From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee WWE was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Connecticut (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Professional wrestling (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon WWE is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:
  • Keep "Company history" section as a brief overview of the History article.
  • Merge or expand short one-paragraph subsections under the "World Wrestling Federation" section.
  • Shorten introduction.
  • Improve references.
  • Remove "It is currently the largest professional wrestling promotion in the world," because such information is not true, and that is not a neutral point of view!
  • Reword, reword, reword! Everything is so hard to read and comprehend!

Please do not add back the picture of the WWE world headquarters. It is not necessary. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatwweguy 619 (talkcontribs) 21:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrestling is fake. Duh.[edit]

This paragraph has been removed several times:

The matches have predetermined outcomes in order to heighten entertainment value, and all combative maneuvers are worked in order to lessen the chance of actual injury. These facts were once kept highly secretive but are now a widely accepted open secret. By and large, the true nature of the performance is not discussed by the performing company in order to sustain and promote the willing suspension of disbelief for the audience by maintaining an aura of verisimilitude.

It's essentially a long-winded, verbose way of saying "wrestling is fake." It says nothing in particular about WWE, since this is true for pro wrestling in general. After someone else re-added it, I added a line that also says "wrestling is fake" in the first paragraph that should suffice. It flows a lot better and doesn't end up veering off into a non WWE-specific tangent. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

One editor's behavior to consider is "Kumarila".[1] Many of his edits are an "undo" of the contributions of editors with years of experience, such as Mikeymike2001, Saget53 and TheRedPenOfDoom. He's already been given repeated block warnings, so as of August 13, 2012, you may not have to worry about him.
But as to your other point, the existing paragraph now reads:
These two brands feature storyline-driven combat sport matches with predetermined outcomes and fighting maneuvers that are worked, all promoted as legitimate bouts."
That is, to a discerning reader, it reads "wrestling is fake". In fact ... why I'm here right now ... I just had to explain to someone online, who, after being quoted the paragraph, said "predetermined outcomes" doesn't mean it's fake. The WP:UNBIAS Wikipedia language here is not being sufficiently direct. The word "worked" is used too and hyperlinked, but that link is not even directly to the closest Wikipedia entry ("Gaming the system"). Instead of "worked", the article might need a more direct term less subject to interpretation? How about: "contrived", "fake", or "not sports events", instead, or in addition to "worked"? A word or two redundancy wouldn't hurt to nail it down. Leptus Froggi (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Added "Like other professional wrestling promotions, WWE's shows do not feature legitimate sporting contests." --Jtalledo (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Grin. I'm pleased with that. Just so long as they don't stage a "WWE wrestler body slams Wikipedia editor in reverse" event. Leptus Froggi (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


It was my understanding that citations for subjects couldn't come from the article subject itself, i.e a website owned and edited by that person or company.

However, a large percentage of citations on this article are from WWE related website (WWE Corporate etc). (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. I'll tag the References section accordingly. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that this is still the case. All the citations are still from WWE's own website, (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

FCW Divas Champion[edit]

It's no longer Raquel Diaz. Caylee Turner defeated Diaz at an FCW Live Event to win the championship. You've made this correction on Turner's Wikipedia, but everywhere that lists the FCW Divas Champion (as on this WWE Wikipedia) it still reads Raquel Diaz. Please fix this accordingly. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


Subsidiaries in the infobox might not be accurate. Here is a list from their SEC filing from 2011: --Jtalledo (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Move[edit]

The WWE is still the World Wrestling Entertainment but since its doing business as WWE everyone keeps changing pages such as the Triple Crown and Grand Slam pages as well as other articles which mention the WWE in general and War over changing it so I say since its still the World Wrestling Entertainment that we change it back from just WWE BlackDragon 21:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RM on how to request a page move, and please don't move the page with no consensus. GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK so do you think we should. I do since the name should be full since WWE is just the business name of the World Wrestling Entertainment. BlackDragon 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering WWE released an announcement regarding the name change and the LA Times (among many others) have reported it, no. This has been explained to you already here, here and here. Would explaining it again make a difference? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2012[edit]

Jacob642 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC) let me edit

No.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


Wwe or also know as world wrestling entrtamont is a compney set up in the usa and is run by vince.k mchman. the Wwe is a world wide bussnes know by nearly everyone anround the world and it is world famous . Though out Wwe year the have big monthly shows witch are called Ppv or Pay per views witch are heldo on sundays and diffrent to the weekly shows wwe bring you . In one way they are diffrent as Wwe like to call them There flag ship show are held every week one on Monday and that is called Monday night raw the other held on Friday and called Friday night smackdown . Also Wwe's Flap ship show's has there very own wrestlers and they are on Brands . Going back to when Wwe had just stared it was called Wwf aka world wrestling fedraishion but they had to change that and Wwf consisted on two show like Wwe dose now but back then they were called Monday night war and Wcw there was no smackdown till about the 2001 . On each show they have Championships witch the wrestlers fight for on there brand Smackdown mainly has the world championship and intercontanentle while Raw has the Wwe championship or the united states championship but one titel can be on both brands and that is the Tag team championship . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbadboy (talkcontribs) 22:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like a typical WWE fan! (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your point being? How does any of this help improve the article? please remember WP:NOTAFORUM on talk pages. MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - (Chocolate Cakes) 14:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Slammys & Other accomplishments[edit]

I think an entry for the slammy awards should be listed under the blue MITB winner. Have the latest winner be a link to the most recent section on the slammy page. & of course the date they were held on RAW.

I think the Other accomplishments chart should have a column for when the MITB is used for its title match reward. Also, a column for the previous winner.

CobraMorph (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

the WWE PPVs[edit]

Hello, I think the schedule of upcoming ppv should be moved to the main WWE page, or at least mention the next coming PPV right before the titles chart is listed. Everything on RAW builds to the PPV, so it deserves a larger mention than just another link in the see also section.

CobraMorph (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


What about a reception area for the page to show its long lasting impact in our pop culture and reviews of the series from critics? Will there ever be a section? --Matt723star (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WWE Page move[edit]

Since WWE real name is World Wrestling Entertainment,We should rename the WWE page to World Wrestling Entertainment. WWE is only trading name which was adopted in 2011(Renamed for World Wrestling Entertainment,Inc) While World Wrestling Entertainment is still the legal name of WWE. Therefore please listen to my request and rename the WWE page to World Wrestling Entertainment.

N Not done and not likely to be done. As per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the most commonly used name of the subject for the article title, which in this case is "WWE" (it's rare that anyone ever calls them "World Wrestling Entertainment" any more. In fact, I can't recall hearing that name being used on-air since Punk's pipebomb promo, a full two years ago). I've also heard (though I haven't had this verified, so it might be untrue) that they're not called World Wrestling Entertainment any more, and that they've completely changed their name to simply "WWE", which doesn't stand for anything. Again, though, I don't know how true this is. — Richard BB 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine then edit and move every article of this wiki to its common name. Like Total nonstop action wrestling to simply TNA. It would be good to use real name rather to use some "Common Name".---Hrishi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma Hrishi (talkcontribs) 15:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles are at their common name. If you have a problem with Total Nonstop Action, you'd have to take it to their talk page. Though, as I said, part of the issue here might be that WWE doesn't stand for anything (or so I've heard). — Richard BB 15:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that here and here were very explicit. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
As HHH points out, this isn't even a common name issue. WWE is the actual name of the company and has been since 2011. Moving to World Wrestling Entertainment wouldn't make sense on any level.LM2000 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

WWE PAGE MOVE!!!![edit]

WWE page should be moved to World Wrestling Entertainment. And please dont give reasons of common name. Then you should change every article of this wiki to its common name like Google Chrome to simply Chrome and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling to simply TNA. I am really sick of a legal name being deprived of like this. Even it is used on telvison like the one of CM Punk and Paul Heyman. More evidence? Here‎‎

Beside them We all know that WWE is just a trade name.

Therfore please accept my request and move the page WWE to World Wrestling Entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma Hrishi (talkcontribs) 11:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this. WP:COMMONNAME applies whether you like it or not. If you have a problem with Chrome being called "Google Chrome" and TNA being called "Total Nonstop Action", then take it to their relevant talk pages. This isn't the place to discuss it. Finally, please do not make clumsy copy-paste page moves just because the requested move failed. — Richard BB 11:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Come on man,Using common names doesn't mean to use abbreviation . And in this case World Wrestling Entertainment is also the common name...So why not move WWE Wrestling Entertainment.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Except that common names does mean using abbreviations, if that is the most common name. In this case, it's clear that "WWE" is used far, far more than "World Wrestling Entertainment". Hell, even WWE themselves rarely use the name "World Wrestling Entertainment". — Richard BB 08:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The legal name should be used in the introduction, then the common name as well, per WP:NCCORP#First sentence. I implore people to look at this source, which confirms World Wrestling Entertainment remains the company's legal name.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it should be included in the lead, but it should not be the first thing mentioned in the lead. Per WP:BETTER; "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be in boldface as early as possible in the first sentence." STATic message me! 21:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Given that this is it's legal name per nasdaq, I agree that it would be in compliance with WP:NCCORP#First sentence to include the World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc in the first line. I disagree with how the "Doing business as" part is phrased, given WWE's convoluted rebranding, but that's just a matter of semantics I suppose.LM2000 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it can be included in the first sentence, but the article title "WWE" should appear first and foremost, which is done in all articles outside of BLPs. Something like "WWE also known as World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc...." STATic message me! 10:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
That works for me.LM2000 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Well actually the common name are more appopriate replacement for historic names,But beside that The title should be World Wrestling Entertainment with WWE on first line.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Why should it be? We've explained why it's more appropriate for the title to be "WWE". — Richard BB 08:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Company history section[edit]

This section still needs to be trimmed massively. The whole point of the History of WWE article is that it is highly detailed. The section on the main article does not need to be anywhere near as detailed, merely touching upon only the key moments and people: Capitol: Roderick
WWWF: Vince Sr and Sammartino
80's WWF: Vince Jr, Hogan, Rock N Wrestling, WrestleMania (and starting other PPV's and SNME)
90's WWF: mid 90's fall and rise into the Attitude Era (Montreal, Austin), purchase of WCW, Invasion
WWE: Brand split, Cena, ECW, Guerrero and Benoit, NXT
Lawsuits: steroid scandal and WWF name should be mentioned

Only brief details, with appropriate links to main articles. As it is, there is far too much detail considering there is a sub-article about the History of WWE. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

WHC Briefcase[edit]

Now, the brand extension and the WHC both disapeared, so I think the SD/WHC Briefcase should be eliminated from C&A. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In the past we've waited until after new MITB when new guys win the case to change them, right? I think we should probably leave it as is until the next MITB match, when we can get rid of both the WWE MITB and WHC MITB, and have one WWE WHC MITB listed.LM2000 (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Why? One championship and one roster... put two MITB briefcases is pointless. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as their is apparently only going to be one, somebody can provide a source for this, right? Either we leave it at two, or it goes back to the previous sole holder of a MITB, Jack Swagger. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It should be two - Randy Orton and Damien Sandow. We can't just ignore them altogether as you seem to suggest with the Jack Swagger idea. I think a consensus is needed here on the talk page. BerleT (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I've reverted back to the two while this is nutted out here. BerleT (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2014
swagger. Orton was the last wwe championship/raw/red briefcase, so makes sense to put swagger as money in the bank holder. However, we can delete the name.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense because you are totally deleting Orton and Sandow, and for what? What if - for the sake of argument - that Sandow still had his case? BerleT (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is my opinion. Swagger or Orton, it depends if we consider the next MITB as the continuation of the sole version (edge, rvd, punk...swager) or the continuation of the Red briefcase (which Orton won) for the WWE World heavyweight championship. One title, so I don't see the point to include Orton as the last holder, because he hold a version of the briefcase. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Might as well just keep it with the two until this years event so there is no conflict or dispute. For all we know there might be two heavyweight championships again by then. STATic message me! 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering?[edit]

I've asked this before but didn't get an answer, so again I ask, shouldn't there be a "reception" section? Or maybe an "Impact" section as it is was and still continues to be a major part of pop culture, it's common knowledge. --Matt723star (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the thing to remember is that this is an article about the company WWE, which doesn't so much have a public "reception". It has a public perception, to an extent, but still it's important to make a distinction between thoughts on WWE-the-corporation, vs. opinions of their entertainment products or of professional wrestling in general. The latter two would be topical to articles about those products, or an article dedicated to the subject, more so than the WWE company article.
There's already some attention paid to public opinion/reaction (too much, now that I look at it)[FeRD 1] in the history sections, particularly The Golden Era and The Attitude Era. But perhaps a useful guide to what "should" be here are articles about other corporations that run well-recognized brands. Take technology companies:
A Criticism section in this article would certainly be appropriate, in my opinion, if someone wanted to do the research. But it should focus on the company's business practices, not its products, in the same way that what's covered in Criticism of Microsoft is distinct from product-article Reception sections like the one for Windows 8.
  1. ^ (Yikes. There's also waaaaay too much editorializing in general. For instance, "Despite having high quality talent and in-ring performances that had not been seen since the 1980s, the WWF continued to lose profits." Which reads less like an encyclopedia, than the script for an episode of VH1's Under The Singlet!)

Request for protection[edit]

David Bergman (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is already semi-protected - although for some reason the little padlock symbol is not currently appearing on the top RH corner. Arjayay (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014[edit]

Under "The Wellness Program" please change "The Talent Wellness Program is a comprehensive drug, alcohol, and cardiac screening program initiated in February 2006, shortly after the sudden death of one of their highest profile talents, 38 year-old Eddie Guerrero.[59]" to "The Talent Wellness Program is a comprehensive drug, alcohol, and cardiac screening program initiated by a team of physicians independent of WWE in February 2006, shortly after the sudden death of one of their highest profile talents, 38 year-old Eddie Guerrero.[59]" (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014[edit]

The third parargraph of the article begins with "Like", better written as "As". Analogy, rather than symbolism. That's it :) (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

((Done}} - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014[edit]

Vincent K. Mcmahon is not the CEO/ majority owner, or chairman. Triple H (Paul Micheal Levesque) is the majority owner, chairman, and CEO. Bkellar (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 23:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Vince McMahon is indeed the chairman, and CEO of WWE. Proof: Vince McMahon. Your friend, Billy (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


How is removing the name of the previous title-holder helpful at all? The header clearly states "Previous champion(s)". Bryan/Barrett were clearly the previous champions. Stop being daft! RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2014[edit]

I would like to change the page Because I feel lots of things are wrong mainly about its History Please Reply Mohammed13mahgoub (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass removal of content[edit]

This concerns the repeated and unexplained mass removal of content by Torrian. The user has been warned not to remove the content without discussing it first, but refused to heed the warning. If the user fails to discuss it here they shall be reported. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Torrian has yet to provide a valid reason for removing. They claimed "wikipedia" was responsible for removing the content in the first place but that isn't true. Then they say the information is inaccurate. They removed a huge bulk of material and most of it was sourced to a reliable outlet. What exactly was inaccurate? The content should be reinstated until some sort of reasonable argument is presented.LM2000 (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have warned the user, he is one revert away from a 3RR violation, though given his previous blocks he should have been reported after the first revert. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2014[edit]

JackMista231 (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014[edit]

remove the last sentence in the general info section. "WWE was created by Justin Bieber." Voices17 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. –Davey2010(talk) 03:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WWE HQ Picture[edit]

Hello, Please stop adding the picture of WWE's HQ. It is not needed. No picture= Best for Business. Otherwise, feel free to add the picture somewhere else on the page and NOT the infobox. Thank you. thatwweguy_619— Preceding unsigned comment added by thatwweguy 619 (talkcontribs)

A Wikipedia rollbacker put the picture back up there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torrian2014 (talkcontribs) 04:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And rightly so. There is no legitimate reason why it should be removed. Mister Q101 (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you as everyone else has because you have failed to provide a good reason for its removal. Other then the fact that you don't believe that it belongs in the article and also from your comments on other users talk page about the fact that the TNA and ROH articles don't have pictures of their HQ in the infobox. Just because another article doesn't have something that this one does is not a good reason to remove the image from this page.--Dcheagletalkcontribs 09:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)