Talk:WWE/Archive 3

message: We should really trim down the "See also" section. I noticed there's a been a minor edit war over it, if necessary we can create an article called "List of WWE-related topics" or something instead of putting all that stuff in "See also". Ideally, articles should be linked to naturally in the text. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just created a WWE template recently to sort out the excess of links. I don't think there should be a list either, as that is what the categories are there for. --Oakster (Talk) 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100% Agreed. There is no need to list these non-notable articles when a category can easily become available to access this sort of information without the need of listing Every Single Thing related to WWE on the main article. It just sounds stupid and completely unnecessary when there can be a more useful alternative. -- 3:16 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the List of Video Games, OVW, and DeepSouth links should also be removed. Also, I don't know why it iis locking my old edit on. I keep trying to chance it back to what you guys have (albeit with three less links), but its not letting me so don't fault me for that. JB196 18:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: i think the pge needs more info on ECW!!!
I don't understand why the defunct OVW titles are listed on this page.  OVW are a seperate company not owned by WWE.  I can see the possible benefit of listing the current OVW champions, but I'm not entirely convinced on that either. Sasaki 11:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We keep removing them, but somebody keeps putting them up. Defunct OVW titles should be posted on the OVW article. TJ Spyke 17:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that, I was hoping the people concerned might give some insight as to why? Sasaki 17:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: I created a userbox for WWE fans.  It's . --Bedford 16:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Userbox

message: we know that RAW titantron have been many supershows in U.S. but never as the smackdown titantron. tell me about that?66.80.76.138 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RAW is the A show, so they set up the supershows with RAW in mind. The only difference is that they don't use a ramp for supershows since SmackDown doesn't. TJ Spyke 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  titantron at wwe supershow 

message: Someone changed King Booker to Sucka T. It needs to be changed back and I unfortunately don't know how without messing up the table. 
It's in the table of current champions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by C rod2006 (talk • contribs) 
:I just checked and it says "King Booker". TJ Spyke 00:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Booker T = Sucka T? 

message: Parts of this article are very poorly written, and aren't very useful to anyone without a working knowledge of the subject.  The first thing that pops out to me is:
"They persuaded a lot of wrestlers to sign up contracts with the newly-named 'Gold Dust Trio'. They also were the group that developed the concept of working. Of course that changed the course of professional wrestling history forever." 
What is the 'Gold Dust Trio'?  What is meant by the 'concept of working'?  If these two ideas were made more clear, I might understand why it's supposed to be obvious that it 'changed the course of professional wrestling history'.
There are various other spots which are difficult to get through.  The biggest problem is that a lot of this article comes across like a magazine article trying to get people interested in watching professional wrestling.  Maybe someone who knows more about this can clean it up a little bit and make it more informative to noobs. Dr Ellipso 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewriting needed 

message: Does anyone know where the L.A. office is located?--Yowiki 15:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  international offices 

message: so whats gonna happen to the title if Trish is going?!! -GOTD
:Most likely be vacated. TJ Spyke 02:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trish Last match 

message: I think that the article about WWE just need to refer the company, not about the history of WWE. There was an article about WWE history. This article should refer to the company (financial status, stock market, worldwide offices, etc), and a short reference or link to their history, TV shows, PPV events, titles. That's what I thought.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.234.181.230 (talk • contribs) 
:The seperate article for history was created because it was making this page too long. Unfortunately, people have been ignoring the history page.  It definately needs a cleaning up.  --James Duggan 17:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a page doesn't have a talk page, you can start it yourself. TJ Spyke 21:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: the main page calls vince the OWNER and chairman of the company, how the hell did he become owner? he does NOT own the entire company, only 70% of it, the rest is OWNED BY OTHER PEOPLE!!!
i changed it to FOUNDER of the company before, but someone has changed it, again!!! So, im fixing it ONCE AND FOR ALL!!! Thank You --Too Cool 12:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to majority owner. He is not the founder of the company, his father Vincent J. McMahon founded the company. TJ Spyke 20:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: man, this article gets vandalised everyday, doesnt it?  --Too Cool 12:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? You need to read up on the history of the the company because you have your info all wrong. TJ Spyke 06:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If what you say is true, and I highly doubt it, do you have any sources to support your claim?  The Hybrid 10:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, calm down. This is just Wikipedia, no need to get upset. The WWE/F are the same company as the WWWF, just renamed.  The WWWF was the renamed version of the CWC. Renaming a buisness doesn't mean that the owner killed it and formed a new one in its place, and Vince actually said, "for MY 20 years in this buisness", "in MY 20 years IN the WWE", ect.  We are simply defending what was already in the article for a long time; unless you have verifiable evidence against us, we don't have to prove anything.  The Hybrid 06:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Joseph Raymond "Toots" Mondt sold his share to Vincent J. McMahon in the sixties then left the bissness for unknown reasons .see Toots Mondt BionicWilliam 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Owner?

message: Shouldn't there be some mention of the lawsuit that forced the name change from WWF to WWE?  Reference news story—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.186.237 (talk • contribs) 
:There already is: World Wrestling Entertainment#World Wrestling Entertainment. TJ Spyke 18:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forced Name Change 

message: Sorry to bother you guys but what is the short description of RAW & SmackDown? For example ECW is A New Breed Unleashed.(Master King 09:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description 

message: "World Wresting Entertainment, Inc. has filed a lawsuit against THQ, publisher of WWE video games. Could this delay the releases of WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007?
The WWE names both THQ and JAKKS Pacific in the suit, and alleges that together they improperly sold video games based on WWE properties in Japan and other Asian territories. The lawsuit asserts that the WWE is entitled to terminate THQ's license and claim monetary damages.
THQ's response dismisses the lawsuit as being "without merit," and declares an intent to mount a vigorous defense, but does not offer any reassurance that the currently scheduled release date of 11/14/06 for WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 is unaffected."
So, does anyone think that this deserves a mention somewhere? dposse 01:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It won't delay the release of the game because they would be a breach of contract. WWE simply wants to be able to end their contract (since THQ has the exclusive video game rights to WWE until about 2012). If WWE wins (which based on the facts I know is a good possibility), then this could be the last WWE game made by THQ. TJ Spyke 01:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WWE has had a tiff with Jakks and THQ for several years now - if this issue is finally resolved, it's worth on a mentions on the articles for Jakks and the SmackDown! games and maybe on the THQ article. It doesn't seem major enough for the WWE article though. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jtal, maybe a mention in the THQ and JAKKS articles if WWE is successful and has the contract terminated. TJ Spyke 23:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE sues THQ. 

message: Who added accomplishments (Champion Champions) messed up the whole champion table and territory table also.  It should be placed in the table where King of The Ring is at, etc because those are "Accomplishments". 68.219.13.160
:I Changed it all and it's in the same area now as The Money in the Bank match, etc. But now someones changed it. who was it and can you please leave a message here saying why you deleted it. I feel it is valid and is more important than the money in the bank or even king of the ring.User:Black6989
::It is NOT more importent than either of those events. For one thing, they only mentioned it ONCE after the match and two, there is no indication that it was anything but a one time gimmick. TJ Spyke 23:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accomplishments 

message: Didnt lita lose the title when DX interfered and squirted mustard in her face during a match with mickie james? User:Crazy Chainsaw
:That was not a title match. TJ Spyke 03:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Womnens Champion 

message: I went on it at 6:50pm British time and noticed half of the information missing. Why?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.53.195 (talk • contribs) 
:Probably vandalism. I will check to see if it's been fixed. TJ Spyke 19:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somebody's Messed It Up 

message: 24.239.177.167 05:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, did you read the section GD? He is referring to "World Wrestling Federation" vs. "World Wildlife Fund". TJ Spyke 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WWF v. WWF

message: Nothing mentioned about Katie Vick? 12.41.14.138 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should it be? There is an article about that stupid gimmick anyways, Katie Vick. TJ Spyke 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katie Vick 

message: Look I personally dont beleive there is any need to post the deaths of former Superstars on there, especially blaming it all on Vince McMahon. Most of them abused drugs on their own accord and McMahon and the WWE, release Superstars who partake in such activities. Plus Owen Hart did not die of drug abuse, please get your facts straight and dont tarnish his name or any others who were sober or died from other causes e.g Eddie Guerrero and Joey Marella —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.6.232 (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that whoever added that in didn't bother to check since many of the wrestlers weren't even in WWE. TJ Spyke 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths 

message: The article says that Jesse Ventura NEVER wrestled in the WWF. Not true. I remember, for example, tag team matches pairing Ventura with Brutus Beefcake. He may have never wrestled frequently, but to say he NEVER wrestled is incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.8.159 (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesse Ventura did wrestle in the WWF 

message: It said on wwe.com That wwe has signed matt eggers but he not on the current roster section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwecenafan (talk • contribs) 03:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a actual source? I don't see anything on wwe.com TJ Spyke 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just because he signed, doesnt mean he will be in wwe. he could be in dsw or ovwDerek840378 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matt Eggers signed with wwe 

message: Just a thought should the fact the WWE has met with both PRIDE and New Japan Pro Wrestling, with the hope of future business together be added into Business advances or something, I believe its a pretty major step being undertaken by the WWE.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.75.92 (talk • contribs) 
:Maybe, but right now they don't mean much unless some kind of deal actually happens. TJ Spyke 22:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra information in Business advances 

message: I've gone through all of the articles linked from the WWE template, and basically none of them, including this one (except for the last section), have citations. I've added tags to them. -- Kevin Browning 09:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone removed the tag on this article with no comment. I put it back. Next time you remove it, be sure to add references first. -- Kevin Browning 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE spectrum articles need references. 

message: Should there be a section of Controversy that mentions the power of certain wrestlers in WWE? Like the Clique used to have backstage power or Triple H's power of today (marriage to Stephanie). It warrants a section because it causes controvery everywhere (Tna, PWI, and all over the Internet).209.247.21.123 05:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be original research. Besides, EVERY company (in and out of wrestling) has people who have power like that (like the fact that Jerry Lawler was co-owner of the USWA and held the belt 27 times). TJ Spyke 06:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section 

message: How long is the re-match clause good for?--Kingforaday1620 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fictional kayfabe thing, not real. Storyline wise, I don't think they ever say. TJ Spyke 22:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-match clause 

message: Hey, I was thinking about this; should there be another strip of cells in those tables that says WHERE they won the title from? GunFactor007 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Championships and Accomplishments section

message: Someone show put that the undertaker won the 2007 royal rumble —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.161.69.82 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Rumble winner 

message: Is the Royal Rumble scripted?--69.113.131.124 22:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read professional wrestling. TJ Spyke 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Professional wrestling isn't real, that should answer it. TJ Spyke 04:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Rumble 

message: Perhaps I missed it, but why is it not mentioned that the outcome of these matches is predetermined? Reading this article, one might think this is actually an athletic competition in which either man could win, when that is clearly not the case.Hexrei 06:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sigh... Please see Professional wrestling. World Wrestling Entertainment in not a sport. It is a company. -- bulletproof 3:16 06:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matches are acting, not competition 

message: Is there a wait to get into the wwe hall of fame (like the rock n roll hall of fame has a 25 year wait since the bands frist album to get in)?--69.113.131.124 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it's whenever Vince wants to put them in (and the person agrees, Bruno Sammartino refuses to be inducted. The only requirement I can see is that the person has to be retired from full time competition (hence why Ric Flair hasn't been inducted yet, he's still wrestling full time). TJ Spyke 00:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hall Of Fame 

message: What is this section on this Page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.180.31.65 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such section, and if there was it was reverted as vandalism. Bmg916 16:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TNA is better???