Talk:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Eric Bischoff's TNA Heavyweight Kickboxing Championship of the World?

On a recent episode of TNA iMPACT!, Jeremy Borash announced Eric Bischoff was the TNA Heavyweight Kickboxing Champion of the World. Would it be wise to add this to the unsanctioned section of the TNA Champions section?

Foaming at the mouth since 2010 22:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Any source it exist?--WillC 04:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any sources for it yet, but I'll try and look through TNA's website and YouTube channel, although the YouTube Channel wouldn't be that good a source.

Foaming at the mouth since 2010 08:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

2011

History section: Pee-per-view?

The first two sub-sections of the History Section seem to be wholly inappropriately written for this wiki. References to "pee-per-view" and others seem like sabotage to me. Should it be rewritten by someone who knows the history better than I?

a company that does not need television, but rather just goes straight to pee-per-view.

the company put on its negative first show on June 19, 2002

The estimated repair time was 30–60 yaerss

everyone went live hoping for the worst

Lonnie Nesseler 03:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to know how TNA acquired the NWA and IWGP licenses. I would have thought that the WWE acquired the NWA with the purchase of the WCW. It's an interesting curiosity. (75.48.16.141 (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC))

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

IMPACT Wrestling → Total Nonstop Action Wrestling –

• No consensus for move, and the promotion is NOT dropping TNA from the promotion's name - at least not yet.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• Honestly ArcAngel you and everyone else screwed up The TNA Pages I would fix them but it's too much work so ill just wait for May the 12th to have the pages on the correct titles Zanwifi (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You know what, dude? My move was based on a reliable source, and I only moved that one article. LTC. K-O Capt (talk · contribs · count) decided to move the others on his own "just because". So don't sit there and say "me and everyone else" screwed them up when that's not the case. And, they WOULD have been on the correct titles had Lt. K-O not did his business with them.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • ArcAngel's right. There would not have been an issue had the article not been preemptively moved in the first place. TNA hasn't officially changed its name and it's not entirely certain whether they will. One thing's for sure though, their official website still uses the TNA name, so until there's official word, the article should stay under its previous name. It's far better to be right than first. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Why was anything regarding TNA moved? Did nobody here read the extensive work that went into the WWE article renaming process to ensure Wikipedia standards were kept? This situation on the other hand is just a mess. Every article regarding this promotion should reside under the pre-existing titles until name change information becomes official. EvWill (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
        • My original move (of the show, not the promotion) WAS based on an "official" move (of which I noted the reliable source in my edit summary of that move). Lt. K-O took it upon himself to move the rest of the articles when no move was warranted for them.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Well it's too damn late now we will find out the proper show titles tonight on impact.Zanwifi (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• TNA is still TNA. They've just changed the title of the show "iMPACT" to "Impact Wrestling". --Dave Dubya 02:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Close but I'm pretty sure while the company is unchanged, the TV show was called "TNA Impact" and now the company name is no longer in the TV title and it is just Impact Wrestling, though I guess you could call it TNA Wrestling's Impact Wrestling, lol. DB (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Revert to "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" or "TNA Wrestling". Only the TV show was renamed, not the whole company. --SAVIOR_SELF.777 03:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Revert to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling or TNA Wrestling like SRS says. This is the move that never should have happened. Now we have some trouble ahead of us, because we can't move back to the old name without a moderator's help, so we need to petition them for this aid. Mick Foley changed the name of the television show, not the company. We have a separate article for the show which has been correctly updated and now we need to revert the company name back to its proper form. User:LTC. K-O Capt's May 8 move was too spurious and now we must revert this trouble. DB (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've brought up the subject at hand in a discussion on the WP:PW talk page --SAVIOR_SELF.777 03:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line:

Promotion = TNA

TV Show = Impact Wrestling

Vjmlhds 04:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

TNA has not changed it's name - iMPACT! is now IMPACT wrestling but the promotion is still 'Total Nonstop Action Wrestling'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.237.175 (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

How about this Total Nonstop Action Wrestling = Total Nonstop Action
Impact!, TNA Impact!, Impact! (TV Show) = Impact Wrestling what lead me to come to this is because TNA redesigned TNAondemand and they kept the old TNA logo which means it must mean the word wrestling is dropped from the logo for example the whole name of the company would be Total Nonstop Action Impact Wrestling (hence the wrestling been dropped from the TNA logo on the tna website AND how the new sacrifice picture no longer has the wrestling under the tna logo) Zanwifi (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Impact Wrestling is the name of the show, period.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Revert to "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" for reasons already mentioned.TheFBH (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is just speculation but it seems that TNA is changing their television show from TNA Impact to just Impact Wrestling and trying to create a brand for the TV show itself similar to how WWE has Raw and Smackdown. It just makes no sense since TNA doesn't have multiple brands as WWE does. I think it's just a way for TNA to attempt to use the TNA name as little as possible due to the negative connotation it has with people not familiar with the product. TheGary (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - While the company still appears to be using the TNA logo on their site (and impactwrestling.com still redirects to tnawrestling.com), it would appear they are trying to shift to Impact Wrestling as a company name, as evidenced by this Kurt Angle interview (sorry I don't have a better source) where he says, among other things: "Gone, yeah. Impact Wrestling is the new name of the company... It was one of the feel-good moments for Impact Wrestling... I mean, Chyna is going to cause a ruckus in Impact Wrestling... Impact Wrestling is very pro-women as far as women wresting women." These few quotes seem to indicate that at least one prominent member of the roster thinks the company name is now Impact Wrestling. Jeff Silvers (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to either TNA Wrestling or Total Nonstop Action Wrestling

Resolved

 – Nothing more needs addressed here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Should this page be moved to TNA Wrestling or Total Nonstop Action Wrestling?

- Sir Pawridge talk contribs 18:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's already at Total Nonstop Action Wrestling with TNA Wrestling being the redirect to it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

TNA Xplosion Championship

There is some rumors going around about a TNA Xplosion Championship that is being created. The basis of this title is that the holder will be able challenge any of the other champions for a shot at their title. A tournament is going to be held to determine the first champion. Can anyone verify this? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Rumors are always hard to verify. What I saw on a Google search was a handful of forum postings about it. That doesn't count. If any of the WP:PW reliable sources start talking about it, then it may be added.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 23:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How Abt Changing revenue

tna revenue was 15 million in 2007 now the revenue must have grown by 10 times atleast...how abt changing revenue by including revenue of panda energy international in it or removing the revenue entirely as currennt revenue is indiscosable as it is a llc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.76.205 (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Impact Wrestling"

should note be made of the company's apparent name change?--99.101.160.159 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Until they actually change their name, not yet. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

New Logo

Apparently it looks like they changed the logo to a blue version of the one they were using. TheGary (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the logo accordingly. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

list of current TNA wrestling champions

There is a very trivial part of this page, which gives the info on all the current champions in TNA wrestling. it is incredibly trivial to begin with, is fancruft of the highest degree, is too in-perspective for most readers to know or care about, and is redundant given the fact that there is a link to the List of current champions in TNA Wrestling. Considering all the thing people can be doing, all the pleasure people can have in life, all the social relationships, friends and family members, projects, jobs, and hobbies people engage in, I cannot see any plausible reason why the time and energy of putting two trivial sections should be wasted. it's a lame, idiotic tradition that sucks in the lowest of the low in terms of productivity, and I feel we as wikipedians should rise ourselves to a higher standard than updating trivia that someone could find in 1 click.

I'm open for discussion here and on the project dedicated to handling trivial information.--Screwball23 talk 05:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's redundant. In addition, it's seems odd to mix championships, which are part of the scripted side of the company with the real life aspects that this article primarily covers. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Incoherent vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Jopitaxxxx has been adamant on vandalizing this page. Check it [[1]] I'm assuming it's due to a lack of sex. Any thoughts on this? :-) --Screwball23 talk 18:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not cut-and-dry vandalism, but the user has been deleting a line in the lead about TNA having over one million viewers, which for some reason the person perceives as a slight to TNA. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

buzz off kid,TNA youtube channel has over 360 million upload views and you dare to say im vanndalising this page due to lack of sex,maybe its lacking in your life to keep coming to this page and altering the truth.Jopitaxxxx (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I for one agree with the removal as a statement like that properly belongs in the article for the show. Also the rating numbers tend to bounce around for the wrestling shows so I mislike making a firm statement like that. Tabercil (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the rating statement, the article that is sourced from is from August 2010. I think it should at least be sourced to show what the current viewers might be, especially because of the programming changes in 2010 and 2011. Also, Screwball23 and Jopitaxxxx, can we please try to use professional etiquette with the discussions on the issue? Housewatcher (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a more recent one: http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/TNA_News_1/article_52631.shtml --Jtalledo (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the research to see what the current ratings are for the program. Hopefully this might help with the current issue for this article. Housewatcher (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought Jopitaxxxx was mentally retarded getting mad when it clearly says "over a million weekly viewers on its primary television program, Impact Wrestling on Spike" all he was doing was listing a total view count of all tna youtube videos online also it's easy to say a firm statement because as long as the rating is above 1.0 you can say million very rarely tna rating has been below 1.0 this year 4urge (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

oh really,why am i being warned and given warnings and all,is it because you people are scared of TNA or what,full protection,warnings,all to just hide the truth,keep doing your tricks and your disruptive editing,it wont change the truth.Jopitaxxxx (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

We have explained to you in various ways that repeatedly deleting cited content without adequate rationale is disruptive. It appears you seem to like TNA, which is fine, but you have not explained why you keep deleting this sentence. What is so wrong about stating that TNA has over a million viewers? That is not a small number by any stretch of the imagination. Do you dispute this fact? It is not a gross misrepresentation. It is in no way stating that TNA is a small promotion, nor does it say that TNA is in any way inferior to WWE, UFC or other promotions. Indeed, over a million viewers is quite a large number.

No one that has reverted these edits dislikes TNA. Rather, they probably like it as much as you do, since they care enough to be editing the article and discussing this matter with you. Again, this statement says nothing negative nor incorrect about TNA. It's your own perception and yours alone that it somehow says TNA is inferior and has a small viewership. Which is ironic, considering you claim to like the company. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

what is wrong is it seems to be a deleberate and false statement,TNA is different from wwe and if you want to compare something with wwe than spongebob squarepants is there which gets lots more viewers than wwe in the US.Why dont you people just submit before TNA like many others have.Jopitaxxxx (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it false? There's a reference backing it up. You have never rationally explained your position on this. So you're wrong on that point. Second, they both promote professional wrestling, so your second point which bizarrely mentions a cartoon show is a non sequitur. The statement does not even compare TNA to WWE, so I don't know what you're talking about. The only place in the article that even mentions WWE is a brief, distant blurb about their video libraries. Again, the comparison is exclusively in your head. And I have no idea what you mean by "submit". It's obvious that the train of thought you are following is twisted, that's why we're not getting anywhere. The logic you're using makes no sense, and lacks any semblance of rationality. I'm not sure whether it's due to lack of comprehension or whatever, but it's just getting us stuck in a revert war. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

From reading all the discussion on this, I think we have concluded that the statement should stay in the article. I have not heard reasonable argument on why the statement should be removed and the majority seems to think that the statement should stay. Housewatcher (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to be seen here
On second thought, I read a book on disruptive editing and I think Jopitaxxxx is edit warring because he has a small penis. Just a theory... --Screwball23 talk 07:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC) im a girl but maybe your a boy who doesnt have a penis or maybe yours just got chopped off when you were young by an enemy.Jopitaxxxx (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ranking System

Is there really any need to retain the "ranking system" section on this page? It was around for about a month out of the company's 9+ year existence and then abruptly abandoned, which hardly makes it notable in any sense. Donners (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't any need. You can remove it if you want. --Jtalledo (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it should be included as there isn't really anywhere else for it to be noted. Its part of the company's history. It was promoted and used for a time being. It seems little, but it was a change and an attempt at organization in the company.--WillC 03:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Concering TNA's ownership...

Well, after doing some searching through Goggle, it would indeed seem that Panda Energy International & it's Chairman & CEO, Robert "Bob" W. Carter, DOES completely own Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (d.b.a. TNA Entertainment, L.L.C.). According to this page, TNA Vice President & now former minority owner Jeff Jarrett sold his 28% ownership stake in the company to Panda Energy International & Bob Carter at the beginning of August 2009. So, that tidbit of information can be added to the article. And, I apologize for being soo skeptical of that piece of news. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Added 76.235.248.47 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Actually, I'm afraid that bit of info has to be removed, seeing as how the website the reference links to has gone down. To be honest, with Cygy's website being the ONLY source of this information, I'm beginning to doubt that it's true that Double J no longer has ANY ownership stake in the company. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Request edit}} In the Key Figures section on the sidebar of the article, could Bruce Prichard be added as Senior Vice President of Programming and Talent Relations as per Dixie Carter's interview on impactwrestling.com. source: http://www.impactwrestling.com/news/item/3092-TNA-President-Dixie-Carter-Answers-Questions-From-The-Fans

Added  Chzz  ►  00:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Er... has anyone noticed that Janice Carter and Jeff Jarett own a combined 106% of the company according to the side-panel. Either there's a mistake here, or we've found why TNA is in such bad financial shape...— Preceding unsigned comment added by

other awards

shouldnt the Queen & King of the Mountain matches be moved under the former former sanctioned titles? & be replaced with the Bound For Glory Series?

24.24.231.104 (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hogan Bischoff Era wording problems

This is a quote from the middle of the 3rd paragraph of the Hogan Bischoff Era section: "On Summer, TNA changed the name of the program to Impact Wrestling with the motto "Wrestling Matters" as a tactic against WWE decision to avoid the Wrestling term. On November 7, 2011, TNA announced that it had reached a deal with Ohio Valley Wrestling (OVW) to become TNA's official training and developmental territory."

"On Summer"... "as a tactic against WWE decision to avoid the Wrestling term"... I'd edit these things, but I'm not even clear on what the author was trying to say, especially in the 2nd quote. "On Summer" seems like it should read "In summer", but I'm just guessing here. The 2nd quote, I'm assuming, is trying to say something like "as a veiled criticism of the WWE's decision to drop the word "wrestling" from its name when it stopped using "WWE" as an acronym, instead going by just "WWE" and not "World Wrestling Entertainment"." Again, this is a guess at the intended meaning, so I didn't make the edit, but its clear that that section needs to be cleaned up a bit just to be intelligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.121.130 (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wording and Additions

I have fixed some of the wording, but some of it still needs to be fixed. I would like to bring up a few points. First who dubbed the sections the "Vince Russo" and "Hulk & Bischoff" Eras? Those are totally made up. They should probably be changed to more fitting titles or something. Another is a few additions that should be added in some way.

In the "Hogan-Bischoff Era"

• The Ending of ReACTION
• Mention of the annual UK Tour TNA does
• Taking iMPACT on the road
• Returning to the iMPACT Zone
• The start of the cross promotion with Wrestle-1

Separately I think in the partnerships section there should be mention of TNAs partnership with ROH. It doesnt have to be exclusively foreign partnerships. It could also be expanded to state maybe when they began and when they ended. ROH's could mention the talent trade and TNA stars being allowed to compete their and vice versa. Thoughts? BlackDragon 03:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

There is a lot of edit warring regarding what the promotion should be called. This is the trend I am seeing 1 - Largest independent promotion 2 - 2nd largest in the US behind WWE 3 - 3rd largest in the world behind WWE or New Japan Can we get a consensus here so the edit warring can stop? Thanks - Galatz (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There are independent promotions which regularly outdraw TNA at live shows and I know some wrestlers, like CM Punk, have called TNA an independent promotion in the past, but it does have a television deal which makes it the second most viewed promotion in the United States, so it's not an indy promotion. I'm not sure if they're the third largest in the world either... Calling it 1 or 3 may be original research. It never should have been changed from 2, at least not while they have a secure TV deal. This could change in a month when their contract with Spike TV comes to and end. Then we'll have to see what the reliable sources are saying about it.LM2000 (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the page protection cools things off for awhile.LM2000 (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - Galatz (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Could it be called "one of the largest promotions" in the world? Shearonink (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Though less exact than the current phrasing, I have no problems with that.LM2000 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Until we get a reliable source on its status as the second or third largest promotion, I'd be okay with going with "one of the largest promotions" once their deal with Spike ends in a few weeks.LM2000 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Debate made unnecessary due to certain content in article existing prior to debate having been agreed on by BOTH editors involved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Concerning vandalistic editing by 62.253.57... I have absolutely NO CLUE why said user insists on/prefers to utilize incorrect, out-of-date information to list who owns/controls TNA. If you pay attention to the report I reference, it is CLEARLY Janice Carter, NOT Robert, who currently controls Panda Energy International as its President & CEO, while Robert controls Panda Power Funds as its Chairman & CEO. Panda Energy, NOT Panda Power Funds, is the company that holds the 72% controlling stake in TNA, thereby making Panda Energy, NOT Panda Power Funds TNA's parent company, which would also make Janice, NOT Robert, the majority shareholder. The user insisting on incorrectly labeling Robert as "majority shareholder" for TNA would be analogous to Rupert Murdoch being incorrectly listed as Chairman & CEO of Fox Entertainment Group. Seeing as how the user insists on engaging in vandalistic edits to the article & it wouldn't be in my best interest to engage in a content dispute/edit war with someone of such little intelligence as the user, I have nominated the article for semi-protection. Once said protection is in place, established Wikipedia editors can go through & revert 62.253.57.164's vandalistic editing back to the correct information I had listed in the article. After nominating the article for semi-protection, I had also thought of requesting an edit block of the user, but saw on a page that the best thing to do for now is nothing more than to ask for the article to be protected. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I believe he is actually corrent. Although she might be the CEO of the company that directly owns it, he owns the parent company and therefore indirectly owns TNA - Galatz (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Well, as I've previously mentioned, it's Panda Energy, NOT Panda Power Funds, that holds the 71% controlling stake in TNA. Janice Carter, Robert's wife, is the President & CEO (a.k.a. head executive) of Panda Energy, therefore she, NOT Robert would be TNA's majority shareholder. As I pointed out, to list Robert as "Majority Shareholder" of TNA (even though he has NO involvement in Panda Energy, other than owning its parent company) would be like listing Rupert Murdoch as Chairman & CEO of Fox Entertainment Group, which would be incorrect, as he is actually the head executive of FEG's parent company, 21st Century Fox. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC) I believe you should look up the definition of these terms as you are contradicting yourself. If Robert owns Panda Power Funds, which own Panda Energy, which owns TNA, Robert owns TNA. Just because Janice is the CEO of Panda Energy it does not change the ownership. Listen to what you are saying, to list Robert as "Majority Shareholder" of TNA (even though he has NO involvement in Panda Energy, other than owning its parent company) means he owns it. Shareholder means you own the company. Whether you make all or no decisions in a company it does not change your status as a shareholder. - Galatz (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC) No, you THINK I am contradicting myself, when, in fact, I am completely making sense. It would seem you are not comprehending the situation, for whatever reason. Yes, Panda Energy is a subsidiary of Panda Power Funds. But, it is Panda Energy, NOT Panda Power Funds, that possesses the controlling stake in TNA. Panda Power Funds is NOT listed as TNA's parent company because it is NOT Panda Power Funds that posseses the 71% controlling stake. To use an example, if you look at DreamWorks, Reliance ADA Group's head executive, Anil Ambani, is NOT listed as Co-owner of DreamWorks alongside Steven Spielberg, because it is NOT Reliance ADA Group that possesses 50% of DreamWorks. The head executive at Reliance Entertainment would be listed as Co-owner alongside Spielberg, as it is Reliance Entertainment that owns 50% of DreamWorks. If Robert Carter is to be listed as "Majority Shareholder", then his company, NOT Panda Energy, would have to be listed as Co-owner of TNA alongside Jeff Jarrett, because it is Panda Power Funds that Robert owns; however, such a listing would technically be incorrect, as Panda Power Funds does NOT possess the 71% controlling stake. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC) I completely understand what you are saying, you are just wrong. Under no circumstance does it translate into Janice owning the company. The ownership goes as follows based on what you are saying Robert --> Panda Funds ---> Panda Energy ---> TNA. Janice is no where in that equation. Robert indirectly owns the share of TNA since he owns 100% of the parent Say you own Disney. Disney owns Pixar 100%. What you are saying is that Edwin Catmull because his the CEO of Pixar owns the company, not the owner of Disney. Your logic just does not flow. You are adding in an owner who is no where in the ownership equation. Look up have org charts work. - Galatz (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Actually, it would seem it is YOUR logic that does not flow, and here's a website that PROVES it: Who owns TNA Wrestling? I apologize for using ask.com as a source & will do my best not to repeat that mistake again. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC) No offense but your arguments are so ridiculous it actually just made me literally laugh out loud. Your website that proves it is a user generated answer site. Wow that is some proof. The best part about your "proof" is that its based on 1 source which is this [2]. Read the support of your "proof" and you will see it completely discredits your argument. It makes no mention of Janice what so ever. If you look at Panda Energy's website [3] you can see she is listed as CEO, but that does not make her the own, that makes her the person who makes the decisions. Go even a step further, and check Panda Funds website [4] again it lists two partners, Todd and Robert. Again no Janice. Your only "proof" is a user generated answer site, which is absolutely no proof at all. - Galatz (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC) OK, I will admit that I shouldn't have used ask.com as proof. But, I apologized above for using ask.com as a source. Now, here (Janice Carter’s Response To TNA ‘For Sale’ Rumors In Its Entirety, Panda Energy Deny TNA Wrestling is For Sale, & Smashing Pumpkins' Billy Corgan New Owner of TNA Wrestling? Can Singer Compete with WWE?) are three recent news article about TNA that reference the company's ownership, and NOWHERE do ANY of the three say ANYTHING about Robert Carter OR Panda Power Funds having ANYTHING to do with TNA. So, according to your own logic, those are three sources that show UNDISPUTABLE proof that Janice Carter IS, in fact, the majority shareholder in TNA due to her being Panda Energy's President & CEO, as it is Panda Energy, NOT Panda Power Funds, that possesses the majority shareholding in TNA. So, I shall await your apology for being wrong on the matter & expect to see the CORRECT information back in the article ASAP. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Please explain how being president and ceo means you become owner? In order for what you are saying to be true, Panda Funds would have to have sold Panda Energy, but in fact it did not. You need to research what these things are. Panda funds is a financial holding company of the stock of panda energy. - Galatz (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC) OK then, allow me to explain the situation with Panda Energy & TNA, since apparently, you seem to be slow in processing the information being presented: back when Robert Carter (the husband of current Panda Energy International President & CEO Janice Carter & the father of current TNA President Dixie Carter) was President & CEO of Panda Energy, he purchased a 71% controlling stake in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (then operating as J Sports & Entertainment, Inc.) from Jerry Jarrett through Panda Energy. That placed Panda Energy as the parent company of TNA, due to Panda Energy holding the controlling stake in TNA, as well as placing Robert as TNA's majority shareholder, due to him being the head executive of Panda Energy at the time. I hope you're with me so far... Now, as it's been reported, Robert recently departed from Panda Energy International & is now with its parent company, Panda Power Funds, as Managing Partner & CEO. Here's where I attempt to straighten out the situation for you: with Robert's departure from Panda Energy, that does not mean that the controlling stake in TNA that he held as President & CEO of Panda Energy went with him to Panda Power Funds, because that stake was purchased through Panda Energy, meaning the stake stays with Panda Energy. With Janice Carter having taken over Panda Energy as President & CEO, she replaced Robert. So, that means, due to her replacing Robert as President & CEO of Panda Energy, she inherits the controlling stake in TNA that Robert possessed before he left Panda Energy. Now, to explain something to you: the way things work in business is that if Company A purchases either a controlling stake or full ownership in Company B, it is the head executive of Company A that becomes either the Majority Shareholder or Owner of Company B. Now, even if Company C comes along & buys Company A, all that Company C has is ownership of Company A. Company A STILL remains as either the majority shareholder or owner of Company B. In this situation, Company A would be Panda Energy, Company B TNA, & Company C Panda Power Funds. I honestly do not know of any other way to explain the situation to you. Edit:Oh, and by the way, saying "Say you own Disney. Disney owns Pixar 100%. What you are saying is that Edwin Catmull because his the CEO of Pixar owns the company, not the owner of Disney." makes you look stupid. Everyone knows whomever is in charge of Disney technically controls Pixar through Disney ownership of Pixar. That's the point I'm trying to make with Panda Energy & TNA: whomever is in charge of Panda Energy technically controls TNA through Panda Energy's controlling stake in TNA. To slightly paraphrase you, "No offense, but that example is so ridiculous it actually just made me literally laugh out loud." The fact that you think I'm saying whatever is in that statement PROVES you have NO CLUE what I'm talking about.76.235.248.47 (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Oh, and FYI, one of the links you used to source Robert as majority owner doesn't even mention him, which again makes you look stupid. Besides the fact that two of the three links are to old, outdated news reports, which would render them unusable as sources. There are more recent reports, like the ones I sourced up above, which make NO reference to Robert or Panda Power Funds, but mention Janice & her company, Panda Energy, as being TNA's majority shareholder. As those reports are more recent, they confirm what I've been saying, that it IS Janice, NOT Robert, who is TNA's majorty shareholder through Panda Energy's majority shareholding in TNA. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 08:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC) First of all I linked to no new sources, I linked to only the companies official website. The only non-official site I used was the one to prove that your source was unreliable, but it was what your source was based on. Second read what you wrote Here's where I attempt to straighten out the situation for you: with Robert's departure from Panda Energy, that does not mean that the controlling stake in TNA that he held as President & CEO of Panda Energy went with him to Panda Power Funds, because that stake was purchased through Panda Energy, meaning the stake stays with Panda Energy. With Janice Carter having taken over Panda Energy as President & CEO, she replaced Robert. So, that means, due to her replacing Robert as President & CEO of Panda Energy, she inherits the controlling stake in TNA that Robert possessed before he left Panda Energy. which makes ZERO sense. Please explain how ownership changed hands because a new CEO took place? There is zero flow to your logic. When Bill Gates stepped down as CEO of microsoft did Steve Balmer take over his ownership in microsoft? Third think about the flow of logic you stated. Panda Energy bought TNA. Panda Energy is owned by Panada Funds. Do you disagree with any of that? Robert owns Panda Funds, do you agree with that? How does Janice become shareholder of TNA in those facts? - Galatz (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC) First, the links I was talking about are in the article, in the infobox, next to Robert's name; I was not referring to the links you linked to above. It would do you good to thoroughly read what I type before responding next time. One of those three links next to Robert's name in the infobox in the article says NOTHING about Robert OR Panda Power Funds. The other two are old links. All three links I linked to above which reference Janice & Panda Energy concerning TNA are more recent, meaning they take precedence. Second, the majority stake in TNA rests with Panda Energy, NOT Panda Power Funds. Therefore, the head executive of Panda Energy would be TNA's majority shareholder. Control of a subsidiary rests with the company directly above it (its parent company), NOT the highest-level company (parent company of subsidiary's parent company). To use a comparison like you did, the head of The Walt Disney Studios, Alan Bergman, would be the one in control of Pixar, due to him being the head executive of The Walt Disney Studios, which would be Pixar's parent company. To put it this way: the head executive of a subsidiary does NOT report to the head executive of the top-level company, they report to the head executive of the subsidiary's parent company. In the case of TNA, its President, Dixie Carter, would NOT report to Panda Power Funds's head, Robert (her father), she would report to Panda Energy's head, Janice (her mother), as it's Panda Energy that holds the 71% stake in TNA. As far as Microsoft, when Gates stepped down, Steve Balmer took over control of Microsoft, as Balmer became Microsoft's new head executive. Gates kept his stake in Microsoft, but lost his executive power when he stepped down. You have to remember: it's NOT the person who holds the most stock in a company that controls it, it's the person who has the highest executive position that controls it. Take the Iron man films, for example. When Stark named Potts as his replacement as the head of Stark Industries, he gave his executive power to her, removing from him the power to make any executive decisions. As a result, he no longer had the power to fire Johansson's character, but Potts could, as she had the executive power to do so. The ownership of TNA rests with the company that possesses the controlling stake in it; that company is Panda Energy, NOT Panda Power Funds. Back when Robert was President & CEO of Panda Energy, he was one who controlled TNA through Panda Energy's controlling stake, as he was Panda Energy's head executive. As of now, Janice is President & CEO of Panda Energy, so she is now the one who controls TNA through Panda Energy's controlling stake, as she is Panda Energy's head executive. Third, I do NOT dispute the fact that Panda Energy bought control of TNA or that Panda Power Funds is Panda Energy's parent company. I don't even dispute the fact that, as Managing Partner, Robert holds the most stake in Panda Power Funds. Now, as far as Janice, due to her becoming the head of Panda Energy (TNA's parent company) and therefore making the decisions about Panda Energy, through Panda Energy's majority shareholding in TNA, Janice controls TNA. As the situation currently stands, the Carter outside of TNA that right now has involvement in TNA is Janice, as she's the head executive of TNA's parent company. Again, if you look at the three links I posted above, NONE of them make mention OR reference to Robert, because he's no longer with Panda Energy, nor is there mention or reference to Panda Power Funds, because that is NOT TNA's parent company. They make mention or reference to Janice, as she's the head executive of Panda Energy; they also make reference to Panda Energy, as that IS TNA's parent company. The reason they make reference/mention Janice & Panda Energy is because THAT is who controls TNA. The majority shareholding in TNA rests with its parent company, Panda Energy; therefore, Panda Energy's head executive would legally be considered the majority shareholder, as THAT is who utilizes that majority shareholding through the company that they are head executive of that owns that majority shareholding. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Here lies your issue, you said so she is now the one who controls TNA through Panda Energy's controlling stake that doesn't make her owner. She controls the stake but it doesn't make her owner. Same things is the Microsoft example, I dont know what you are not getting but I am done arguing it. You are wrong, leave the article as is. - Galatz (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC) As far as Janice Carter's position in TNA, I sourced a recent news report from late 2013 which directly states Janice as TNA's owner. That news report therefore makes the fact of her being the controlling shareholder UNDISPUTABLE. That same news report complements the other reports which state Janice taking over Panda Energy from Robert as head executive. That news report from late 2013 would take precedence over earlier reports or articles that state Robert as TNA's majority shareholder; meaning that any earlier reports or articles stating Robert as being TNA's majority shareholder are no longer valid. What you do not seem to be getting is that someone who utilizes the controlling stake of a company IS legally considered to be the majority shareholder of said company. Panda Energy possesses the controlling stake in TNA; therefore, with Janice being Panda Energy's head executive (meaning she controls Panda Energy), she utilizes Panda Energy's controlling stake in TNA, which means that, according to the logic I've been using all along, Janice, NOT Robert, would legally be viewed as TNA's majority shareholder. I do not understand what you are not comprehending about that information. As I stated in the note placed alongside Janice in the infobox, there exist recent reports which state Janice as TNA's owner, as well as Panda Energy being TNA's majority shareholder. However, there are NO articles that exist which imply, directly OR otherwise, Panda Energy being a subsidiary of Panda Power Funds; that would mean that Robert, in fact, would NOT be TNA's majority shareholder, as that means Panda Power Funds is NOT Panda Energy's parent company. As I stated about the Microsoft example, with Gates stepping down as head executive, he indeed retains his stake in the company, but without his executive position, he no longer controls Microsoft. The individual that controls Microsoft would be its new head executive. I am unsure as to what you don't understand about the logic. Gates no longer controls Microsoft, its new head executive does. Now, I have stated the situation as clearly & precisely as I possible can, even going so far, as of recently, to link to sources which prove what I'm saying IS correct. For my most recent edit of the article, I even gave sources for the information I placed in both the article & infobox. By you continuing to utilize out-of-date & incorrect information to source your edits to the article, you are essentially vandalizing it. It is YOU that is wrong here, not me, and I have proved it with the sources I have provided. Now, I am going to revert back to the correct information (which is sourced with the most recent news articles, rendering any earlier information now invalid) & if I see you have undone my revert, I will report you to Wikipedia for article vandalization. If need be, I will see to it that you receive an edit block for your actions. My information is correct, yours is not and I have provided sources that prove it. Once the article is reverted, you need to leave it alone. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unnecessary second thread about the same issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Reverting the content of the article.... I am requesting that the article be reverted to my most recent edit, as it contains the most correct, up-to-date information concerning the company. It is unfortunate that there are people here who do NOT seem to understand/comprehend the way business works. To leave the article as it currently stands would propagate misinformation, as it utilizes incorrect, out-of-date information. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC) It should not be, as explained above the logic of how Janice would be the owner does not make sense - Galatz (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Actually, found a website that discredits your logic: Who owns TNA Wrestling? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC) As mentioned above, that is probably the worst source you could have probably ever found. - Galatz (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC) See as how there's no point in having two threads for this, I will end this thread & continue utilizing the other thread. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Who would be considered TNA's majority shareholder?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Who should be listed as majority shareholder for TNA?. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I originally opted for 3O concerning the discussion/argument between myself & Galatz, as I was unsure of whether to include 62 in the discussion/argument. However, at the insight of Epert, I've decided to include 62 by opting for RfC.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeff Jarrett as AAA Champion

Shouldnt Jeff Jarrett be listed under the Former championships as the AAA Mexican champion, either under the Sanctioned un-Sanctioned sections? Or is it only for a title that was defended on a TNA event?

DP- sorry

Discussion closed due to certain content in article existing prior to debate having been agreed on by BOTH editors involved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Third opinion Response to third opinion request: It's rather borderline whether this dispute is between two or three editors, but at any rate, I concur with Galatz (as well as with 62.253.57.164). 76.235.248.47, if you still disagree, you certainly need to find better proof; ask.com is far from being a reliable source (see WP:UGC). I made a bit of a mistake by not reading the entire thread thoroughly, but I still agree with Galatz. The problem with your sourcing, 76, is that you are coming to your own conclusion from the sources that isn't explicitly stated by said sources. Refer to WP:SYN. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Well, I did admit that I shouldn't have used ask.com. But, later on in that discussion/argument, I cited three articles that, in my opinion, proved my point. One mentioned "TNA's current owner, Panda Energy CEO Janice Carter", while another referenced Panda Energy's status as TNA's majority shareholder. And, I even went so far as to look for ANY reports or articles which mention Panda Power Funds as being Panda Energy's parent company; I came up with nothing. I even looked on Bloomberg Businessweek's website & they reference Panda Power Funds as being the private equity arm of Panda Energy. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I don't see how the sources I linked to state anything other than what I've been arguing. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC) In fact, I found another article that mentions Janice being part-owner: TNA IMPACT Rating For October 31st, 2013, TNA Owners Denying Possible Sale?. Now, of course, since Robert is no longer with Panda Energy, it would then stand to reason that he no longer possesses any stake in TNA, which would imply that Janice would be the majority shareholder of TNA through Panda Energy's controlling stake. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC) In fact, it should stand to reason that if Robert still had any involvement in TNA, it would have been him, not Janice, that released that memo stating that Panda Energy wasn't selling its controlling stake in TNA. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC) I really think you need to read WP:RS and WP:OR. You will see none of your sources can be taken as reliable. I agree with the conclusion of your RfC to remove all mentions of everyone other than Panda Energy as owner and have made the appropriate changes. - Galatz (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Well, first of all, as far as your statement about RS & OR, I honestly believe I am in the right here, as I have provided multiple sources (news articles/reports) that directly state what I have said (Janice Carter having stake in Panda Energy & TNA) & therefore ARE reliable, while the sources you back have mentioned NOTHING of what you're arguing (Panda Energy as subsidiary of Panda Power Funds & Robert Carter having any power within Panda Energy) & therefore are unusable as sources. Now, it's safe to say that while we disagree on who should be listed as majority shareholder, we both agree that Panda Energy is TNA's parent company & the entity that possesses the 71% stake in TNA. So, therefore, this dispute/argument/discussion can end now, as the article contains the information we both agree on. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Again I recommend you read WP:RS. Just because they validate your point does not make them reliable. There are criteria the site must meet, which your sources do not. I agree Panda is the best thing to use, but I do recommend you read it, there is a lot of good information that will help you with good quality editing here. - Galatz (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Actually, from my point of view, the ONLY reason you're saying my sources aren't reliable or that they don't meet certain criteria is that you don't agree with them, which does NOT make them unreliable or doesn't mean they don't meet certain criteria as a result. A source NEVER becomes unreliable or fails to meet certain criteria simply because an editor doesn't agree with what the source says. A straight-line news article/report (containing NO opinion whatsoever) IS a reliable source & BOTH of the sources I linked to contain NO opinion whatsoever, making them reliable. The fact of the matter in this situation is, you need to remove yourself emotionally from this dispute/discussion/argument & simply approach it from a fact-seeking perspective, which you have NOT been doing AT ALL. Now, since we've managed to come to a agreement on what can be in the article, this is where the dispute/debate/discussion/argument needs to end. Should you choose to continue it any further, even with the article now containing only the information we both agree on, then I will have no choice but to file a complaint against you at ANI for your behavior. So, my advice to you now would be to drop any further objections to my stance (I will promise not to re-add any information currently under debate) & walk away from this dispute. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Seriously? I am trying to following WP guidelines, not start fights. All I did was suggest you read the guidelines and you think thats reason to report someone? If you think it is then I don't know what to tell you. All information on WP must be sourced by a WP:RS. The sources you mentioned do not meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY and therefore do not come into play. I suggest you read the guidelines and not make threats to people. Last time I checked stating what a WP guideline is doesn't give cause to be reported. - Galatz (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Alright, well, since you apparently did NOT pay attention to EVERYTHING I said (rather you paid attention ONLY to what you wanted to), I will summarize it here (and PLEASE, read EVERYTHING THOROUGHLY before responding): I ended my "rant" by saying that since we were able to come to an agreement on what SHOULD be in the article (Panda Energy listed as majority shareholder of TNA), the dispute concerning what we disagree on (whether Janice or Robert Carter should be listed as majority shareholder) needs to end now, as that dispute is now contributing NOTHING constructively to the article. I even stated in a thread on another page that I promised NOT to re-add what I argued for (Janice as majority shareholder). It is obvious that neither of us is willing to back down/back off on on our stance in the debate (nor our stance on Wikipedia's view of whether or not our sources are reliable), so there's no point in continuing said debate. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, I stated my willingness to end the debate on my end. Are you willing to do the same on yours? I then concluded my "rant" by saying that, after I end my involvement in the debate, if you (unnecessarily) continued your involvement, I would file a complain against you @ ANI for continuing an unnecessary debate even after I have shown my willingness elsewhere on here to end my involvement in it. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

In the section "Championships and accomplishments", the subsection "Current Championships", the "TNA X-Division Championship" row, under the "Date won" column, please change:

(aired June 5, 2015)

to

(aired June 3, 2015)

due to Destination America switching Impact Wrestling from Friday to Wednesday starting June 3rd. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please enable page protection!

Too many people are adding irrelevant stuff to the page with hyperlinks to 3rd party sites for publicity, I hardly see how PWI's opinion on whether or not they acknowledge TNA's world title as a championship is relevant, that's like me saying that it should be acknowledged and putting a link to an article about it, its really stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.177.161.168 (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)