Raw) is right.  Again, if you don't like it, try to change the policy.  Croctotheface 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, TJ and I were talking about within the article itself, not the name of the article.  Are we not allowed to use the actual trademark in the article either?  James Duggan 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The MOS covers all of Wikipedia, not just article titles.  So, no.  Again, feel free to propose a change to the guidelines.  Croctotheface 03:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have, [], I suggested allowing exceptions for Movie/TV show/video game titles. The MoS also isn't always enforced, I ♥ Huckabees should be at I Heart Huckabees or I Love Huckabees. TJ Spyke 03:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  [[I see that you have.  Doesn't seem to be going your way just yet.  I ♥ Huckabees would almost definitely be moved if someone nominated it citing MoS:TM, which, for some reason, is not the policy you proposed changing. Croctotheface 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment: Raw vs. RAW 

message: Is it true is he going to raw—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoed (talk • contribs) 
:No. TJ Spyke 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize you replied to a 5 month old section? TJ Spyke 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt Hardy on RAW 

message: There best show is when they go to england.--Kingforaday1620 23:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a messageboard. Besides, last nights RAW was pretty bad. TJ Spyke 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speak for yourself; the DX segments were freakin' hilarious. Everyone of them were great. Anakinjmt 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the best 

message: Shouldn't we petition to get the article renamed to "WWE Monday Night Raw"? It is, technically, the correct name for the show as recognized by WWE, both on air and off.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle C Haight (talk • contribs) 
:Actually, the correct name is "WWE RAW". WWE sometimes calls it "Monday Night RAW", but that's just the same way they sometimes call Triple H "Hunter" or Mr. Kennedy "Ken". TJ Spyke 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TV Guides/TiVo, etc. get show names wrong a lot. For example, before this season on-screen guides would call every Pokemon seaon "Pokemon" despite the show getting a new name every year (Pokemon: Johto Journeys, Pokemon: Master Quest, etc.). wwe.com almost always says "WWE RAW" and only sometimes calls it "MNR". You can ask at WP:PW, but i'm sure they will agree that it's just "WWE RAW". TJ Spyke 05:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a gray area, but technically the show's name was never changed from "Monday Night RAW to "WWE RAW." Vince McMahon, Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler, plus several wrestlers still refer to the show on-camera as "Monday Night RAW." In fact Jim Ross said two weeks ago, "This is happening on the WWE Flagship. Monday Night RAW" while referring to the main-event match that night. There's even been versions of the former RAW logo (the one that was just recently replaced) with the words "MONDAY NIGHT" in the upper portion of the logo itself.  Also, "Monday Night RAW" is used in greater frequency as opposed to just "WWE RAW" when discussing the show.Srosenow 98 04:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "RAW" is used far more often than "Monday Night RAW". The official name is "WWE RAW", they just call it "Monday Night RAW" sometimes (the same way Triple H is sometimes called "Hunter" or Hardcore Holly called "Bob"). TJ Spyke 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the issue is a gray one. Having done a consensus of the last four episodes of Monday Night RAW, in conjunction with one I taped back in May (the May 29, 2006 edition, of which I was there in person to see) and again in July, Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler, as well as Vince McMahon all made the "Monday Night RAW" reference on a greater frequency than "RAW" or "WWE RAW." In fact, if you watch the show more closely, Jim Ross clearly states "Monday Night RAW" in almost every mention of the show, usually in conjunction with the line "The WWE Flagship" preceding it. Likewise with Vince McMahon, he tends to refer to the show as "Monday Night RAW" on a far greater frequency than "RAW."  This week's edition in particular was rich with references to "Monday Night RAW" versus "WWE RAW" or simply "RAW."Srosenow 98 12:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, we need to make sure we are consistent. So, if the page stays at WWE RAW, Smackdown should become WWE Smackdown. That's my opinion and what I do. That being said, there is reason to have it be WWE RAW and WWE Friday Night Smackdown: the logos. The RAW logo is just that: RAW. Smackdown, however, is Friday Night Smackdown on the logo. Yes, there is just the Smackdown logo which still gets used, but the match preview thing that shows the wrestlers says Friday Night Smackdown. In addition, the title that shows at the end of the Smackdown video says Friday Night Smackdown (if you don't believe me, you can look here and yes that's my video), whereas for RAW it just says RAW. While I would personally do it how I explained above, if we want to be sure, we should go by the logos; hence RAW is WWE RAW and Smackdown is WWE Friday Night Smackdown Anakinjmt 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE Raw vs. "Monday Night Raw." 

message: The top of this article states that RAW is 'generally considered' as WWE's 'flagship program' over Smackdown! and ECW. While this may be true for ECW as it has not been established as a WWE brand for very long, is there any reasonable cause for suggesting that RAW is considered flagship over Smackdown!? And 'generally considered' by who? Isn't this an example of weasel words? Does anyone else agree? Will2710 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WWE themselves have said on more than one occasion that RAW is the flagship program of WWE. I think the main reason is because the show has been around for about 13 years and gets the highest ratings. TJ Spyke 03:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The WWE Tag Team titles don't originate from the WCW Tag Team titles, but your point is still made: Smackdown holds all brand extension/WCW originated titles. RAW holds all WWE original made titles. Anakinjmt 20:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flagship Program?

message: What happened to the separate page for this? Why does it redirect to the Raw page now?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.178 (talk • contribs) 
:There was an AFD for it, and the consensus to delete it. You can request a deletion review if you want, and maybe bring it up at WP:PW. TJ Spyke 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tribute to the Troops

message: Should we put all logos together making a logo section? 244pupil6
:I don't think it's really needed, because all the logos are already pictured next to the areas of the article that the logo goes with. A logo section would just be clutter, and again, they're already in there just fine. Anakinjmt 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the logos are already used in the article. No need to make another section for it. TJ Spyke 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Logo section

message: I just noticed that someone had changed all instances of "Raw" to "RAW" despite the lengthy discussion that established a consensus for "Raw". As this was done without discussion, I have reverted the change and will continue to do so. Ignoring this, WWE.com doesn't even use "RAW" when they write about their own show.  Croctotheface 10:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: bulletproof has a good solution, they only starting calling it "Raw" after the 700th episode. All references before that should be RAW. Besides, there has never been consenus. TJ Spyke 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was enough of a consensus to move the page. There is no valid reason to ignore MoS:TM, which was the rationale on which the previous consensus was based. The name was never "changed" in any case; the name has remained the same, but WWE no longer uses nonstandard capitalization when they write about it. There has been no valid rationale given to ignore Wikipedia's style guide. As such, "Raw" is the correct usage in all cases. Croctotheface 07:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was 2-1 to move it to Raw. In the next Move, it was 6-4 to move it back (but wasn't). The name has changed, it's the same way Sunday Night HEAT became HEAT and later Heat (or how The Bottom Line became Bottom Line or SmackDown! became Friday Night SmackDown!). TJ Spyke 13:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are aware that vote counts are basically irrelevant to decision making, right?  I mean, tell me honestly, is there any point in trying to have a discussion about this with you?  Are you at all capable of considering that you might be wrong about this? Is there anything at all that could happen that would prevent you from reverting the page every chance you get? Croctotheface 09:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I only brought it up because you said there was consensus to move it. TJ Spyke 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I'm guessing the answer to my questions is no? Croctotheface 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can have a discussion with me. I can admit when I am wrong, but I don't think I am here. TJ Spyke 04:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TJ's revert back to using "RAW" 

message: There is probably goign to be an editing problem as RAW has yet to air in Pacific, but the *SPOILER WARNING* Tag titles have changed hands, so keep an eye on the page until we are allowed to put the change in. ProtoWolf 01:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are allowed to put the title change in NOW. We go by as soon as it first airs in the US, which is now. People on the Pacific Coast are used to this by now. TJ Spyke 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well I was unaware. Okay, that solves that then. ProtoWolf 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, you are new so you didn't know. TJ Spyke 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag Championships 

message: Can people please insert this pic Rawlogo.gif It is so much nicer and has better sourcing than the one used now! I got blocked by an idiot for replacing it with a better one, just look under history and click on the ones that say Candicesfan. Tell me what you vthink of my logo compared to the old one and current one!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.161.3 (talk • contribs) 
:The current one comes straight from wwe.com, how can you get a better source than that?. TJ Spyke 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, I have blocked 206.148.161.3 for being an abusive sockpuppet of the blocked user, Candicesfan.  --Yamla 03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have one with perfect clarity that is bigger that also came from WWE.com (got it when they were doing voting for WWE Cyber Sunday. However, it has a black background to it. Are we content with the logo that is currently in place? Kyle C Haight 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current one is fine, but you can upload that other one so we can decide whether to use it or not. TJ Spyke 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raw Logo 

message: does anyone know if raw stands for real american wrestling or not? Sub619 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it does, WWE has never stated it. I think it's just something fans came up with. TJ Spyke 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Because there is no need for it here. It's mentioned at WWE Brand Extension (where it belongs). TJ Spyke 01:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAW 

message: * Back in the days before Monday Night Raw, every wrestling show that was on television was taped. (ie: Prime Time Wrestling, WCW Saturday Night, WWF Superstars, All American Wrestling, etc.) So, it's my understanding that the Raw in WWE Raw means Live where they coined the phrase, "Anything can happen in the World Wrestling Federation" as opposed to showing something that happened at a live event a couple of weeks back (i still can remember those days).  Mrsteak613 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WRONG. Please do some researsh because otherwise you sound ignorant. RAW was both live and taped. They would do a live episode or RAW on Monday, then tape next weeks episode on Tuesday. So it would be live one week and taped the next. TJ Spyke 00:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raw = Live

message: hey anyone know why Garcia and Roberts have profiles stating that they are the current ring announcers? 20:43 5, June 2007Ydna21
:Garcia is still technically the ring announcer, but Roberts has been doing it since March (when Lilian injured her leg in a skiing accident). If Roberts is still doing it when Lilian is healthy, then I would consider it permanent. I hope that happens because Roberts is a better ring announcer IMO. TJ Spyke 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garcia/Roberts 

message: should we put raw (and smackdown and ecw) results just like we have for ppvs and snme?  Sub!  14:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, that wouldn't be good because it's a hassle, people would vandalize, and the whole page would be too long once half a year is over. And btw, there is vandalism above the contents, could you please remove it? Thanks! Derrty2033 07:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAW results 

message: The article states that A.M. Raw currently airs on Saturday morning at 2 and 9 ET, however according to WWE.com  and my television guide it air on Sunday mornings at 2. Now, I was going to change the article myself, but it goes into detail about when the show changed timeslots. Assuming this information is correct, the show would have changed timeslots again at some time, although I do not know when that was. If I were to change one part without changing the other, because then the article would contradict itself, but I don't want to remove the latter portion of the section to justify changing the first portion. If anyone knows anything about this, such as when a second change took place, would they please make the appropriate edit? Thank you. Calgary 22:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A.M. Raw

message: How can there be 803 episodes of RAW if back in October 2006 they celebrated their 700th episodes??? Last time I checked, there are only 52 weeks in a year making it 52 episodes of RAW per year. There is no possible way there can be 803.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavo Masis-Flores (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some vandal messed it up, this week was the 746th episode. TJ Spyke 00:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 803 Episodes???

message: Would it be a good idea to find out what took place in every special RAW episode and treat them like PPVs and list matches? I think that would be awesome.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Dagon (talk • contribs) 19:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, that wouldn't really help the article. If they were turned into seperate articles, they would likely get deleted again (several of time used to be full articles and then were deleted by AFD's). TJ Spyke 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special Episodes 

message: Question, is it WWE RAW or WWE Raw? It needs to be decided upon. It is not conistent throughout wikipedia and not even on this page. I think it should be RAW, the logo shows it in all caps. What does everyone else think? --Crazy4metallica (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even WWE isn't consistant on this issue since they use both. I personally think it should be RAW. TJ Spyke 00:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer "Raw." But which version is more consistent with the Manual of Style is the real question. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WWE uses "Raw" in most of its relevant stuff on WWE.com.  The Manual of Style calls for "Raw".  Two requested moves went in favor of "Raw".  This is a very straightforward decision.  Croctotheface (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:MOS prefers WWE Raw. I have changed most of the relevant mentions of RAW to Raw where I saw it. — Save_Us_229 23:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAW or Raw 

message: I spent a good deal of time improving the Raw XV article from a very rough stub which had been created, and now it has been removed without a word on my talk page. Could anyone please explain this to me? -- Kevin Browning (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but it is per WP:PW consensus that these special episodes are non-notable and do not need their own articles. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I put my own opinion on the PW discussion that it is notable. I think some of the special episodes are more notable than some pay-per-views. Whereas sometimes there is no story development on PPVs, Raw XV for instance saw returns of many past wrestlers and stables that could affect future storylines. It seems the only criteria for all PPVs being deemed notable is the fact that people pay for them, anyway. Thanks for replying. -- Kevin Browning (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 1)It wasn't "Raw XV", it was "RAW 15th Anniversary Spectacular". 2)Skitzo is right in that it was no different than any other RAW except for having a lot of past WWE wrestlers appearing, none of which will have any real future effect (based on similar specials like the RAW Family Reunion and RAW Homecoming). TJ Spyke 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of ''Raw XV'' article.