Template talk:WWE Championships
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Professional wrestling | (Rated NA-Class) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||
[edit] Title order
I could just revert it back since there was no discussion to change it in the first place, but I will discuss it here first. WWE always goes in the order Raw/SmackDown/ECW. This is how they list the brands on their site, how they usually refer to the brands when talking about them, and (this one is a opinion) how WWE views the brands (i.e. Raw is the A brand, SmackDown the B brand, and ECW the C brand). This is how they should be listed here. There was no discussion to change this order, so I will support anyone who switches it back. TJ Spyke 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed per WWE.com; they list the brands on their red bar as "Raw/SmackDown/ECW".--TRUCO 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for giving this argument "This is how they list the brands on their site, how they usually refer to the brands when talking about them, and (this one is a opinion) how WWE views the brands (i.e. Raw is the A brand, SmackDown the B brand, and ECW the C brand)." How are you to know how WWE views the brands. How do you know they consider one to be superior to another? You are looking a things through a fans point of view not a neutral point of view. That is bias and per WP:NPOV your reasoning as to why wwe.com lists them in that order is not valid. WWE.com does list them in that order, but not everything has to revolve around wwe.com. On WWE programming WWE has always gone by the order of Raw ECW and SmackDown to reflect the weekly programming schedule. That is the most neutral argument and the most neutral reasoning for as to why WWE orders the brands as such.--UnquestionableTruth-- 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, they have the titles listed as such "WWE [Raw]/World [SmackDown]/ECW [ECW]". In addition to how they have it here.--TRUCO 21:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- They do have the titles listed as such. "WWE, World, ECW, IC, US, World Tag, WWE Tag, Women's, Divas." This template has to do with championships. You want them to be listed as WWE does, then I will format the template to reflect that. However, when it comes to programming, WWE uses the Raw, ECW, SD order to reflect their weekly schedule. --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- No they don't.--TRUCO 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes they do in broadcasts.--UnquestionableTruth-- 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the subfields and formatted the template to reflect WWE.com's title order. However, I am considering re-adding subfields to mirror Template:Former WWE Championships/Template:WCW Championships/Template:ECW Championships, (World, Secondary, Tag Team, Divisional) --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please discuss these changes first, as you are making drastic changes. I don't agree with the new change since championships are brand exclusive not contested freely. Plus, they don't ever say that on broadcasts. Just because their schedule looks like that does not mean anything, the way WWE lists it is how it should be since its a published source.--TRUCO 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The changes can be reverted. I only made the change to reflect your argument on how WWE.com lists the titles. Yes championships are brand exclusive. Yes they belong to a specific brand. However, that has never stopped talent from a certain brand from competing for a championship of another brand. The WWE.com title history page does not separate the titles by brands.[1] Additionally, if you would like to argue the titles being featured on the Superstars page of the brand minisites on WWE.com, the World Tag Team Championship is listed under ECW's minisite. --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but this is why it is best to discuss this first before making such changes as it is a drastic change. I in a way agree with you, but it should be reformatted like the former titles template.--TRUCO 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- With the World, Secondary, Tag Team, Divisional subfields you say?--UnquestionableTruth-- 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ya.--TRUCO 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Like that?--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ya.--TRUCO 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- With the World, Secondary, Tag Team, Divisional subfields you say?--UnquestionableTruth-- 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, but this is why it is best to discuss this first before making such changes as it is a drastic change. I in a way agree with you, but it should be reformatted like the former titles template.--TRUCO 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- The changes can be reverted. I only made the change to reflect your argument on how WWE.com lists the titles. Yes championships are brand exclusive. Yes they belong to a specific brand. However, that has never stopped talent from a certain brand from competing for a championship of another brand. The WWE.com title history page does not separate the titles by brands.[1] Additionally, if you would like to argue the titles being featured on the Superstars page of the brand minisites on WWE.com, the World Tag Team Championship is listed under ECW's minisite. --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please discuss these changes first, as you are making drastic changes. I don't agree with the new change since championships are brand exclusive not contested freely. Plus, they don't ever say that on broadcasts. Just because their schedule looks like that does not mean anything, the way WWE lists it is how it should be since its a published source.--TRUCO 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the subfields and formatted the template to reflect WWE.com's title order. However, I am considering re-adding subfields to mirror Template:Former WWE Championships/Template:WCW Championships/Template:ECW Championships, (World, Secondary, Tag Team, Divisional) --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes they do in broadcasts.--UnquestionableTruth-- 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- No they don't.--TRUCO 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- They do have the titles listed as such. "WWE, World, ECW, IC, US, World Tag, WWE Tag, Women's, Divas." This template has to do with championships. You want them to be listed as WWE does, then I will format the template to reflect that. However, when it comes to programming, WWE uses the Raw, ECW, SD order to reflect their weekly schedule. --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, they have the titles listed as such "WWE [Raw]/World [SmackDown]/ECW [ECW]". In addition to how they have it here.--TRUCO 21:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for giving this argument "This is how they list the brands on their site, how they usually refer to the brands when talking about them, and (this one is a opinion) how WWE views the brands (i.e. Raw is the A brand, SmackDown the B brand, and ECW the C brand)." How are you to know how WWE views the brands. How do you know they consider one to be superior to another? You are looking a things through a fans point of view not a neutral point of view. That is bias and per WP:NPOV your reasoning as to why wwe.com lists them in that order is not valid. WWE.com does list them in that order, but not everything has to revolve around wwe.com. On WWE programming WWE has always gone by the order of Raw ECW and SmackDown to reflect the weekly programming schedule. That is the most neutral argument and the most neutral reasoning for as to why WWE orders the brands as such.--UnquestionableTruth-- 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Should the same be done for the developmental field? (Heavyweight, Tag Team)--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Not really, it looks weird. There has to be another way to do this, maybe list the across the top?--TRUCO 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Let me try something.--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- What do you think?--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Let me try something.--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
