Jump to content

Talk:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling/Archive 3

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

TNA cancelled

http://www.inquisitr.com/2107478/tna-news-destination-america-cancels-impact-wrestling-last-show-for-tna-set-for-late-september/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majinsnake (talk • contribs) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Majinsnake (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Knockouts Division ?

Why doesn't the article mention the Knockouts Divison (other than listing the titles)? Throughout TNA's run it has been said that the Knockouts segments were the "highest rated" of the entire show (at least until Hogan and Bischoff appeared after which they became more marginal) and by 2009 after Hamada and Kong left it was a shadow of its former self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:C00D:C182:1576:310B:117:C3C2 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Because that claim of "highest rated" has no proof. Mister Q101 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

About TNA's logo in the article...

Probably should change TNA's logo in the article, seeing as how their official website utilizes this logo, NOT the logo with "Wrestling" attached. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move

It doesn't really make sense for the page to be Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. The name of the federation is Total Nonstop Action and that should be the page name. Its Ring of Honor not Ring of Honor Wrestling, its World Wrestling Entertainment not World Wrestling Entertainment Wrestling. Any thoughts? - GalatzTalk 19:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Since there have no objections to the move, I have put in a request for a speedy deletion of the Total Nonstop Action redirect in order to enable the page to be moved there. - GalatzTalk 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I object. Frankly, this should have been discussed. I'm reverting the move for now. The fact is, the logo, as it appears in many places over the years, including on their world title belt, does include "wrestling". More importantly, two days is not sufficient time to see if the move was uncontroversial, and you should have notified the pro wrestling WikiProject. oknazevad (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hell, it's even in the logo that used on the very article! oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
When its uncontroversial you don't need to notify anyone. I put it here and no one commented, so why should I assume anyone would object? Its definitely not controversial so 2 days was plenty of time. - GalatzTalk 15:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Coearly it is controversial. More importantly, when proposing a move, it common courtesy to notify the main projects, as they may have editors who are knowledgable about the subject and can explain why the title of the article is the way it is, based on factors you might not know. In this case, it's clear that "Wrestling" is part of the promotion's full name, as seen by the very logo on this article. That's pretty big evidence to ignore. I have made a notification to the project asking for input (neutrally worded.) oknazevad (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not believe that makes it part of their name. If it was the would have chosen TNAW Entertainment LLC as their name, or this logo [1] would have the W or Wreslting somewhere in it. Logos dont mean its what the company's name is. Perhaps you should propose Hewlett Packard page be HP Invent, here is their logo as proof![2] Also move Starbucks to Starbucks Coffee, here is proof [3]. Their legal name is TNA Entertainment LLC, and they do business as Total Nonstop Action. - GalatzTalk 15:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
No, they do business as "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling", though they sometimes shorten it further. See their DVD releases, or for that matter the footer text at [4]. (And they use the TNA acronym because in 2002 when they started it was still the tail end of the Attitude Era and such stupid puns were still part of the business (see T&A)). That they have a lousy name has always been part of their issues, but that doesn't change that "wrestling" is part of their DBA name. oknazevad (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Wrestling is part of the promotion full name. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Look at the logo at the end of an episode of Impact Wrestling. It says "TNA WRESTLING". CrashUnderride 23:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Note: You're supposed to post on the WikiProject page when you post something like this. Did you? No. Therefore of course you got no opposition. We don't always check article talk pages. It was a scummy way to try and get your way. CrashUnderride 00:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
@Crash Underride:First of all I gave two other perfectly good examples of where the logo doesnt mean thats the company name. See [5] and [6]. Second, look at the ROH logo [7], which also very clearly has wrestling in its name, why dont you move ROH? Third, when its not controversial I don't need to post it anywhere. Its not about getting my way, which is a ridiculous thing to say. - GalatzTalk 02:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
No, when it's a MAJOR move you need to post on the Project talk page. You failed to do that. Besides, the company's name, since it left the NWA has been TNA Wrestling. It has always been that. It's never changed. CrashUnderride 02:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
So what? WCW often went by WCW Wrestling or WCW Pro-Wrestling. Their website for years was wcwwrestling.com and it was in their logo [8]. That doesnt make their name World Championship Wrestling Wrestling. - GalatzTalk 02:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice try. That picture is of one of the title cards for WCW Pro one of their B-shows, it was originally WCW Pro Wrestling. CrashUnderride 05:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - @Galatz:You REALLY need to pay attention to & abide by the instructions Wikipedia has when it comes to proposing an article be moved.
First, open a discussion about the proposed move on the article's talk page. Once that's done, place a template at the top of the article to alert visitors to the article that there is a proposal to move the article to a new pagename, so that anyone interested can comment. Oh, and with most discussions, it's generally good etiquette to wait AT LEAST one week (not THREE...FREAKING...DAYS...) to see if anyone objects. If it should play out that at least a week has passed & no one has commented, THEN you proceed with the move. In your case, you erred by NOT placing a template at the top of the article alerting visitors to the article about a move proposal, which is why you didn't get any opposition to your proposal. In fact, I'm alleging you purposely did what you did so that no one would register any opposition to your proposal. As a result, I honestly believe that, for your actions, you should receive a warning from a Wikipedia administrator & be told NOT to do again what you did, or next time, you'll face a temporary edit block.
And, as far as your argument....the logo on the company's championship belts says TNA WRESTLING, NOT "TNA". The URL for the company's website (before it switched to the show's branding) was tnawrestling.com, NOT "tna.com". For Hewlett Packard, their website is "hp.com" & their logo is the stylized "HP" initialism, but their name is still Hewlett Packard. Also, as far as WCW, their website was actually wcw.com, NOT "wcwwrestling.com". As far as Starbucks, the "Starbucks Coffee" logo you found is probably what they put on their product. And, as for that "HP Invent" graphic, some companies DO put slogans with their company's logo on the products they manufacture.
In conclusion, maybe you need to go back & start educating yourself on the rules/guidelines Wikipedia has set forth for actions concerning articles. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

Please remove Impact Wrestling (unofficial) (2011-Present) from the Trading name section, as the company has NEVER been known by that name, either officially OR unofficially. The ONLY thing carrying that name is the weekly show on Pop. 76.235.248.101 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Really? Then why is the entire company website at impactwrestling.com? Why is the new Impact Grand Championship so called without any mention of the TNA letters? Why did they actually state outright that they were minimizing the use of the TNA name some years back in favor of the Impact name? And why is the current name of the holding company "Imlact Ventures"? Because the TV show is not the only thing carrying that name. oknazevad (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Um, just to chime in here, after reading both statements: @Oknazevad:, I don't know if you watch Impact Wrestling on Pop, but at the end of the program, where you'd usually see the company's logo, it is STILL TNA Wrestling, NOT Impact Wrestling. To answer your questions:
  • The company's website is NOT impactwrestling.com. That is CLEARLY the website for the show. Now, I don't know why they look down the company's website and have up only the show's website. However, from what I've heard, the company lost control of the wesbite, so it's sounding like the website isn't even theirs anymore.
  • As far as the situation with the Grand Championship, all the other titles STILL bear the TNA Wrestling logo. So, it would seem that the company hasn't completely abandoned the TNA branding yet.
  • As far as the corporate name, it would seem Impact Ventures is ONLY registered in Tennessee. In fact, according to the linked article, it would seem the company does business as BOTH Impact Ventures (solely in Tennessee) AND TNA Entertainment (everywhere else). In fact, judging by the production credit at the end of Impact Wrestling, everywhere else, it's STILL TNA Entertainment. So, whomever changed the company's corporate name to just Impact Ventures was wrong in doing so. By the looks of it, it should have stayed as both TNA Entertainment, LLC AND Impact Ventures, LLC. In fact, Impact Ventures doesn't even have a profile on Bloomberg's website, but TNA Entertainment does.
  • And, finally, the name of the Wikipedia article is STILL Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. It has NOT been changed to Impact Wrestling.
The fact of the matter is, when the company finally does completely change over to the new identity/branding, the information can/will then be changed to reflect said change. Until then, the company is STILL TNA Wrestling, while it's ONLY the show that is Impact Wrestling. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:391C:A3C7:630:7D49 (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 05:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Dixie has left the company

She is no longer a key person she only has 5% stake, not enough to influence. She has been moved out of TNA and to another department of Anthem/Fight Network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SickPup2 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

TNA letters are dead

Announced tonight at the TV tapings Bruce Pritchard said that TNA is no longer TNA and it's only Impact Wrestling? How should this page be viewed going forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.119.159 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Why does the infobox contain the header "Anthem Wrestling Exhibitions, LLC"? I understand that that's the company that owns the promotion now but if I look at WCW or NWA or WWE they rather contain the promotion's name. Str1977 (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The result of the move request was: not moved. Strong consensus on this, and please see my closing comment below. Andrewa (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC) oknazevad (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


Total Nonstop Action Wrestling → Impact Wrestling – As of March 3, 2017, the company has changed names. "It's official...the TNA name is dead, former WWE star makes his Impact Wrestling debut". wrestlingnews.co. Retrieved 2017-03-03.  TBMNY (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Even if the article title is changed, should the article title be changed now or when the announcement of the company's name change actually airs on television? What's to stop Anthem from hypothetically changing its mind and editing out that segment of the Impact Wrestling show where the name change is announced? I'd at least like something more than spoiler reports before an article title is changed. EvWill (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @EvWill: That is a fair point. There are many TNA logos on the current Impact Wrestling website and the company's merchandise store still carries the ShopTNA.com address. I do agree that title changes should be held off until the change has been made official. Grimmloch81 (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
That source doesn't say the promotion's to be called Impact Wrestling. Just not TNA. Maybe they'll stick with Total Nonstop Action, but never mention the initials. Like a reverse WWE. Maybe they'll call it Conrad Thompson Productions. Best to wait and see. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
They're definitely done with the TNA name entirely. The promotion itself is called Impact Wrestling now. I think the name should be changed for sure. TBMNY (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? oknazevad (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Even the offical website address is ImpactWrestling.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.75 (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
That's been the case for years now. oknazevad (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Not only that, but the header for my browser reads "Impact Wrestling - Total NonStop Action".LM2000 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait. All we really have right now are some sketchy reports from the tapings. That's not enough to move the article. Or any related article either. They seems to have finally dropped the TNA name for good. (hooray! Seriously, I've always hated the damn name; it's an embarrassing load of adolescent humor that no self-respecting fan should use.) But they've said that before. As I said in response above, the website has been impactwrestling.com for years, dating back to the Hogan period when they changed all the logos to blue; that was supposed to signal a shift away from and phasing out of the TNA name. As the fact we are having this conversation now shows, it didn't stick, mostly because fans and press were still using the name. Now this seems like a far more definitive break of the reports are accurate, but we still need to see if the reports are accurate. It wasn't that long ago that widely repeated Internet reports indicated that the Grand Championship was replacing the TNA WHC, which was a blatant misunderstanding of what was actually said. So I say we wait until these episodes hit the air. oknazevad (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wait I remember when a similar thing happened in 2011, when Hogan renamed the "TNA iMPACT" tv show to "Impact Wrestling" and they limited the use of mentioning "TNA" on weekly TV. People weren't sure if the entire promotion had been renamed, especially after they ran a PPV in the Impact Zone shortly afterwards and never bothered to change the logos around ringside. It looks like it's totally legit this time but I'd like some sort of press release before we go ahead and make these changes.LM2000 (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a silly argument. This isn't a renaming of a TV show. Bruce Prichard, at the taping, explicitly said, according to WNS, that "the 'TNA' name is officially dead and that going forward, the company will only be known as Impact Wrestling." TBMNY (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
We didn't know it was just the renaming of the TV show at the time, there was a lot of confusion because they didn't make themselves clear. I'm just waiting for them to release an official statement before we move the article to avoid a similar mess. Reading the tea leaves left to us by spoiler reports is not how this should be done.LM2000 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
TBMNY, that's hardly an official confirmation, even if it was included twice in the article under pretenses of "Anthem announced". Seems LM2000's argument was more intelligent than you give him credit for.
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

TNA Offically announce name change

The new Impact Wrestling website has no mention of the letters TNA, ShopTNA.com is still the domain but on the shop the title is ShopImpact it's obvious that TNA is dead so the page should be moved, if not today then tomorrow after the annoncement on TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggiewray01 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

We wait until the announcement then. Stop moving things before then. oknazevad (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Or even longer. Thanks for fixing my sloppy close. Andrewa (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
No, Reggiewray01, it should not be moved today, and it's most unlikely it should be moved tomorrow. It should be moved if and when reliable secondary sources adopt the new name. That may be sooner or later or never. The official website, official press releases, etc are primary sources, they tell us what the official name is but that is of little relevance according to our article naming policy. See also wp:correct. Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

TNA is dead

I don't know who is in charge of this page but TNA Wrestling is dead, it has been announced on TV and on the website, this page should be moved immediatley. It's really starting to annoy me because every wrestling fan knows TNA is now Impact Wrestling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggiewray01 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I do see your point, as the old url http://www.tnawrestling.com redirects to http://impactwrestling.com/
I'm reviewing the history now, and will at least put up a hatnote as a stopgap until this can be sorted out. wbm1058 (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, there's a temporary hatnote on Impact Wrestling now.
This isn't the first time I've managed the renaming of titles to do with pro wrestling. They're about the hardest to do right that I can think of. Let's hope they don't change names again in six months.
There are over 700 links to Impact Wrestling. How many of them are intended for the TV show, and how many for the wrestling promotion formerly named Total Nonstop Action Wrestling? If we just move this without any prep work first a lot of links intended for the TV show will switch to linking to the promotion, and Impact Wrestling (TV series) will become a near-orphan. Some link-fixing from Impact Wrestling → Impact Wrestling (TV series) should be done first to keep the links going to the intended targets. Do we agree that Impact Wrestling (TV series) is the best title to move the TV series to? wbm1058 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a crazy number of redirects to this. Let's make sure we get the right one. The disambiguation shouldn't be in upper case as it's not a proper name. Valid alternatives might include Impact Wrestling (TV program) and Impact Wrestling (TV show). Odd those are both still red considering the number of redirects that have already been created. I'm guessing we don't want the title to include the acronym TNA, and uppercase would probably be a MOS:TM violation. wbm1058 (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Very well said. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Reggiewray01, nobody is in charge of this page. It's part of a collaborative encyclopedia. See wp:own and wp:consensus if interested.
And as such we tend and intend not to be a site where the latest rebranding is promoted and the history forgotten. Just the opposite. There are sites for that. This is not one of them.
I also note that you are currently blocked following this edit and others. Andrewa (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

'TNA' is dead

TNA or 'Total Nonstop Action Wrestling' is dead. It was announced on the TV show last night by Bruce Prichard. The website is Impact Wrestling, the shop is ShopImpact.com there will be new belts made as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SickPup2 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And that's all very well and should be noted in the article, if it can be supported by an appropriate reference. But as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is just as interested in organisations that no longer exist as we are in the ones that currently operate. So we don't just delete all reference to TNW as if it never existed. Instead we add information about the new oranisation.
It may be appropriate to add all the new information to the current page, or it may be better to start a new page on this new organisation.
If information on ShopImpact is added to the existing article, then at some time in the future it may be good to rename the article. This might happen quite quickly. Andrewa (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I think SickPup2 fails to take into account that by "TNA is dead" they mean the name. That it's still the same company. So, all references up until March 10, 2017, have to remain TNA as it was from 2007, until March 10, 2017 that the company was known as Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Just the same was with the WWE article. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 09:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yep. Now the question is do we move this article. The consensus in the last discussion was to wait for the official announcement, which has now come. Per WP:NAMECHANGES, we are supposed to give greater weight to sources from after the name change, and I'll note that reliable sources have not only reported on the announcement but have also changed the headers of their former TNA news sections to read Impact, so it does seem that the change has been widely accepted. Honestly, this seems like a situation analogous to the renaming of a sports franchise, where pages are moved immediately once the name change becomes official, because common sense tells us that of course the overall sources are going to have the old name because they predate the name change. So I now think it's time to move this article, while moving the article on the series to Impact Wrestling (TV series). oknazevad (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
No, the consensus was to wait, but there was no consensus as to how long to wait. It was strongly suggested that as soon as the official announcement was made it should be moved, but I hope it's now clear that this has no basis in policy.
But yes, if secondary sources have change their usage already (which is not surprising, but needs to be substantiated in the next RM rather than just assumed), and if there's no justification for a new article on the organisation by its new name, then it should be moved. And not otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with your reading of consensus. More importantly, I see your guideline and raise you WP:IAR, so we can use common sense and not saddle this article with an outdated name for any longer than it needs to be. oknazevad (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree that we can use common sense and not saddle this article with an outdated name for any longer than it needs to be, and I think that's exactly what the guidelines provide for even without appealing to WP:IAR. Also agree that if they didn't then IAR would be appropriate.
Fortunately, neither of us has any right or need to decide the consensus either way. We may just need to agree to disagree on that.
But I don't think we can call on IAR to overrule the requirement for recent reliable secondary sources. Now that this discussion has started, we would need a consensus here assessed by an uninvolved editor (doesn't need to be an admin) to do that. And I don't think we'll get that. I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Crash Underride, you say it's still the same company and nobody has challenged this. But what is that company called? I'm skeptical that they rename the company every time they change its name in this way, this name change seems more of the nature of kayfabe. There's some entity owned by Anthem Sports & Entertainment that has been known as TNA and now as Impact Wrestling, and it has a name in the real world, and that's probably the name that the article should have. Andrewa (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

New name for this

Moving this to simply Impact Wrestling is problematic, and a nonstarter, in my view. That brand is too muddled and the title is too ambiguous because between the long-running TV series and the new name for TNA, the promotion, there is no clear WP:primary topic. But, I don't think we should wait too long to move this, as all reliable sources covering pro wrestling will immediately recognize the new name and use it in their coverage. I've noted two bold attempts to move this to a new title: the naturally disambiguated Impact Wrestling LLC and the parenthetically disambiguated Impact Wrestling (company). I was going to recommend the natural disambiguation, but checking their website that that is not actually the official name. The official name is Anthem Wrestling Exhibitions, LLC. We probably shouldn't move to that as it's not the WP:common name. Impact Wrestling (company) is also problematic if the actual company name is Anthem Wrestling Exhibitions. Impact Wrestling (promotion) maybe? Just trying to see if we can get a quick tentative consensus for the new name, or if not I'll settle for submitting a "name to be determined during the discussion" RM. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

My support goes to Impact Wrestling (promotion), at least until/unless it emerges as the obvious primary topic.LM2000 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I found this (month-old?) news item "Anthem announced in the last week that they were officially dropping the TNA name, effectively stopping Total Nonstop Action. Going forward, the company will be continuing with the Impact Wrestling name." wbm1058 (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a really poorly written piece at a fan-run site. It's not a reliable source. oknazevad (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting... is there any name by which the organisation is known? I note that the article on Anthem Sports & Entertainment states On October 19, 2016, Anthem announced that they will be investing in professional wrestling company Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. On January 4, 2017, Anthem announced the acquisition of a majority interest in the wrestling company.[1]. In March 2017, they re-branded the promotion as Impact Wrestling, the name of the outlets flagship television broadcast. That sounds as if the wrestling company is a legal person, and I doubt that they have renamed it, they've just added a new name to the ones it already owns.
If so, another option would be to refocus the article on this entity, with a section on each of its promotions, and redirects from the promotion names to these sections. That would have the advantage of making it clear what are real-world facts and what are in-universe statements that are only true within the context of kayfabe. Andrewa (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
You are way overthinking this. This is one promotion that changed its name to match its weekly TV program because it was sold (and its old name was a cheesy joke no one laughed at). Just as General Motors has one article despite being reincorporated as part of the 2009 bankruptcy, there only needs to be one article on this promotion. oknazevad (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that's better than underthinking... you don't seem to have read the post. I wasn't anywhere suggesting any extra articles, just to refocus this one. Andrewa (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
No, I read the post. It's when you use phrases like "each of its promotions" that give me pause. It's one promotion that's been reincorporated multiple times to reflect ownership changes, which is already reflected in the sectioning of the article. It's just not the only thing the sectioning reflects, as other factors besides ownership have created significant changes in the direction of the promotion.
Truth is the simplest solution is to move the TV series to Impact Wrestling (TV series) and move the promotion to the undisambiguated title. I disagree that it's muddled or unclear. And it's common. See WWE NXT vs WWE NXT (TV series) and Ring of Honor vs Ring of Honor Wrestling (which is much more ambiguous than the proposal here.
After all, the TV series doesn't exist without the promotion, and the series serves exclusively to be a product of the promotion. For Impact, where they don't run house shows currently, it's the only product (outside merchandising). So if after the moves some links that originally pointed to the TV series now point to the promotion, it's not a big deal. If anything needs to be done, it's to trim out some of the redundant history-of-the-promotion material from the TV series article.
That's why I say folks are overthinking it. There's a simple solution, one that has precedence, and leads to an unambiguous situation. oknazevad (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree that the simple solution has precedence... in that there are messier articles elsewhere. But let's not add to the mess!
And yes, you read the phase on each of its promotions, but apparently didn't read the rest of the phrase. It reads with a section on each of its promotions (new emphasis). No new articles were suggested. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I looked at "WWE NXT" and that's as bad as this. One year it's a TV "reality competition", pairing "Rookies" with WWE Superstars. The next year it's a developmental league. It would be like the NFL played arena football in 2015, then switched to outdoor football the next year, and you just wanted to redirect all the arena-era links to the new outdoor-era article. Or think of the National Football League renaming itself NFL Network. So just move the TV network to "NFL Network (TV network)" then move National Football League to NFL Network and who cares about links, eh? If the "promotion" and the "TV series" are essentially the same thing, then those articles should be merged, as WP:content forks. The meaning of WWE Women's Championship is so clear as mud that we ended up turning it into a pseudo-disambiguation (set index article). Having been burned once by putting a lot of work into cleaning up the distinction between WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010), and later meanings of the term (I see that "Divas", as "TnA", has since been "dropped like a rock"), I'm not keen on putting a lot of time into this. At this point I don't view anything to do with wrestling promotions with much permanence, so building any kind of coherent encyclopedic coverage of a topic like this is like building sandcastles on a beach. Every time the tide comes in, the content will be rearranged. So do what you want, just please don't edit-war over it. Encyclopedia building isn't supposed to be a contact sport. wbm1058 (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

A step back

I think it's impressive that Wikipedia even dares to attempt to cover professional wrestling.

The two cultures are just such different worlds. Verifiability and kayfabe are in a sense opposites. One reason that so far we can't even find the name of the organisation behind these promotions is that they don't want it known. Hiding behind these brand names is an important part of their business plan, and of the fantasy world which is their product.

I believe that Wikipedia can and should cover this industry. It's a fascinating phenomenon. But nobody said it would be easy. Andrewa (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thinking more about this, perhaps I'm being hasty in assuming that this company even exists. Is that also part of kayfabe? And if so, how do we best treat it so that we, as a real-world encyclopedia, clearly distinguish the facts from the fantasy?

There's nothing wrong with reporting facts about noteworthy fantasies. We just need to be clear which is which. Andrewa (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Between this and your response above, I can definitely say you're overthinking this. "Total Nonstop Action Wrestling" was the public branding and common name of the promotion which remained consistent regardless of corporate reorganization that occurred because of ownership changes. Technically, we could consider this a succession of different companies (J Sports & Entertainment, LLC; TNA Wrestling Entertainment, LLC; Impact Ventures, LLC; and now Anthem Wrestling Exibitions, LLC), but such corporate detailing is of secondary concern, and should be (and is) covered but not obsessed over. oknazevad (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, and I still think you may be underthinking. But let us both be wary of personal attacks here.
Why would we consider this a succession of different companies? You rightly objected to the suggestion that we needed a separate article. (A suggestion I had not made... Perhaps you are still underreading?)
I do note that the article now clearly says that the parent company is J Sports & Entertainment. That's progress! A reference is given. So this is a company in real life.
So a relevant question now is, do Total Nonstop Action Wrestling and Impact Wrestling (company) have any real-life existence, or do they exist only in the fantasy of kayfabe? Andrewa (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Please read the "ownership" section of the article. I'm not going to bother discussing an article if the other person isn't going to bother reading beyond the lead to find atht the article already answers their questions (with references, too). oknazevad (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
That's up to you. I did actually read that section, but I admit I missed the recent clarification by an IP to the lede, and now wish I'd seen it earlier. That would have helped. For your part, it would help us to build consensus if you'd forgive such failings on my part, and answer good-faith questions (however misguided) if you are able to do so. Andrewa (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, it's becoming clearer to me, and I do apologise to Oknazevad and any others who feel I'm being a bit slow getting a handle on this.

As I now understand it, this parent company has a real-world existence. But these promotions are names it uses as part of a fictional universe of a particular type known as kayfabe.

In which case, doesn't it make more sense to have an article on the parent company, and redirect the names of the promotions to sections of the article? That way, it will be clear to the reader what is in-universe detail, and what is real-world fact.

Article naming discussions are complicated by the fact that most online sources are in-universe. Wikipedia needs to take the real-world perspective, and in particular to regard fansites (as well as the promoter's own websites, press releases etc) as primary sources at best.

Of course the promoters and to some extent the fans would love us to take an in-universe perspective! Andrewa (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense to title the article with the parent company's name. That fails WP:COMMONNAME. The promotion's public name (and yes, the singular is correct there) is not merely a kayfabe element. It's a brand, a public identity. Similar to Subway (restaurant) being the public brand of it's parent company, Doctor's Associates. The TNA name (historically) and the Impact Wrestling name (now) for the promotion are not fictional, and

Naming the article after that public brand is in not in-universe. oknazevad (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't fail WP:COMMONNAME if the topic of the article is the parent company. That's what I'm suggesting. Refocus the article.
The article is already rescoped, in that it now covers the post-rename promotion, as well as the pre-rename. And that's appropriate.
The difference between this and the Subway (restaurant) example is that the article on the restaurants is focused on the restaurants, not on the company. If the company had two chains of restaurants by different names, and if we only wanted one article covering both (for whatever reason), then the same method could be applied... have an article on the company, and sections on each chain. And the article would be named after the company, with redirects from each restaurant chain name to the section on that chain.
Exactly what is in-universe in professional wrestling is often difficult to say! I note you say it's not merely a kayfabe element (my emphasis). But it is part of the kayfabe too, is it not?
We should be conservative. Statements such as TNA is dead indicate to me that to some at least, this is a kayfabe element. Nothing is dead. Just renamed. The death is pure fiction. That sort of talk is fine on fansites, but here we try to clearly identify what is fact and what is fantasy. Andrewa (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Another step back

OK, I accept that I was slow at finding the references to J Sports & Entertainment as the real-life company that conducts these promotions and apologise for that.

And I would also like to clarify that I'm not yet proposing a move of this article to J Sports & Entertainment. That may come, I'm still undecided and want others to consider it. It's a bit of lateral thinking trying to deal with the issues here.

But it does have a lot to recommend it IMO. There's definitely a sense in which these renames are part of the fantasy called kayfabe, and there's a problem in that nearly all of the online sources are in-universe. Making the article topic the company that has a documented real-world existence, and relegating these (semi-?)fictitious promotions to being sections of that article, with redirects from the promotion names to the relevant sections, seems an obvious solution.

It should at least be considered. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Except that hasn't been the corporate name in over ten years, and would be a factually incorrect name on all levels.
I think part of the problem can be seen in your use of true plural "promotions". I think you are misusing the word here, and would benefit from reading Professional wrestling promotion. The short version is that a promotion is a production company that puts on wrestling shows, either live, on television or both. While this company has gone through ownership changes, and with that corporate reorganization resulting in new corporate naming, until this recent change, the company branding has been consistent through its history, and not fictional. To name the article after its current public branding is entirely in line with Wikipedia guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

J Sports & Entertainment, LLC has not been the parent company since 2002. A move to that name would be moving in the wrong direction. I have been following this discussion for a couple of weeks now. As stated previously, there is precedence for a move like this. The suggestion that we move the TV series to Impact Wrestling (TV series) and move the promotion to the undisambiguated title seems the most viable. Going under the assumption that the "wrestling promotions" are only part of a kayfabe universe created by a corporate entity would set a big precedent and would require a massive workload to bring the other professional wrestling articles in line with that definition. A move to Impact Wrestling and the move of the TV Series would be an easier transition falling in line with how wrestling promotions have been covered for years. I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and I would be willing to take on the job of editing the over 700 links pointing to Total Nonstop Action Wrestling to alleviate the mess. Grimmloch81 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Will the name be chnaged

Hi, it's been over 2 week now and the name of this page is still Total Nonstop Action despite the company changing it's name to Impact Wrestling. WWE is not called WWF so why has this issue still not been resolved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggiewray01 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Because discussion is still going on and you need to have some patience. oknazevad (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
News disruptive edition by Reggiewray01. Check 1, 2 and 3. Ignoring all warnings he received. 2804:7F4:FC80:8242:3DA9:5169:F5E4:2B56 (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Administrative stuff taken care of. --NeilN talk to me 16:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

While the article title move discussion is still going on, someone changed the lead of this article, and all related articles such as TNA Bound for Glory, TNA World Heavyweight Championship etc to state that the promotion is now called Impact Wrestling. Could someone please revert them. It only creates inconsistencies and confusion. Thanks, Eliken (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

Please change Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) in the article's introductory paragraph to Impact Wrestling, as well as changing Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (2004-Present) in the infobox to Total Nonstop Action Wresting (2004-2017), as well as adding Impact Wrestling (2017-Present) to the infobox, as Impact Wrestling is the trade name that Anthem is operating "Anthem Wrestling Exhibitions, LLC" under. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:645A:700:3028:AE00 (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. oknazevad (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Impact Wrestling. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


Total Nonstop Action Wrestling → Impact Wrestling (promotion) – per the discussions above. Total Nonstop Action Wrestling has changed its name to Impact Wrestling, and all media covering this promotion will clearly refer to it by its new name for the foreseeable future. There is a desire to maintain their television series Impact Wrestling as a separate and distinct topic on Wikipedia, so parenthetical disambiguation seems the best solution for now. This might eventually become the primary topic for the title, if the TV series article is parenthetically disambiguated, and all existing links to the TV show are re-targeted to the new title of the TV series. wbm1058 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Well suit yourselves, I was only trying to expedite this a bit. If you would rather keep the title stuck at the old name for a while longer, that's OK with me. The request I submitted to move Impact Wrestling to Impact Wrestling (TV series) was closed less than 24 hours after I submitted it. Normally we let such requests run for a full seven days when they're considered to be potentially controversial – the earlier reverted move to Impact Wrestling (TV Program) might have led one to think this could be controversial, but I suppose WP:IAR is the first rule when it comes to anything to do with pro wrestling. So now I've been working on link disambiguation, as indeed most active links to Impact Wrestling are intended for Impact Wrestling the TV series and not "Impact Wrestling" the promotion. I've found some piped links [[Total Nonstop Action Wrestling|Impact Wrestling]] and don't follow the rationale for this. Surely you don't want to continue to intentionally link to the old name of the promotion, do you? The rationale behind this request is so that links may be made to [[Impact Wrestling (promotion)|Impact Wrestling]] so that links to [[Total Nonstop Action Wrestling|Impact Wrestling]] are not made, as the latter makes no sense. After Impact Wrestling (promotion) is moved to [[Impact Wrestling]], nothing will need to be done to fix such links, and if the primary meaning of "Impact Wrestling" ever changes again in the future, the links to Impact Wrestling (promotion) will not be broken, while the links to [[Impact Wrestling]] will be. wbm1058 (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the above discussion is necessarily going to delay a page move any longer; a closer can see that the discussion is yielding a consensus that this article belongs at the undisambiguated title. They're not necessarily yea-or-nay on the move as proposed. Regarding the move reversion at the series article, it was more about behavior (for which the person who made the unilateral move is now blocked) and the incorrect disambiguator per guidelines ("series", not "program", and certainly not title case capitals). As for the [[Total Nonstop Action Wrestling|Impact Wrestling]] links, intentionally linking to the existing article title with piping as a temporary measure until a move request goes through is a logical move, and not a broken link. oknazevad (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I just did a bunch more and the remaining links go to the promotion and not the TV show. We should be good to go.LM2000 (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I did a spot check of the remaining links, and found they were intended for the promotion. wbm1058 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Impact Wrestling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Title names

So I've noticed on TV they refer to the titles as the Impact World Heavyweight Championship and Impact Knockouts championship with them not using 'Wrestling' in the title name. Motion to change the names here, would promote symmetry and short is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.119.159 (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I oppose this change; WWE refers to their titles as "Intercontinental Championship" or "United States Championship", whereas we write them as WWE Intercontinental Championship and WWE United States Championship. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose for now. The names may very well change in the near future following the unification matches at Slammiversary, so any changes should wait until after that event. oknazevad (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

New name?

Since the acquisition of Global Force Wrestling, Impact has been referring to itself as GFW/Impact Wrestling, as reflected here and here. A new logo shows up on their website as well. Should these changes be reflected? JTP (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. I think it behooves us to wait until the post-Slammiversary tapings to see how things shake out. oknazevad (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

New logo?

It looks like Impact Wrestling have modified their logo to include 'GFW'; see their website header; http://impactwrestling.com/ Should this be reflected in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I had changed it, although User:Oknazevad pointed out that it was practically invisible on the infobox background, as opposed to the current version with an outline. If you could find a version with the GFW that has an outline, that would be great. I am currently searching as well. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
How's the version I just uploaded?LM2000 (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks good; here's a larger version of the logo also; http://impactwrestling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Impact_2017_Logo-1024x624.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Perfect. The smaller size is better to keep it under fair use requirements. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
comment Someone should review the difference in the article now and a week or so ago to be sure no junk edits slipped through the cracks, with all the IPs editing. Enigmamsg 03:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I've been keeping my eye on it for the past few days, but I'll give it one more look-over. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Ownership Change

Hi, I have noticed that Jeff has got a minority stake in the company since Impact acquired GFW but the exact percentage of the ownership has not be revealed and also Arlouxe are still Minority Owners in the company they have not sold their shares this was on the page but recently changed and since this information is not correct could someone please change it back.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.156.145 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverted unsourced claims that have no obvious basis in what has been said in releases. Is it possible that Jarrett's stake in the company came from the minority owners giving up their stakes instead of Anthem trimming their share? Sure. But we don't know. What we do know, which is covered and sourced in the text, is that Anthem is the majority owner, that Dixie Carter and Arlouxe retained minority stakes in the sale to Anthem, and that Jeff Jarrett was brought back as a consultant, which turned into an executive position, leading to a merger with Jarrett's GFW and Jarrett once again becoming a minority owner (and apparently the company taking the GFW name). At no point have we seen any sources giving the actual breakdown of percentages now with Jarrett as a minority owner, nor do we have any sources saying Arlouxe or Dixie Carter are no longer minority owners (which the same editor changed in a prior edit). So a list with no percentages is the only acceptable thing to have in the infobox. I have reverted the edit. I just hope the editor doesn't decide to fly off the handle and vandalize my user page again because I reverted him. oknazevad (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Weasle words in introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph says "Many, including Anthem, consider the organization as the world’s second largest professional wrestling promotion, annually producing over 300 hours of original programming content[11]." I contend the use of "many" is a weasel word and should be flagged/rewritten. Without knowing the financials of ROH, it's pretty clear NJPW is the #2 promotion in the world based on revenue ($32 million revenue[1]). TNA/Impact was losing money and WWE makes more than anyone.

-- Anonymous coward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.141.65.142 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/enuhito_eng/status/774567497756319745

Another name change?

Impact have released a YouTube video on their channel, with the title "welcome to GFW Impact"; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGDi4Fkk5tQ

Coupled with the logo change, should the name in the article be changed, or should a bit more time be given? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that we should wait until at least Thursday, to see what they do with the branding and titles and whatnot. See #New name? above, where I brought up the name change as well, although as GFW/Impact. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. Would be good to see if the championships are rebranded also in the coming weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Jarrett said on a recent radio interview that "the name of the television show on Pop TV is Impact and the name of the brand is GFW" (http://nodq.com/news/501366663.shtml) - should this be noted in the article? Or maybe something along the lines of "Impact Wrestling (currently rebranding as GFW", or just wait for further info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2017

At the end of the 1st paragraph under Formation, right after the sentence Russo claims that the name "Total Nonstop Action" came from him and that the original concept was, as they were exclusive to pay-per-view, to be an edgier product than WWE; the initials of the company "TNA" being a play on "T&A", short for "Tits and Ass, please replace the "citation needed" tag with a citation using the following website article:

http://www.wrestlingepicenter.com/articles/135566706.shtml 2602:304:CEBF:8650:F1C9:6B45:EC9F:F07D (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I don't believe wrestlingepicenter is a reliable source. See WP:PW/RS.LM2000 (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, @LM2000, it's the same source used in the Wikipedia article for Vince Russo to verify his claim that he was the one who came up with the "Total Nonstop Action/TNA" branding. Or, if you need a source to back up WrestlingEpicCenter, here's something from Reddit: At around the 20 minute mark of his (Russo) latest podcast, he mentions that he came up with the name TNA for Jeff Jarrett and it stood for "tits n ass".. And, if THAT's not enough, here's another source from Google Books: The Jarretts brought in former WWF and WCW creative writer Vince Russo as head booker, and it was he who reportedly came up with the name Total Nonstop Action (primarily for the "TNA" play on words that would indicate the company's edgy, mature nature.) 2602:304:CEBF:8650:F1C9:6B45:EC9F:F07D (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done The book works.LM2000 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Time to move (again)?

So it seems that it's pretty obvious that moves are needed. Again. Ugh. That said, seems this, the article on the promotion, should be moved to Global Force Wrestling as that's now the company's naming, while the article on the weekly TV series should be moved to GFW Impact (no exclamation point per WP:MOSTM) and other such changes to the championships and such. That said, the major problem is the existing GFW article. I think the above-mentioned use of dates as a disambiguator, so Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017) is the best way to handle it. Thoughts? oknazevad (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, following an old move of the TV series (which I then moved again to remove the unneeded parenthetical), I decided to boldly move the former GFW to the date-disambiguated title, as that needed no administrator assistance. So should I just do a technical request to get this page moved? Or should we make it a format RM? oknazevad (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Technical. I see nothing controversial about it that would constitute a RM. Also, GFW Impact! was moved with the exclamation point, which, as you pointed out earlier, should not have the exclamation point per MOS:TM. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I decided to leave it on there as it had been on there when the series was at TNA Impact!. I wouldn't object to it being moved to leave off the exclamation point, as the inclusion is not always observed in reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

"Global Force Wrestling" redirects here (makes sense since they've changed their name again) but the old GFW 2014-2017 page also redirects here. Any ideas of where the original article ended up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's reappeared. All's good. Should this page be renamed with the original GFW becoming "Global Force Wrestling (2014-2017)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all taken care of. There was a mess created by a clueless, pushy user. Now everything is as it should be. oknazevad (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Info about ownership in article lead...

Well, after a bit of an "edit war" with Oknazevad about what ownership information should be in the lead sentence for the article, he said to take it to the talk page. So, here I am; I'm wondering if the lead sentence should contain ANY information about Anthem's control of GFW through its majority share, along with Aroluxe, Jarrett, & Dixie holding minority shares in the company.

My initial stance was to place something along the lines of the bolded wording in the lead paragraph/sentence:

Global Force Wrestling (GFW), currently also known as Impact Wrestling due to broadcast delay, is an American professional wrestling promotion based in Nashville, Tennessee that is controlled, through a controlling interest, by Toronto-based integrated media organization Anthem Sports & Entertainment, with Nasvhille-based marketing agency & production company Aroluxe Marketing; co-founder & current Executive Producer & Chief Creative Officer Jeff Jarrett; & former President Dixie Carter each holding minority shares.

I'd love to hear people's opinions on 1) if information about the current ownership should be included and 2) if so, how much of it or what level of it. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:40D1:17E0:6302:27DF (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Naturally, I think that's too much info for the first sentence (and which would make it a runon, too). I'd just say "majority owned by Anthem Sports & Entertainment." Not even give Anthem that much of a description, as it has its own article where it can be described. oknazevad (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
So, you're saying that you'd only briefly mentioned Anthem in the lead as majority shareholder & wouldn't even reference/mention, at all, the minority shares held by Aroluxe, Jarrett, & Dixie (to reference who else besides Anthem owns stake in the "new" GFW)? I mean, to point out something here (that I think/believe is valid)...in the 4th paragraph in the opening section of the article for WWE, it mentions how (besides Vince) Linda, Shane, Stephanie, & Triple H, as well as Eminence Capital, pretty much collectively own all the shares of WWE.
However, I suppose one possible option for placement of reference/mention of Aroluxe, Jarrett, & Dixie as minority shareholders could be later on in the opening section of the article, maybe either as the 2nd paragraph in the opening section, before the reference to the company's founding by the Jarretts in 2002, OR as the final paragraph in the opening section, right before the Table of Contents box, just so that, as you put it, the lead sentence isn't too detail-oriented or becomes a run-on. What are your thoughts on that idea? 2602:304:CEBF:8650:40D1:17E0:6302:27DF (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we can leave the deatail of minority owners out of the lead entirely. Leads are supposed to summarize the body, and the main take away from the ownership section is that Anthem currently is the majority owner. The details are sufficiently covered in the ownership section, as well as the history. I think the minority owners are inessential detail that belongs not in the lead, but in the sections. oknazevad (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I also agree that we don't need minority owners in the lede, per WP:LEAD. The lede should summarize only the essential details and I don't know if this fits that criteria. For what it's worth, I don't think Eminence Capital should be mentioned in WWE's lede either.LM2000 (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about the "Ownership" section of the article...

I was wondering: as far as the "Ownership" section, where would that belong in the article? Should it go more towards the beginning of the body of the article? I'd like anyone's thoughts/opinions/etc. on that section's placement in the article. 2602:304:CEBF:8650:4561:F4F0:61E:B3FD (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be moved up to right after the history section. And the section on touring and taping schedules should be after that instead (and retitled, as the current one is awkward as heck). oknazevad (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
To @Oknazevad: since you've stated that the current title for the section on television & touring schedule is "awkward as heck", what would you think about "Live events" as the section's title instead? 2602:304:CEBF:8650:59C1:33A2:4D61:7924 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Problem is that "live events" has a meaning in pro wrestling that precludes television. I wasn't referring to the current section title, which I put in place, but to the prior version. The current one is fine. oknazevad (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Jarrett minority owner?

IPs keep adding both in Ownership section, as well as info box that Jeff Jarrett is now a minority owner, but it is in disagreement with the sources already present in article.--Psychonot (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not in disagreement. The reference in the history section regarding the full acquisition of the old GFW states plainly that Jarrett is an "equity partner", meaning a minority owner. That the ref wasn't called again via named refs in the ownership section was a bad idea, but that's been fixed. I removed the terrible ref regarding the name change from the lead because a) it was a terrible, non-RS citation, b) a bare URL, which is bad, and c) per WP:LEADCITE it's unneeded, as it's redundant to the later refs in the article. oknazevad (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks--Psychonot (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

TV rename from Impact Wrestling to GFW Impact

I realized my PVR stopped recording show... Do search, no more IW, now GI in its place. When did this happen? Acknowledged anywhere? ScratchMarshall (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, we moved our article on the show on July 14, so by then. It may be that your TV provider didn't update their listing until last week or so. oknazevad (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Global Force Wrestling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Canadian company

Was announcer chatter this week about Canadian wrestlers flocking to company as result of new Canadian owners. Closest mention seems to be this Canada Fight Network thing. So it is Canadian owned but still based in USA? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Anthem, the majority owner, is Canadian, based in Toronto, but GFW itself isn't headquartered in Nashville also is an American company. oknazevad (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that might not be accurate. Per this article at Sports Illustrated, "Although Nordholm did not touch on this in the interview, GFW/Impact moved to Skyway Studios last summer and split production with their warehouse in Nashville, Tennessee. The warehouse in Nashville is now closed and all operations are based out of Canada in another cost-cutting measure." (emphasis there mine). Tabercil (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's news to me. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Another change of name

Looks like the reports were correct; TNA/GFW/Impact look like they've re-branded back to Impact Wrestling. The official "Bound For Glory" press release was released with no mention of "GFW"; https://www.cagesideseats.com/impact-wrestling/2017/9/18/16328498/impact-announces-bound-for-glory-ottawa-not-using-global-force-name-jim-cornette-done

Tellingly, today the company have changed the logo on their website (ImpactWrestling.com) with the "GFW" acronym removed (now reading simply "Impact Wrestling/Anthem" once again.)

Perhaps the page should simply be called "Anthem Wrestling Exhibitions" until a trading name is actually established again? Or reverting the page name back to Impact Wrestling?

It's apparent on their website that they switched to Impact again. I'd say that we revert everything back to Impact Wrestling. Pinging @Oknazevad:, who was a huge help in moving the article to GFW. JTP (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have no fricking idea about that company anymore. I'm just washing my hands of the whole thing. The gross incompetence of that mess isn't worth worrying about. oknazevad (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. I've updated the text in the body of the article from GFW to Impact Wrestling, I suspect another name change will be coming soon.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Total_Nonstop_Action_Wrestling/Archive_3&oldid=1202053565"