Talk:WWE brand extension/Archive 1

I think this draft page should stay the same because it would be better to have all the drafts on just one page. A draft is a draft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.81.38 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Where all the other draft picks? I know Simon Dean and some other lower-carders were traded in 2005.

how many no way out's have there been

8: 1998, 2000-2006

This article I believe is factually inaccurate about the nWo and WCW brand extension idea. The nWo was to take over Nitro and WCW Thunder and Saturday Night/Worldwide were to be the WCW programs. This article has it the other way around, plus the idea came 11 months after the nWo only Souled Out PPV was a commercial and critical flop (although an interesting experiment, and Raw is War ripped off the stage and a number of presentation techniques used).

"Critism" (sic) section
I removed it as it was written like a rant with absolutely no authenticity and with plenty of spelling mistakes to boot. --59.92.56.55 13:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

5th anniversary of WWE Brand Extension
2007 marks the 5th anniversary of WWE Brand Extension.134.124.143.149 15:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Next?
When is the next draft lottery? should it be noted as a future event? 217.44.2.148 09:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

draft lottery 2007
Is there going to be a draft lottery this year i would think so because there a three brands making more talent available...??Nosaints4life 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is official, there will be a Draft this year, it wil be on june 11th, confirmed by the USA network. USA network confirms Draft Lottery 2007

Merge
I believe the two articles should be separate as they are two different subjects. The draft is only a tool used after the brand split to shuffle Superstars around. It is also becoming an annual event whereas the brand split occurred only twice (the first time between Raw and Smackdown and the second time when ECW was added). 24.89.69.22 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Immediately after making the above comments, Nick Butler merged the articles anyway. Is there not supposed to be a process before articles are merged? 24.89.69.22 17:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

LOCKED
This article should be locked or sumthing bEcause people keep creating seperate articles OF THE DRAFT LOTTERY AND BRAND EXTENSION. WHEN THEY ARE THE SAME THING.

2007 draft
does anyone know if injured wrestlers are gonna participate in the draft?? (ex: Triple H, HBK, King Booker etc). J.C. 05:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

king booker will with queen sharmell hell probsve 2 raw dunno any1 else tho!!¬¬

should be. 86.139.175.13 16:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the part about King Booker and Sharmell...J.C. 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ESPN Radio
Can someone please put a reference stating that ESPN Radio will actually cover this. I seriously doubt it, but I would like to see proof if it is true.

Interbrand Competition
Shouldn't Michaels vs Angle be under that catagory instead of Lashley. The feud was interpromotional and spanned several ppv's including WrestleMania.

2007 Draft
if The Boogeyman went to ECW, shouldn't the Little Boogeyman go with him as well?? J.C. 03:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He didn't come out with The Boogeyman, so we can't assume it. Both Runjin Singh and Queen Sharmell came out with their picks. It's possible they used the Mark Henry incident on SmackDown to phase out the Little Boogeyman character. Lrrr IV 03:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this should be the box used for the 2007 draft, as it contains the matchups in question as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepmix (talk • contribs)


 * 1)Qualifying matches (which these basically are) aren't relevent to the draft itself, which the article is about. 2)Notice how the table looks nothing like the standard table used everywhere else in the article. I see no reason to use it. Lrrr IV 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Each table doesn't have to look identical, you sir, are starting irritate me. User:Sepmix 11.43pm GMT
 * Please sign your posts, it is not difficult to do (if you do not know how, you type ~ ). The page does look nicer when the tables conform to each other, and I don't think those matches are needed. You have not said why you think those matches should be included. Lrrr IV 01:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Me too. The reason the other tables looked the same is because they were conducted the same way. Each side had a set number of picks, and they each took turns. This year, however, the draft was conducted differently. You can't use the previous table setup because you'll either lose the draft order, or as another possible setup was shown, have too many empty cells. The best possible setup for each draft should be used. As for the matches, I think it should be included as it was a determination in which draft pick went where, although I've kind of been on the side of "draft picks ONLY", so I can see it going the otherway. Mshake3 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PostPone
the Draft on 6/13 is changed to 6/17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.241.220 (talk • contribs)
 * The date is already mentioned in the article. Lrrr IV 21:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Nash?
--124.179.248.152 08:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC) why is kevin nash included in this list? he still wrestles for TNA. I think somebody needs to correct this


 * Kevin Nash was re-hired in 2002 by the WWE following the expiration of his (as well as Scott Hall and Hulk Hogans) contract with AOL-Time Warner. He didn't go to TNA until 2004. --Electricbolt 14:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2006 (Brand Extension: ECW)
Isn't this wrong? It looks like RVD went to Raw and kurt Amgle went to Smackdown. They should both be under the ECW Table heading 220.244.235.241 10:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Change made. Mshake3 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, shouldn't The Big Show be on this list, he went to ECW the same time these guys did as well.
 * He wasn't drafted, he came over on his own. --PandoraX
 * But still, shouldn't Big Show be mentioned as to going to ECW. I no he wasn't drafted but that was still a pretty big change.
 * Im pretty sure RVD went on his own too. Lex94''' Talk Contributions Guest Book 03:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC) PS. Big Show would be the pick, and RVD would go on his own

Supplementary Draft
Now the 10 picks have offically decided back on 6/11/07.what if RAW superstars/divas going to Smackdown or ECW, Smackdown superstars/divas headed to RAW or ECW & ECW superstars/divas moving to RAW or Smackdown in supplementary draft? i'll have to wait and find out.12.127.178.158 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

supplementary draft pick
Why did somebody put viscera and val venis for smackdown it doesnt mention it on wwe.com
 * As of 30 minutes in to the draft, the only picks are Paul London and Brian Kendrick to Raw and Kenny Dykstra to Smackdown. Hermiod
 * Viscera has now been drafted to ECW. Hermiod. Raw just picked The Sandman from ECW
 * Hardcore Holly back to Smackdown
 * They have all the results of the supplementary draft on WWE.com. Should they be put into the article?JoeTBF13 14:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind...they were put in as I was typing that I guess.JoeTBF13 14:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE Draft
I think the WWE Draft deserves it's own page.--   Hornetman16   19:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's had it's own page several times in the past and it's always been merged back into Brand Extension page eventually. I agree with you though, I believe it should have it's own page. I'm not sure why it kept getting merged. It could have been a policy infraction that I'm not seeing. Gavyn Sykes 19:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree too. I wanted to merge them originally based on the content of the original articles. But with some cleanup, perhaps they can be split again. Mshake3 23:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Chart Design
It looks inconsistant and confusing. Comments? D4S 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It provides the best information possible. Mshake3 20:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The mixing of the colors is inconsistent with the previous charts, though. D4S 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's never been a draft with all three brands either. Once again, Quality>Consistancy. Mshake3 23:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Split
Ok, I suggest the WWE Brand Extension and WWE Draft be split into two different articles because the Brand Extension was the act of separating talent into separate brands, while the Draft is the act of picking out talent from brands and switching them to a different brand like any sport draft.-- Tr U cO 93 11  16:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC) The WWE Draft article is under-way just in case, I am editing it on my sandbox, click here to see it


 * Agree or Disagree


 * I agree with the split proposal. There seems to be enough information on both subjects (Brand Extension and Draft) for there to be two articles present. -- bullet  proof  3:16 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree. However, I can recall having two articles in the past and the Draft being merged back into the Brand Extension article multiple times for no given reason. Gavyn Sykes 03:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the reason the two articles were merged in the first place is because they were practically duplicates of each other. They are so close to each other in nature, that having them in one article makes sense to me. Nikki311 03:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral, I've changed my mind. I no longer disagree with the split, but I'm not 100% supportive of it either. Nikki311 20:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the split proposal. It seems that they should be two separate articles once again and that they should stay as two separate articles. --Cra sh U nderride  16:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone who originally proposed a merge, I agree and say go ahead and split them. However, we must make sure that the contents of the articles accurately describe the title. For the draft article, it should only be about the the actual drafts, and the trades that took place that same week. For a while, every single roster change was being recorded. Mshake3 17:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is enough stuff for just the brand extension part, but I will agree for now (the articles could also be merged back if they have to be).  TJ   Spyke   02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree - enough info for a separate article for the Draft. T he   C hronic  04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename - The article should be renamed to a term that the WWE Draft and WWE Brand Extension can fall under. I personally don't think the WWE Draft Lottery deserves its own article. You can call it: WWE Roster Draftings; WWE Brand Switches... IDK, use your minds. Lex94''' Talk Contributions <font color="Green">Guest Book 16:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename - For same reasons as Lex Stated The Straight Edge Superstar PayneXKiller 16:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree - as Chronic said, there is currently enough good info to split into two articles at this time. If all else fails, they can be merged back. FamicomJL 16:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I could honestly go either way on this one, but I wouldn't be opposed to either one, as the article Truco is working on in is sandbox is well done and well sourced. <font color="#000000" face="Arial Black">Bmg <font color="#009900" face="Arial Black">916 <font COLOR="navy"> Speak 17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree - Enough information for separate articles. --  L A X  00:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Spilt...
Yeah... I'm going to have to agree with Mshake's reversion here. That was a pretty bad split.-- bullet  proof  3:16 05:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)