Talk:WWE ECW/Archive 1

= This is an archive for Talk:Extreme_Championship_Wrestling (WWE) =

I support keeping them seperate
There are huge differences from the newly created ECW product and the promotion known as ECW that dissolved in 2001. While I agree that there are some explicit connections between the two promotions/brands, they are different enough to warrent keeping them seperate.
 * Yeah, I made some changed to both articles so they didn't overlap as much. This one solely focuses on the brand now, nothing about the Invasion, and the documentary and DVD stuff are only included in how ECW was resurrected as a brand. Funny how since I made those changes all the calls to re-merge them stopped.  -- J  Fred  01:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Another merge request
Two pages for ECW is redundant as hell. Like it or not, the current ECW is a continuation of the old promotion, and is being treated as such. It may be owned by the WWE, but is no more a brand than DSW or OVW are. Consolidate these entries, ASAP.
 * Note: I am not the person who began this section. The person who did apparently did so by posting his message in a section heading
 * First things first: The new ECW is a WWE brand, as has been stated by WWE themselves. However, I still believe that this incarnation of ECW should still be recognized as a continuation of the original promotion. That said, keeping the articles seperate serves an important and practical purpose: Namely, that the new ECW has some distinct characteristics that separate it from the original. In addition, if we used the page for the original promotion to provide information about the new brand, info about the old brand would be neglected. Having separate pages doesn't necessarily mean Wikipedia is taking a position that the defunct promotion and the WWE brand are totally seperate from each other. Jeff Silvers 00:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should be kept seperate. Even though ECW the Brand is an extension of ECW the Promotion, there are still some differences. One thing is that, like RAW and SmackDown!, this page has info on ECW as a TV show. Also, the 5 year absence definately has an impact. Also, the roster situation is different, the talent in ECW the Promotion was under ECW contracts, however, talent with ECW the Brand are under WWE contracts, so seperating the brand from the promotion keeps the ECW alumni page from unwarranted changes (just because alumni of ECW the Promotion are part of ECW the Brand doesn't mean they should be taken off the ECW alumni page since the Brand contracts are WWE contracts, not ECW contracts). Plus it prevents the ECW the Promotion page from getting too long, because if a page goes above a certain size, it needs to either be trimmed or split. --JFred 00:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that today's ECW is a brand name used by WWE can be explained in a consolidated ECW article that deals with ECW's past as a separate company and its current status as a WWE brand name.

--Unopeneddoor 00:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)I agree. Merge the articles. So what if this ECW is a brand? The titles, wrestlers history and storylines are from the original ECW.


 * Look at other examples found here on Wikipedia of brand names given new life. Sierra Entertainment and Atari, among many others, were defunct companies whose names were acquired and used by other companies. However, their histories are listed on one chronological page, not on separate pages. I think this is the example that should be followed in order to minimize confusion to information seekers.


 * Also, ECW on SciFi (the show) should have a separate page from ECW (the brand), as the brand is also used for live events and pay-per-views, not just a weekly television show.


 * Slickster 01:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, WWE Raw and WWE Friday Night SmackDown have their own live events and pay-per-views, but no distinction is made between the brand and the television show. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say no to seperating the show from the brand because then we'd have to do the same for RAW and SmackDown!. The RAW and SmackDown! pages are for both the show and brand, same as this page. -- J Fred  16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I changed my mind. This rubbish doesn't belong with the real ECW.  - Dan

Are we treating the ECW brand as a separate entity?
Are we treating WWE's ECW brand as an entirely separate entity from ECW when it was its own promotion, or is the seperation of the articles just for organization's sake? Jeff Silvers 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A bit of both. We're more or less differentiating the WWE brand from the defunct promotion as they are different but also keeping it so that the past history from the old article won't get neglected by the extensive current event edits that are bound to be added in by some people. --Oakster (Talk) 21:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This should really be merged in with the ECW article. As mentioned in both articles, ECW was bought out by the WWE so this is just a continuation of the original ECW brand. Reducing the articles into one will reduce the amount of maintenance work that will be required as any future will updates will have to be reflected in both articles. --Bobblehead 19:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, one refers to the former company and this one refers to the new ECW brand. There is a difference. --JFred 00:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs to be merged with the other ECW article.
 * I think this is organization is just fine. The Extreme Championship Wrestling brand right now isn't a wrestling promotion by itself - it's a brand promoted by WWE, just like RAW and SmackDown!. This set up draws attention to that distinction. The only issue I have with this is that I think the old promotion should be in another article, and this one should be in Extreme Championship Wrestling. At any rate, there shouldn't be many current event edits here - meaning nothing involving current storylines and such. There should only be some description information and any information about changes to the brand itself. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the intent is to make it appear as a promotion for WWE and not as the original ECW, perhaps the article needs to be moved to WWE Extreme Championship Wrestling. WWE Raw, WWE Friday Night SmackDown, and WWE Heat are all begin "WWE " and the name of this article breaks that convention. However, I couldn't disagree more on moving the article on the original ECW to another and moving this promotion to Extreme Championship Wrestling. That logic implies the two are indistinguishable and the articles need to be merged. --Bobblehead 21:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But WWE aren't promoting this as "WWE Extreme Championship Wrestling", instead just plainly as "Extreme Championship Wrestling" (to the point of actually refering the other two brands combined as WWE). This is why the parenthesis is used in the naming of this article. --Oakster (Talk) 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then why is this it's own article then? WWE purchased the ECW in 2001 and after a 3ish year hiatus they are bringing the brand back to life. The Extreme Championship Wrestling article lists the WWE as the current owner and is being updated with the current information as it comes out. Having the two articles is just creating redundancy on wiki where it doesn't need to exist. From what I've seen the WWE is pushing the history of the ECW pretty heavy, so if the owners of ECW are treating it as one in the same, why doesn't wikipedia? --Bobblehead 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The hiatus was actually 5 years, not counting the ECW One Night Stand 2005 show, which was meant to be nothing more than a reunion show. I agree that there is a bit of redundancy here... Clint 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Vince didn't technically buy ECW the promotion, ECW went bankrupt, Vince only bought the rights to the name and the video library, post bankruptcy. Unfortunately, the ECW article shows Vince as buying the promotion, which is technically incorrect. --JFred 01:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Technically, Vince bought everything that remained of ECW, just like he bought everything that remained of WCW... he doesn't own the wrestling rings or the original contracts, but he does own what exists of the promotion, which means he owns the promotion. Clint 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a good compromise would be to combine the articles in chronological order but to have an anchor that starts the page on discussion of the ECW brand. I don't feel the differences between ECW's status as a separate company and its status as a WWE brand are significant enough to merit two separate articles. Few fans consider the ECW brand as separate from the ECW company (or the ECW faction created during late 2001). In addition, splitting the information into two separate articles could confuse casual readers into thinking that ECW is dead or that ECW only started a month ago, depending on which article they find. --Slickster 01:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Vince McMahon purchased ECW, the company may no longer be owned by Paul Heyman, but it IS the same promotion. This orginization is ridiculous and confusing, and needs to be consolidated under the ECW Promotion. While it is owned by WWE, it is being presented as a seperate promotion, not a WWE Brand. It is no more of a WWE Brand than DSW or OVW. PLEASE CONSOLIDATE THIS.


 * Vince is also trying to push RAW and Smackdown as separate feuding entities... no one buys it. The encyclopedia article shouldn't deal with the kayfabe relationship between WWE and ECW, it should deal with the real relationship. WWE is promoting the shows, contracting the wrestlers, handling the front office work, etc. and Vince gets the final say in everything. This is a WWE brand...  DSW and OVW are separate promotions entirely. They are developmental promotions that are run by WWE, but are not directly controlled by WWE the same way that RAW, Smackdown, and ECW are...  Clint 03:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)