Talk:WWE/Archive 2

message: HELP!!  I tried to roll back some vandalism; the last good version was a minor edit under my name. It's not letting me roll back to my last version. Dale Arnett 23:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: When reading this page I found that it mixed up the story and the business aspects in a way that was sometimes confusing, especially after Mr. McMahon appears as a character. I was just wondering whether this subject actually requires two histories, one about the company, and another about the fictional world of WWE. 195.92.67.74 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably in need of explaining which elements are storylines and which aren't- the article doesn't always do a good job of explaining which is which. Bcarlson33 22:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea.  The whole Montreal Screwjob is real but it is explained in a very similar way to stuff which was scripted making the whole thing quite confusing.  (The Next Biggish Thing 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Montreal Screwjob is one of those instances where it is very difficult to discern fact from fiction. What was a work? Who was in on it? Who knew in advance and who was just improvising in the moment, going with the flow? But there is almost a need in the article to make a more definitive line between what was a real-life event and what was simply a work based on those real life events or incorporating them into kayfabe - so many times a wrestler is "injured" or in a "loser leaves" and we are not sure if it is real or not until we find out he needed time off for his wife to have a baby, or shoot a movie, or really IS fired. Any suggestions how to make it clear? Some kind of "kayfabe" on/off flag? --CokeBear 07:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE as company and WWE as fiction 

message: Just so everyone's clear, it's "WWE," NOT "the WWE." The former means "World Wrestling Entertainment," the latter means "the World Wrestling Entertainment" which makes no sense at all. People still have this leftover habit because of the WWF, but it is incorrect. Please keep this in mind. Liamharvester 29 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)
:This is true, but even WWE announcers often make this mistake.  --Chrysaor June 29, 2005 22:08 (UTC)
:Besides, I feel "The" WWE sounds better than WWE, e.g. "he's the best in (the) WWE"
Lol! Finally someone adresses the issue. "The" sounds better but IS politically incorrect. User:Btw4392
::I think you need to examine your definition of politically incorrect. Bizarre statement, that. Regardless... there are other cultural examples of the same sort of thing. Like D.C... is it District of Columbia? Shouldn't it correctly be referred to as THE District of Columbia? So how come we don't call it THE D.C.? Probably because Washington, The D.C. sounds really stupid, eh? Sportscasters say "In National Hockey/Football League action today" but will refer to it as The NHL or The NFL. You may call a couple "The Smiths" or "John and Martha", but not "The John & Martha" - yet "The John & Martha Smiths" is sometimes used depending on the culture and context. Is it WalMart or THE WalMart? NATO or The NATO - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization - The NATO sounds wrong, but it would be correct to say "The NATO forces moved into the area" as opposed to saying "NATO forces moved into the area". When you refer to "the WWE" you are referring to the corporate entity as opposed to calling it by name, and it is all contextual. It really isn't "incorrect". Just sayin', anyway, not that strong a feeling about it for me either way. Its just splitting hairs. --CokeBear 07:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "WWE" vs. "The WWE" 

message: Doesn't the history section of this page skip awfully fast from the first Wrestlemania to the Monday Night Wars?  A whole lot of important shit is being left out. BronzeWarrior 08:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late 80's through early 90's 

message: That is a very useful section to people reading the article that should be left in and not removed.
user:Eclipse McMahon 19:34, 21 November 2005 (EST)
:No it's not. It consists of one site that isn't even totally dedicated to WWE. Only information sites directly related to WWE should be linked to. Wikipedia is not a link farm. --Jtalledo (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Linkspam, nothing more. McPhail 19:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only WWE related in that it has news updates that relate to WWE. There are thousands of websites that fulfill this function. Wikipedia is not a link repository. McPhail 21:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Wrestling Sites section 

message: I think that we should have whether the wrestler is currently a heel or face on their individual pages inside the bio box.  What does everyone think? --Unsigned comment left by 71.250.36.124 15:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is a good idea. Gimmicks can change very quickly. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dirtsheet or results page - discussion of gimmicks should be within the text of the articles. Also, this has nothing to do with this particular article, so it shouldn't be on this talk page.  --Chrysaor 05:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrestler's Individual Pages

message: Why does OVW Champions appear on an article on WWE? Arsenalwwerulz 13 January 2006 20:49
:You make a good point. The OVW page already lists the OVW champions. I think that they should be removed from the WWE page. tv316 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are listed there because OVW is a territory of WWE and the people who work for OVW, for the most part, are employeed by WWE. The OVW page does already list the champions, true, but so does the RAW and SmackDown! pages. SWD316 talk to me 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Champions 

message: This article needs a what is WWE section, ie: what it actually involves, ie: one or more wrestlers coming to a center ring to fight each other, storylines involved, tapping out, tag teams, etc.
The Professional Wrestling page explains that pefectly
BionicWilliam 19:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with BionicWilliam but I do think there could be more information about the business itself rather than the entire article being about the history of it. Normy 07:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If there's anything unique about how WWE does these things, then sure. Otherwise, as BionicWilliam says, that info belongs more on the pro wrestling page than on here. Bcarlson33 12:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is WWE? 

message: The reason I removed the Hulk Hogan Info is it's was basic review of the Hulk-a-mania run with nothing else about the 80's. I think if it needs to be there it should be expanded it include more then Hogan since even though he was the main star he was not the only one. It should also flow with the rest of the article; an example is the Hulk-a-mania section mentions Hogan's first title win after the Golden Age mentions Wrestlemania (1985). Therefore if anyone else can help with the expansion so be it.
BionicWilliam 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Reasoning for the removal of Hulk Hogan Info 

message: the theme restaraunt in times square isnt mentioned at all... thats where taz and al snow broadcasted from during the mtv sunday night heat...
WWE New York got a name change to "the World" and then I believe it got shut down. I've thrown a mention of it into the "Business Advances" section seeing as it was part of their business expansion. If someone can follow up that closing down thing it would be much appreciated. Normy132 January 19, 2006 6:20 AM (UTC)
:Yeah, it was called "WWF New York" until the name change to WWE where it was renamed "The World". It closed down in February 2003 according to these two sources:   --Oakster 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wwe new york? 

message: What happened to the More Buisness Advances section? That section should be in the article because it says what WWE is today. Edraf 07:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Buisness Advances Section 

message: Should the page be locked up once it is fixed to discourage more vandalism and have a small group of people responsible for any page updates?  Is it possible to password-protect the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basbalfrk (talk • contribs) 
:Kinda goes against the whole open-source encyclopedia thing.  --Chrysaor 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think the page should be locked to non-registered users and new users. Because vandalism is really annoying. L2K 03:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be locked to new and non-registered members since it will at least help against the vandalism. It gets annoying having to revert vandalism all the time(and most of it is from non-registered members). TJ Spyke 03:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, more vandalism. Can an asministrator put a lock on the article for unregistered users and new users? Because this is really annoying. L2K 16:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: Why is this section necessary? Make a link to the roster pages on WWE.com and be done with it. Bcarlson33 13:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was a bit too much. I've reverted it. tv316 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a necessary page to have. It it isn't going to be on Wikipedia, we might as well get rid of all the squad lists from the sports teams and the rosters from ROH, TNA, UFC etc. Normy 07:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It clutters up the page too much, when there's already a 'See also' link to the Current World Wrestling Entertainment roster page, at the bottom. tv316 22:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Rosters 

message: Anybody interested in getting an article started up about this section of the business? It is starting to become more and more significant for WWE these days. Normy 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE Films 

message: Even though I think it is true that the WWE is the best, they should reconize that TNA can over power them in a few years.
: Thank you for this important insight. Note that the "talk" page is meant for discussion of the article about WWE, not about WWE itself. Bcarlson33 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting recognized talent into different (better?) storylines is probably a smart way for them to cash in. It is also a good way for wrestlers who got a half-assed push from WWE to get a much stronger push - Christian being the best example right now.--CokeBear 06:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE is too cocky and must notice that they have competition like TNA 

message: do they even have real finishers
Yes, their tag finisher is that move where they grab an opponents body part, lift him up and let him drop. Kenny also uses a fake knee drop to leg drop finisher.--Killswitch Engage 02:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  spirit squad 

message: The Invasion section of this article is, to put it mildly, a complete mess.  Anyone have the time and knowledge to fix it up?  ekedolphin 01:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was reading this article while watching RAW and noticed the mess of the Invasion section (among some other issues). I didn't do a lot to change the actual content, but I restructured the sentences and tried to actually make it coherent. My recollections are a bit foggy on some stuff from that era so if someone has other facts that were incorrect or not included by all means sort them out, but hopefully the section is now improved in terms of coherence. My brain almost exploded trying to read it the first time. I don't mean this to be rude or anything, but why is it that so many wrestling fans add such completely incoherent entries? I know we aren't all illiterate idiots... right? Please say I am right.--CokeBear 06:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Invasion

message: Has anyone noticed Triple H and HBK lately? The two have been doing the D-X crotch chops alot and it leaves me to wonder if D-X will be resurected? I also read a Wiki article about D-X and it says at Vengeance of this year, they will be joining together again. What do you think??? User:Btw4392
I believe the comeback is inevitable. They have been teasing it since WrestleMania and from what I've heard Triple H and Shawn Michaels are continuing with the DX crotch chops at house shows. I honestly can't wait to see them come back as DX but I only want those two in the group. ----user:Danny.Petsis.
WWE.com accidentally advertised the return of D-Generation X at WWE Vengeance 2006 awhile ago in a trailer but it was taken down fast. There is also talk of X-Pac coming back but I hope not Danrduggan 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: D-X

message: This page had a bunch of vandalism by the same user with several partial reverts.
:I concur! 76.115.45.145 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like someone removed the whole talk page which I just reverted. I have no idea why someone would do that but... I have put it back. I didn't see anything claiming it had been archived or something. --CokeBear 06:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check over things 

message: This article is very confusing - Clearly many of the things mentioned on the page are part of the scripts or stories but it's very difficult to tell what is what. 
--Charlesknight 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just ignore that and continue. So are we going to clean this article up or not? I think it's a valid issue that needs to be addressed quite seriously. Another idea would be to seperate the article in two, dividing between kayfabe and reality. Though that could make things very confusing for the neutral viewer of Wikipedia. Normy 05:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe a spilt into the history of the business and the history of the "narrative"? Something like that? failing that, maybe it would be helpful for us non-fans to identity problems areas and we try and deal with them? --Charlesknight 09:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Bono has become involved? *bangs drum* - 
--Charlesknight 14:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha ha idiota made a funny!!!no,the reason why im so pissed is people keep talking about this damn topic over and over again so i'd appreciate it if u would drop this or else?!Batman 19:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If the non-wrestling fans aren't happy with the page clearly something is wrong. Normy 23:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes Jeff, that could be handy if you pick out some significant parts in the article so we can make an effort to change them. Normy 06:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a non-wrestling fan 

message: The WWE page should be in part of the thing which is this (As a result of Vandelism, this page...)
What?
:...I think the person is requesting the page be locked due to vandalism. Jeff Silvers 05:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not delete (just read for a sec) 

message: For an event that was so important to the history of WWE, shouldn't this receive more than a couple sentences?  One thing I'm curious to know (and that I think would be good to mention in the article) is why WWE was prohibited from using the WWF "Attitude scratch" logo yet are still allowed to use the classic WWF logo. Jeff Silvers 08:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough there is more information on the World Wildlife Fund page see . HTH Help plz 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the deal with the logo is because it was around before the World Wildlife Fund lawsuit. As far as I've seen, however, they modified it to look like the new WWE logo...Which is BS in my mind. The whole lawsuit is BS, in fact, but that's another debate. --Cheezymadman 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, ill answer that, if you see the old WWF logo, you'll see that its just Two weird W s stuck on top of each other, and that it actually does NOT include the letter F, but the latter WWF 'attitude' logo does have an F, the first logo is attached to an F, but the second is a separate letter,so, insted of it being two W s looking like it has an F, it actually has an individual F, which is just attached!!! T00C00L 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "old-school" WWF logo was not included in the judgement reached against WWE - that judgement applies only to the "attitude" scratch logo used from 1998-2002. The old-school logo was modified for John Cena's "Word Life" merchandise, and has since been applied to some of the "WWE Legends" merchandise. - Chadbryant 08:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info on World Wildlife Fund lawsuit 

message: There needs to be an "Attitude Era" article, regarding the famous feuds/storylines that took place during this period, and its effects on pop culture P.O.N.Y. 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what that template was intended to mean is that there is enough information to warrant it's own article, with only a synopsis on the WWE page and a "main article" link, like some of the other sub sections.  I agree that it was the wrong template to use.  --JFred 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to do that, I dont see why that would be an issue. L2K 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Attitude Era  

message: 1. Shouldn't the WWE/ECW Championship be removed from the RAW section and moved to a new ECW section?
2. Should the WWE Hardcore Championship really be listed?  WWE doesn't seem to be recognizing Edge and Foley as the actual champions. Jeff Silvers 03:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two championship notes 

message: I think that the Royal Rumble and the King of the Ring should have a separate chart from the WWE Championships. They aren't titles, it's that simple. L2K (I can't find out how to put in my user name and the time.)
L2K, to sign your name and date just type 4 ~ symbols. I agree that RR and KOTR should be seperate because they are not championships. TJ Spyke 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is called "Championships and accomplishments," so I think they fit there. Jeff Silvers 05:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what L2K means, as evidence to his changes to the article, is have one box for championships and one for other accomplishments, but still be under the same heading of Championships and accomplishments.  Personally, I like what L2K has done.  --JFred 05:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooooh, I misunderstood.  I guess when he said "separate chart," I assumed for some reason he meant they shouldn't be listed in the same section.  Yeah, I agree, they should be on separate charts. Jeff Silvers 17:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you JFred. I see it hasn't been changed. L2K 16:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumble and KotR 

message: Thanks to whoever put them in there. It looks cooler. I think we should keep the pics there. L2K 23:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest an overall consensus is formed with other editors to decide this matter so it isn't just one persons preference.-3bulletproof16 04:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might not be a good idea to do that just because it looks "cool" considering the fact that some people still use lower resolutions. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's more or less decorative use of fair use images which isn't allowed and as BionicWilliam said makes the tables cluttered. I'm totally against it. --Oakster (Talk) 16:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: how does it violate the fair use policy? im confused... L2K 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The are copyrighted logos, so they can only be used on the article page (ie RAW logo can only be used on the RAW page).  I ran into the same problem with a userbox I created.  --JFred 18:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ya, i just reviewed the fair use policy. my bad, sorry about that. they still looked cool... lol. L2K 18:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics in Championship table. 

message: do we know if that myspace (http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=7052687) is official or not? it sure looks it.
em.. Official what? it's f88king unreadable! :)
--Charlesknight 21:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I think you provided the wrong link.  I think you mean http://www.myspace.com/wwesite.  --JFred 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been looking all over the WWE website, but I haven't seen any reference to it.  --JFred 22:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed that it was put in by a non-registered member, so that gives me more reason to think it's fake. TJ Spyke 23:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd leave it out until there's official confirmation.  However, TNA legitimately has their own MySpace account, so it's not that far fetched.  --JFred 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official MySpace 

message: I've been trying to clean up this page so it focuses more on the real-life stuff, than the kayfabe stuff but it looks like Lid L2K reverted my changes. One of the problems is that is has too much kayfabe stuff, when the focus should be on its real-life history as a company. I've created History of World Wrestling Entertainment for a more detailed synopsis. Thoughts? --Jtalledo (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, see the related discussion of WWE as fiction earlier on this talk page. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was L2K, not Lid.  --JFred 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol Yeah I realized that just now. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I forked the history section into History of World Wrestling Entertainment with this in mind, but it has since been redirected back to the main article. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recreate it then.  The creation of a History of WWE page is good. When I go to edit this article, there is a message saying: This page is 40 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size. So have the History page go into detail while this page only summarizes, kinda like the ECW page. --JFred 21:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to start tackling a bit of this now. I'm only going to cut out the kayfabe stuff and leave the business stuff in. The kayfabe stuff can go in the history article. Normy132 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't forget there is already a History of WWE article created.  I would suggest looking at the ECW and History of ECW articles as reference.  --JFred 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: I used to be great wwf fan until I was 13, but now when the attitude erra is over, we see a lot of lame wrestlers like Paul London, Umaga, Scotty, and other kind of crap. I remember those days when The Rock and stone cold would fued and also HHH. Now I really wish that the rock was here. If you have been watching Raw lately, you would see that with the return of DX, there is a new thrill in watching WWE, which shows the power of the attitude era. I remember those nice days of WWF.
What was the point of you writing this?
I agree, what was the point? And this is a page to talk about the article, not the actual WWE. Torax2 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWF to WWE 

message: Should a new WWE article be created to outline the kayfabe WWE and this article can focus solely on the business aspects of the WWE. K-man-1 11:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New storyline article? 

message: WWE.com, in conjuction with The Academy of Wrestling Arts & Sciences, ranks the Top 25 Superstars in wrestling each week with Power 25. The rankings are based on victories, quality of opponents, momentum, and overall in-ring dominance, as well as intangibles. 
It is rumored that the Power 25 idea is based on a column written at Wade Keller's PWTorch.com, where a ranking of SmackDown! superstars was first listed just days before WWE.com began their Power 25 feature.
Be sure to check back every Saturday for the latest Power 25. Here are the rankings for June 17:
1.) Rob Van Dam
2.) Edge
3.) Bobby Lashley
4.) Rey Mysterio
5.) John Cena
6.) Triple H
7.) Kurt Angle
8.) The Great Khali
9.) Mark Henry
10.) Finlay
11.) The Big Show
12.) Umaga
13.) Sabu
14.) Kane
15.) Shelton Benjamin
16.) Spirit Squad
17.) Johnny Nitro
18.) King Booker
19.) Carlito
20.) Mick Foley
21.) Vito
22.) Shawn Michaels
23.) Paul London and Brian Kendrick
24.) Mickie James
25.) Randy Orton
===Triva===
* Only 7 people reached the top spot; including, John Cena, Batista, RVD, Eddie Guerrero, Kane and Triple H.
* This first Power 25 on wwe.com is Nov 19 there has been a few before that date however.
:Moved here by Conscious 09:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conents of the subpage [[Talk:WWE Power 25/Temp]] (by TJ Spyke and 24.59.144.200, now deleted) 

message: * Only 7 people reached the top spot; including, John Cena, Batista, RVD, Eddie Guerrero, Kane and Triple H.
* This first Power 25 on wwe.com is Nov 19 there has been a few before that date however.
:Moved here by Conscious 09:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Triva

message: --Greasysteve13 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the article abooot the sport, then?--Greasysteve13 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out professional wrestling.  --Dubhagan 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh--Greasysteve13 09:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't this article mention how fake it all is? 

message: With all the goings on with Rob Van Dam and Sabu now and Chris Masters and Randy Orton before them I think we need, if not an article, a section here about the "Wellness Policy". What it is, what the punishments are, etcetera. -- Bdve 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, RVD hasn't been suspended under the Wellness Policy, as many think.  He was suspended because he was charged.  The Wellness Policy doesn't test for pot.  --Dubhagan 06:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He might have been suspended under the Wellness Policy. From the WWE's page on the policy on what is banned under the policy : 7)  Illegal drugs.  The possession, use, and/or distribution of any drug made illegal to possess, use and/or distribute by the laws of the United States of America and/or any of its fifty states is prohibited by this Policy.(which marijuana qualifies). He's actually lucky he only got suspended because the policy states that an arrest for drug possession could lead to dismissal(firing). TJ Spyke 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wellness Policy 

message: thats a good segment
:Duh, it's not relevant.  Plus, read WP:NOT.  --Dubhagan 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site.  --Dubhagan 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why was the a-bomb ass kickn repot link remvoed  

message: For the last few weeks they been refering to the WWE World Heavyweight Championship as the World Championship to avoid confustion with ECW's World Heavyweight Championship, so i think the names of the Smackdown title should be changed to World Champion 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, they sometimes leave out the word "Heavyweight" when refering to it, even before ECW was resurrected.  WWE.com still lists it by the full name so I'd say no.  If you go to that page here on Wikipedia you'll see that "World Championship" is a common short-form used when talking about it.  --Dubhagan 06:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems like they started leaving out "heavyweight" after Mysterio won the title(since he only weighs about 160 pounds), I think they will start calling it the World Heavyweight Championship again once Mysterio loses the title(which I hope is at GAB so Mysterio's pity title reign can end). TJ Spyke 06:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE World Heavyweight Championship Rename 

message: I made a big edit in adding this section. However, I felt that it really completed the history. *Sam* 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also made several changes to the wwwf section *Sam* 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitol Wrestling/The beginning 

message: For some reason, the article on WCW, which existed 15 years (1986-2001), and the one on ECW, which existed 9 years (1992-2001) are much longer and more detailed than the article on WWE, which has existed for 54 years (1952-2006). This makes no sense. I have seen the point raised that the general article should just cover the basics, with the more detailed articles, such as "history of WWE," being longer.
However, if this is the policy, then the same should hold true for the articles of the other two previous major promotions. My recommendation is that the main WWE article should be lengthened and elaborated on so that it is at least comparable to, if not equal to, the ones on WCW and ECW. - KB 05:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yesterday I lengthened the history somewhat and intend to keep adding to it. There are more things that could be included though, I agree. *Sam* 07:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that there is a History of WWE article.  Any expansion should be done there.  --Dubhagan 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The WCW and ECW articles are too long then. I don't think the ECW article is too long, but the WCW article does not have a "History of World Championship Wrestling" article. Just remember, length doesn't always equal quality. Wikipedia:What is a featured article states that an article of featured article quality is "of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles." --Jtalledo (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is basically a stub, but if you look at the beginning of that section, there is a main article link to History of World Wrestling Entertainment.  That is why it looks like a stub.  --Dubhagan 02:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean I should delete or at least shorten the Capitol Wrestling/The Beginning bit of the main article, but leave it the same in the history of wwe article? *Sam* 09:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it should be more detail in the History of WWE article.  The history section on this article should only summarize the different eras in WWE's history in one or two paragraphs.  If people want more detail, they can click the main article link at the top of the section.  --Dubhagan 00:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Either the WWE article should be made longer, if not just as long, or the WCW and ECW ones should be much shorter. As it stands, the main article on the only remaining major promotion, and by far the longest lasting, is a mere stub compared to the other two which lasted a very short time in comparison. That doesn't seem proportionate. Thanks for considering my comments. - KB 22:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ^what?, how can you be such a [jackass]], this an encyclopedia, we oughta keep addin as much 
info as we can, and some stoopid fools are tellin everyone to reduce everythin, why, the wcw and ecw articles are not so big, anyway. we gotta add info to everythin, and the wcw, ecw articles oughta be bigger, actually, cuz the info there aint so relevant and, there also MULTIPLE articles on WWE, and we should add our info ONLY on the article it goes best with, NOT just WWE's Main articles, u foolz !!!--T00C00L 07:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy between lengths of WCW, ECW and WWE articles. 

message: Where did you find the information about this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terry 4k (talk • contribs) .
:They can be found at WWE's corporate website. The source for the information in the infobox can be found here under Summary Results for the Twelve Months Ended. Hope that helps. --Oakster (Talk) 16:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue 

message: 1. Deep-South and OVW have their own pages on Wikipedia. They are not sufficiently relevent enough to WWE to have their own links in the External Links section. Stop putting them there.
2. Rajah.com is no different than any other random wrestling news site and has no validity whatsoever as a source. Stop adding it as a reference.JB196 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 Things

message: Maybe some stuff about the company like the bussiness stuff would be nice.--65.71.70.41 00:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Besides the wrestling

message: What happened to the paragraph saying that WWE was trying to trademark the "World Wrestling Federation" name? Did WWE stop trying? Torax2 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They never tried doing that!!! world wildlife fund already owns it!!! --T00C00L 03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IS IT ME OR DOES THE MAIN PAGE LOOK A LOT SMALLER, I THINK THERE WAS A LOT MORE STUFF (INFO) THERE!!! --T00C00L 03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of stuff was moved to the "History of WWE" article. Also, all caps locks means that you are shouting. TJ Spyke 03:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Torax is correct, the World Wildlife Fund never owned the name "World Wrestling Federation", only the WWF initials. TJ Spyke 00:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: If anybody is reading this, please feel free to dissuss this in any way, this article will be deleted in time after SummerSlam
Has anyone wonder that in all 3 brands(Raw, SD!, ECW) that all the champions (except Paul London and Brain Kendrik) that all the champs are heels? Can someone answer what's going on?
This is not true. The Undertaker won the World Heavyweight Championship and he is not heel. Neither is John Cena, who also won the WWE championship. 76.110.82.251 22:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Wrestling "Heel" Entertainment 

message: I'm going to add the ECW TV and Tag Titles Under the defunct titles section..  because the rights to those championships are owned by the wwe.. and they are the parent of ECW, who owned them before.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.98.53 (talk • contribs) 
They never existed in any form in WWE, and ceased to exist long before WWE bought ECW. TJ Spyke 00:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECW Titles