Talk:WWE/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Headline text

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)

Just tried a second time. Still not letting me roll back. Is this a Wiki problem? Dale Arnett 23:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Never mind. I wound up using the brute-force approach to fix the vandalism. <g> Dale Arnett 23:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The End of the attitude Era

The end of the attitude era (in my oppinion) was not after the invasion storyline, but when DX disbanded, the life and rebellion left the WWE, therefore ending the attitude era. K-man-1

Nah, the Brand Split ended it.LC6

When they brought all those WCW/ECW wrestlers into the company, the entire product felt watered down. It never retain it's old WWE attude because of it.

In late 2001/early 2002 everything was still Attitude Era to me.LC6

WWE as company and WWE as fiction

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. 05:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

i agree,on Edge's article it says that he shooted on legends such a Sgt Slaughter,and i was really confused,of course he didnt actually do it,but it should have been specified if it was real of kayfabe Lord revan 18:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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))
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)

"The Alliance" vs "WCW Invasion Angle"

I created the WCW Invasion Angle entry and linked to it from here, since the invasion storyline encompassed more than just The Alliance (which was formed midway through the angle). The angle technically had four stables through its life (WWF, WCW, ECW, Alliance), all of which went away after the angle was complete (the WWF ceasing to be a "stable" and returning to its normal 'all wrestlers Vince wants you to care about'). At any rate, the line of text says "invasion storyline ended", so since storylines are angles, not stables, that phrase should link to an article about an angle, not a stable.

"WWE" vs. "The WWE"

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)

Yes, but it depends when its said, i think. eg, "Oh My God, he just took out (THE WWE) world champion. --Rubberchix 0:59, 06 August 2006

In that instance, 'the' is used to describe 'champion' with 'WWE' as an adjective. The same goes for the article 'the' and the noun 'forces' with 'NATO' being an adjective. 'The WWE' sounds odd, as you're saying 'The Entertainment' rather than 'The Federation.' If someone who can defend 'the WWE' come up with an example that USES 'the' please go ahead. See CokeBear above for many examples why using 'the' sounds dumb, but no one has examples of why using 'the' is correct. And it's not splitting hairs, it's mangling english. 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This Needs Work

Especially the Next Generation section. Compared to the article on World Championship Wrestling (WCW), this is pretty lightweight. --Hitman2000 7 July 2005 16:08 (UTC)

As a completely new person to WWF and WCW, I got really confused by the plotline, and basically keep asking the question of "What the hell is going on?" I suggest clarifything this to a wikipedian standard accesible to an outside observer by dividing the plotline section into two seperate sections or two complete articles, one labeled: "Actual behind the scenes real world history of the organization" and "Pre-Planned Fictional Plotline" because it was incredibly difficult to figure out which was which reading the plot as is. maybe divide each chronological episode into the two sections, start with the real world actual backstage stuff, and follow up with a second part explaining the fictional plot and how it in some ways is tied in to that real-world history.

shouldnt it be mentioned its actually all fake?

No Since on the Pro Wrestling Page it is mentioned that it's predetermined. BionicWilliam 04:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

its real i've been there watching raw live front seat it's all bloody and real you should do that too to know its raw

...So you're under the impression that profressional wrestling isn't a work? Okay. Just checking. Jeff Silvers 00:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Real or fake, you best respect what those guys do.'s scripted wrestling, but injuries can be sustained.

Which part of falling off a steel cage onto a table is fake exactly?--Anthony 14:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. 01:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, you've got it all wrong, wrestling is scripted, not fake. Fake is the completely wrong word. Fake is like Mickey Mouse or Chris Benoit not being deservant of a push. Anthony is right, for the most part it is completely legitimate but everything that goes on in that ring is meant to happen (well most of it anyway) so you're both right and wrong for your own seperate reasons. Normy132 06:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I get really annoyed when people say that wrestling is fake. If somebody tells me it is fake, i tell them to use the word Choreographed.

who called it fake? the events which occur are real, in the same sense that watching a live play is real, its a deliberately pre-planned story which is in reality played out by actor/ athletes, right? im kind of new to all of this.

Should it be mentioned on pages about soaps "this is all scripted and the people are actors and none of it is actually real"? I don't think so! (StudentSteve 07:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
That's a bit diffrent because people know that TV shows are fake. People seem to think that wrestling on the other hand is real (not so much these days of course).
Maybe in that regard it should be mentioned. But using the word "fake" seems like going way overboard.--Anthony 12:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Fake" is the wrong word. Maybe something like choreographed. I hate nothing more than people who insist that it's all fake so it's not worth watching and so on. There is no way to fake falling off a ladder. Either you fall off, or you don't. Just because it was planned in advance doesn't make it fake. It makes it predetermined.
"Scripted", I believe, is also the wrong word, as it implies that every move is thought out beforehand. It isn't, they make much of it up as they go along, talking quietly to each other. Eddie Guerrero and Lance Storm once wrestled each other on less than five minutes notice. Koberulz 08:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop being a bunch of sissies. Nobody is saying these actors are not actually falling and hurting themselves. Nobody is using "fake" to mean "COMPUTER GENERATED AND DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAPPEN." You are letting your love for this form of fiction to cloud your judgment. Somewhere on the page, there MOST DEFINITELY ought to be a blurb explaining that it is FICTION, that it is SCRIPTED, that wrestlers are actually ACTORS. I, for example, don't follow this form of entertainment, so I don't know when it changed from a sport to a storyline. I don't even know if it ever was an unscripted sport back in the 1920s. Is this fair to wikipedia readers? Is it fair that your biased view of professional, scripted wrestling is preventing readers from knowing what the heck this "sport" really is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

First, learn to sign your entries. Second, wrestling is scripted and the wrestling page talks about that. You don't need to bring it up here. Bcarlson33 12:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It boils down to this. Wrestlers themselves don't even agree on the use of the word. Some say it's fake, some say people who say it's fake should jump into the ring and see how fake it is. The Professional wrestling article says pretty clearly that pro wrestling is entertainment, not competition or sport, so carpet-bombing "wrestling is FICTION, it is SCRIPTED" etc. across every other wrestling page is probably unnecesary. Plus, calling wrestlers actors is really doing a disservice to actors - for every Jake Roberts there are a hundred Superfly Snukas. Not even getting into POV issues, saying "pro wrestling is fake" is almost always geared to pissing off fans who know that it's a scripted television show, but think "fake" has a negative connotation, implying that wrestling isn't physically demanding and often injury-laden, as "real" sports are. There will always be enough of that group to revert the use of the word "fake" in this article or other pro wrestling articles, so people looking to piss them off will just have to stick to putting anonymous comments on talk pages. --Chrysaor 07:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

K my freind's dad is buddys with Chris Benoit so i asked him one night how it works. It goes like this, before every match the wrestlers are given a script that tells them when they should do their big moves, whos going to win, and how the match should look like. After they read the script the wrestlers get together and discuss how the match is gonna go. Then they go out and fight the match and thats that. EVERY SINGLE PUNCH AND SLAM IS REAL BUT THEY ARE PRETTT SAFe. Now sometimes wrestlers ACCTUALLY dont like eachother and ACCTUALLY fight. This is called a shoot. Shoots are really hard to pick out on t.v but sometimes they happen. Long story short 90% of wrestling matches are scrpited or "fake" but some times there not.R.D 00:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, note above. This is already discussed on the wrestling page. It doesn't need to be in this page. Bcarlson33 02:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I am so glad some other smarks agree that it is scripted, choreographed etc, but not fake. e.g, blading techniques draw true blood, chair impacts are skull on steel, and if it is fake, why does the great Mick Foley have 29 stitches on his bottom lip? (see hell in a Cell page, Mankind vs Undertaker) Kingfisherswift 13:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Kingfisherswift 13:46 11 March 2006

Hi guys. I think all who think its fake are assholes. For instance, Wreslemania 22. Edge speared Mick Foley through a burning table, Edge got dropped on tacks, Edge got his face raked with barbed wire etc. I mean come on, HOW CAN YOU FAKE THAT!!! User:Btw4392

Now listen!!!!! Everything is completetley worked off of a script unless superstars arrange what they are going to do in the match. All bodily contact is Completeley real. It is not stuff like a steel chair not actually hitting you and then sound effects being played through the arena. The steel chair does hit them. The barbed wire does get raked across their face. The thumb tacks do plunge into the backs of the likes of mick foley and edge. The fire on the table is real. Injuries are not real though. Mankind did go from the top of the cell down to the floor. he did get chokeslammed through the cell (although that was not supposed to happen). all the coountless things that you say "OH MY GOD THAT CANT BE REAL!!!!" to, newsflash YES THEY ARE. K-man-1

What are all you guys sayin,

wrestling IS scripted, NOone really wants to hurt or destroy their opponents, but many things mick foley and sabu did were done ACCIDENTLY and many things were done intentionally, the wrestlers DO make body contact but in a way that it doesnt receive injuries and isnt painful so much, ive like, frogsplashed my 8 year old brother a hundred times but neither i or him gets hurt ever, cuz wrestlers never use FORCE and and hit on or with positions that will NOT really harm the others. when people fall through tables they reall are, but the tables doNt hurt at all, when people are hittin each other with chairs they NEVER use Force but it does hurt a little. ive hit my head with real steel, my face even got a cut but i didnt give a Fuck, but aint even a real wrestler. and when wrestlers are bleeding most of the times they really are, but they arent bleeding becuase they were hit real bad or hard, no, they CUT themselves with razor blades, and they do it cuz they can take THIS pain n cuz this doesnt really hurt, even ILL do it for a couple of Thousand Dollars, and the same reason with them, and wrestlers do all those deadly-looking stunts cuz they are paid to do THAT. --T00C00L 13:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And some of you guys actually think that Pro-Wrestling is 'REAL' and 'LEGIT', well i bet you guys are new to the internet, wrestlers who have their own websites or when they do interviws

admit that everything is Just a gimmick and is all scripted and 'fake'. many with me have done chats with sandman, sabu and devon dudley, ok. and in the OLD NWA times, wrestling was done in states it was not even national and definately NOT international, the wrestlers back then worked in Multiple companies, being the GOOD GUY in some, and being the complete BAD GUY in the others, ok.--T00C00L 13:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

and if you dont believe me, the others or even the wrestlers and performers themselves, that wrestling is FAKE and SCRIPTED, than you SHOULD believe WWE themselves shouldnt you? this is WWE's corporate website, its not about their tv shows and mechandise but about whats behind it all and how they do business and their shares and stocks, where they do show and tell that wrestling is fake:--T00C00L 13:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC) WWE'S Business Overview WWE TV Shows Overview

and dont you know that fighting (even as a sport) is ILLEGAL in USA, North America, South America, Europe, Australia and the entire western world!!! but only few states allow fights such as: Nevada, New Jersey, Carolina. and they got an enormous heap of rules too, here view them from this GOVERNMENT website: State Atheletic Commission Fight Rules those are maximum rules, if anyone brings weapons or cheats or interferes, he is disqualified and ARRESTED, and taken away his permission to compete in sports in the country!!!

Late 80's through early 90's

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)

yeah but theres ALOT of story thats gone by in the last 20 years, i think its too long for a wikipedia article, and should be shortened and simplified. not to mention bifurcated into the "Real world" and "Pre-written" plotlines.

Regarding the Wrestling Sites section

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)
Linkspam, nothing more. McPhail 19:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't linkspam, its a link to a useful site for people interested in WWE. Other people could add others sites that are also WWE related.

user:Eclipse McMahon 2:54, 22 November 2005 (EST)

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)

Shouldn't the WWE corporate site WWE Corporate be listed as the official site, not the homepage? -- 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Saturday Night's Main Event

I modified to show that they are making a return to NBC's Saturday Night. ----J. C.

Did anyone see S.N.M.E? It was awesome User:Btw4392

We should start updating this section soon again. WWE is coming to Dallas with Saturday Night's Main Event. They will try to out shine themselves with this show because of the last one didn't do as well as they had hoped when it came to ratings. ---- user: Danny.Petsis

WWE Federation title?

There's no such beast. The so called "Federation" title was just a reference used to differentiate the then WWF Championship from the World (formerly WCW) Championship. No need to list it as a separate title from the WWE Championship (that would be like counting the World Wrestling Federation Championship and WWWF World Heavyweight Championship as seperate titles...)

Wrestler's Individual Pages

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 15:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Power 25

For those who don't know, the Power 25 are the top 25 wrestlers and tag teams in the WWE, based on rankings by The Academy of Wrestling Arts & Sciences and [1] I believe it should either be included here, or have it's own individual article linked from here.

I agree. I'm going to start it as soon as I can. Unless anyone has a reason as to why I shouldn't? --web_kai2000 16:59, 5 January 2006

I think its a good idea, I'm all for it! arsenalwwerulz 20:04, 6 February 2006

What is the purpose of the Power 25 ranking, aside from another link to click on Bcarlson33 23:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont know. Dont care. User:Btw4392

Does this- The Academy of Wrestling Arts & Sciences actually even exist, it may just be

fictional and kayfabe,

U know what i've wondered that 4 a while actualy, someone should check it out

Current Champions

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)
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)

If you wish to keep the OVW titles in, then it should be made clear that OVW is a territory of WWE, and not just place the titles in the WWE Championships section as though everyone knows what OVW is... so have a seperate title section for OVW's champions on the page???

What is WWE?

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)

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)
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)

My Reasoning for the removal of Hulk Hogan Info

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)

wwe new york?

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: [2] [3] --Oakster 15:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

More Buisness Advances Section

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)

Page Protection

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 (talkcontribs)

Kinda goes against the whole open-source encyclopedia thing. --Chrysaor 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Current Rosters

Why is this section necessary? Make a link to the roster pages on and be done with it. Bcarlson33 13:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a bit too much. I've reverted it. tv316 16:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

WWE Films

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)

WWE is too cocky and must notice that they have competition like TNA

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)

I like TNA, don't get me wrong. But at least half the roster originaly came from WWE such as Jeff Hardy, Rhino, Christian 'Cage', Team 3D, Billy Gunn, Road Dogg, K-Kwik, and most recently, Christy Hemme! Why Christy Why! User:Btw4392

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)

[User: IRON FIST ]I completly disagree TNA is no contest compared to the wwe witch has grown so much since its youger days and has better stars stronger story lines and is the only company fit to hold the name, Total Non Stop Action.

I think TNA can compete with WWE in terms of delivering entertaining matches, but I don't see them posing much of a threat. WWE has the benefit of being recognized as the last "big name" of the North American industry (NWA and ECW don't count because NWA is a shell of its former self and ECW is owned by WWE). The argument could be made that WCW wasn't very well-known before they began competing directly with the WWF, but they also had Crazy Ted's bucks behind them. I like TNA, but I don't see them ever replacing WWE. Jeff Silvers 08:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

spirit squad

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)Killswitch Engage

The Invasion

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)

i shall try by the power[none] vested in me!-

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)


Are the links to "Sitio sobre WWE en español" and the two links to necessary? Sitio sobre seems to be a Spanish equivalent of the hundreds of wrestling information sites out there. I can see why the WWE page is linked, but I wonder if it is made redundant by the official WWE page. And while Capitol Wrestling is a predecessor of the modern-day WWE, wouldn't that link (and Capitol Wrestling as a whole) be better served with a separate Wiki page? User:leftsaidfred


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. 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)

Money in the Bank

Is a Raw and Smackdown move it to its appropriate spotDJ BatWave(User:DJ BatWave)DJ BatWave

Check over things

This page had a bunch of vandalism by the same user with several partial reverts.

I concur! 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Double check that your legitimate edits weren't reverted away by either the large-revert I made or any of the partial reverts made over the last day or two-ish. Kevin Breitenstein

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)

Why doesn't SmackDown! have a morning show like A.M. RAW? Couldn't they make a A.M. SmackDown!???????????

User:IRON FIST I would love to see WWE SmackDown on a morning base but it be better if thear were a show on 2 nights in stead of 1 pleas someone back me up I have a hard time when I mis a show and dont know half of last weeks events and I get mad when its over dont you? .

As a non-wrestling fan

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)

hey dickhole all of this is the truth, and if you are a non wrestling fan don't comment asshole. --DJ BatWave 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Batwave, obviously, some people dont get it. I think trying to be more helpful would be much better than just being a "dickhole" in your words. PYLrulz 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of that comment? This is Wikipedia not a wrestling fan magazine - if the article is confusing to the non-fan it has failed in it's purpose.

--Charlesknight 12:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Iam going to have to agree. Even as a wrestling fan, I think this does seem a little bit confusing. What I'd like to see happen is the entire history gets moved to its own article because it's just so huge. If that happened maybe the page can be a bit more about how WWE is set up and the general business structure, like how it is a family based business (the McMahons) and that the roster is split into two seperate identities.

Then you care why,dickhole --DJ Batwave

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)
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)

I'm leaning more towards the idea of have just stories that happen in reality i.e. the Montreal screwjob, WWE going public etc. rather than having section devoted to storylines in the Attitude era. An idea would be to just show some examples of how TV ratings increased and some detail on the most marketable wrestlers of the era, just as an example of that particular era. Also, I think the invasion angle is going to be hard, because it needs some inclusion in WWE's history as it was one of the biggest buyouts in history, but most of the section is devoted to storylines. Those are the newest ideas I've got. Normy 04:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

oh, it's fine the way it is u 2 are just being pains in the ass Batman 23:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)DJ BatWave

Bono has become involved? *bangs drum* -

--Charlesknight 14:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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)DJ BatWave

OK let's try and get sensible about this for a moment. You agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia? Therefore it should be accessible as a resource for the non-expert on any given subject. At the present moment this article is a confusing mish-mash of the stories that have acted out in WWE and the underlying business practices behind those storylines. I would edit myself but the point is as a non-wrestling fan - I don't know where to start!

If you don't agree that Wikipedia is not a encyclopedia then I'm not sure where we go from here?

Would it be helpful if I identify particularly confusing sections to the non-fan?

--Charlesknight 20:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

I agree that this page might need to be re-writen so that people who aren't familiar with the industry can still understand it. Even I get confused sometimes as to what's legit and what's kayfabe, and I've been following wrestling for years. Jeff Silvers 07:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Do not delete (just read for a sec)

The WWE page should be in part of the thing which is this (As a result of Vandelism, this page...)


...I think the person is requesting the page be locked due to vandalism. Jeff Silvers 05:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

More info on World Wildlife Fund lawsuit

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)

Funnily enough there is more information on the World Wildlife Fund page see [4]. HTH Help plz 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
The World Wrestling Federation logo (1984 - 1994)
The World Wrestling Federation logo (1998 - 2002).

--T00C00L 08:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

The Attitude Era

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)

It all happened in the WWE, I don't see why there would need to be a separate article. And the "split" thing on there has been up for a while and nothing has been done. I'm going to take it off if that is okay. L2K 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
If someone wants to do that, I dont see why that would be an issue. L2K 03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

stop constantly making changes. everyone knows the attitude era began in 1997. I watched wrestling. I would know. Correct this and leave it alone. Not 1996, It was 1997

1997 is when WWF started cutting "Attitude" promos. However, WWF noticably changed its focus in 1996. See the beginning of the Austin character, the Pillman fiasco, Michaels/Bulldog/Diana love triangle, more blood and hardcore spots beginning to take shape. Also the inclusion of Sunny in scantily clad clothing. You might have watched wrestling but you probably only go by what the WWF tells you. "Attitude" really took shape in 1996, and KOTR 96 was the first move towards it.

There should really be a article about the "Attitude Era" Who ever wants to make the atricle about then reply to this. --TG 50 14:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about some events in 1996 hinted at the attitude era but it still officially begun in 1997. You say that WWE leads me in the wrong directions. They can't lead you in the wrong direction as long as they are the creators of their own business. They officially stated it began in 1997 thusly that's what we go by since they are the WWE. Just because an event happens like Stone Cold Steve Austin breaking into Pillman's house in 1996 or when Shawn Michaels fought over a girl with Diesel at the beginning of 1995 means nothing.

Fair enough, but I still think the article is right to say there were noticably edgier storylines that began to take shape in 1996. I will give you 1997 as the "official" start of the Attitude, with the television promos and what not.

But when it all comes down to it, even I have to agree with you though. I mean, I was shocked at what I saw when I ordered the 1996 King of the Ring pay-per-view in June. I had never thought I'd see such an irreverant, foul-mouthed interview inless I was watching Jerry Springer or something. Things really did change big time at that point. So because of that and a couple of stuff, it's fine as is.

Two championship notes

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)

Who wrote that the belt is now vacant? stated a few days ago that if RVD won the title it would still be Edge/RVD at for the title at Vengeance. At least in the interview with Edge where he stated he would re-name it the WWE Title again if he won. TJ Spyke 03:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WWE title is exclusive to ECW

Why were my edits to the championship section reverted? The WWE Championship is now an ECW title, as it is held by RVD. Prior to my edit, the page said that it was still on RAW because it was going to be defended at a RAW PPV (Vengeance), but interbrand matches are extremely common in WWE, so that doesn't really mean anything. In addition, the title has been removed from RAW's website (the fact that it isn't on ECW's website is irrelevent, as ECW's site doesn't list current champions yet). Jeff Silvers 22:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and something else I forgot to mention: RAW announcers Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler even acknowledged that the WWE Championship is now in ECW on the June 12 edition of the show. Jeff Silvers 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
But did they use the term "exclusive" when saying the WWE title was ECW? If forget the exact wording they used. --JFred 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

On RAW, King and JR were under the impression that the WWE title was going to be renamed the ECW title, however, that did not happen, as RVD is now both the ECW and WWE champion. It is also being defended at Vengeance so it is still a RAW championship. Also, RVD will still appear on RAW as long as he is the champ. --JFred 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, the fact that the title is being defended at Vengeance is moot; interbrand matches are very common. It'd be like saying that Sabu or RVD are RAW wrestlers because they're appearing at Vengeance. As far as RVD appearing on RAW as long as he's the champ, that hasn't even been insinuated (aside from the possibility of him appearing as part of the ECW group invading RAW next Monday).
Also, J.R. and Lawler made no mention themselves of the title being renamed; they simply said "for the first time since 1963, the WWE title is not in WWE" (or something along those lines), implying that the title itself belonged to ECW and not RAW.
There's really no evidence to suggest the title is still a RAW championship other than the Vengeance thing (which, as I said, doesn't really mean a whole lot). Meanwhile, WWE's stance on the issue seems to be that the title is exclusive to ECW. Jeff Silvers 00:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The fact that WWE removed the WWE title from the RAW roster page means that they are following kayfabe, which we are not bound by. The fact that it is being defended at Vengeance means that it is still tied to RAW. The WWE title should still be associated with RAW because of that. If RVD keeps it after Vengeance, then we can move it to ECW. But in the mean time, since it is still a major RAW storyline, people will still associate it with RAW. --JFred 01:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The idea of any of the titles being "exclusive" to any brand is kayfabe, as they're all under the WWE embrella (and are never really "exclusive" to any brand). So yeah, the WWE title's being in ECW is kayfabe, just as much as the Intercontinental title's being on RAW. Jeff Silvers 04:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
But ECW is not even considering it their title anyway. It'll be a moot point after Vengeance anyway. --JFred 23:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we can all agree that the status of the exclusivity of the WWE title is disputed. There is no definite information and I think we should just say it is disputed until we have a definite answer. L2K (I can't find out how to put in my user name and time.)
Eh. That sounds fine with me. Jeff Silvers 05:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Me too, most people seem to think that Edge will win the title at Vengeance so hopefully it won't be disputed for much longer. TJ Spyke 22:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rumble and KotR

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)

The section is called "Championships and accomplishments," so I think they fit there. Jeff Silvers 05:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Thank you JFred. I see it hasn't been changed. L2K 16:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pics in Championship table.

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)

I think it makes it to cluttered. besides logos are in the respected brands infobox BionicWilliam 02:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

its not cluttered if u maximize the screen. they look cool. i put them back. L2K 04:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Even though it looks cool, posting those pics on this page violates Wikipedia's fair use policy, like Oakster said, and therefore cannot be used on this page. --JFred 16:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

how does it violate the fair use policy? im confused... L2K 18:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Montreal Screwjob...

That section is incredibly screwed up with a lot of misnomers in the article. Hardly Wikipedia material.

Official MySpace

do we know if that myspace ( is official or not? it sure looks it.

em.. Official what? it's f88king unreadable! :)

--Charlesknight 21:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think you provided the wrong link. I think you mean --JFred 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be considered official unless WWE says it is. I remember seeing a Shane McMahon one awhile ago that looked real but was later revealed as fake. TJ Spyke 21:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

Clean up

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)

Also, see the related discussion of WWE as fiction earlier on this talk page. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually it was L2K, not Lid. --JFred 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
lol Yeah I realized that just now. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the kayfabe stuff should have it's own section, like a Storyline History section. --JFred 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

Actually having WWE the organization as one page and then the history of WWE in terms of the story would solve many of the problems that people like me have been complaining about. --Charlesknight 21:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reestablished the History page, copying all the history from this article and pasting it on that page, now this page needs to be shortened. --JFred 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A synopsis needs to be written for the Attitude era section so the subsections can be removed (they are already in the History article). Same for the World Wrestling Entertainment section. --JFred 06:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

I just read the entire history section and I don't think there is anythnig wrong with it, maybe the part about Shane buying WCW from under Vince's nose needs to go but apart from that it is fine. Normy132 13:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Finished cleaning up the history section so it doesn't look too much like the History of WWE article, where the full length version of the history still sits. --JFred 20:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Tagged the article for "confusing." There's an awful lot of sections, the history isn't in chronological order (it jumps around in a few places), wrestling storylines are interweaved with company history and some stuff needs to be trimmed. If you want, you can take a look at the edit history for some of my clean up attempts that were reverted. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think (as mentioned above) - a good start would be a fundamental spilt into WWE - The organization (which is a page entirely about the real-world organization and it's history) and another page that deals with the Kayfabe stuff - of course I expect there would be extensive linking between the two. That way we end up with (hopefully) two tight and focused articles rather than one big mess.

Comments? Brickbats?

--Charlesknight 21:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Now that we've got the history article covering kayfabe stuff up and going, I would suggest this article to mention the following:
  • History: Obviously not as detailed as the other article but it should cover only the main points such as its early days, 1980s boom, competition to WCW in the 1990s, and the current brand extension era.
  • Television and pay-per-view: A brief explanation over its current situation in terms of televised shows and pay-per-views, linking to their respective main articles. We could also mention live shows as well.
  • Subsidiaries: WWE has had quite a few over the decades including WBF, XFL and WWE Films. A section should mention this.
  • Development farms: There's currently mentions of OVW and DSW, yet no explaination of what they actually are.
  • Championships
  • See also
  • External links
I'm quite sure there's some more that could be mentioned but it's a start. --Oakster (Talk) 23:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The history on this article should only be about a paragraph or so synopsis of each era (WWWF, WWF, golden age, new generation, attitude era, WWE) and everything else left to the History of WWE article. --JFred 04:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WWE changing back to WWF????

I have never heard anything about this. The WWF changed its name to WWE because it got sued so I dont see how it can be allowed to change back to WWF. --Racer38 19:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's just a rumor, they wouldn't go back to WWF unless they worked out some sort of deal with the World Wildlife Fund. TJ Spyke 21:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, there NOT gonna do that, theyve already released all there merchandise and clothing under
the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) name, and if they change back to WWF what will the the real WWF change its name to?
Why would thw real World Wrestling Federation( (WWF) care to do all this, they are a NON-Profit organization for ANIMALS!
There not supposed to care about World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and wrestling!!! --T00C00L 03:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Read what was written, PLEASE!! Some fans are speculating the NEWS that they are trying to get "World Wrestling Federation" trademarked will result in the ackronym being used again in certain DVDs and such. In no way did it said that any of that was set in stone to happen. They are trying to trademark the initials, but the actual name of World Wrestling Federation (what the letters STOOD for). Why no one cared to really read that is beyond me. And while I'm at it, why the hell is not a crediable source? Just because they deal in insider info doesn't mean it's false. 07:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


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)

New storyline article?

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)

Conents of the subpage Talk:WWE Power 25/Temp (by TJ Spyke and, now deleted), 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, where a ranking of SmackDown! superstars was first listed just days before 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


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

Why doesn't this article mention how fake it all is?

--Greasysteve13 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is aboot a company, not the sport.(Halbared 10:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

Where is the article abooot the sport, then?--Greasysteve13 04:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Check out professional wrestling. --Dubhagan 18:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Uh-huh--Greasysteve13 09:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wellness Policy

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)

  • I agree, I think it is an important aspect of the company. I know the policy is freely avaliable, but some of the suspensions (i.e. Kurt Angle) haven't been confirmed so it may not be possible to list the wrestlers who have been suspended, but I would mention RVD. Aceboy 06:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
    • Kurt Angle's suspension was to deal with injuries, and personal problems.

why was the a-bomb ass kickn repot link remvoed

thats a good segment

Duh, it's not relevant. Plus, read WP:NOT. --Dubhagan 17:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

so which ione of those "What wikipeida is nots" did my show violate exactly?

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)

WWE World Heavyweight Championship Rename

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)

Actually, they sometimes leave out the word "Heavyweight" when refering to it, even before ECW was resurrected. 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)
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)

Capitol Wrestling/The beginning

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)*Sam*

I also made several changes to the wwwf section *Sam* 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *Sam*

Discrepancy between lengths of WCW, ECW and WWE articles.

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)

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)*Sam*
You do realize that there is a History of WWE article. Any expansion should be done there. --Dubhagan 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. I would do it myself, but I did not watch regularly for a long time period until 2004. Dubhagan: I understand the consensus right now is that the history article should be the in-depth one. However, the WCW and ECW main articles are considerably longer and more detailed than the one on WWE.

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)

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)
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)
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)*Sam*
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)
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)
^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)


Where did you find the information about this?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Terry 4k (talkcontribs) .

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)

2 Things

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. 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)

Besides the wrestling

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


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)

They never tried doing that!!! world wildlife fund already owns it!!! --T00C00L 03:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

I said "World Wrestling Federation", not "WWF". -- Torax2

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)

World Wrestling "Heel" Entertainment

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. 22:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

ECW Titles

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 (talkcontribs)

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)