Talk:WWE ECW/Archive 2

message: I suggest a slight reword. Have this page focus solely on the relaunch as a brand.  the other ECW article also mentions the Invasion and the DVD's that were put out. Mention the relaunch briefly on the ECW page, and use this page as the main article.  --JFred 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworked this article to better reflect it's status as a main article for the new promotion section on the original ECW page.  --JFred 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refocusing of content 

message: Just curious, but will the new ECW have anything to do with WWE joint pay-per-views, like WrestleMania, Royal Rumble, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series?
:Could be since they're already cross-promoting with the other brands, but there's nothing definite yet. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A WrestleMania headlined by three separate world title matches (World Heavyweight, WWE, and ECW)... that'd be something. Jeff Silvers 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *drool*  --JFred 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you ask ME, ILL say that, they WILL Take part in  the Royal Rumble match, but will probably NOT be in the Survivor Series match -(RAW vs SmackDown only),
and Yes they WILL be featured in Joint pay-per-views. They may take part in almost ANY
pay-per-view, as their Title says it all Rebels and Extremists.--T00C00L 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joint PPV's 

message: Last night during Head to Head I noticed the announcers refered to WWE stars as "Superstars" (which is normal), but ECW stars were refered to as "wrestlers."  I didn't think too much of this until I visited the ECW website last night after the show.  The section previously titled "Superstars" was changed to "Wrestlers" (the RAW and SmackDown! pages still refer to their bio sections as "Superstars").  Do you think this deliberate shift by WWE in addressing ECW stars as "wrestlers" rather than "Superstars" should be noted on this page? Jeff Silvers 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so. WWE's done everything they have to push 'sports entertainment' and 'superstars' insted of wrestling and wrestlers, so it should be worth at least mentioning how WWE is making the distinction when it comes to ECW.DemonWeb 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It reflects back to Styles' worked shoot a few weeks back on RAW Tromboneguy0186 11:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Can't make up there minds? Should we be surprised? *looks at kane* DemonWeb 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hopefully the "feud" is only to get ECW's name out there and after Vengeance the "feud" will end and they will go on to do their own thing.  --JFred 01:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: At least they're doing this better than they did The Invasion angle, with WWE and ECW seeming at least slightly different. Jeff Silvers 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I refuse to believe it will end until after Great American Bash.  ECW has a good bit of "promotional capital" to pay back, and I give them until August before they get to start forging their own path.  --EazieCheeze 12:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "ECW Warriors!" Jeff Silvers 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You heard it here first folks, 4 days until they change to name to ECW Warriors XD DemonWeb 01:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It was always just a third brand, some fans thought it would be more though. TJ Spyke 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestlers vs. Superstars 

message: Cleaned it up a little, added Wiki links, and removed POV statements without sourcing. 71.245.144.10 03:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was most likely deleted because 1wrestling does not count as a confirmable, official source ( as far as I know ), because most websites such as itself are known to have rumors, which while they may be true, are still not officially confirmed. DemonWeb 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECW on Sci Fi section

message: I've removed the comment that suggests that the vampire and zombie characters on the premiere were at the request of Sci-Fi. The zombie character appeared to be a parody of Internet rumors regarding this, whilst there is an interview with head booker Paul Heyman that suggests that the vampire gimmick was his idea. Although such matters will always be ambiguous, it didn't seem verifiable enough to put up.  Bigbigtom367 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a place for rumors and it's not exactly pertinent to the show. Including zombies and aliens isn't exactly uncommon in wrestling. --Bobblehead 15:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...When have aliens been seen on professional wrestling?  And The Undertaker is the closest to a "zombie" I can think of. Jeff Silvers 10:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Jeff Silvers 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "At the request of Sci-Fi" 

message: How should the negative reception of the premiere show be discussed on here?  What is written at the moment, something like 'because they were expecting the old ECW' seems wrong and unsupported by the references given.  For example, in the 1wrestling.com article linked, Bob Ryder writes that "I agree with Vince McMahon that the "new" ECW will have to move beyond the same wrestlers who were part of the original product.  Many of those performers are simply not physically able to continue to perform at the level they were able to five years ago. ", obviously not supporting that.
I think that the negative reception needs to be discussed, but any suggestions? Bigbigtom367 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that sentence is all you got out of Bob Ryder's article you seriously need to go back and read it.. :) However, since I wrote the sentence in question, I'll clarify by providing the next sentence in the article "Focusing on new talent, while mixing in ECW alumni, doesn't mean you have to abandon the principles the company was based on.." The 'old ECW' was not necessarily famous because of the wrestlers, it was the no holds barred wrestling style of those wrestlers. It was this wrestling style the ECW fans were expecting. What they got was just another WWE brand. So perhaps update the sentence to reflect they were expecting the ECW wrestling style. Don't want to put too much emphasis on it, but a mention of the disappointment is warranted.--Bobblehead 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, no, I did read it more carefully than that, it was just one sentence I pulled out that seemed to make your sentence questionable :)  The issue I had was is that Ryder seems to argue that it was just a plain bad show (which it was), not because it wasn't the old ECW, and his proposed solution was to just let Heyman get on with it.  I think he was using the term 'ECW' more as a marker of quality than as a reference to a set of wrestlers or, even, a wrestling style.  I agree the mention of disappointment is warranted though, just perhaps a little more clarity regarding the reasons for that.Bigbigtom367 23:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The impression I've gotten is that it was a bad show no matter what you compare it too.  That's the way I read all the criticism.  --JFred 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: However the second episode (which aired live) was given a better reception by fans and critics after elements were adjusted such as lighting, the supernatural characters, and the overall booking of the show. 
Violent-kun 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see this becoming a weekly think, which I think we should avoid.  Personally, I think that the reception of the show should be a different section.  --JFred 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we shouldn't have an episode by episode analysis here but the fact that the very first episode was so derided seems fair to note, IMHO, considering that episode was the first impression many potential new ECW fans received of an "ECW" brand show. ECW play-by-play man Joey Styles himself acknowledged that he hated the premiere episode while loving the second one. [] Seems in fair play to me. -EvWill 23:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to add the reception of premiere show?

message: What is this guys status with the WWE now?
:There's been no official word yet.  Either he's been fired and WWE hasn't mentioned it, or he's being punished, we're not sure.  --JFred 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I can't cite it, there have been reports from a few of the more accurate internet sites that Axl has decided to take some time off from wrestling and was released from his contract. WWE is most likely keeping it quiet since he never made an appearance with the new brand. Genocidal 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While he hasn't appeared for the brand yet, WWE already reported his signing and added him to the roster page, so I don't see why they would keep it quiet.  That's just my thinking anyway.  --JFred 19:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Axl Rotten was removed from the official ECW roster page a week or so ago without ever appearing for this version of ECW. -EvWill 23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Axl Rotten

message: Is this actually on UK television? It's not on Sky Sports 3.....
Yes ECW plays on Sky Sports 3 on Thursdays at 11PM.   Belevsquad  (talk)  08:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UK?

message: I went ahead and archived some of the old stuff and the merge requests. I'll head over to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) and do the same. --Bobblehead 16:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive created 

message: Is It On Australian tv --203.94.35.102 02:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope --sonicKAI 15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: is it going to be? --203.94.35.102 02:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Professional wrestling in Australia says: WWE announced that on the international market, ECW would replace Velocity, but Foxtel announced that there are no plans to show the ECW show in Australia. However there are a few rumours flying about that it will air as of July.--sonicKAI 11:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian tv 

message: Anyone know if they will bring back the ECW TV Title?  Tag team titles?
LK Thurisaz 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll have to wait and see.  --Dubhagan 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the only ECW title currently is the ECW World Heavyweight Title.  It makes sense given the limited current roster.  --EazieCheeze 19:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the limited air-time they have (one hour a week and so far only two scheduled annual pay-per-view events--One Night Stand and that December event). Jeff Silvers 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they got the guys like Super Crazy, Psicosis, and Rey Mysterio off of SmackDown! they could have more tag teams. Because at the moment all they have are the F.B.I. and when Axl Rotten comes in you can have Balls Mahoney and Axl together but the limited roster is true but still, there are enough singles wrestlers to have  the TV Title.- User:Packratt200
Right now they only have a 12 week deal, so they most likely won't add any more titles unless they get a permant timeslot. Right now they have no need for more titles since they only have 1 hour a week(which is the same problem TNA has). TJ Spyke 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Titles 

message: Are these really neccessary??--sonicKAI 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they aren't, so I removed them. --Bobblehead 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECW Results 

message: Just to follow up my revert, I don't see how, at this point, this is pertinent, as it's documented on Rob Van Dam's entry already.  It's possibly interesting for an entry regarding the ECW World Title (is there one?) to explain the change, but at this point, I don't see the need to mention it.  Perhaps as time goes on and there is a more detailed section about the history of WWE's ECW, it may be needed as a "turning point", but it's too early to tell how significant it will be. --Davetron5000 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as how it lead to the alteration of no less than three announced main event matches (one of which was scheduled to take place at Saturday Night's Main Event) and also resulted in Van Dam losing both titles ahead of schedule, I'd say that it has already proven pretty significant. Jeff Silvers 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but this article is not the place for it.  In RVD's and Sabu's article, for sure, but that's it, considering it happened outside wrestling.  Besides, it only affects the storyline, not the status of the brand itself.  --Dubhagan 05:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And my point is that, at this time, it's merely a "thing that happened" and, as such, Wikipedia is not a news source.  If, over time, this event becomes a turning point for ECW, then I think it's inclusion is warranted.  It's simply to early to know if has any impact -- Davetron5000 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. Jeff Silvers 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RVD/Sabu drug charges 

message: Is there any need to keep track of the ratings? Especially in a table format. The line that used to be in there about the initial rating was good, but now it seems to be going too far. Bdve 02:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no need. Lows, highs and averages can be noted if the show isn't renewed. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That still doesn't make it notable, especially for an Encyclopedia. Like Jtalledo said, when everything settles lows highs and averages can be noted.Bdve 03:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's especially unnotable here when you take into account that there's a whole article for those ratings. Jeff Silvers 10:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking that into account, the table has been removed and a "see also" link provided to the television ratings.  Hopefully that will quell this mild edit war.  --EazieCheeze 11:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings

message: I don't know why people keep taking this out, but all old ECW matches took place under what are now called "Extreme Rules." Even Lucha and triple Threat matches had no DQ and no count out. I can only think of one disqualification in the history of ECW (Sabu threw a fireball). Bdve 15:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to remember that intentionally attacking a referee could get someone DQed.  I'd have to find a source to back that up, though.  --EazieCheeze 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure that gets you DQed in WWE extreme rules too. Bdve 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thats not true, there have been tons of times referees have been hit by heels intentionally in NO DQ matches, but not getting DQ!!! T00C00L 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extreme

message: Does this even need to be here?  There are so many weasel words and unverifiable junk, it definately fails Neutral Point of View and borders on original research.  I'm adding  to the section, at which point someone can rewrite or delete entirely.  --EazieCheeze 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with removing it.  Someone took out your  tag.  I think the edits I did to it are an improvement, but I could stand to see it removed --Davetron5000 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: What I put in should NOT be considered a week-by-week breakdown. The August 1 show was the first televised ECW show in an original ECW environment. I only covered what the fans yelled in the main event, not the whole show, because they seemed pleased with the rest of the show.
The fans voiced their frustraitions for the first time, both at the new ECW and at SciFi. And THAT is considered a week-by-week breakdown? No. Just... no. Blacklist 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "no week-to-week breakdowns"?

message: during the past few weeks, i watched enforcer duo, a team who been allied w/ paul heyman ever since because they taken out ecw stars like the sandman & tommy dreamer. i was wondering if the enforcers of heyman are actually 2 guys or just a guy & a girl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.174.79.234 (talk • contribs) 
:Those are the Basham Brothers. TJ Spyke 22:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thats^ right!!! T00C00L 14:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who that mystery team? 

message: I think that in a moment (probably for the end of the year ECW PPV), some ECW or WWE titles will be adopted by the ECW brand, using the same formula of RAW and SmackDown! (one world title, one class-B title, one tag team title, and one specialty title (like Cruiserweight or Women's title). Did you got any information about that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.40.227 (talk • contribs) 
::There is no chance of them getting 4 titles. I don't think they will get any more titles, they only have 1 hour a week and only use about 10 wrestlers per show. There just isn't enough time to justify adding more titles, if they expand to 2 hours I could maybe see them add a Tag Team tile(although I would rather have them fix up the tag team divison on RAW and SmackDown first). TJ Spyke 23:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There will be more titles? 

message: While I think this section is not the best-worded part of the article, I think that conceptually, it should be included.  This ECW is being promoted under the same name and as the "new version" of the old by WWE; regardless of what it actually is, it IS the new version of an existing product, so I think documenting the differences is notable.
That being said, it's hard not to make it into a "criticisms" section, which can get dicey and NPOV.  As it stands now, I think we should try to make it better, not just delete it. -- Davetron5000 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The differences section states actual facts (ECW is normally taped/broadcast after Smackdown and there are few "Extreme Rules" matches and that is what they are called).  There is information in there that does need some sources cited, but I think we should work to support those or make the section better and not just remove it without discussion.  To the person that has been removing it, please engage in discussion on why it shouldn't be there. -- Davetron5000 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What "main article" are you talking about?  I think we are discussing the "Main Differences..." section of this article.  I'm not sure what other article is in play here.  As for citing references, the section is tagged as needing them (though some of the information is based on the content of the show, so I'm not sure how to reference that). -- Davetron5000 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant the facts should be integrated with rest of article. If you can't reference something it is orginal resreach wich is not allowed on Wikipedia.
BionicWilliam 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but how do you reference stuff that happens on the TV show.  I mean, they do call the matches Extreme Rules and it's a fact that  (currently) not every match is contested under those rules.  This information is available from the show itself.  How does one cite that? -- Davetron5000 21:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people just like adding in "Citation needed" tags for no reason. The same thing happened with the Wario article. TJ Spyke 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "differences" section 

message: I think this was WAY premature.  I have seen every episode of this ECW save for the most recent (as of this posting) and I have not seen the segment that was documented.  Therefore, I can't see it as being recurring.  I think the only thing notable about it is that Matt Striker is on the ECW brand and that information should be covered on whatever page has the current roster.  Furthermore, I think if the segment were to continue, it's notability would be something relevant to Matt Striker and not ECW. -- Davetron5000 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it even been confirmed that it wasn't a 1 time thing with Striker being in ECW? That shouldn't be there though because something has to air more than once for it to be a recurring segment. TJ Spyke 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess Striker has been officially moved to ECW, at least based on wwe.com TJ Spyke 02:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring Segments section 

message: The difference section has been cleaned up a bit, and I don't think it requires the unsourced tag at this point.  The section asserts the following as fact:
* ECW shows are held in larger arenas now than they were in the original form
* ECW is aired live on Tuesdays after Smackdown is taped
* Most matches are under WWE rules and not Extreme Rules
* There is typically only one Extreme Rules match per show
While these aren't technically cited with references, they are obvious from observing the current WWE product and watching old ECW tapes.  If someone can figure out how to cite that, go for it, but I think these claims are non-contentious, self-evident and not original research (they are merely descriptions of the show, using another show as a basis for comparison).  If anyone disagrees, I would ask that you disagree by providing some suggestions as to how to cite these facts in Wikipedia and not just reverting or adding the unsourced tag back in -- Davetron5000 14:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite some reliable sources. This section should really be sourced, otherwise it is original research. As WP:V, verifiability, not truth is the criteria for inclusion. I'll tag the section with  --Jtalledo (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My removal of unsourced tag from Difference section 

message: Is there an overall objection for placing a link to an unofficial,non commercial ECW Blog? (url is ecw-blog.com). The blog compliments the official links, with informative information, which is perhaps not suitable to be on the Wiki (such as results and current ongoings).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwalkers (talk • contribs) 
:I don't think it should go in, but I am willing to see what others think. TJ Spyke 21:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is an objection.  Said blog is unencyclopedic.  --EazieCheeze 02:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: WWE normally refers to the show on ECW.com as ECW on Sci-Fi. Maybe the article should be named the same? Just a suggestion. 202.69.183.2 10:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article covers the ECW brand as well, not just the TV show. TJ Spyke 19:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change the article name?

message: I've made a new section of this. I think you'll find that it states facts and not opinions. Also, I really put a lot of effort into making it as un-biased as possible. I really tried to make it under Wikipedia's "standards." Read it and consider it before you go and delete it.
Come on, people. It's a good section and is very informitive. Change it a bit if you must, make small edits if you must, but don't delete it. It's un-biased and I tried to make it as factual as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.70.127 (talk • contribs) 
:The section doesn't exactly add anything to the article. --- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unnecessary, especially in the list format.--- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't really do anything to help the article. TJ Spyke 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said, plus it actually hurts the article. Being in the format it's in makes it look sloppy.--- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's another issue. People adding just anything, most of which is opinion. I'm removing the section. --- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounded more bully than I intended. I would have no problem with the section being in if it was put into a more proper paragraph form and kept to notable differences -- for example, bigger arenas aren't really notable, since it's a WWE product now. Same thing goes for it having ECW originals and non ECW originals. That's about the most obvious statement that could be made. And I can really see no reason for the "similarities" section. The only really notable difference is the rules change, which is already mentioned under "history". --- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 04:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarities and Differences

message: I thought that ECW matches were all extreme rules matches. How did Batista get diqualified against Big Show?—Preceding unsigned comment added by AD Double J (talk • contribs) 
:Only 1 match per show is under Extreme Rules. TJ Spyke 01:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme Rules 

message: "And for a short period of time ECW's female performers were referred to as "Vixens", as opposed to RAW & SmackDown! "Divas," but this has recently changed and the females are now referred to as "Divas" as well."
Is this true? They are not listed on WWE's Divas section. Tim Long 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vixens

message: I thought Heyman was dismissed because of conflict of interest(With McMahon).
The 'Kayfabe' story was a poor PPV.84.12.47.154 09:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heyman's Dismissal 

message: Im talking about the Purple one. I always see the Black one, or the red one. Never the purple one. And I once think I saw a green one... But in any event, if anyone has a purple one, it should be in the list of former logos for ECW. --James Maxx 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone have a picture of the original ECW Logo?