Talk:WWE/Archive 5

Newest Invites to WWE Wrestling: Ike the Nike and Home Boy Josh! Camp Hill, PA! They are the best fans ever! Thanks for coming to ECW and Smackdown in State College, PA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.75.125.135 (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspended superstars
we have had this discussion on the wwe roster page that no names shall be listed until wwe offically annouces them or they stop appearing on tv —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-pac54 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It said on the news that no names have been officially released by the WWE,there is nothing about any names on WWE.com, and The Sun is shit, so delete them please. 24.139.31.210 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

i went ahead and delated them MATT 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Some WWE big time Superstars like Mr. Kennedy and the recently absent King Booker did get suspended for the believe of them recieving HGH and other Anogolic Steriods. King Booker and Queen Sharmell both quit because Booker thought it was not right that he got suspended for 60 days for a first offence, when the first offence is only 30 days. gameplaya 9:36 18 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.92 (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that I care where you read them, but what is the point of posting those rumors here? TJ Spyke 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE PPV
//93633665555212256464649798797897894745645477Can someone add WWe armageddon to "former PPV" in the ppv template, i am unable to. Tr U cO 93 08  00:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Who said it was a former pay per view? As far as I know it's taking place in December as usual (December 16) Justa Punk 01:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No because WWE doesnt have it on their schedule, go their schedule website under live events, and you will no see Armageddon under Dec. 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truko9308 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We should wait until the time comes that the PPV isn't happening. There's no use in speculating whether it will or won't happen. Virakhvar321 06:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The WWE website has a habit of not announcing events (apart from Wrestlemania) very far in advance. The most common cut off is actually the Survivor Series (the event directly before Armageddon) Justa Punk 09:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed at the Armageddon talk page.  The  Hyb  rid  14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a former PPV, even though some alreadys "knows" when it will be held and on what date. Also, it listed under former PPV'S, even though if you click on Armageddon, at the bottom of the page it is NOT listed as a former PPV.76.110.82.251 01:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE sitill has Armageddon. They've already scheduled matches.--208.1.24.218 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This section is several months old. At the time WWE had remove mentions of Armageddon. See the Armageddon talk page for more info.  TJ   Spyke   00:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Federal Investigation
Shouldn't the federal investigation of WWE be on the article?

This is no week by week thing and it isn't about wrestling, it's about the government taking charge over WWE territory. (wellness program) AD Double J 21:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chairman?
Is there a person of higher power than the Chairman? I heard V.K.M. woring about "The Board" leaving me to wonder "We are missing things!" So is V.K.M. is highest power or is there more to it?--Offensive username removed 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this, their list of Board members with some details: http://corporate.wwe.com/governance/board.jsp Cheers, --Naha|(talk) 05:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

T. Long?
Okay is this a storyline or the guy really had a heart attack ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.48.238 (talk) Storyline.  The  Hyb  rid  23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention worst on-screen fake heart attack ever seen. --Kaizer13 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How no-one pointed out during rehearsals (do they have them?) that you don't faint when you have a heart attack is beyond me. The worst ending to an otherwise perfect promo.Tony2Times 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No they don't rehearse, because they should know what they're doing just on instruction. Or that's the theory anyway. Anyone want to bet the bad acting is the real reason why Vickie Guerrero appears to be the permanent GM of Smackdown now?  !! Just a Punk !!  09:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

vadlism
please stop letting people mess up the WWE page --WALICE111 21:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't help it if someone messes up the page or not. 76.110.82.251 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

please stop letting people spell awfully.. i mean vadlism.. 142.162.168.77 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)-- wishing people would get a fucking clue

You do realize you spelled Vandalism wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.250.169 (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hornswoggle
he is not the cuewight champ as on smackdown he vacted it i just watched it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't aired in America yet, so don't insert spoilers please.  The  Hyb  rid  00:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

im in Austraila i watched it yesterday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) Fine, I will revert it as unsourced info if you change it again. It is a spoiler to all Americans, and will be for a couple more hours.  The  Hyb  rid  00:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The agreed standard of WP:PW is to use when it is first aired in the United Stated since that is also how WWE handles it. Based on the spoilers I read (in my damn area, SD won't air until tomorrow night because of a damn Yankees game), the Hornswoggle situation won't happen until about halfway into tonights show (someone in an area where SD isn't delayed for a f*cking baseball game will know for sure). TJ Spyke 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks so when will it be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs)
 * Oh, a rough estimate would be around 3 hours, give or take a half-hour or so. Cheers,  The  Hyb  rid  00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

who just changed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs)
 * You did, and you know it.  The  Hyb  rid  00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

back to that Horswooghle is champ he is not i watched smackdown on Friday in Austraila even my brother sore it
 * You're brother isn't a source, now is he? We will say Hornswoggle is champ in 3 hours; you can wait until then.  The  Hyb  rid  00:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

how can i get a sourse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs)
 * The only way to answer that question is to say "look for one", but that isn't really helpful. Dude, just wait 3 hours. It isn't that big of a deal.  The  Hyb  rid  00:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to Hornswoggle. Just be patient, when it airs here in America someone will change it. This has always been the standard here, we wait until it airs in the United States or is stated on wwe.com (like WWE did when Kurt Angle and Edge won the titles on SmackDown). Also, please sign your comments. TJ Spyke 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * my sourse http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=192780177 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs)
 * Let me see if that passes wiki standards. Don't add it yet.  The  Hyb  rid  00:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

so has it
 * I asked someone who would know better than I would. Give him a few minutes to reply. In the mean time, how about you tell me why you care so much.  The  Hyb  rid  00:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

well its coz i have just watched it 12 hours ago and im trying to update wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It will be updated in 3 hours anyway. Why is it worth spoiling it for the American viewers? That seems quite selfish.  The  Hyb  rid  00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

so coz it has not happened in the US i cant add it that bull anyway i get RAW on a 1 day delay and so when eva a titles changes i find out here and give it a way but when it happens to u u cry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * America has way more viewers than in Australia, and the vast majority of users on this Wiki are American and European. It is a population thing.  The  Hyb  rid  01:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well i have a qeustion for u has it hapened --Jhauth11 01:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)jhauth112
 * If you mean have I gotten the yes or no on the source, then yes I have. That source fails WP:RS. It is just a dirtsheet,  The  Hyb  rid  01:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

has the event happend already where he gives up the belt
 * It doesn't matter; on Wikipedia verifiability is more important than the truth. That's policy  The  Hyb  rid  01:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

this is rubbish that something that has happened cant be reported till u america c it that bull —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC) just fix it NOW
 * Find a reliable source  The  Hyb  rid  01:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

HOW I HAVE GIVEN U 1 ALL READY, AND I HAVE WATCHED IT WITH MY 2 EYES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The agreed standard of WP:PW is to use when it is first aired in the United Stated since that is also how WWE handles it. Also, the source you provided wasn't reliable.  The  Hyb  rid  01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Y do i have to wait for u guys to watch for someone to change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the WWE won't confirm it until we watch it.  The  Hyb  rid  01:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

here is a sourse http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/2007_/articles/1190779871.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC) is it good--Jhauth11 01:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)jhauth11
 * Sigh, you still don't get it, do you? We all know what will happen becuase SmackDown was taped 3 days ago and spoilers are online the same night. THE POLICY OF WP:PW IS TO WAIT FOR IT TO AIR IN THE US OR ON WWE.COM BEFORE ADDING IT, THIS APPLIES TO ALL WWE/TNA/ROH EVENTS. TJ Spyke 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me check  The  Hyb  rid  01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

so is it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs)
 * Have patience  The  Hyb  rid  01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

so how good is it
 * It fails miserably. Now, I will copy TJ's response to the bottom here for you to read since you ignored it before.  The  Hyb  rid  01:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sigh, you still don't get it, do you? We all know what will happen becuase SmackDown was taped 3 days ago and spoilers are online the same night. THE POLICY OF WP:PW IS TO WAIT FOR IT TO AIR IN THE US OR ON WWE.COM BEFORE ADDING IT, THIS APPLIES TO ALL WWE/TNA/ROH EVENTS. TJ Spyke 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is over (at least this week) since SmackDown is almost over here in the eastern US (it's 9:57 PM ET). TJ Spyke 01:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok SmackDown! has aired, the information has been written into the article, this conversation is CLOSED-- Tr U cO 93 11  02:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

he has a point posted by aldin19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldin19 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

origial wwf logo
What happend to to the WWF logos.Hardcore Hak 00:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Hardcore Hak
 * They were deleted. If somebody has them, they can upload them again (just follow WP:IMAGE to make sure they don't get deleted again. TJ Spyke 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

When were they deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.223.219 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can see for yourself by checking the history of the page (when on the WWE article, click the "History" tab at the top). It looks like they were deleted on October 2/3. TJ Spyke 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely they can be restored? Who deleted them and why?  !! Just a Punk !!  21:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I just said how people can check. Here are the pictures that were deleted (go to the articles to see who deleted them and why): [[Image:WWELogo 94-98.png]], WWELogo 84-94.png. TJ Spyke 22:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When was the WWF logo of what the WWE logo is now created and when was it official? Johnluisocasio (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the page here, WrestleMania XIV used it on the show (although the company logo was still the old school one). The company fully switched to the scratch logo before Unforgiven 1998 a few weeks later, although i'm not sure when they did it to be exact.  TJ   Spyke   22:15, 255454546464646465646465464646464654646464646828284682828585466488696332117886
 * I see. But how come it showed it on the lower left of the screen while watching RAW is WAR or a PPV. Someone told me that he saw it during the 1998 Royal Rumble despite its ring banners had the "New Generation" version logo. Johnluisocasio (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Names
Since I can't do it, could someone else revert back to the correct names of the company? The company is not called "WWE Inc.", it's "World Wrestling Entertainment Inc.", etc. TJ Spyke 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Company history
My last edit is the correct situation. The CWC, then WWWF, then WWF (originally) in a business sense no longer exists. Vince McMahon Senior sold this lineage to the already established Titan Sports, established by Vince McMahon Junior. It was a takeover and there was no flow on. I think that was established earlier in the article anyway wasn't it? ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't. And you are wrong, in fact they even use all belt(title) histories of the former leagues.Aladdin Zane 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not wrong - and please don't use on screen matters as proof of a seperate business issue. They have nothing to do with each other, especially in this instance.  !! Just a Punk !!  09:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I just double checked. Yes it was a takeover. Refer to the first sentence here for the proof. Titan Sports existed before the takeover (formed in 1980 and operating seperately to the WWF until 1982).  !! Just a Punk !!  09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have watched the Tuesday, March 18, 2008 episode of "ECW" on SciFi and/or the Friday, March 21, 2008 episode of "Friday Night SmackDown!" on The CW, the next wrestler to be inducted into the "WWE Hall of Fame" is Eddie Graham. On the video the announcer said that Eddie Graham worked for Mr. McMahon's father when the company's name was CWC.  From what I understand the company name was CWC, then WWWF, then WWF and then finally WWE.  How come WWWF, WWF, and WWE are listed in the article but not CWC? Gibsonj338 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is look at the first topic called Capitol Wrestling S-PAC54 23:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Page size
Something I should mention to any admins reading this - the size of this article is 37 KB. Should we prune it? And if so how? ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 07:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I might have missed it when I just read but...
I didn't see anything about the WWE going to Iraq to entertain the troops. If I missed it my apologies but if I didn't, shouldn't this be included in the article? -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"as fans were tired of Hulk Hogan's ability to beat anyone and everyone whenever he wanted"
This could use a cite. Without it this looks like original research.Originalname37 17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
The introductions seems too long and specific, especially the last three paragraphs. Those paragraphs don't really need to be in the introduction. Notorious4life 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag Team Team Match
Can Someone Add Cade & Murdoch (c) VS Hardcore Holly And Cody Rhodes For the World Tag Team Championships On The Survivor Series Page It's On WWE.Com The —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.98.180 (talk • contribs) Never Mind Its Already There —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.98.180 (talk • contribs)
 * Heh, seems like I gotta buy a license to see said video. Thanks for telling me though, even though this isn't really the time or place to discuss this. Kaizer13 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also not the page to mention it. You would have to mention that on the Survivor Series 2007 talk page.  TJ   Spyke   20:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE logo 2
Would it be okay if I just took this logo and put it into paint then put it in the artical?--Hardcore Hak (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

new template at bottom of main page
on the template for the wwe, there is no link to the wwe alumni page or a link to the current roster of wrestlers. shouldnt those pages be linked like they were on the old template?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Talent Exchange Relationship
how come the ECW & Smackdown brands are involved in the talent exchange except for the RAW Brand?68.188.126.78 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Smackdown is taped the same night and the same venue as ECW is presented live. Raw is presented on a different night and a different venue.  !! Just a Punk !!  20:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a mention of the new WWE HD programming???
I do think WWE HD should be mentioned in the article, can we get some opinions on this in here??? We can all cooperate on wether to put the mention of WWE HD in and how we should word it if we decide to put a mention to it.

Also, this article should be an article of the day. It is a great article, built well and is very informal. It was also very easy to read. I am proud of the Wiki people who edited this page to make it the way it is now. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I will work something about HD into it. The article can't be a TFA (Today's Featured Article) until it reaches FA status first. See WP:FA for more info, and consider bringing it up at WP:PW.  TJ   Spyke   01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just read your addition, you did very well on the wording. I'm adding a nomination for this artilce now. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominating this page for FA
Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This article will never be a featured articles since non-WWE references are almost impossible to find, given the secretive nature of the Professional Wrestling business.Spman (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OVW
What happened to OVW?68.188.126.78 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WWE severed all ties with them, so they were removed from this article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE Cruiserweight Championship
The Title is no more so why is it still on the page Supermike(talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WWE has taken no stance on the title, and still lists it as vacant on their site. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah so they also have the hardcore title and all of WCW and ECW former titles on their and they are not listed so why should a title that havent been seen for 8 months be on here Use common sense dude the title gone Supermike(talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/

Current titles are grouped above the gray line. Abandoned/retired titles below the line. The title is vacant, not defunct. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter the title is no longer in use there for it should not be on the active title list Supermike(talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WWE still considers it a active title, so it yes it should be on the active title list.  TJ   Spyke   01:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see where Mike is comin' from but I however have to agree with TJ. WWE hasn't said anything on tv, their website, nor issued a statement sayings as it's bein' abandonded. After all, if they abandon it, what's the point in keepin' the Cruiserweight's around? -- Cra sh U  nderride  02:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comedy relief. ArcAngel (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So How long will he keep it on here Supermike(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Until WWE declares the title defunct by moving it below the gray line. Until then, it stays. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

They already have that now its vacant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Vacant and Defunct are not the same. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you go to WWE home page the title is Gone Supermike(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We know. That was only changed about a week ago. The articles have been edited accordingly. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Event Results Pre-Determined or Not?
In this edit, TJ Spyke says of the word storyline, "That says nothing about the matches being pre-determined". Question: Are WWE events pre-determined or not? Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All I meant was that the source does not mention it being predetermined, you can't take a source and then write something completely different. Since the source doesn't say predetermined, you can't say they did. I don't see the relevance of the paragraph at all though.  TJ   Spyke   17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you agree the victor in every bout is predetermined. And you agree WWE admits that their business model is based upon storylines. Is a storyline anything more than a euphemism for the victors being predetermined? To me, storyline = scripted = predetermined victors.  What other conclusion do you draw? You ask about relevance, so I'll tell you.  Here you can see that just today I reverted WrestleMania results in the following articles:  2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. If WrestleMania results are predetermined, then the victors don't deserve mention in Wikipedia calendar year articles. Their rigged victories are the result of nothing more than predetermined WWE storylines, not the result of their athletic skills in a true contest. When I looked on the WWE website for some type of fine-print disclaimer like "Our bouts are athletic demonstrations, not actual athletic contests", I found nothing of the sort, only the euphemism "storyline" that I cited. I didn't have time to search Wikipedia articles on WrestleMania or World Wrestling Entertainment for an indication that all the victors in bouts are predetermined. If it's clearly stated somewhere else, then please advise, and I'll retract my paragraph. But for a Wikipedia article on highly popular athletic events to never even mention that they are all rigged from the outset, to me that's unacceptably ignoring the elephant in the room.  --Art Smart (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Storyline does not alway mean scripted. They come up with storylines for American Gladiators and similar type competitions. Also, professional wrestling already covers wrestling being fake, how is any of that relevent in an article about WWE specifically though? It's not unique to them, and there are hundreds of wrestling organizations.  TJ   Spyke   02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are right that professional wrestling covers the fact that all such events have rigged outcomes. I'll refer to that article the next time I see (and revert) professional wrestling results in Wikipedia calendar year articles.  Matter settled.  I'll retract my WWE paragraph.  Thanks.  --Art Smart (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on a sec. I thought in the year 2008 we would all know that wrestling has pre-determined results.  But that doesn't mean every match is scripted.  There are some wrestlers who can call their own shots and wrestle on the fly with no script only knowing who will win the match.  And then there have been some wrestlers who have changed their own results in the ring.  One notable example I can think of is Andre the Giant winning a match against the Ultimate Warrior because he got pissed in the ring at Warrior.  So just because there is scripting doesn't mean that the results are guaranteed to go that way 100% of the time.  Now as far as notability on a wiki claendar depends on the guidelines for the page.  Is there a guideline that says athletic events with pre-determined results can't be submitted?  Or is this your opinion?  I personally don't like McMahon and his style of wrestling but that doesn't mean these events are not popular and don't deserve notable mention.  To some people an event like Wrestlemania is bigger then the Superbowl.  They have big parties and invite a huge group over to celebrate the event and get into it just like the Superbowl, I know because I've been to friend's houses who treat it as such.  Alright I'm done decide what you will but do with knowing some of the facts before deciding.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Vince Mcmahon has admitted that wrestling isn't real and the results are pre-determined, he just doesn't like rubbing it in the fan's noses. --Leo Macintosh (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Leomacintosh--Leo Macintosh (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WWE Kids
Variety March 23- The company has started to aggressively court the youth set with the launch of WWE Kids magazine, as well as plans to create original programming for the demo on its main website and new WWEKids.com destination. A TV series could follow. Should we include this in Expansion beyond wrestling? I mean, it isn't offical yet but still... Meepboy (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We won't until it's official, but even then, I don't know if we should include it. –Cheers, L  A  X  20:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for my sake I hope it doesn't happen heh. Meepboy (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WWE globalization
I suggest making an section about WWE's international expansion, it has played a huge role in WWE's current success. Stuff like the international tours, the new offices they have in London, Shanghai, Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Toronto and Sydney. Hers some links for sourcing:

http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2008/2008_01_02.jsp http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_09_26.jsp http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/3QF2007pressrelease.pdf 67.168.207.218 (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Publicly Traded/Privately Run
In the article it states that the WWE is publicly traded/privately run, To that I say HUH? How can a publicly traded company be privately run since it's a public company? I would think that Vince McMahon and his employees are beholden to the Board of Directors and shareholders therefore I doubt that its privately run. Can we please change this? Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed this. Of course it can be privately run! As I understand it, the majority shareholders are the McMahons and they run things their way as is their right. The minority shareholders hold those shares in that knowledge, and they know if the stocks go down the McMahons are just as affected as they are. There's nothing wrong with that paragraph.  !! Just a Punk !!  04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not uncommon. Take Nintendo for example. They are a publically traded company (on Japan's Nikkei stock market), but the company owns most of the stock themselves and thus are privately run.  TJ   Spyke   17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wellness Program
"The program has fallen under intense scrutiny from branches of the media and professionals in the field of doping,[who?] who claim that not only has WWE overlooked, if not, encouraged steroid use prior to these pharmacy busts, but that the steroid testing itself is blatantly misleading. Under WWE drug testing policy, positive test thresholds for anabolic steroids are more than twice that of all other major sporting outfits including the Olympic committee."

I want to challenge this whole paragraph. Especially the last sentence, what other than "good faith" can you use to support this claim? What statistics prove this? I thought there had to be more evidence to make such an statement.WillB003 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish to challenge it - place a "fact" tag after the paragraph concerned. If it hasn't been fixed in a minimum of two months, and there hasn't been any discussion about it on this talk page you should be able to delete it. That's the way I've worked up until now and I haven't been told it's the wrong thing to do. Plenty of people have this page on their watch list so you should get someone to provide a source.  !! Just a Punk !!  04:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Highest Ranking Title
I know the WWE Championship is the highest ranking title in the WWE, but when the World Heavyweight was on RAW was it the higest ranking title that time in WWE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master King (talk • contribs) 08:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the WWE, but on a brand. WWE championship is for RAW, World Heavyweight is SD!, and ECW Championship is ECW. 76.110.82.251 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE Tag Team Championship
They should be put under the ECW section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.163.182 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No they shouldn't. The titles are Smackdown titles. The Miz and John Morrison won the titles as a part of the ongoing exchange program between ECW and Smackdown. This is distinct from Matt Hardy.  !! Just a Punk !!  09:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The US title is also a Smackdown! Title - And that is where it is being defended most of the time (out of main events), the same goes with the Tag Belts. Also, when you watch a main event, Adamle and Tazz only commentate on the ECW title match, because the US Title is not an ECW Belt. Although it is on an ECW wrestler, the belt is still "property" of Smackdown!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.38.170 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Something Interesting I Found
Under the "Expansion beyond wrestling" section, the header reads: "In addition to licensing wrestling and performers' likenesses to companies such as Electronic Arts, THQ and Jakks Pacific to produce video games and action figures, WWE has moved into other areas of interest in order to market their product."

Well, despite not being sourced, and although the heading is just giving an example, I don't think Electronic Arts should be mentioned at all because the WWF/WWE has never licensed a game to EA to be published (WCW did with Mayhem and Backstage Assault.). So, could it be removed and replace with Acclaim since they published War Zone and Attitude. JediYoda1120 (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a piont. WWE, to my knowledge, never had anything licensed to EA. I moved it to Acclaim Entertainment. SAVIOR_  SELF  .777  19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Websites Section
Not really needed. It should be deleted, but the article is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degenerate-Y (talk • contribs) 22:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Under which WP Policy are you claiming this? Why isn't it "needed"?  !! Just a Punk !!  13:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

CW isn't a cable network
It says in the article that CW is a cable network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.177.117 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on the market. In my local market, the only way to get The CW is to watch it on cable or have a digital TV (locally it's cable channel 16 and digital channel 13.2). The digital TV version is only 480i though.  TJ   Spyke   17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

wwe has been the #1 most rated show on cable tv for the past five years —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.133.168 (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, so? It's not always #1, and you would need a source to proove it>  TJ   Spyke   15:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As of this month, WWE is no longer an wrestling company and will rebrand itself and its wrestlers purely as touring entertainment/entertainments. WWE is also considering a proposed name change to fit with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.153.165 (talk • contribs)
 * Besides the fact that you offer no source (you didn't give the link, just the website name), it's not relevent or verifiable.  TJ   Spyke   13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.prowrestling.com/article/news/10746
 * That's the article and it links to PWInsider, TJ. Not sure if I believe it or not myself.  !! Just a Punk !!  02:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WWE General Manger Update
Now Mike Adamle has been stepped down as the RAW General Manager. Will Vickie Guerrero step down as Smackdown General Manager? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.189.21.176 (talk • contribs)
 * Please see WP:FORUM, this is not the place to discuss that.  TJ   Spyke   15:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean to say you dont discuss topics under a discussion board? Explain that one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.111.9 (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the warning at the top of the page: Please note that this Talk page is for discussion of changes to the World Wrestling Entertainment article. Off-topic discussions are not appropriate for Wikipedia and will be REMOVED.  TJ   Spyke   17:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary things
"On the back of the success of the Attitude Era, on October 19, 1999 the WWF's parent company, Titan Sports (by this time renamed World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc.) became a publicly traded company, offering 10 million shares priced at $17 each".....should be reworded to easily read:

"On the back of the success that was the Attitude Era, the WWF's parent company, WWF Entertainment, Inc., became a publicly traded company on October 19th, 1999, offering 10 million shares priced at $17 per share." —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheyreonlychasingRYAN (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the first one better, just remove the Titan Sports and rename it World Wrestling Federation. --DJS24 23:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Careful, guys. Titan Sports was very much a part of the Fed's history. The question is when did it change from Titan Sports to WWFE Inc?  !! Just a Punk !!  08:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question. The USPTO site says they refiled the trademark for "Titan Sports" in 2004 (though they no longer used the name) but abandonded it in 2007. I doubt it would be in the SEC records since they had changed their name before becoming a public company (I don't think private companies have to file reports with the SEC).  TJ   Spyke   16:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

World Tag Team Championship
Shouldn't we put the world tag titles on the ecw section? look at this http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/superstars/ wwe.com has now put it on ecw and if you look in raw page, you don't see it. it is now of ecw property until someone brings it back to raw. we don't need confirmation from wwe when its indirectly stated in wwe.com (Master King (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC))
 * That doesn't make it a ECW title, it's listed there because the current champs are ECW wrestlers (keeping it on the RAW page would give the impression that Morrison and Miz are now RAW superstars.  TJ   Spyke   18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WWE kept the WWE tag team and United States titles on SmackDown! Then realised people thought Matt Hardy, John Morrison, and The Miz were on SmackDown! So Now they put the World tag Champions on ECW. Whether it's a Raw or ECW title is Debatable.--Wwe.fana (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The titles are not brand specific - except maybe the ECW title. The wrestlers are. I still think it would be better to take the brands off the main page (where's the final consensus on that, TJ?)  !! Just a Punk !!  23:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

But the ECW title was on Raw for a short time --Wwe.fana (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's different. Kane was drafted. It's not like someone on Raw won the title and transferred it to that brand. If a wrestler holds a title from another brand, it's still the title of that brand until there is an official move or something. --Kaizer13 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

update
it never gets updated an it wont let me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpwwefan08 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * New and unregistered editors aren't allowed to edit it. What should be added? We don't do week by week info (not everything that happends with the company needs to be noted).  TJ   Spyke   20:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Then how did i edit the pages before i joined wiki? --Wwe.fana (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is semi-protected. See WP:PROTECT for details.  TJ   Spyke   21:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

But how did i edit the pages before i joined wiki? --Wwe.fana (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see you didn't bother reading the link I posted. If a page is not protect, anyone can edit it. If a page is semi-protected, unregistered users and accounts less than 3 days old can not edit it. If a page is fully protected, only admins can edit it.  TJ   Spyke   21:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed?
"Together with their children, Executive Vice President of Global Media Shane McMahon and Executive Vice President of Talent and Creative Writing Stephanie McMahon-Levesque, the McMahons hold approximately 70% of WWE's economic interest and 96% of the voting power in the company."

I was just thinking wouldn't it be better for the article if we had some sort of Citation here, I'd think it'd make it more accurate if we had a Citation here that would prove this information is actually true, the McMahons may hold most of the power in WWE but without some sort of report to state they actually hold this much power or economic interest this information could be stated as unreliable. Just a suggestion. --afkatk (talk) 22:26 22nd December 2008

Major error on List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE)
The date of when the Iron Sheik and Nikolai Volkoff won the titles at WrestleMania is wrong. According to how you have it, they won them and then traveled back through time to lose them. In other words, it's set as July something that they won them, when it should be March 31. I tried to fix it, but the table is coded in some overly complicated manner. Maxwell7985 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, but you should have brought it up on that articles talkpage.  TJ   Spyke   21:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead Wrestlers
I was surfing around on some WWF pages, and only now relized that Yokozuna and Hawk of Legion of Doom died. I checked around and could not find a category or a list of other dead wrestlers, aside from Category:Wrestling deaths but that is for people who died in the ring. I haven't really followed wrestling since I was a kid (and I liked both those guys) but I was wondering if making a category or a list of dead wrestlers would be a good idea. Or if one already exists, please point me to that one. Tydamann (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to help out adding wrestlers to the category, I'm all for the idea --afkatk (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I for one, disagree. Applying that logic to other fields of expertise, we would have to create "Deceased actors", "deceased sewage workers", etc. and add them to articles. If one were to opt for a "list of dead wrestlers", the same would also apply. OnlineWorldofWrestling or Pro Wrestling Pix both feature a list of deceased performers (I'm at least sure about the latter), I suggest you rather use outside websites for this function rather than WP. --Kaizer13 (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe narrow it to "Wrestlers who died in their 40's"?-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  10:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a valid idea to have a list of wrestlers that have past away, to my mind wikipedia is information that has been taken from the web and condenced into one site, and you are unlikely to find a list of dead sawage workers on the internet but you are very likely to find a list of dead wrestlers, footballers etc because they are exposed to a media enviroment i would also be willing to help form a new article on this subject as it could help as a quick summery of the major people that deserved to be mentioned within the wrestling industry Xrateddan (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WWE.com
I've thought of doing a little overview of sorts on WWE.com, and I was pretty much wondering everyone else's views on this, since the section itself has been vandalized and I don't want to get into trouble by writing anything in the section only to have it removed, I'm just wondering if it's alright to expand it since I feel expansion is appropriate --afkatk (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think WWE.com warrants a bigger section or even its own article. A lot of websites have articles here. --Kaizer13 (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For example YouTube. Kala  jan  €  ₣  20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that really works as an example here: YouTube is one of the most popular websites on the web; WWE.com is a website for the niche business that is WWE. Regardless, I believe WWE.com deserves better documentation on WP. --Kaizer13 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well according to WWE's corporate site they get 14 mill unique hits a month, so I'd call that pretty popular on the net. afkatk (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't there an article for wwe.com? Someone should create it. CFountain (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE Universe
someone said that that WWE Univesre page was launched on November 19, someoone needs to fix that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.78.184 (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that says otherwise?  TJ   Spyke   03:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WWE title history since Draft (2008)

 * Propose merging the above article here. It is very messy indeed and if the editors here think there is content worth saving (you can judge if there is) then here is where it would seem to fit. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have prodded the article, I see no reason for it to even exist.  TJ   Spyke   21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WWF/E History article
"Main article: History of World Wrestling Entertainment" This article at the top of the main page appears to contain much of what is said on this page, would it not be a good idea to condence the articles into 2 different articles. i.e WWE History and WWF History. This would allow much of the informaton that is repeted on this page to be put into that article as i see no point in having the information in two different places, it would seem to make more sence to keep the WWE main wikipedia page more about what the company is doing and information about all the different parts of the company rather than this very wordy duplicated layout we have at the moment. Xrateddan (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is probably best to employ WP:SUMMARY here. Keep a basic outline, with all the details at the history article. Nikki  ♥  311  00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

World Tag Team Championship continued
I wanted to continue this heere so it got some attention. In the past, WWE has shown that titles are brand specific. I give the following as examples: Bobby Lashley was stripped of the ECW title when he came to RAW; When Matt Hardy, John Morrison, and the Miz held the WWE Tag Titles, the WWE Tag Titles were still listed on the SmackDown superstar page. However, WWE has also shown that the titles are superstar specific, not brand specific. I give the following as examples: The ECW Title went to RAW when Kane was drafted; The WWE and World titles changed brand when their holders were drafted; the US Title became an ECW championship, and then once again a SmackDown championship when Matt Hardy was drafted and Shelton Benjamin won the title, respectively. It is quite evident that even WWE does not have a clear answer for this issue. We know only two things for sure: 1. the announcers have confirmed that the World Title is now defended on SmackDown. And 2. WWE.com has, on the superstar pages, moved the World Title to SmackDown and the World Tag Titles to RAW. I believe in representing which brands have which titles, the only sure way to go is to follow WWE.com. In addition, here we recognize that the World Title has moved to SmackDown, why don't we recognize that the World Tag Team Titles have moved to ECW? I expect an answer such as "ECW and RAW have a talent exchange, so they share the titles." Well, if that is the case, then the ECW title should be acknowledged as tri-branded, and all of RAW and SmackDown's titles should be recognized as di-branded. If we insist on separating them, then we should go by WWE.com. L2K (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All of your examples are of champions getting drafted. When Morrison and Miz won the WWE Tag Team Championship, the title was still considered a SmackDown title. Same applies here, it's still a Raw title. As for the WHC, WWE has specifically said it is a SmackDown title now (both on TV and on their website) while they have never said the WTTC is a ECW title. It's listed on the ECW page due to ECW wrestlers holding it.  TJ   Spyke   05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also listed Shelton Benjamin winning the US title from Matt Hardy and WWE.com moving it back as an example. When Matt was drafted, they said the US title was officially on ECW. Since Shelton just won it, are they just listing it on the SD page because he is the superstar that holds it? And what I don't get, is that BOTH titles were moved to different pages. Your reasoning is that one switched shows and another didn't. Given the fact that BOTH switched pages, that seems to be incorrect. AND if your logic is that they moved the World title because it changed shows, but they only moved the Tag Titles because ECW superstars hold them, I give the following: When they won the SD Tag Titles, they were still ECW superstars, but the titles were still listed on SD. The obvious, and I stress OBVIOUS conclusion here is that WWE has NOT been consistent about this. If you cannot recognize that, then I don't know what you've been watching. That being said, if WWE has no long-standing position about it, isn't is Original Research to determine what goes where without just going by the OFFICIAL WWE website? L2K (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When did they say the US Title belonged to ECW? My issue is that they have specifically said the WHC is a SD title, I don't recall them ever saying the WTTC was a ECW title.  TJ   Spyke   06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To sort this once and for all - anything involving ECW superstars aside from the ECW title held by Jack Swagger means zero. The tag team titles belong to the brands concerned. So do the other titles, including the two world titles. The only reason they aren't doing anything about Edge yet is because they are using Wrestlemania to sort it out - or maybe the draft which is just after. Either way everything will be sorted by Backlash.  !! Just a Punk !!  08:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite amazed that a website with such rigid policies as Wikipedia is ignoring simple fact. First of all, look at some footage of around draft time when Hardy was US champ. They did say it was a US title. I don't understand why if the website shows both championships are on new brands, that we don't list both. Just because WWE only said one changed? If one title changed, and they moved both on the website, wouldn't that in effect mean both changed. WWE.com is the OFFICIAL site of WWE. Regardless, all of this is originial research. That being said, the only way to avoid original research is to go by what the OFFICIAL WWE website says. L2K (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You are completely misinterpreting the website. Edit reverted.  !! Just a Punk !!  07:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What in the world is there to misinerpret????? There is NO definitive stance on this no matter how you look at it. Why in the world would you go by anything than what WWE's official website shows? ANYTHING besides what that website says is original research, which is not allowed here. L2K (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And wwe.com has never said they are not Raw titles. They HAVE said that the World Heavyweight Championship is a SmackDown title.  TJ   Spyke   23:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ......So, we're supposed to ignore the fact that the titles are no longer on the RAW page, but on the ECW page? They said that the World Title is on SmackDown, and subsequently moved the title to that page. They moved the World Tag Titles to the ECW page, and we're just supposed to assume it's different? I really don't get this. It's right there on WWE.com. The titles are listed under ECW. Just like the World Title is listed under SmackDown. By assuming that it's a different reason for being moved, we are doing original research. We should just follow what the website says. L2K (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No response? I'm shocked! Nothing to say, cause I was right? Whatever, I guess it doesn't matter anymore. But I do think it's amazing that WWE has "never said the World Tag Titles are SmackDown titles now" yet we list them on SmackDown. But wait, they're the Unified Tag Titles now, right? But WWE has never said its a new title, so we list both, JUST AS WWE.COM DOES. Look at that! We follow WWE.com? Shocking, isn't it? I'm amazed that we can follow an official webiste one day and not the next. I thought Original Research wasn't allowed here? Or are some rules meant to be broken? That's a little screwed up if you ask me. It's crap like this that Wikipedia isn't taken seriously in many situations. The editors can't even follow the damn rules after it's been clearly pointed out to them that they're wrong. So I thank you for keeping Wikipedia a confused, unreliable source. Wonderful. L2K (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't respond because I had already explained multiple times and wasn't gonna waste my time anymore. The tag titles are unified, meaning just 1 title. It's editors like you who are not taken seriously.  TJ   Spyke   19:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's because of what goes on within Wikipedia that Wikipedia isn't taken seriously. I mean, academic organizations don't recognize the reliability or credibility of Wikipedia, so that really says something about this organization. To put it this way, at one point in time, the article on here for Sinbad the actor had said that he was dead, when he wasn't. So, in the end, it's because of what the people in charge of Wikipedia & it's related organizations do that forces people not to take it seriously. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Prove that rather troublemaking remark.  !! Just a Punk !!  23:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is insane. I'm he kind of editor people don't take seriously? Up until my last entry on this page, I was 100% professional, and I was the ONLY person acknowledging the obvious fact that THIS IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If we want to avoid OR, we should go by what the official website for WWE says. I really do not understand what is so hard about that. And WWE doesn't even consider the tag titles as only one championship. They're website lists them as both, they come out with both. They are called the Unified Tag Team Champions, but they are designated as both World and WWE Tag Team Champions. Thankfully, that is still acknowledged on this website. I just really cannot understand why I'm the only one who realizes that the whole situation before was original research and that the only official word we had was the website. You still never explained that one to me. L2K (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Justa Punk, I don't have to prove it because IT'S ALREADY BEEN PROVEN. Academic organizations don't recognize the reliability or credibility of Wikipedia. And, the reason why that happens is because of what goes on within Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia, in certain ways, is like a newspaper. If someone is defamed because of what a newspaper printed, they have the right to sue the person who wrote the letter, as well as suing the newspaper for printing it. Wikipedia's legal disclaimer is nothing but crap. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the only reason Wikipedia is usually not allowed in academics is because anybody can edit it. Even articles that are stable and perfectly done. Think what you want, but no lawsuit against Wikipedia or any of its users would happen just because a vandal did something here (and just to point something out, threatening to sue because of something that happens here can cause you to be blocked from editing) and no sane person would do it (only the nutjobs who seem to totally hate Wikipedia all together would). Since none of this has anything to do with improving the WWE article (which is what this talkpage is for), this conversation is over.  TJ   Spyke   21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen, TJ.  !! Just a Punk !!  00:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * E gads. NOWHERE did I say I was threatening to sue! You need to THROUGHLY read my comments before you respond, otherwise you're gonna make yourself look like a complete idiot, which you basically did. Man, a lot of people here are about as stupid as the people who run Wikipedia. So, in other words, just because of what Wikipedia is, it's allowed to break the law. Although, of course, look at the morons we've had in charge of this country lately. Now, as far as the article, WWE now recognizes the WWE Tag Team Championship & World Tag Team Championships as the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. It may be two sets of belts, but it's ONE championship. I mean, we're trying to go along with what the WWE recognizes, well, WWE recognizes the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, so THAT'S what should be in the article, NOT separate pages for the WWE & World Tag Team Championship. And, well, if ANYONE can edit a webpage, then THAT PROVES that it has no reliability or credibility. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You implied it, but my comment was meant in general about threatening lawsuits. Where does Wikipedia break the law? A user vandalizing the page (which will be reverted within minutes, or hours at the most) does not mean the site is breaking the law or even the vandal. Hell, even slander would not be a criminal matter (it's a civil matter). WWE do far seems to be still recognized both titles, I would compare it to boxing (where a boxer with 2 belts is considered the unified champion but both belts are still considered separate).  TJ   Spyke   02:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're putting words in my mouth and I don't appreciate it. What I said was that in the case of a newspaper, if it published a letter that someone wrote and the letter defamed someone, then the person that is being defamed has the right to sue the person who wrote the letter, as well as the newspaper that published that letter, because the newspaper was negligent in their responsibility. Now, as far as the issue of having a unified championship, but the belts still being considered separate, the WWE Undisputed Championship was a unified championship, yet the belts that made up the Undisputed Championship (WWF/E Championship & WCW World Heavyweight Championship) weren't considered separate. You really can't compare pro-wrestling to boxing, because there are too many incompatibilities. People here really need to think before they start typing. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I will go point by point in your comments. If a newspaper printed something that turned out to be false and they didn't know it at the time, they could just print a retraction and/or issue an apology (usually when this has happened the person who was defamed didn't take any action). So what if a woman attempted to sue, that doesn't mean squat. Anybody can sue anyone else for anything. I could sue Sony and claim that one of their products breaking down caused me great distress. Would I win? No, but if I paid the legal fees I could file that lawsuit anyways. Someone could sue Wikipedia if they were willing to pay the legal fees (lawyers, costs to file a lawsuit, etc.), that doesn't mean the lawsuit has any merit or that they will win. WWE still considers both tag belts to be active (take a look at the title section of their site and both titles are in the active titles lists rather than one being in the retired titles list). My comparison to boxing was meant to show that titles can be unified but kept separate. If you want a wrestling example, take a look at J-Crown. It was a unification of 7 different titles but each title was still separate (the champion would even bring all 7 belts with him, I remember being amused watching WCW and seeing Ultimo Dragon and his manager Sonny Onoo carry all 7 belts to the ring). The J-Crown was eventually disbanded when one of the champions vacated 6 of the belts but kept 1 and the organizations that controlled those 6 belts decided to keep them separate and disband the J-Crown. I hope WWE does keep it as 1 title, but so far they seem to want to keep both belts but as 1 champion (similar but not the same as when the WCW and NWA Tag Team titles would be held by 1 team and defended together for awhile even though they were not officially unified even though they were rarely defended individually).  TJ   Spyke   06:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what, just forget I ever opened my mouth. Have the titles whatever way you want. Anyone who wants to know info about the titles can simple go to WWE's website and find out the info there. They don't need to come here to find out the info. And, all you have to do is watch WWE TV. On this week's Friday Night SmackDown!, they referred to the titles as the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. CASE CLOSED! Now, I will say this much:Wikipedia has created a legal way to slander, because if you set up a website, all you have to do is set it up as an interactive computer service. Then, no matter if a user posts defaming content, you can never be held responsible. Congrats, Wikipedia, you have further contributed to the downfall of society. 24.12.89.226 (talk)

Above discussion
What is this about again?-- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's responsible for society going down the tubes apparently (/sarcasm). I hope that's the last we see of this person.  !! Just a Punk !!  05:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently, it's the fact that by setting itself up as an "interactive computer service", Wikipedia has basically found a way that it doesn't have to bear the responsibility if it ends up publishing inaccurate content or the like. And, as far as academic organizations refusing to recognize the credibility or reliability of this site, well, I wouldn't fully trust a site either that allowed anyone & everyone to submit information. I mean, if you look at the most credible & reliable encyclopedias out there, such as Encyclopedia Brittanica & the like, they throughly research infomration they come across before it's published so that such infomration can be proven to be true, accurate, & correct. That's not completely true with Wikipedia. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't provide anything constructive to this page please don't edit.  !! Just a Punk !!  11:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would almost say the same thing to a lot of certain people here. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Start with yourself then. The majority of articles are good and fine, maybe even better than normal encyclopedia. We have a major advantage in that Wikipedia can be updated instantly rather than once per year.  TJ   Spyke   19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia has an advantage in that information can be added, deleted, & modified instantly. However, publications like the Encyclopedia Brittanica are KNOWN to be reliable & credible because of the fact that information contained within the publication has been rigorously researched before it's published. Anyone can put any information on here, but that won't mean that it's completely true. And, I would say that as far as providing anything constructive to Wikipedia, the only way that you could guarantee that is to screen people who use this site. But then, it would no longer be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. So, it's either that you let anyone edit it and have to suffer because of it, or you screen people, and it no longer remains a website that anyone can edit. Either one or the other. Can't have it both ways. 24.12.89.226 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated images
Is there a need for updated images for this page. There are several images on the current page not used by the WWE anymore. Please let me know if you need current logos.Djgeoffe (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)djgeoffe
 * The only logos are the WWE logo and WWE HD logo, both of which are the current ones used.  TJ   Spyke   18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Board of directors
Is It HHH and Shane wife on the Board of directors[User:Supermike|Supermike]] (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs)
 * No, neither Stephanie McMahon nor Marissa McMahon are on the Board of Directors. This is WWE's current BOD (which is already on this page): .  TJ   Spyke   20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

World Wildlife Fund and World Wrestling Federation
Why did the World Wildlife Fund took about 23 years to sue WWF now WWE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VoltageX187 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * History of World Wrestling Entertainment. Basically the World Wide Fund for Nature had not problem with them using the initials at first, but then the World Wrestling Federation started wwf.com had started becoming huge and the Wildlife Fund didn't like the fact that wwf.com went to the wrestling promotion which they saw as violating the agreement.  TJ   Spyke   00:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)