Jump to content

Talk:WWE ECW/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Refocusing of content

I suggest a slight reword. Have this page focus solely on the relaunch as a brand. the other ECW article also mentions the Invasion and the DVD's that were put out. Mention the relaunch briefly on the ECW page, and use this page as the main article. --JFred 18:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked this article to better reflect it's status as a main article for the new promotion section on the original ECW page. --JFred 19:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Joint PPV's

Just curious, but will the new ECW have anything to do with WWE joint pay-per-views, like WrestleMania, Royal Rumble, SummerSlam, and Survivor Series?

Could be since they're already cross-promoting with the other brands, but there's nothing definite yet. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
A WrestleMania headlined by three separate world title matches (World Heavyweight, WWE, and ECW)... that'd be something. Jeff Silvers 03:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
*drool* --JFred 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If you ask ME, ILL say that, they WILL Take part in the Royal Rumble match, but will probably NOT be in the Survivor Series match -(RAW vs SmackDown only),

and Yes they WILL be featured in Joint pay-per-views. They may take part in almost ANY pay-per-view, as their Title says it all Rebels and Extremists.--T00C00L 12:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think they will do another Raw vs. SmackDown match at Survivor Series this year? TJ Spyke 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a survivor series tradition. And most probably WWE will do a 3-way 4-a-side tag match. (Raw vs SmackDown! vs ECW) K-man-1 19:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

ECW PPVs

Hey does anyone know if the newly formed ECW will have it's own PPV's; like RAW and SmackDown! do? Thanks! User:GunFactor007 24:15, 2 June 2006

From what I've read, ECW is essentially on a trial basis for the summer. ECW will be running the announced schedule of house shows as well as its weekly TV show on SciFi Network. McMahon will reevaluate his position on the brand and his backing of it at the end of the summer to see if ratings are strong and house show attendance is plausable enough to warrent a full time run.Mattbwn 00:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a TBA PPV in December; the rumor mill's been buzzing that it might be a second ECW PPV. Other than that, it's not likely to get a whole lot of PPV time. --HBK|Talk 14:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I imagine what they'll do with the December PPV is use it for ECW if it becomes successful enough to keep after the summer. Otherwise, it'll probably just be a RAW/SmackDown!/joint event. I sorta thought it'd be awesome if they resurrected the Starrcade name for the event (if it isn't an ECW PPV).
Oh, and as far ECW having PPVs, I figure they'll at least keep One Night Stand. Jeff Silvers 22:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope they bring back the Barely Legal and November to Remember PAy Per Views. Its not ECW if it's on WRestlemania.

Im pretty sure the only PPV's it will have is One Night Stand, sadly. Ecwnet 07:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

ECW has an unnamed PPV in decemberplus one night stand. I figure that they'll get rid of the one night stand name as ecw is back full time now. K-man-1 19:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

They've already confirmed another "One Night Stand" for next year. That won't make any sense though to use that name if they still have the TV show at that time. TJ Spyke 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that WWE wants to bring out another PPV for ECW called December to Dismember. They haven't announced this but it is a rumour. Belevsquad 12:05, 09 October 2006 (UTC)

Already mentioned-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 04:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I gonna say they won't because the first one December to Dismember kinda tanked. [[UNderTAker FaN01]] 05:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, you do know that WWE announced December to Dismember a couple of weeks ago, in addition to One Night Stand 2007? TJ Spyke 05:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a message board. Sections like this shouldn't be here. The fact people have contiuned this thread isn't helping matters. RobJ1981 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. This section was merely asking for verification to the future PPVs of ECW and is not a message board.Sagittarius Flame 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrestlers vs. Superstars

Last night during Head to Head I noticed the announcers refered to WWE stars as "Superstars" (which is normal), but ECW stars were refered to as "wrestlers." I didn't think too much of this until I visited the ECW website last night after the show. The section previously titled "Superstars" was changed to "Wrestlers" (the RAW and SmackDown! pages still refer to their bio sections as "Superstars"). Do you think this deliberate shift by WWE in addressing ECW stars as "wrestlers" rather than "Superstars" should be noted on this page? Jeff Silvers 21:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think so. WWE's done everything they have to push 'sports entertainment' and 'superstars' insted of wrestling and wrestlers, so it should be worth at least mentioning how WWE is making the distinction when it comes to ECW.DemonWeb 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It reflects back to Styles' worked shoot a few weeks back on RAW Tromboneguy0186 11:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... now they're calling them "Rebels." Guess WWE can't make their minds up. Jeff Silvers 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't make up there minds? Should we be surprised? *looks at kane* DemonWeb 03:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I find the whole thing laughable. They're attempting to somehow recreate a feud seimilar to the WWE/WCW one by substituting ECW for WCW. This way, there's no real risk to Vince in terms of his workers being lured away by big fat contracts, ratings sliding, money going down the tubes, etc. since he owns ECW. The whole cross promotional feud just seems stupid to me because there's no real competition. So, to hear the announcers getting at one another's throats, doing shoot interviews, wrestlers from each brand appearing on one another's shows, etc. just kinda makes me laugh at the absurdity. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they're at least attempting to do something with ECW, in which case McMahon needs to just step aside and let Heyman run it while he keeps signing the checks. But, I think that the whole "feud" is an insult to the intelligence of anyone that pays attention. Odin's Beard 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully the "feud" is only to get ECW's name out there and after Vengeance the "feud" will end and they will go on to do their own thing. --JFred 01:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
At least they're doing this better than they did The Invasion angle, with WWE and ECW seeming at least slightly different. Jeff Silvers 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I refuse to believe it will end until after Great American Bash. ECW has a good bit of "promotional capital" to pay back, and I give them until August before they get to start forging their own path. --EazieCheeze 12:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

First Superstars, then Wrestlers, then Rebels, now Extremists, we should take bets on next weeks term.DemonWeb 20:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"ECW Warriors!" Jeff Silvers 00:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
You heard it here first folks, 4 days until they change to name to ECW Warriors XD DemonWeb 01:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Naah, Extremists is just perfect, and i dont think there gonna change it any more.--T00C00L 00:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now they're superstars and always plug the WWE. They are just a thid brand nowGeorge bennett 19:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It was always just a third brand, some fans thought it would be more though. TJ Spyke 20:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ECW on Sci Fi section

Cleaned it up a little, added Wiki links, and removed POV statements without sourcing. 71.245.144.10 03:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Including mine that DID have sourcing. I used 1wrestling as a source and it was removed. Thankfully someone else put that up as well.

1wrestling.com stated they received more feedback on ECW's relaunch than anything and it was all bad. I posted a link to where it said this and it still got deleted. I'm not angry, but I think people need to look at sitations before removing things. --67.52.102.66 01:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Unopeneddoor

It was most likely deleted because 1wrestling does not count as a confirmable, official source ( as far as I know ), because most websites such as itself are known to have rumors, which while they may be true, are still not officially confirmed. DemonWeb 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not true. First of all it was fan feedback, something that is confirmed. Second what I said is that the show was critcized by website writers and fans, and that was both.

Plus what it currently says uses 1wrestling as a site--Unopeneddoor 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"At the request of Sci-Fi"

I've removed the comment that suggests that the vampire and zombie characters on the premiere were at the request of Sci-Fi. The zombie character appeared to be a parody of Internet rumors regarding this, whilst there is an interview with head booker Paul Heyman that suggests that the vampire gimmick was his idea. Although such matters will always be ambiguous, it didn't seem verifiable enough to put up. Bigbigtom367 15:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could say that rumours were that the characters were at the request of sci fi?--67.52.102.66 03:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a place for rumors and it's not exactly pertinent to the show. Including zombies and aliens isn't exactly uncommon in wrestling. --Bobblehead 15:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
...When have aliens been seen on professional wrestling? And The Undertaker is the closest to a "zombie" I can think of. Jeff Silvers 10:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

maybe not, but it seems damn accurate. YOur the only person that I've heards say otherwise, and the legit sites say they were added at Sci Fi's request. In fact I've heard Heyman was angry at having to write for Zombie and Tarot card reading characters. It also would not be starting a rumour but stating what fans believed. I've seen plenty of articles that say things about rumours, but don't say they are true. Plus I think it's pretty important, especially if the new brand fails. I say keep it. If you look at the original ECW article it used to say that VInce never heard of ECW until they started their first "Invasion" I had to reword to say it was a storyline. Why not doing something similar and just say there was a rumour?--Unopeneddoor 01:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jeff Silvers 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

what time is it on sky sports

WWE Championship

Does noting that Rob Van Dam holds the WWE Championship warrant its own line item under the Current Champions section? As it regards ECW, I think this should be merely a side note. Co-mingling champoinships between brands/promotions in the Wiki article would be unwise. Perhaps a rewrite to note the following:

Comments? --EazieCheeze 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, the WWE Championship is still a RAW championship so it should really be listed there. --JFred 23:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it would be good to have it as a sidenote, as he is technically both, but JFred has a point. DemonWeb 00:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
So JFred says "leave it like it is" and DemonWeb says "make the change." Am I reading that correctly? --EazieCheeze 18:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I understood JFred's comment to mean it should be on Raw's page, and not ECW, but I could be mistaken ^^;. My opinion was to leave it as it was:
So it'll just be a reminder that RVD is also the WWE champion. DemonWeb 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is definately an interesting situation. Even though the WWE title is held by an ECW wrestler and not a RAW wrestler, I highly doubt it will stay that way. It's being defended at the next RAW PPV anyway, plus ECW is still gonna make appearances on RAW since ECW seems to be feuding with RAW, so I wouldn't call it exclusively ECW yet. Yes, WWE did take the WWE Championship off the RAW roster page, but that's not our problem. ECW's not treating the WWE championship as their own anyway, so I doubt it will remain ECW. All of this will be a moot point after Vengeance anyway. --JFred 23:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How to add the reception of premiere show?

How should the negative reception of the premiere show be discussed on here? What is written at the moment, something like 'because they were expecting the old ECW' seems wrong and unsupported by the references given. For example, in the 1wrestling.com article linked, Bob Ryder writes that "I agree with Vince McMahon that the "new" ECW will have to move beyond the same wrestlers who were part of the original product. Many of those performers are simply not physically able to continue to perform at the level they were able to five years ago. ", obviously not supporting that.

I think that the negative reception needs to be discussed, but any suggestions? Bigbigtom367 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If that sentence is all you got out of Bob Ryder's article you seriously need to go back and read it.. :) However, since I wrote the sentence in question, I'll clarify by providing the next sentence in the article "Focusing on new talent, while mixing in ECW alumni, doesn't mean you have to abandon the principles the company was based on.." The 'old ECW' was not necessarily famous because of the wrestlers, it was the no holds barred wrestling style of those wrestlers. It was this wrestling style the ECW fans were expecting. What they got was just another WWE brand. So perhaps update the sentence to reflect they were expecting the ECW wrestling style. Don't want to put too much emphasis on it, but a mention of the disappointment is warranted.--Bobblehead 17:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh, no, I did read it more carefully than that, it was just one sentence I pulled out that seemed to make your sentence questionable :) The issue I had was is that Ryder seems to argue that it was just a plain bad show (which it was), not because it wasn't the old ECW, and his proposed solution was to just let Heyman get on with it. I think he was using the term 'ECW' more as a marker of quality than as a reference to a set of wrestlers or, even, a wrestling style. I agree the mention of disappointment is warranted though, just perhaps a little more clarity regarding the reasons for that.Bigbigtom367 23:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The impression I've gotten is that it was a bad show no matter what you compare it too. That's the way I read all the criticism. --JFred 23:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe, instead of saying people were expecting the old ECW, that the critics were hoping for something closer to the old ECW than something like RAW or SD!. --JFred 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The IWC just want more reasons to be anti-WWE... they were told from the start the show wasn't going to be exactly like the ECW of the old, but they still wanted an excuse to hate Vince and co..

Should we add the better reception of the second episode stating:

However the second episode (which aired live) was given a better reception by fans and critics after elements were adjusted such as lighting, the supernatural characters, and the overall booking of the show.

Violent-kun 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see this becoming a weekly think, which I think we should avoid. Personally, I think that the reception of the show should be a different section. --JFred 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't have an episode by episode analysis here but the fact that the very first episode was so derided seems fair to note, IMHO, considering that episode was the first impression many potential new ECW fans received of an "ECW" brand show. ECW play-by-play man Joey Styles himself acknowledged that he hated the premiere episode while loving the second one. [[1]] Seems in fair play to me. -EvWill 23:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Heres how we can tell if this ECW might work, if someone new doesn't get a shot a the ECW title by the end of this year then we will able to believe ECW has no plan on building ne stars for it's show.

Axl Rotten

What is this guys status with the WWE now?

There's been no official word yet. Either he's been fired and WWE hasn't mentioned it, or he's being punished, we're not sure. --JFred 08:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I can't cite it, there have been reports from a few of the more accurate internet sites that Axl has decided to take some time off from wrestling and was released from his contract. WWE is most likely keeping it quiet since he never made an appearance with the new brand. Genocidal 17:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
While he hasn't appeared for the brand yet, WWE already reported his signing and added him to the roster page, so I don't see why they would keep it quiet. That's just my thinking anyway. --JFred 19:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Axl Rotten was removed from the official ECW roster page a week or so ago without ever appearing for this version of ECW. -EvWill 23:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

UK?

Is this actually on UK television? It's not on Sky Sports 3.....

Yes ECW plays on Sky Sports 3 on Thursdays at 11PM.  Belevsquad  (talk)  08:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive created

I went ahead and archived some of the old stuff and the merge requests. I'll head over to Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE) and do the same. --Bobblehead 16:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Australian tv

Is It On Australian tv --203.94.35.102 02:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope --sonicKAI 15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
is it going to be? --203.94.35.102 02:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The article Professional wrestling in Australia says: WWE announced that on the international market, ECW would replace Velocity, but Foxtel announced that there are no plans to show the ECW show in Australia. However there are a few rumours flying about that it will air as of July.--sonicKAI 11:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

By now (obviously) WWE ECW plays on Foxtel, Austar and OPTUS TV on channel FOX8. Saturday's at 2PM.  Belevsquad  (talk)  08:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Titles

Anyone know if they will bring back the ECW TV Title? Tag team titles? LK Thurisaz 14:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to wait and see. --Dubhagan 14:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, the only ECW title currently is the ECW World Heavyweight Title. It makes sense given the limited current roster. --EazieCheeze 19:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the limited air-time they have (one hour a week and so far only two scheduled annual pay-per-view events--One Night Stand and that December event). Jeff Silvers 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
If they got the guys like Super Crazy, Psicosis, and Rey Mysterio off of SmackDown! they could have more tag teams. Because at the moment all they have are the F.B.I. and when Axl Rotten comes in you can have Balls Mahoney and Axl together but the limited roster is true but still, there are enough singles wrestlers to have the TV Title.- User:Packratt200

Right now they only have a 12 week deal, so they most likely won't add any more titles unless they get a permant timeslot. Right now they have no need for more titles since they only have 1 hour a week(which is the same problem TNA has). TJ Spyke 02:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

ECW Results

Are these really neccessary??--sonicKAI 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they aren't, so I removed them. --Bobblehead 15:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

RVD/Sabu drug charges

Just to follow up my revert, I don't see how, at this point, this is pertinent, as it's documented on Rob Van Dam's entry already. It's possibly interesting for an entry regarding the ECW World Title (is there one?) to explain the change, but at this point, I don't see the need to mention it. Perhaps as time goes on and there is a more detailed section about the history of WWE's ECW, it may be needed as a "turning point", but it's too early to tell how significant it will be. --Davetron5000 20:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as how it lead to the alteration of no less than three announced main event matches (one of which was scheduled to take place at Saturday Night's Main Event) and also resulted in Van Dam losing both titles ahead of schedule, I'd say that it has already proven pretty significant. Jeff Silvers 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but this article is not the place for it. In RVD's and Sabu's article, for sure, but that's it, considering it happened outside wrestling. Besides, it only affects the storyline, not the status of the brand itself. --Dubhagan 05:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
And my point is that, at this time, it's merely a "thing that happened" and, as such, Wikipedia is not a news source. If, over time, this event becomes a turning point for ECW, then I think it's inclusion is warranted. It's simply to early to know if has any impact -- Davetron5000 16:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Jeff Silvers 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ratings

Is there any need to keep track of the ratings? Especially in a table format. The line that used to be in there about the initial rating was good, but now it seems to be going too far. Bdve 02:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no need. Lows, highs and averages can be noted if the show isn't renewed. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is need, because it shows that the brand is in deep trouble. The show has fallen every week. I didn't think it would last very long anyway.User:Killswitch Engage

That still doesn't make it notable, especially for an Encyclopedia. Like Jtalledo said, when everything settles lows highs and averages can be noted.Bdve 03:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It's especially unnotable here when you take into account that there's a whole article for those ratings. Jeff Silvers 10:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Taking that into account, the table has been removed and a "see also" link provided to the television ratings. Hopefully that will quell this mild edit war. --EazieCheeze 11:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Extreme

I don't know why people keep taking this out, but all old ECW matches took place under what are now called "Extreme Rules." Even Lucha and triple Threat matches had no DQ and no count out. I can only think of one disqualification in the history of ECW (Sabu threw a fireball). Bdve 15:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember that intentionally attacking a referee could get someone DQed. I'd have to find a source to back that up, though. --EazieCheeze 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that gets you DQed in WWE extreme rules too. Bdve 22:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thats not true, there have been tons of times referees have been hit by heels intentionally in NO DQ matches, but not getting DQ!!! T00C00L 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

thats noit exactly true, in ecw there were some DQ's mainly done by bill alfonso when he was reffing a match. he was nearly responsilbe for the taipai death match not going ahead when ian rotten got a cut over his right eye. it is widley talked about for about a line in the ECW book

Controversy section

Does this even need to be here? There are so many weasel words and unverifiable junk, it definately fails Neutral Point of View and borders on original research. I'm adding {{weasel}} to the section, at which point someone can rewrite or delete entirely. --EazieCheeze 20:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with removing it. Someone took out your {{weasel}} tag. I think the edits I did to it are an improvement, but I could stand to see it removed --Davetron5000 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was P.O.V. at all.66.146.59.114 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

anythin new goin on!!!--T00C00L 13:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"no week-to-week breakdowns"?

What I put in should NOT be considered a week-by-week breakdown. The August 1 show was the first televised ECW show in an original ECW environment. I only covered what the fans yelled in the main event, not the whole show, because they seemed pleased with the rest of the show. The fans voiced their frustraitions for the first time, both at the new ECW and at SciFi. And THAT is considered a week-by-week breakdown? No. Just... no. Blacklist 19:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Show or The Big Show

Some people have been editing Paul Wight's name to "The Big Show", but if you look at ECW.com they refer to him as "Big Show", which means for this page I believe it should be "Big Show" without "The" in front. Odenkirk 11:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Odenkirk

Well, let's see. How does THE Big Show's entrance theme go? I can't quite recall. Oh wait, yes I do: "Weeeell, it's THE Big Show! It's the big man's show tonight!" So there's the answer as to what his full name is. This whole site is idiotic. Wikipedia's standard of truth seems to be "truth by majority" not "truth by accuracy", or more often "I was here first, and I police this page religiously, so I must be right". That sort of mentality is both irreponsible and fascist. Scion of Reason 02:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's "The Big Show", they just refer to him as "Big Show" for short, just like the refer to "The Undertaker" as "Undertaker". TJ Spyke 20:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, it's not The Big Show, as there is no The Big Show article (that goes to a disambiguation page), nor does Big Show (at the time of this posting) list "The Big Show" as one of Paul Wight's ring names. Furthermore, wwe.com lists his name as "Big Show". I'm not sure how more authoritative one can get than the holders of the trademark. --Davetron5000 14:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia to cite proof since anybody can edit this. They also just list The Undertaker as "Undertaker" even though his name is "The Undertaker". WWE has trademarked both "Big Show" and "The Big Show" and the ring announcers call him "The Big Show". So I think either is acceptable, but The Big Show sounds better. TJ Spyke 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be self-consistent. There is no mention of him on here or wwe.com so even if "The Big Show" is a valid name for him, "Big Show" is clearly more commonly used and more current (numerous places on wwe.com omit the "The", in fact I can't find reference to it), plus that's the name of his article on wikipedia!! -- Davetron5000 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On ecw.com it says Big Show you idiot. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.232.76 (talk • contribs)

There is no IF, The Big Show IS a valid name for him. Also, his article name is "Paul Wight". TJ Spyke 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You seriously need to justifiy your reverts. His employer lists him as "Big Show". Wikipedia itself lists him as "Big Show" and explicitly does not list him as "The Big Show". I cannot find any text on wwe.com (owners of the trademark) that refer to him as "The Big Show", while I find numerous articles referring to him as "Big Show". While he may have been previous referred to as "The Big Show", it is clear that WWE has branded him as "Big Show", and that's how he should be referred to. If you have a legitmate reason for changing his name on this page to "Big Show", please state it here. In the meantime, I'm reverting your changes. If you choose to revert, you will be in violation of the three revert rule. Everyone' ready to discuss this rationally, but you haven't seemed willing to do that. -- Davetron5000 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, they always announce him as The Big Show. I don't feel like justifying myself to you because I don't care enough to keep correcting you. It's just like how Moe Epislon gets pissed when anyone edits the SummerSlam articles because he thinks he owns them. TJ Spyke 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is like calling Gregory Helms "Hurricane" or "The Hurricane". Either one was fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.148.35 (talk • contribs)
Not sure how many times I can ask for a justification for calling him "The Big Show", but I guess you don't really care. I have myriads of evidence that he should be referred to as "Big Show" and you have....nothing. Great! As for The Hurricane, WWE never referred to him as such and his Wikipedia entry only lists "The Hurricane". This isn't a question of "Is 'The' important in front of guy's name", it's a question of correctness, and "Big Show" is objectively, 100% undeniably correct as of the date of this posting. "The Big Show" is absolutely wrong, and you haven't provided one shred of evidence to the contrary. I'd have to say that WWE's word over his official name is more legit than the ring announcer's. -- Davetron5000 20:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he's been called "Big Show" for years now, and that's the name that's listed on ECW.com for him. Odenkirk 10:23, 11 August 2006 (EST)

Actually, only recently have they just started saying "Big Show" instead of "The Big Show". Both are acceptable though. TJ Spyke 02:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
the only reason the wikipedia article might call him Big show and not the Big Show is because, the first creator of the article was an idiot just like you guys!!! his name is The Big Show !!! --T00C00L 14:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Does It actually matter that much? I mean really either name will do, he is referred to as both throughout ECW and WWE Television, and besides....hes retired now anyway JoeyStyles

Was this comment ACTUALLY PLACED BY JOEY STYLES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by George bennett (talk • contribs)

Who that mystery team?

during the past few weeks, i watched enforcer duo, a team who been allied w/ paul heyman ever since because they taken out ecw stars like the sandman & tommy dreamer. i was wondering if the enforcers of heyman are actually 2 guys or just a guy & a girl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.174.79.234 (talk • contribs)

Those are the Basham Brothers. TJ Spyke 22:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thats^ right!!! T00C00L 14:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this seriously need to be a message board??? Grow up.

There will be more titles?

I think that in a moment (probably for the end of the year ECW PPV), some ECW or WWE titles will be adopted by the ECW brand, using the same formula of RAW and SmackDown! (one world title, one class-B title, one tag team title, and one specialty title (like Cruiserweight or Women's title). Did you got any information about that?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.40.227 (talk • contribs)

There is no chance of them getting 4 titles. I don't think they will get any more titles, they only have 1 hour a week and only use about 10 wrestlers per show. There just isn't enough time to justify adding more titles, if they expand to 2 hours I could maybe see them add a Tag Team tile(although I would rather have them fix up the tag team divison on RAW and SmackDown first). TJ Spyke 23:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

They need to bring back the t.v. title.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.175.160 (talk • contribs)

"although I would rather have them fix up the tag team divison on RAW and SmackDown first". Although I realise this isn't a message board, but I HAVE to say- I TOTTALLY agree with this quote.Nuff said.Cheers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.12.67 (talk • contribs)

The "differences" section

While I think this section is not the best-worded part of the article, I think that conceptually, it should be included. This ECW is being promoted under the same name and as the "new version" of the old by WWE; regardless of what it actually is, it IS the new version of an existing product, so I think documenting the differences is notable.

That being said, it's hard not to make it into a "criticisms" section, which can get dicey and NPOV. As it stands now, I think we should try to make it better, not just delete it. -- Davetron5000 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The differences section states actual facts (ECW is normally taped/broadcast after Smackdown and there are few "Extreme Rules" matches and that is what they are called). There is information in there that does need some sources cited, but I think we should work to support those or make the section better and not just remove it without discussion. To the person that has been removing it, please engage in discussion on why it shouldn't be there. -- Davetron5000 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Just like the former Backlash section at John Cena article this should be combined with the main article plus The section does not cite its references or sources. BionicWilliam 18:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What "main article" are you talking about? I think we are discussing the "Main Differences..." section of this article. I'm not sure what other article is in play here. As for citing references, the section is tagged as needing them (though some of the information is based on the content of the show, so I'm not sure how to reference that). -- Davetron5000 18:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I meant the facts should be integrated with rest of article. If you can't reference something it is orginal resreach wich is not allowed on Wikipedia.

BionicWilliam 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but how do you reference stuff that happens on the TV show. I mean, they do call the matches Extreme Rules and it's a fact that (currently) not every match is contested under those rules. This information is available from the show itself. How does one cite that? -- Davetron5000 21:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Some people just like adding in "Citation needed" tags for no reason. The same thing happened with the Wario article. TJ Spyke 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Recurring Segments section

I think this was WAY premature. I have seen every episode of this ECW save for the most recent (as of this posting) and I have not seen the segment that was documented. Therefore, I can't see it as being recurring. I think the only thing notable about it is that Matt Striker is on the ECW brand and that information should be covered on whatever page has the current roster. Furthermore, I think if the segment were to continue, it's notability would be something relevant to Matt Striker and not ECW. -- Davetron5000 14:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Has it even been confirmed that it wasn't a 1 time thing with Striker being in ECW? That shouldn't be there though because something has to air more than once for it to be a recurring segment. TJ Spyke 21:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess Striker has been officially moved to ECW, at least based on wwe.com TJ Spyke 02:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My removal of unsourced tag from Difference section

The difference section has been cleaned up a bit, and I don't think it requires the unsourced tag at this point. The section asserts the following as fact:

  • ECW shows are held in larger arenas now than they were in the original form
  • ECW is aired live on Tuesdays after Smackdown is taped
  • Most matches are under WWE rules and not Extreme Rules
  • There is typically only one Extreme Rules match per show

While these aren't technically cited with references, they are obvious from observing the current WWE product and watching old ECW tapes. If someone can figure out how to cite that, go for it, but I think these claims are non-contentious, self-evident and not original research (they are merely descriptions of the show, using another show as a basis for comparison). If anyone disagrees, I would ask that you disagree by providing some suggestions as to how to cite these facts in Wikipedia and not just reverting or adding the unsourced tag back in -- Davetron5000 14:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cite some reliable sources. This section should really be sourced, otherwise it is original research. As WP:V, verifiability, not truth is the criteria for inclusion. I'll tag the section with {{Original research}} --Jtalledo (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Taping schedule

Should we note the new taping schedule on the page somewhere? Bdve 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything about a new taping schedule. TJ Spyke 20:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It's taping before RAW & SmackDown during "supershow" weeks. Bdve
OK, I thought you were trying to say the normal airing was changing(as in not airing live on Tuesdays). TJ Spyke 22:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there an overall objection for placing a link to an unofficial,non commercial ECW Blog? (url is ecw-blog.com). The blog compliments the official links, with informative information, which is perhaps not suitable to be on the Wiki (such as results and current ongoings).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwalkers (talk • contribs)

I don't think it should go in, but I am willing to see what others think. TJ Spyke 21:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is an objection. Said blog is unencyclopedic. --EazieCheeze 02:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Change the article name?

WWE normally refers to the show on ECW.com as ECW on Sci-Fi. Maybe the article should be named the same? Just a suggestion. 202.69.183.2 10:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This article covers the ECW brand as well, not just the TV show. TJ Spyke 19:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarities and Differences

I've made a new section of this. I think you'll find that it states facts and not opinions. Also, I really put a lot of effort into making it as un-biased as possible. I really tried to make it under Wikipedia's "standards." Read it and consider it before you go and delete it.

Come on, people. It's a good section and is very informitive. Change it a bit if you must, make small edits if you must, but don't delete it. It's un-biased and I tried to make it as factual as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.70.127 (talk • contribs)

The section doesn't exactly add anything to the article. --- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's really just a bit of a guide for people who maybe didn't get to see the old ECW or maybe just saw a bit of it and don't remember much.

I think it's very important to the article. WWECW is not to be confused with the original ECW.

My intent wasn't and never is malicious, you know. I just like to help contribute to Wikipedia the best way I can. I just try to help make it as accurate and informitive as I can and sometimes people don't agree with what I add or take away.

Sometimes I feel as though my contributions aren't really appreciated, even though I'm really just trying to help.

I've especially gotten bitched at about "External Links".

But I've also gotten bitched at about things I type being "biased" and whatever.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.190.70.127 (talk)

It's unnecessary, especially in the list format.--- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? What are you talking about?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.38.243 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't really do anything to help the article. TJ Spyke 00:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
What he said, plus it actually hurts the article. Being in the format it's in makes it look sloppy.--- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
And here's another issue. People adding just anything, most of which is opinion. I'm removing the section. --- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 03:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
That sounded more bully than I intended. I would have no problem with the section being in if it was put into a more proper paragraph form and kept to notable differences -- for example, bigger arenas aren't really notable, since it's a WWE product now. Same thing goes for it having ECW originals and non ECW originals. That's about the most obvious statement that could be made. And I can really see no reason for the "similarities" section. The only really notable difference is the rules change, which is already mentioned under "history". --- bd Sup? - Where we goin'? 04:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Who really gives cares about this?86.20.53.195 16:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Extreme Rules

I thought that ECW matches were all extreme rules matches. How did Batista get diqualified against Big Show?—Preceding unsigned comment added by AD Double J (talk • contribs)

Only 1 match per show is under Extreme Rules. TJ Spyke 01:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly TJ because before this weeks episode there wasn't one for like 3 weeks! Belevsquad 08:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Vixens

"And for a short period of time ECW's female performers were referred to as "Vixens", as opposed to RAW & SmackDown! "Divas," but this has recently changed and the females are now referred to as "Divas" as well."

Is this true? They are not listed on WWE's Divas section. Tim Long 01:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Heyman's Dismissal

I thought Heyman was dismissed because of conflict of interest(With McMahon).

The 'Kayfabe' story was a poor PPV.84.12.47.154 09:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"No replacement has been named. It is not even determined if he has been officiailly released from the company as of yet, but it appears that he HAS been released by the WWE."

This doesn't make sense. WWE is 'The Company'.

It is confirmed that Heyman has been released from his ECW Head of Creative position. It's not known if WWE has released him. Amended article to this effect.

A replacement has been named for Paul Heyman. He is David Lagana, a former member of the Smackdown! Creative team. Earlier this year he was moved to the ECW creative team, an indication that internal conflict over the new ECW has occurred for some time. This will likely have great repurcussion for the ECW brand. WIthout Heyman at the helms, many viewers may turn off- as indicated by the reactions of many to the new ECW after the 'South Philly' screwjob, which occurred directly after Heyman lost direct creative control. Rev. James Triggs 23:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a picture of the original ECW Logo?

Im talking about the Purple one. I always see the Black one, or the red one. Never the purple one. And I once think I saw a green one... But in any event, if anyone has a purple one, it should be in the list of former logos for ECW. --James Maxx 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_ECW/Archive_2&oldid=1136225063"