Talk:WWE/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

WWWF Canadian Championship

Please do not edit the WWE page and remove the Canadian Championship. I'm sure it is being removed because people may think it didn't exist, but it did. Prove of it is mentioned in WrestleMania V. I am not Canadian and trying to promote and am not seeking to fool around with factual information.

Thank you all so much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Y2jaime4life (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't remember it being mentioned, and I can't find any mention of the title online. Do you have any proof? TJ Spyke 01:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned in Wrestlemania 5 during his match. Other site mention his including hi bio here on wiki (which I have not messed with.) Maybe if you try searching it by WWF instead of WWWF. That may be a mistake on my end. Either way if I'm right or wrong, I'm not trying to mess around or add anything just for the hell of it. God knows I'm a huge WWE fan. Thank you for your help. y2jaime4life 01:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for "WWWF Canadian Championship" has 0 results, "WWF Canadian Championship" has 2 hits (one of those being in Arabic). This is what the English site says "Dino Bravo was the first and only WWF Canadian Champion. He was awarded the title in August of 1985, and he abandoned the title in January of 1986." Maybe it was one of those fictitious belts (like when WWE said Pat Patterson unified the (real) WWF North American Championship with the (fake) WWF South American Championship to form the WWF Intercontinental Championship. TJ Spyke 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See [1] 14:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC

:-)

Thank you so much. I accept your research. Although between you an I, deep in my heart I'll add it to my own list. LOL! Again, thanks for clarifying it. Cheers to you mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y2jaime4life (talk • contribs)

"as they no longer owned the copyrights to the initials WWF in 'specified circumstances'"

They never owned the "copyrights" to begin with. They owned a trademark. Two entirely different things, as WWE most likely couldn't be protected by copyright, but surely could via trademark laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.128.57 (talk • contribs)

Logos

I have replaced the main (current) WWE logo with a cleaner one... I have also done the same with the WWF Scratch logo. Someone has kept on reverting this and I have no idea why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinsdale1234 (talk • contribs)

i add a hebrew site and you delete it so i would like to getHBUTGP YOTFTOFYLT0FOYOY TPFYLTPFYLOTPFYLOTPFYLOTPFOYLTPFYOLTPFOYLTPFOYLPFTOYLTOFYLPFTOYLPTOFYLPTOFYLPFTOYLPFTOYLPTOFYLTPFL NICK WROTE YHID explanation why you delete the site —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.b-the king (talk • contribs)

Look at the spam warning I put on your talk page, that is why. Take a look at WP:EL for more info. TJ Spyke 07:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could someone please revert this article back to what it was? Right now it is just a match listing from a show that took place years ago. HorseApples 14:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

POWER 25

Why everytime I search for the Power 25, it redirects here. I think there should be a different article for the Power 25. Lex94 April 8, 2007

It was decided a long time ago that the Power 25 didn't need an article since it was basically just a copyright violation. TJ Spyke 00:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the fact that WWE's entire business method relies on conning people

It seems odd to me that no mention of the fact that all WWE's activities are faked and tat their entire business model is based around having people either being deceived or ignoring this fact. Surely some mention of the fact that they rig / pre-determine all the fights should be made. Canderra 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The fans of World Wrestling Entertainment realise and are aware of the fact that this is entertainment and nothing more (hence why WWE even call it "Sports Entertainment"). Those under the impression that it is real are mostly children. The reason WWE don't go on air and say "Hey guys, this is all fake" is because if they did that, it wouldn't seem as interesting, or even fun to watch, and they would lose the majority of younger viewers. Ptancred 19:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's like watching David Blaine perform. You know it's fake, you don't need him to tell you that. TJ Spyke 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

it isn't anything like that. magic tricks are abstract visual illusions. pounding someone on the floor is not. and contrary to what you believe, most wrestling fans i meet (who, sadly enough, are not children) will swear to god this crap is all real. there should be a good paragraph relating to this subject on this page. or at least a different page to tell people that wrestling is actually FAKE. yeah, most people figure this otu. but some people, who are maybe not bright enough, don't know this and i don't think alot of people realise this is case. i don't mean to sound condescending, but i don't really think that is fair on them. they should be told. it's sad 86.135.48.96 23:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not our job to tell people that. Besides, this article is about WWE, not professional wrestling in general. TJ Spyke 01:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

the wwe is professional wrestling, last time i looked. and anway, i did mention that if not here, then it should be put in the appropriate section. and it's not really your 'job' to do anything other than state the facts. and the fact that wrestling is fake, is a fact 86.135.48.96 20:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is about WWE, how hard is that to understand? Whether wrestling is fake or not doesn't matter. You don't see every article on magicians saying that magic is fake, or every article on actors saying that films aren't real. The article on professional wrestling already states that results are pre-determined. TJ Spyke 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

how are people supposed to know that, though? does the article on professional wrestling say that all wrestling is fake? because there is a hell of a lot of wrestling that isn't. i'm not saying there isn't other wrestling that isn't fake, but WWE is really the only real big organization out there. and it's totally fake.

and for the second time, magic is not comparible here. you don't actually know how the trick is performed, it is kept secret and it baffles the mind. when you see a film it is obviously fiction. when you see sportsmen or boxers, you arnen't suppposed to figure 2 guys are just having a play fight 81.155.246.173 00:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, wrestling is not fake by definition. Yes it's pre determined and the matches in some ways scripted, however, you cannot fake pain. Getting slammed on your back hurts just as much in a "scripted environment" than it does in a "real" environment. Yes, moves are often oversold, but the pain is real. Saying the WWE is all about conning people is over shooting it and is merely typical of somebody who has been morphed by society. Crazycarolina 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary

Is it really necessary to put WWE Headquarters Coordinates on the top of the page?? It doesnt seem neessary to me. Derrty2033 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see any articles on other companies that do it. Coordinates are usually for articles on cities and buildings (like the coordinates for the Sears Tower). TJ Spyke 23:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Current Champions

I wonder if having these in the article are really necessary. Wikipedia is not a news site and only information of a historical value should really be present in an encyclopedia article, especially since championships can change hands on any given day. Not to mention the fact that the specific wrestlers' articles already mention whether or not they are currently champions. Agree? Kyle C Haight 01:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is about WWE, the champions are an integral part of WWE. Other similar articles also list the champions in the article (Ultimate Fighting Championship, World Boxing Council, etc.). I suppose the OVW and DSW champs could possibly be moved to their articles (although they don't bother me on this page). TJ Spyke 01:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, though, I would maintain things like the Royal Rumble, King of the Ring, and Diva Search winners should be eliminated. Kyle C Haight 02:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't have a problem with them being listed here, for encyclopedic reasons, the logical place for it would be the wiki pages on each individual WWE Championships. They are fairly extensive, and lists each Champion, including the current Champion if applicible. Sephiroth storm 05:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WWF Attitude Logo

Just a minor note, but, perhaps this logo should be replaced with just the WWF logo (minus the "attitude" subtitle) since the current caption for it implies that WWE is prohibited from airing the "attitude" subtitle as well, which is not the case (only the "F" portion of the logo can not be aired on television). I have a suitable replacement logo if it is agreed that it should be replaced. Kyle C Haight 22:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The attitude part was used with it often, but I don't think it was officially in the logo. TJ Spyke 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that logo should be on there at all because WWE could probably get sued over it then Wikipedia would be in a heap of trouble!-- Hornetman16 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE isn't allowed to use the logo; nothing's stopping us from using it (assuming we can rightfully claim fair use, which I'm sure we can in this instance). Jeff Silvers 13:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The logo should be there because it relates to the information. WWE can't get sued over something they don't have control over, in this case WikiPedia. And if anybody sues anybody, they'd be dumb, because all you have to do is go out to a store and you'll find something with the WWF Attitude logo, such as games. Crazycarolina 15:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The attitude subtitle is shown on WWE tv. And the pre-attitude logo is shown aswell.And World WildLife Fund can't censore private viewing of WWF logo. And the logo doesn't even have all three letters on it which is stupid.The logo says WF not WWF.World WildLife Fund needs to get a brain because the WWE had been using the letters since 1984. It is BS.

DSW

Just because DSW is no longer affiliated with WWE doesn't mean it deserves no mention that it once was. Should it not be noted in the article how long DSW was a developmental territory, or does that information only belong in the DSW article?--ProtoWolf 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't mention previous WWE developmental feds like Ultimate Pro Wrestling or Heartland Wrestling Association. So precedence says we don't include mention of it. Unless you think we should mention all WWE developmental feds. TJ Spyke 01:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should. Not necessarily a list of past territories, but currently the article lacks any description of how the whole WWE developmental territory system works. Maybe a description could be added somewhere in the "Business Advances" section? Unright 05:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you can source it, go ahead. TJ Spyke 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

2006 Revenue

Just getting an exact number for Revenue in 2006- Total Revenues for 2006 was $415.3 Million- Source: corporate.wwe.com Sephiroth storm 16:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE's Fiscal Year runs from May-April. The amount in the article is their revenue from May 2005-April 2006, WWE will be releasing their info for May 2006-April 2007 on May 11th at their annual stockholders meeting. TJ Spyke 01:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, look forward to working with all of you. Sephiroth storm 04:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE or WWFE?

Here's an interesting question. I noticed quite a while ago that even when using the WWF moniker, when they produced video games such as WWF RAW (possible rereleased as WWE RAW. Confirmed from IGN as being named WWF Raw), in any case, I belive that on the legal writing in many of it's earlier releases, The company claimed the name World Wrestling Federation,ect as property of World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. Can anyone explain this? Sephiroth storm 05:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The WWE article explains this. The company used to be known as the World Wrestling Federation (although the full legal name was World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc.). They got sued by the World Wide Fund For Nature (formely known as the World Wildlife Fund, although they still use that name in some coutnries) because WWF (wrestling one) had violated an agreement the two companies had regarding the use of the "WWF" initials (since the nature company had been using the intials for many more years). The Wildlife fund won the lawsuit, and Vince McMahon changed the name of the company from World Wrestling Federation to World Wrestling Entertainment. All their products had "WWF" references changed to "WWE", this included reprintings of games like WWF RAW. The company could (and can) still use "World Wrestling Federation", but not "WWF". TJ Spyke 05:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

TNA

I was just wondering if you guys should mention TNA in the article. It is worth mentioning that TNA is arguably in a war with WWE. Also, many fans are critisising WWE for its declining quality. Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.253.249 (talk • contribs)

What would you want mentioned specifically? They aren't really any threat yet. Just a few months ago, a taped edition of RAW (when RAW was taped and aired on Thursday because of a freaking dog show) clobbered TNA in the ratings. Last year, the Hall of Fame ceremony beat TNA. I love TNA, but they aren't on the same level yet. TJ Spyke 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think that TNA needs to be mentioned in this article. TNA is not at the moment a threat to WWE's fanbase and there is no need to mention it. Sephiroth storm 03:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Threat or no threat it is a fact that there is a wrestling company that is opposed to the WWE. That's why you should mention it. Whether or not it is really a threat depends on your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.253.249 (talk • contribs)

Under that logic, why not mention Ring of Honor and other indy feds? TJ Spyke 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If it weren't for WWE there would be no TNA!76.110.82.251 14:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Conclusion

It is well-written and informative, but there are practically no sources for any statements. The few sources that do exist aren't necessarily acceptable. None are correctly formatted. Images to not currently meet standards and the wikification of the article needs to be worked on.

Considering the review for promotion to Featured Article that failed, I'm surprised that this article has even been nominated for GA being that the issues brought up in said review have not been addressed.

The current state of this article is no where near Good Article quality. It meets the following Quick-fail criteria:

• 1. A complete lack of reliable sources, see WP:Verifiability.
• 4. The article has been the subject of recent ongoing edit wars.
• 5. The article uses copyrighted images which do not meet Wikipedia's fair use policy.

Regardless, I feel this is an important article and well-written otherwise, therefore I have gone ahead with a full review for the purpose of this article being brought up to standards and eventually renominated.

Comments

Here are some of the issues I noted while reviewing the article:

• WP:MOS states that the use of characters (such as /) should be avoided for headers, as is present in The beginning/Capitol Wrestling.
• WP:MOS Dates and numbers states that all dates should be wikified (first appearance). Stand alone months or days of the week should not. Stand alone years are at the discretion of the writing editor. Currently, this article has poor wikification of dates. Some years are wikified while others aren't. Some month/years are wikified while others aren't. There needs to be consistency with this.
• Good article criteria 2c requires there be no OR. This article is currently riddled with it. All statements must have legitimate, third-party sources.
  • You can't pull the majority of information from the website of the covered topic.
  • Just because you know it to be true does not make it encyclopedic. CITE YOUR SOURCES!
  • PDF files, books, magazines, newpapers, etc., need to have page specifications. This is an issue with Refs 1 and 2.
  • Citation templates should be used for sources, (see WP:CTT). Include all applicable and available information requested in the templates.
• GA criteria 5 requires that the article be stable. The article history shows an issue with edit wars.
• WP:NFCC states that any non-free images (all images inlcuded in this article) must be accompanied by a fair use rationale. I see only one image that meets this criteria.

The biggest task at hand is sources. Whoever wrote this article needs to go back and list their sources using the appropriate template. Feel free to direct and questions of requests for assistance to my talk page. When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed some of the cosmetic problems.

Quotes need to be sourced along with any information that could be challenged and lots of other statements for verification that it's not original research. Third-party sources are necessary. Read into the difference between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Using WWE's corporate website for so much is inappropriate. Reliable, third-party sources are necessary.

Answering the following question would help this article tremendously. For whoever wrote this article: Where did you get all of the information from? --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 14:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing is one of the most difficult aspects of writing pro-wrestling articles here in WIkipedia. The entire industry is based on a long standing tradition of conning the fans. It's not that different from a circus or carnival, it's all just a big ruse, and everyone in on it is bound to secrecy, and those that do talk via alternate conduits, ie: Dave Meltzer, Dave Scherer, etc. can never be definitively named or sourced because then they'd be blackballed for breaking the "code". It's all just a big magic show, they only let you know what and as much as they want you to know, and even then there's no way to confirm that it's the truth. Many people attempt to point to WWE as the only truely reliable source when it comes to their business, but then how do you distinguish what is real and what is simply part of the show? As a publicly traded company, WWE is bound to revel at least a bit of insight into their business, but the majority of that information relates to financial matters, which is not really the point of the article, and even then it would only help with regards to post-1999 when the company went public. I suppose the point of this diatribe is that, as far as professional wrestling is concerned, you simply aren't ever going to find reliable sources to cite, it's just the nature of the business.Spman 06:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Taking that into consideration, I don't know what potential this article has to make GA. My best recommendation is to address the other concerns and possibly request a peer review. That should give you valuable feedback and, possibly, a solution to the citation issues. I suppose that in addition to the wrestlers being forbidden to speak of many things, events and details of them are copyrighted preventing other sources from documenting them, is that correct? --LaraLove^Talk/_Contribs 03:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't say it's an issue of copyrights and trade secrets in the same vein as say Scientology, it's more of a number of other different factors such as:

1. Egos- The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the people involved in professional wrestling are very egotistical, and most of the time, chose to remember things not as how they happened, but as how they wanted them to happen. Thus they convince themselves that key facts in their past as a wrestler occurred differently they how they really did. The best example I can give of this is Hulk Hogans "Autobiography" which may as well be classified as fiction.

2. Revisionist History- Professional Wrestling as a whole has a long standing history of conveniently forgetting it's past, or even completely rewriting it for situational convenience. By 2001, Vince McMahon essentially owned Professional Wrestling in the United States, not just literally, but figuratively as well, and as the expression goes, history is written by the winners. What complicates this even further is the fact that wrestling also has a poor track record of keeping historical data. Vital information about gates, attendances, even match results have long been lost to history and are only vaguely remembered by those who experienced them.

and 3. The fact alone that many wrestlers stay active in the profession until they are well past the age of retirement, and then often times remain in management positions practically until death. Thus, they have an incentive not to talk or reveal the truth about themselves or their profession, their job security depends on it.Spman 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

tell wrestler if he/she is heel or face under thier name

their shuld be in the bio box a place where it says wat wrestlers are either heel or face PLEAZE!!!!!!!!RESPOND —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nosaints4life (talk • contribs) 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

That kind of info changes a lot. Also, many wrestlers are tweeners (meaning sorta both heel and face). TJ Spyke 21:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea but that wuld really bring more attention to wrestlers bios and being either a heel or face is part of a wrestlers career and WWE's storylines and buisness. Plus if they are tweeners then put neutral or tweener until known what the wrestler really is.PLEZE RESPONDNosaints4life 23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea was brought up at WP:PW before and the idea was shot down. That is really the place to suggest this kind of thing anyways since it would affect more than just WWE wrestlers. TJ Spyke 00:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

So u think it wuld be a possibility to add that???PLEASE RESPOND THANK UNosaints4life 01:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. Emilos 05:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)emilos

Very bad idea. Apart from the fact that that info only represents their character, not themselves in reality, it changes quite a bit and doesn't add anything to the articles. Pointless. Smoothy 11:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

ok then we would put in the bio box

Character:(Heel or Face)Nosaints4life 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Urgh, no don't do it. How do you measure whether or not someone is a heel or a face?

Money In The Bank

Just wondering for the infro box with the accomplishments in, is the Money in The Bank section in referance to who holds the contract currently or who won the actualy Money in The Bank Ladder Match? I was just asking becuase of Edge beating Mr. Kennedy for the briefcase on RAW last night and was unsure whether to change it or not. 195.92.168.164 12:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

MITB is a contract, and Edge won that contract. So I would say that whoever currently has the contract (or had it once they cash it in) should be listed. TJ Spyke 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble?

Did I miss something here? Edge is listed as the Royal Rumble winner... which is something he is not. Problem fixed 204.62.140.201 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)G

Nosaints4life 14:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

WWE energy drink

WWE are planning to launch a energy drink does this belong on the article. Bencey 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your source? TJ Spyke 23:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Source Bencey 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Who cares about the source. And the drink has already been out.

WWE ONLINE ARTICE

can i add a articel that explains about the WWE.com online feature such as webcasts,power 25, list this, etc.Nosaints4life 18:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Corporate structure (official ownership of WCW and ECW)

This[2] is a press release by World Wrestling Entertainment in May 2005 regarding the expansion of WWE 24/7. Of particular interest at the bottom of the release is this trademark notice:

The names of all World Wrestling Entertainment televised and live programming, talent names, images, likenesses, slogans and wrestling moves and all World Wrestling Entertainment logos are trademarks which are the exclusive property of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. The names of all ECW and AWA programming, talent, images, likenesses, and logos, are the exclusive property of WWE Libraries, Inc. The names of all WCW programming, talent, images, likenesses, and logos, are the exclusive property of WCW, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

Apparently WWE still maintains a separate subsidiary (if it can be called that) called WCW, Inc. It also appears they have a separate entity, WWE Libraries, Inc., set up to handle their classic wrestling properties (including Extreme Championship Wrestling). Since this article does focus quite a bit on WWE as a corporation and not just a wrestling promotion, it would probably be beneficial for us to do a bit of research and see if we can't find some more references to these two entities (WCW, Inc. and WWE Libraries, Inc.). Of course, we can't perform any original research, but I'm sure a combing of corporate.wwe.com would yield something. Jeff Silvers 01:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

After a quick Googling, I found this[3]. It's a Form 10-K on WWE which includes, among other things, a mention of WCW, Inc. and WWE Library, Inc., as "wholly owned subsidiaries" of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Both are listed as being headquartered in Delaware. On another note, WWE seems to have created separate entities to handle the productions of The Marine (Marine Productions and Marine Productions Australia Pty Ltd), The Condemned (Condemned Productions , Inc., and Condemned Productions Australia Pty Ltd), and See No Evil (Eye Scream Productions, Inc., and Eye Scream Man Productions Australia Pty Ltd). Anyway, I'm not sure if the WCW, Inc. information would be super-relevant here, though it could probably be included in the World Championship Wrestling article. The WWE Library, Inc., info would be useful in WWE Video Library. Jeff Silvers 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

VINCE?

Anyone here on WWE.COM that Vince is dead.

We at Wikinews believe that it is a publicity stunt by the WWE, and thus have deleted the article we had on his death. I do not feel that it is mentionable here on Wikipedia. Terinjokes 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well thank for for being Judge, Jury and Executioner on everything here on Wikipedia. I'll sleep more soundly tonight knowing we have people like you running things here... ANYWAY... Since this is making significants rounds on various news sites, etc. I feel that the "Death" of Mr. McMahon does warrent at least a mention. But then again, who am I? A MOD? Nope... so what they say, goes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.90.178 (talk • contribs)

I don't think such a tasteless angle needs to be mentioned. If anything is mentioned, it should be made clear that it's just the McMahon character that is presumed (presumed, wwe.com is saying that and not saying he actually is) dead and not Vince McMahon the person. Lrrr IV 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's taste is irrelevent surely? it should't be mentioned on this page, but the angle should definaely be mentioned on Vince's page. It's also going to be one of the biggest angles in the history of the business and in future may even warrant it's own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.16.174 (talk • contribs)

"It's also going to be one of the biggest angles in the history of the business" Good god NO! -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it would warrant it's own page (very few angles have their own page). Saying it will be one of the biggest angles is pure crysta balling (see WP:CRYSTAL) and not allowed, it would also make the big wrestling fan inside of me cry if this became a big angle. I think most people realized within minutes that this will get into the WrestleCrap Hall of Fame, right up there with a drunken Road Warrior Hawk falling off of the TitanTron and Triple H (in a Kane mask) raping a mannequin. Lrrr IV 04:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL please don't tell me you actually think he is dead? o.O - watch the clip on wwe.com - you can see him get out of the frickin car if you look closly under the door. its clearly the plot to get Mr McMahann's mind back... ZLiang 21:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't anyone watched wrestling lately Vince isn't dead. If you did believe it, the WWE got you big TIME. And when they first showed the car explosion I knew it was fake. If it were a real explosion, the car would be in pieces.76.110.82.251 23:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Who's in charge?

What if either The McMahon Siblings(Shane & Stephanie), Linda McMahon, Jonathan Coachman, Theodore Long, Eric Bischoff, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Ric Flair, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Roddy Piper or Mick Foley could be in line to be the boss?, I dont know who it is yet.12.127.178.158 20:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In real life or storyline? Storyline, any of the McMahons. In real life, Linda is the CEO, Stephanie is head of creative, and they have a board of directors. Of coarse, Vince is still alive so it doesn't matter. TJ Spyke 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Supplemental Draft: no reasoning for the delay???

The storyline talks about the 2nd part of the draft being delayed because of the Vince McMahon death angle. It MUST be added on, at least as a minor edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWikiVigilante (talk • contribs)

Why would it be mentioned here? TJ Spyke 22:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Cause it's how it happened!!!Duh.-- Hornetman16 03:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but the real reason why the supplemental draft was delayed was because SmackDown and ECW are taped on Tuesday and the Supplemental Draft was supposed to take place on Wednesday. Thus, some wrestlers would appear on SmackDown or ECW when they had already been drafted to another brand. Also, the Smackdown commentators would not have any knowledge of the supplemental draft (unless they had already made the decision earlier who was going where) and thus wouldn't have commented on the draft which had already happened by the time the show aired. Apparently, the WWE didn't have everything figured out when they did the whole the supplemental draft, which is why it was moved to Sunday. THX-1138 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible, but all speculation. Besides, SD commentators have made comments about things that WWE announced on Wednesday and Thursday (meaning they knew ahead). I'm sure WWE decided ahead of time who they were moving where. It's a nice theory though, and I don't think you are suggesting we mention that. TJ Spyke 04:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading that on 1wrestling.com although I can't find the article right now. THX-1138 05:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Beck,"federal agent" guy

Is Daniel Beck a real "federal agent" or he is just some paid actor guy following a script like that "Who Shot J.R." crap.

Hes fake, i highly doubt that the FBI or any federal agency would allow an agent on national televisionGregman1 06:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WWF items removed on WWE dvds

I was watching Wrestlemania IV and when the ring announcer said its for ___ championship. Is that suppose to happen or its when WWE got sued by the World Wildlife Fund. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.209.209 (talk • contribs)

Yes. WWE can't use the scratch logo (the logo they used during the Attitude era), nor can they say the "WWF" initials. So they either say "WW-" (blanking the "F") or just blank out all 3 initials. It's all because they got sued by the World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund, although they still use that name in some countries). TJ Spyke 00:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are occasional slip-ups, though. On the Bret Hart DVD on the SummerSlam 1991 match against Mr. Perfect, the on-screen graphic after he wins the title still says "WWF Intercontinental Champion." I'm pretty sure they can't even show the initials on-screen since on the WrestleMania VIII DVD, they had to blur out a sign that said "Heenan for new WWF President." Kyle C Haight 11:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, anything from WWE can't use the WWF initials at all. This includes fan signs. I wouldn't be surprised if later printings of the Bret Hart DVD fixed the slip-up. Makes me wish they would just work out a deal with the nature fund and pay a one time fee, it would save them time and money from having to censor anything since they put out so many DVDs. TJ Spyke 23:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, WWE originally wanted to appeal to the court order which would allow them to retain use of the "WWF Attitude" logo while still operating as "World Wrestling Entertainment", however, that was a couple of years ago and nothing seems to have come of it as of yet (court cases can take years of litigation after all). Just to clarify as well, only the "WWF" initials are banned; the company can still refer to itself (and has on several recent occasions) as the "World Wrestling Federation." "WWFE", which was its name from 1999 through 2002 on the NYSE, is also still acceptable. Maybe some more of this should be incorporated into the article? Kyle C Haight 04:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On My DVD's it's always says the initial if they are spoken but alway blocks out the Attitude Era logo.-- Hornetman16 03:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You must live in Europe. Here in North America, they can't use the initials either. TJ Spyke 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tex Rickard

How could Tex Rickard have "prevented wrestling events from being held at Madison Square Garden between 1939 and 1948" if he died in 1929 (as stated in the Wikipedia article on him)?

This needs either a correction or an explanation.

67.101.57.171 17:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)J. 6-27-2007

WWF

[removed comment from banned editor] Sancho 16:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you should really read the article regardless, but if you can't be bothered, scroll up this page as there is already a section about why WWF changed to WWE above. Smoothy 12:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

International Offices

As far as I know, New York and California are not international cities, therefore the text should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puerto.rico (talk • contribs)

Obviously no one corrected that California and NYC are not international, so I did. I think it's logically, gramatically and informatively correct.Puerto.rico 14:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture of headquarters

World Wrestling Entertainment headquarters, Stamford, Connecticut

I just took this picture of the WWE headquarters in Stamford, Connecticut. I didn't want to use my regular user name for my pictures, and Wikipedia isn't allowing edits to this article from new users (I assume that's the restriction, anyway), so if anybody would like to add it to the page, here it is. I thought it would be especially appropriate in the section on company officers, but it doesn't much matter to me. There's nothing special about this picture, so if anybody else wants to replace it with a better one, I wouldn't be offended. Unfortunately, today wasn't windy enough to get the big black piratical flag waving in the breeze. One day I may replace this, myself. Picabu 21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

DCW or OVW

DCW has just opended but how can OVW a developmental program open another developmental program. But is it apart of WWE it's stupid because WWE has not mentioned DCW so how can OVW open DCW without WWE's promission because OVW is WWE but DCW is not. If someone has answers to this reply. Darius 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Article vandalised, but I can't fix it

The intro was changed two days ago to contain the nonsensical (and inaccurate) text "the simulated sport combining original wrestling that what happens back in the locker room and in the ring is real and not staged". I tried to revert it to the correct version, but it seems the page is semi-protected, and I'm hardly going to create an account and come back in four days just to revert a vandal. So, if anyone cares about this article, maybe they could fix it instead.

Championship section

I'm not sure if this subject has already come up, but it is really neccessary to have a separtate "date won" column and a separate "date aired" column. I mean, there's only two championships with a date won-date aired difference, and that's the World Heavyweight Championship and the WWE Tag Team Championships. Is it possible to just merge the two columns into just "date won", and just add the extra note next to the date if neccessary. (example: World Heavyweight Championship ... May 11, 2007 (taped May 8, 2007) ) I'm just putting the question out there. MITB LS 20:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE Talent Wellness Policy

Should there be a section on the drug policy or do you think it warrents it's own article?

Just a question.

The NFL & MLB pages have steroid policy sections, while the NHL & NBA pages do not. I don't see a problem adding one here.Jeebas62 05:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd add it, but I'm new and I'm not allowed to. If someone else could do it, that would be great. Michaelthemoore 20:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No mention of dead wrestlers/steriods?!

I am hardly an authority on the issue, but just as a lay person, I know that the issue of dead WWF/WWE wrestlers due to steriods is a big topic, and it is only going to get bigger. From what I can tell WP does not have any one page deciated to the topic. Worse yet, it's not even mentioned on this page! ~GJK 7/22/07

True, this is currently a hot topic. If a dead wrestlers section were to be added to the WWE page, I feel it should only include wrestlers who died while they still actively wrestled with WWE, in order to remain encyclopedic. That being said, only 3 wrestlers come to mind: Owen Heart, Eddie Guerrero, & Chris Benoit. U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns from Flordia, who recently called for Congress to investigate steroid allegations in professional wrestling, claims that between 1985 and 2006, 89 wrestlers have died before the age of 50. Active WWE wrestlers account for just over 3% of that total(assuming there are only 3), so I feel a dead wrestlers section would not be warranted at this point. However, I could understand adding one to the professional wrestling page.Jeebas62 05:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Owen Hart's death had nothing to do with steroids. Eddie Guerrero's was because of substance abuse which included a lot of other drugs. Benoit's was by suicide. So we shouldn't go overboard on steroids being a major cause of death. An article on it would cause a lot of problems with facts and so on. Justa Punk 23:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There have stll been a number of other wrestlers who used steroids, and some who died from them. It is a joke that this article turns a blind eye to it.Hoponpop69 03:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cos it's got nothing to do with WWE apart from the fact that it was wrestlers who were wrestling for WWE at the time? Look to that person's article for info, not WWE. Smoothy 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeebas62 is right, there is not enough material for an entire section on "dead wrestlers due to steroids". However, the WWE article is clearly incomplete. There needs to be at least one section titled "WWE controversies", or something along those lines. In addition to Hart, Guerrero, and Benoit, there have been plenty of other controversies, which were not always as well-documented. For instance, these wrestlers passed away at very young ages, from heart attacks and other possibly drug-related causes: "The British Bulldog" Davey Boy Smith, "Yokozuna", Andre the Giant, "Hawk", and most recently a wrestler named "Crush" (cause of death not yet disclosed). Curt Hennig, AKA "Mr Perfect" had cocaine and steroids in his system at his time of death. It is also widely known that a former star, Jimmy Snuka, had a long history of drug abuse and domestic violence. Chris Benoit had a history of violence, even before his final "episode". "Stone Cold" Steve Austin also has a well-documented history of domestic violence. It is not hard to find plenty of other examples (there have been entire books published on this topic). I could have provided links, but I didn't because this is only a talk page. Anyway the point is, the main WWE page NEEDS to have a "controversy/drug/violence/death" section, or else it will continue to be woefully incomplete. -fishonmyplane (8/13/07)

Yes but unless there are reliable sources that can attribute these controversies to WWE directly, it doesn't belong in this article. For example, you mention Crush, Mr Perfect, Jimmy Snuka, (especially) Stone Cold, etc. and none of their controversies (drugs, wife-beating, etc.) can be attibuted to WWE directly any more than a drugs taker or a wife-beater in IBM (for example) can be attributed to IBM directly. If these controversies was as a result of whatever WWE had done (with proper sources to back it up), then yes, but otherwise keep it out of this article and put it on the subject's own articles. Smoothy 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe these controveries can't be directly attributed to the WWE, but that isn't necessarily the point. These sorts of things seem to happen a lot more often among WWE wrestlers than they happen among IBM employees, and I don't think it's a coincidence. Plus, a lot of these people are well-known celebrities, so I think these issues are certainly worth mentioning in the article. fishonmyplane 8/14/07

History Section Large

The history section, particularly the older stuff, seems to be kind of large even though we have a separate article for the History of WWE. We shouldn't need to go through all that detail on two pages. I say we condense this one down. DrWarpMind 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How in the Wikipedian World?

Why did someone take all the past and the current WWE logo, and put them all as the current logo in the information section?

Good News: I returned the original logo

Bad News: All the logos minus the current logo; representing the different eras in WWE History are gone TonyWWE 00:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC) TonyWWE

Ratings

I have been unable to locate the page which had the scale of viewers watching WWE. Have their ratings been hurting? 207.69.137.24 16:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalisim

I read on this page that someone stole a users password to create an absolutely stupid page about a 5 month old wrestler who got booted in the face by Hulk Hogan. Could some delete it? The link is here. It is serious vandalisim.202.150.120.173 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Someone stole my password and made a stupid page. Will I get band?Socks 01 15:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They have been restored. I understand why they were put all together but I think it's more important to have them in context and with their own captions. If anyone disagrees, let's have the discussion here first, rather than just reverting. DrWarpMind 02:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)