Talk:Monday Night War

message: This Monday Night Wars article is frankly really bad. Almost no citations. The Attitude Era article is in much better shape as of this moment. The MNW and AE largely overlap. MNW started in late 95 with the first Nitro, AE started in late 97 with the screwjob, but had a long buildup before that. MNW ended in early 2001 with the buyout, AE ended in mid 2002 with the name change. At least, these are the currently recognized milestones in the articles. It's worth considering to just merge the articles and create a single high-quality article covering this period in mainstream American pro wrestling history. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose as proposed, only because the AE is WWF specific, and the Monday Night Wars was an outgrowth of a rivalry between two separate companies that long predated the actual MNW period, going all the way back to Black Saturday. A merger would miss the overarching picture in favor of a too-narrow focus on the WWF. Now, there is notable overlap, of course, as the pivot by the WWF to edgier programming that became the Attitude Era was in large part a reaction to the Monday Night Wars in general, the "cool heel" popularity of the nWo in particular, (and the rise of ECW in part as well), but it would be better to improve this article by drawing on the sources in the Attitude Era article instead of eliminating one of them. Because if one were eliminated, it would be the Attitude Era, as the Monday Night Wars is the common name of the period in major American pro wrestling as a whole, not just one company's programming policy. oknazevad (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the merger proposal template has been removed on both this article and Attitude Era. Not sure why it was removed just short of a month later with no explanation, but next time some note of the reasoning on the Talk page would be nice. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: With zero supporting comments in a month, the chances of a merger gaining consensus are very unlikely. No need to leave a large tag on a pair of articles when there's little chance of such an outcome. oknazevad (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering there was only one reply period, I get the impression that this MNW article does not get much attention at all compared to the AE article, which was partly my initial reasoning for the merger proposal. But I see it is not in the cards any time soon, and will let it go for the time being, although it still seems obvious that some sort of merger is the best long-term solution, given the sorry state of this article, even if not in the exact form I suggested. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: I propose adding an infobox to this MNW article in an attempt to salvage it, seeing as the merger proposal went nowhere. It currently is just a more vague/poorly-sourced/worse version of the Attitude Era article, just with a bit more emphasis on WCW. An infobox in lede would make it look a lot more professional and perhaps lead to a renovation of the whole article. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Proposal 

message: I have done the best I can to take the pro wrestling event infobox used in the AE article, and make it relevant to this article. It is not an exact fit, but I believe it improves the article overall. Feel free to improve the infobox, as opposed to a knee-jerk revert/removal. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the infobox has ALREADY been reverted, with zero explanation on the Talk page. In the future, if you opt not to improve the article, but merely delete improvements, kindly give some explanation on the Talk page. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I used an edit summary to explain, which is enough. The infobox is incorrectly used. It's not for a period of history, but for individual events, like a PPV. Its misuse at the Attitude Era article (where it should also be removed) does not warrant compounding the error by adding one here. oknazevad (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Added 

message: Reference 7 is in trouble, but I don't have time to fix it.  I think it needs a link to the Wayback Machine, such as https://web.archive.org/web/20071215121502/http://www.wrestlingclothesline.com/HallOfFameDennis.htm
Beamjockey (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 7 linkrot 

message: I've looked over the article now several times and I don't see any sources cited that directly discuss the reasons for WCW's demise, nor sources that directly pin the end of the company on it's salary size. If I've missed them, can you point me towards them? I'm working on the World Championship Wrestling article at the moment and it seems those kind of sources are missing from there also. 
I'm not denying that it's a viewpoint that exists, I'm just not seeing the sources at the moment. 
I know well that on the WWF side, the argument was often made by people such as Jim Ross that WCW's contracts were too big, but typically that was denied by people such as Eric Bischoff. Because it's a contested claim, stating it as fact arguably runs into an :Template:According to whom issue as well as :Template:Unbalanced. The trick would be to cover one both viewpoints rather than stating one or the other as fact. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing on the claim that WCW's demise was tied to the size of it's contracts