Talk:WWE

Do you have a source that says otherwise? TJ Spyke 03:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE title history since Draft (2008)

• Propose merging the above article here. It is very messy indeed and if the editors here think there is content worth saving (you can judge if there is) then here is where it would seem to fit. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have prodded the article, I see no reason for it to even exist. TJ Spyke 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WWF/E History article

"Main article: History of World Wrestling Entertainment" This article at the top of the main page appears to contain much of what is said on this page, would it not be a good idea to condence the articles into 2 different articles. i.e WWE History and WWF History. This would allow much of the informaton that is repeted on this page to be put into that article as i see no point in having the information in two different places, it would seem to make more sence to keep the WWE main wikipedia page more about what the company is doing and information about all the different parts of the company rather than this very wordy duplicated layout we have at the moment. Xrateddan (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is probably best to employ WP:SUMMARY here. Keep a basic outline, with all the details at the history article. Nikki♥311 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

World Tag Team Championship continued

I wanted to continue this heere so it got some attention. In the past, WWE has shown that titles are brand specific. I give the following as examples: Bobby Lashley was stripped of the ECW title when he came to RAW; When Matt Hardy, John Morrison, and the Miz held the WWE Tag Titles, the WWE Tag Titles were still listed on the SmackDown superstar page. However, WWE has also shown that the titles are superstar specific, not brand specific. I give the following as examples: The ECW Title went to RAW when Kane was drafted; The WWE and World titles changed brand when their holders were drafted; the US Title became an ECW championship, and then once again a SmackDown championship when Matt Hardy was drafted and Shelton Benjamin won the title, respectively. It is quite evident that even WWE does not have a clear answer for this issue. We know only two things for sure: 1. the announcers have confirmed that the World Title is now defended on SmackDown. And 2. WWE.com has, on the superstar pages, moved the World Title to SmackDown and the World Tag Titles to RAW. I believe in representing which brands have which titles, the only sure way to go is to follow WWE.com. In addition, here we recognize that the World Title has moved to SmackDown, why don't we recognize that the World Tag Team Titles have moved to ECW? I expect an answer such as "ECW and RAW have a talent exchange, so they share the titles." Well, if that is the case, then the ECW title should be acknowledged as tri-branded, and all of RAW and SmackDown's titles should be recognized as di-branded. If we insist on separating them, then we should go by WWE.com. L2K (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

All of your examples are of champions getting drafted. When Morrison and Miz won the WWE Tag Team Championship, the title was still considered a SmackDown title. Same applies here, it's still a Raw title. As for the WHC, WWE has specifically said it is a SmackDown title now (both on TV and on their website) while they have never said the WTTC is a ECW title. It's listed on the ECW page due to ECW wrestlers holding it. TJ Spyke 05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I also listed Shelton Benjamin winning the US title from Matt Hardy and WWE.com moving it back as an example. When Matt was drafted, they said the US title was officially on ECW. Since Shelton just won it, are they just listing it on the SD page because he is the superstar that holds it? And what I don't get, is that BOTH titles were moved to different pages. Your reasoning is that one switched shows and another didn't. Given the fact that BOTH switched pages, that seems to be incorrect. AND if your logic is that they moved the World title because it changed shows, but they only moved the Tag Titles because ECW superstars hold them, I give the following: When they won the SD Tag Titles, they were still ECW superstars, but the titles were still listed on SD. The obvious, and I stress OBVIOUS conclusion here is that WWE has NOT been consistent about this. If you cannot recognize that, then I don't know what you've been watching. That being said, if WWE has no long-standing position about it, isn't is Original Research to determine what goes where without just going by the OFFICIAL WWE website? L2K (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

When did they say the US Title belonged to ECW? My issue is that they have specifically said the WHC is a SD title, I don't recall them ever saying the WTTC was a ECW title. TJ Spyke 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To sort this once and for all - anything involving ECW superstars aside from the ECW title held by Jack Swagger means zero. The tag team titles belong to the brands concerned. So do the other titles, including the two world titles. The only reason they aren't doing anything about Edge yet is because they are using Wrestlemania to sort it out - or maybe the draft which is just after. Either way everything will be sorted by Backlash. !! Justa Punk !! 08:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite amazed that a website with such rigid policies as Wikipedia is ignoring simple fact. First of all, look at some footage of around draft time when Hardy was US champ. They did say it was a US title. I don't understand why if the website shows both championships are on new brands, that we don't list both. Just because WWE only said one changed? If one title changed, and they moved both on the website, wouldn't that in effect mean both changed. WWE.com is the OFFICIAL site of WWE. Regardless, all of this is originial research. That being said, the only way to avoid original research is to go by what the OFFICIAL WWE website says. L2K (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You are completely misinterpreting the website. Edit reverted. !! Justa Punk !! 07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What in the world is there to misinerpret????? There is NO definitive stance on this no matter how you look at it. Why in the world would you go by anything than what WWE's official website shows? ANYTHING besides what that website says is original research, which is not allowed here. L2K (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

And wwe.com has never said they are not Raw titles. They HAVE said that the World Heavyweight Championship is a SmackDown title. TJ Spyke 23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

......So, we're supposed to ignore the fact that the titles are no longer on the RAW page, but on the ECW page? They said that the World Title is on SmackDown, and subsequently moved the title to that page. They moved the World Tag Titles to the ECW page, and we're just supposed to assume it's different? I really don't get this. It's right there on WWE.com. The titles are listed under ECW. Just like the World Title is listed under SmackDown. By assuming that it's a different reason for being moved, we are doing original research. We should just follow what the website says. L2K (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

No response? I'm shocked! Nothing to say, cause I was right? Whatever, I guess it doesn't matter anymore. But I do think it's amazing that WWE has "never said the World Tag Titles are SmackDown titles now" yet we list them on SmackDown. But wait, they're the Unified Tag Titles now, right? But WWE has never said its a new title, so we list both, JUST AS WWE.COM DOES. Look at that! We follow WWE.com? Shocking, isn't it? I'm amazed that we can follow an official webiste one day and not the next. I thought Original Research wasn't allowed here? Or are some rules meant to be broken? That's a little screwed up if you ask me. It's crap like this that Wikipedia isn't taken seriously in many situations. The editors can't even follow the damn rules after it's been clearly pointed out to them that they're wrong. So I thank you for keeping Wikipedia a confused, unreliable source. Wonderful. L2K (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't respond because I had already explained multiple times and wasn't gonna waste my time anymore. The tag titles are unified, meaning just 1 title. It's editors like you who are not taken seriously. TJ Spyke 19:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's because of what goes on within Wikipedia that Wikipedia isn't taken seriously. I mean, academic organizations don't recognize the reliability or credibility of Wikipedia, so that really says something about this organization. To put it this way, at one point in time, the article on here for Sinbad the actor had said that he was dead, when he wasn't. So, in the end, it's because of what the people in charge of Wikipedia & it's related organizations do that forces people not to take it seriously. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Prove that rather troublemaking remark. !! Justa Punk !! 23:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is insane. I'm he kind of editor people don't take seriously? Up until my last entry on this page, I was 100% professional, and I was the ONLY person acknowledging the obvious fact that THIS IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If we want to avoid OR, we should go by what the official website for WWE says. I really do not understand what is so hard about that. And WWE doesn't even consider the tag titles as only one championship. They're website lists them as both, they come out with both. They are called the Unified Tag Team Champions, but they are designated as both World and WWE Tag Team Champions. Thankfully, that is still acknowledged on this website. I just really cannot understand why I'm the only one who realizes that the whole situation before was original research and that the only official word we had was the website. You still never explained that one to me. L2K (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Justa Punk, I don't have to prove it because IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN. Academic organizations don't recognize the reliability or credibility of Wikipedia. And, the reason why that happens is because of what goes on within Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia, in certain ways, is like a newspaper. If someone is defamed because of what a newspaper printed, they have the right to sue the person who wrote the letter, as well as suing the newspaper for printing it. Wikipedia's legal disclaimer is nothing but crap. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the only reason Wikipedia is usually not allowed in academics is because anybody can edit it. Even articles that are stable and perfectly done. Think what you want, but no lawsuit against Wikipedia or any of its users would happen just because a vandal did something here (and just to point something out, threatening to sue because of something that happens here can cause you to be blocked from editing) and no sane person would do it (only the nutjobs who seem to totally hate Wikipedia all together would). Since none of this has anything to do with improving the WWE article (which is what this talkpage is for), this conversation is over. TJ Spyke 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Amen, TJ. !! Justa Punk !! 00:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

E gads. NOWHERE did I say I was threatening to sue! You need to THROUGHLY read my comments before you respond, otherwise you're gonna make yourself look like a complete idiot, which you basically did. Man, a lot of people here are about as stupid as the people who run Wikipedia. So, in other words, just because of what Wikipedia is, it's allowed to break the law. Although, of course, look at the morons we've had in charge of this country lately. Now, as far as the article, WWE now recognizes the WWE Tag Team Championship & World Tag Team Championships as the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. It may be two sets of belts, but it's ONE championship. I mean, we're trying to go along with what the WWE recognizes, well, WWE recognizes the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, so THAT'S what should be in the article, NOT separate pages for the WWE & World Tag Team Championship. And, well, if ANYONE can edit a webpage, then THAT PROVES that it has no reliability or credibility. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You implied it, but my comment was meant in general about threatening lawsuits. Where does Wikipedia break the law? A user vandalizing the page (which will be reverted within minutes, or hours at the most) does not mean the site is breaking the law or even the vandal. Hell, even slander would not be a criminal matter (it's a civil matter). WWE do far seems to be still recognized both titles, I would compare it to boxing (where a boxer with 2 belts is considered the unified champion but both belts are still considered separate). TJ Spyke 02:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you're putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it. What I said was that in the case of a newspaper, if it published a letter that someone wrote and the letter defamed someone, then the person that is being defamed has the right to sue the person who wrote the letter, as well as the newspaper that published that letter, because the newspaper was negligent in their responsibility. Now, as far as the issue of having a unified championship, but the belts still being considered separate, the WWE Undisputed Championship was a unified championship, yet the belts that made up the Undisputed Championship (WWF/E Championship & WCW World Heavyweight Championship) weren't considered separate. You really can't compare pro-wrestling to boxing, because there are too many incompatibilities. People here really need to think before they start typing. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I will go point by point in your comments. If a newspaper printed something that turned out to be false and they didn't know it at the time, they could just print a retraction and/or issue an apology (usually when this has happened the person who was defamed didn't take any action). So what if a woman attempted to sue, that doesn't mean squat. Anybody can sue anyone else for anything. I could sue Sony and claim that one of their products breaking down caused me great distress. Would I win? No, but if I paid the legal fees I could file that lawsuit anyways. Someone could sue Wikipedia if they were willing to pay the legal fees (lawyers, costs to file a lawsuit, etc.), that doesn't mean the lawsuit has any merit or that they will win. WWE still considers both tag belts to be active (take a look at the title section of their site and both titles are in the active titles lists rather than one being in the retired titles list). My comparison to boxing was meant to show that titles can be unified but kept separate. If you want a wrestling example, take a look at J-Crown. It was a unification of 7 different titles but each title was still separate (the champion would even bring all 7 belts with him, I remember being amused watching WCW and seeing Ultimo Dragon and his manager Sonny Onoo carry all 7 belts to the ring). The J-Crown was eventually disbanded when one of the champions vacated 6 of the belts but kept 1 and the organizations that controlled those 6 belts decided to keep them separate and disband the J-Crown. I hope WWE does keep it as 1 title, but so far they seem to want to keep both belts but as 1 champion (similar but not the same as when the WCW and NWA Tag Team titles would be held by 1 team and defended together for awhile even though they were not officially unified even though they were rarely defended individually). TJ Spyke 06:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what, just forget I ever opened my mouth. Have the titles whatever way you want. Anyone who wants to know info about the titles can simple go to WWE's website and find out the info there. They don't need to come here to find out the info. And, all you have to do is watch WWE TV. On this week's Friday Night SmackDown!, they referred to the titles as the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. CASE CLOSED! Now, I will say this much:Wikipedia has created a legal way to slander, because if you set up a website, all you have to do is set it up as an interactive computer service. Then, no matter if a user posts defaming content, you can never be held responsible. Congrats, Wikipedia, you have further contributed to the downfall of society. 24.12.89.226 (talk)

Above discussion

What is this about again?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's responsible for society going down the tubes apparently (/sarcasm). I hope that's the last we see of this person. !! Justa Punk !! 05:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently, it's the fact that by setting itself up as an "interactive computer service", Wikipedia has basically found a way that it doesn't have to bear the responsibility if it ends up publishing inaccurate content or the like. And, as far as academic organizations refusing to recognize the credibility or reliability of this site, well, I wouldn't fully trust a site either that allowed anyone & everyone to submit information. I mean, if you look at the most credible & reliable encyclopedias out there, such as Encyclopedia Brittanica & the like, they throughly research infomration they come across before it's published so that such infomration can be proven to be true, accurate, & correct. That's not completely true with Wikipedia. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can't provide anything constructive to this page please don't edit. !! Justa Punk !! 11:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would almost say the same thing to a lot of certain people here. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Start with yourself then. The majority of articles are good and fine, maybe even better than normal encyclopedia. We have a major advantage in that Wikipedia can be updated instantly rather than once per year. TJ Spyke 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated images

Is there a need for updated images for this page. There are several images on the current page not used by the WWE anymore. Please let me know if you need current logos.Djgeoffe (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)djgeoffe

The only logos are the WWE logo and WWE HD logo, both of which are the current ones used. TJ Spyke 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WWE Kids COMIC???!!!

WWE kids magazine is not a comic, it is a magazine mostly made up of games,photos and puzles.Mrpengo88 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)