Talk:WWE

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

It said on the news that no names have been officially released by the WWE,there is nothing about any names on WWE.com, and The Sun is shit, so delete them please. 24.139.31.210 22:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

i went ahead and delated them MATT 00:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Some WWE big time Superstars like Mr. Kennedy and the recently absent King Booker did get suspended for the believe of them recieving HGH and other Anogolic Steriods. King Booker and Queen Sharmell both quit because Booker thought it was not right that he got suspended for 60 days for a first offence, when the first offence is only 30 days. gameplaya 9:36 18 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.104.92 (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I care where you read them, but what is the point of posting those rumors here? TJ Spyke 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE PPV

//93633665555212256464649798797897894745645477Can someone add WWe armageddon to "former PPV" in the ppv template, i am unable to.TrUcO9308 00:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? Who said it was a former pay per view? As far as I know it's taking place in December as usual (December 16) Justa Punk 01:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No because WWE doesnt have it on their schedule, go their schedule website under live events, and you will no see Armageddon under Dec. 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truko9308 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We should wait until the time comes that the PPV isn't happening. There's no use in speculating whether it will or won't happen. Virakhvar321 06:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The WWE website has a habit of not announcing events (apart from Wrestlemania) very far in advance. The most common cut off is actually the Survivor Series (the event directly before Armageddon) Justa Punk 09:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed at the Armageddon talk page. The Hybrid 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a former PPV, even though some alreadys "knows" when it will be held and on what date. Also, it listed under former PPV'S, even though if you click on Armageddon, at the bottom of the page it is NOT listed as a former PPV.76.110.82.251 01:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE sitill has Armageddon. They've already scheduled matches.--208.1.24.218 (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This section is several months old. At the time WWE had remove mentions of Armageddon. See the Armageddon talk page for more info. TJ Spyke 00:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Federal Investigation

Shouldn't the federal investigation of WWE be on the article?

This is no week by week thing and it isn't about wrestling, it's about the government taking charge over WWE territory. (wellness program) AD Double J 21:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chairman?

Is there a person of higher power than the Chairman? I heard V.K.M. woring about "The Board" leaving me to wonder "We are missing things!" So is V.K.M. is highest power or is there more to it?--Offensive username removed 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this, their list of Board members with some details: http://corporate.wwe.com/governance/board.jsp Cheers, --Naha|^(talk) 05:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

T. Long?

Okay is this a storyline or the guy really had a heart attack ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.48.238 (talk)

Storyline. The Hybrid 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention worst on-screen fake heart attack ever seen. --Kaizer13 14:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

How no-one pointed out during rehearsals (do they have them?) that you don't faint when you have a heart attack is beyond me. The worst ending to an otherwise perfect promo.Tony2Times 03:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No they don't rehearse, because they should know what they're doing just on instruction. Or that's the theory anyway. Anyone want to bet the bad acting is the real reason why Vickie Guerrero appears to be the permanent GM of Smackdown now? !! Justa Punk !! 09:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

vadlism

please stop letting people mess up the WWE page --WALICE111 21:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't help it if someone messes up the page or not. 76.110.82.251 21:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

please stop letting people spell awfully.. i mean vadlism.. 142.162.168.77 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)-- wishing people would get a fucking clue

You do realize you spelled Vandalism wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.250.169 (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hornswoggle

he is not the cuewight champ as on smackdown he vacted it i just watched it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't aired in America yet, so don't insert spoilers please. The Hybrid 00:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

im in Austraila i watched it yesterday — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) Fine, I will revert it as unsourced info if you change it again. It is a spoiler to all Americans, and will be for a couple more hours. The Hybrid 00:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The agreed standard of WP:PW is to use when it is first aired in the United Stated since that is also how WWE handles it. Based on the spoilers I read (in my damn area, SD won't air until tomorrow night because of a damn Yankees game), the Hornswoggle situation won't happen until about halfway into tonights show (someone in an area where SD isn't delayed for a f*cking baseball game will know for sure). TJ Spyke 00:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks so when will it be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs)

Oh, a rough estimate would be around 3 hours, give or take a half-hour or so. Cheers, The Hybrid 00:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

who just changed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs)

You did, and you know it. The Hybrid 00:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

back to that Horswooghle is champ he is not i watched smackdown on Friday in Austraila even my brother sore it

You're brother isn't a source, now is he? We will say Hornswoggle is champ in 3 hours; you can wait until then. The Hybrid 00:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

how can i get a sourse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs)

The only way to answer that question is to say "look for one", but that isn't really helpful. Dude, just wait 3 hours. It isn't that big of a deal. The Hybrid 00:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to Hornswoggle. Just be patient, when it airs here in America someone will change it. This has always been the standard here, we wait until it airs in the United States or is stated on wwe.com (like WWE did when Kurt Angle and Edge won the titles on SmackDown). Also, please sign your comments. TJ Spyke 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

my sourse http://www.wrestlezone.com/article.php?articleid=192780177 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs)

Let me see if that passes wiki standards. Don't add it yet. The Hybrid 00:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

so has it

I asked someone who would know better than I would. Give him a few minutes to reply. In the mean time, how about you tell me why you care so much. The Hybrid 00:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

well its coz i have just watched it 12 hours ago and im trying to update wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It will be updated in 3 hours anyway. Why is it worth spoiling it for the American viewers? That seems quite selfish. The Hybrid 00:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

so coz it has not happened in the US i cant add it that bull anyway i get RAW on a 1 day delay and so when eva a titles changes i find out here and give it a way but when it happens to u u cry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

America has way more viewers than in Australia, and the vast majority of users on this Wiki are American and European. It is a population thing. The Hybrid 01:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well i have a qeustion for u has it hapened --Jhauth11 01:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)jhauth112

If you mean have I gotten the yes or no on the source, then yes I have. That source fails WP:RS. It is just a dirtsheet, The Hybrid 01:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

has the event happend already where he gives up the belt

It doesn't matter; on Wikipedia verifiability is more important than the truth. That's policy The Hybrid 01:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

this is rubbish that something that has happened cant be reported till u america c it that bull —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC) just fix it NOW

Find a reliable source The Hybrid 01:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

HOW I HAVE GIVEN U 1 ALL READY, AND I HAVE WATCHED IT WITH MY 2 EYES —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The agreed standard of WP:PW is to use when it is first aired in the United Stated since that is also how WWE handles it. Also, the source you provided wasn't reliable. The Hybrid 01:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Y do i have to wait for u guys to watch for someone to change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the WWE won't confirm it until we watch it. The Hybrid 01:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

here is a sourse http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/2007_/articles/1190779871.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC) is it good--Jhauth11 01:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)jhauth11

Sigh, you still don't get it, do you? We all know what will happen becuase SmackDown was taped 3 days ago and spoilers are online the same night. THE POLICY OF WP:PW IS TO WAIT FOR IT TO AIR IN THE US OR ON WWE.COM BEFORE ADDING IT, THIS APPLIES TO ALL WWE/TNA/ROH EVENTS. TJ Spyke 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me check The Hybrid 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

so is it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhauth11 (talk • contribs)

Have patience The Hybrid 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

so how good is it

It fails miserably. Now, I will copy TJ's response to the bottom here for you to read since you ignored it before. The Hybrid 01:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, you still don't get it, do you? We all know what will happen becuase SmackDown was taped 3 days ago and spoilers are online the same night. THE POLICY OF WP:PW IS TO WAIT FOR IT TO AIR IN THE US OR ON WWE.COM BEFORE ADDING IT, THIS APPLIES TO ALL WWE/TNA/ROH EVENTS. TJ Spyke 01:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue is over (at least this week) since SmackDown is almost over here in the eastern US (it's 9:57 PM ET). TJ Spyke 01:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok SmackDown! has aired, the information has been written into the article, this conversation is CLOSED--TrUcO9311 02:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

he has a point posted by aldin19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldin19 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

origial wwf logo

What happend to to the WWF logos.Hardcore Hak 00:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Hardcore Hak

They were deleted. If somebody has them, they can upload them again (just follow WP:IMAGE to make sure they don't get deleted again. TJ Spyke 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

When were they deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.223.219 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You can see for yourself by checking the history of the page (when on the WWE article, click the "History" tab at the top). It looks like they were deleted on October 2/3. TJ Spyke 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Surely they can be restored? Who deleted them and why? !! Justa Punk !! 21:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I just said how people can check. Here are the pictures that were deleted (go to the articles to see who deleted them and why): File:WWELogo 94-98.png, WWELogo 84-94.png. TJ Spyke 22:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

When was the WWF logo of what the WWE logo is now created and when was it official? Johnluisocasio (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the page here, WrestleMania XIV used it on the show (although the company logo was still the old school one). The company fully switched to the scratch logo before Unforgiven 1998 a few weeks later, although i'm not sure when they did it to be exact. TJ Spyke 22:15, 255454546464646465646465464646464654646464646828284682828585466488696332117886

I see. But how come it showed it on the lower left of the screen while watching RAW is WAR or a PPV. Someone told me that he saw it during the 1998 Royal Rumble despite its ring banners had the "New Generation" version logo. Johnluisocasio (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Names

Since I can't do it, could someone else revert back to the correct names of the company? The company is not called "WWE Inc.", it's "World Wrestling Entertainment Inc.", etc. TJ Spyke 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Company history

My last edit is the correct situation. The CWC, then WWWF, then WWF (originally) in a business sense no longer exists. Vince McMahon Senior sold this lineage to the already established Titan Sports, established by Vince McMahon Junior. It was a takeover and there was no flow on. I think that was established earlier in the article anyway wasn't it? !! Justa Punk !! 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. And you are wrong, in fact they even use all belt(title) histories of the former leagues.Aladdin Zane 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not wrong - and please don't use on screen matters as proof of a seperate business issue. They have nothing to do with each other, especially in this instance. !! Justa Punk !! 09:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And I just double checked. Yes it was a takeover. Refer to the first sentence here for the proof. Titan Sports existed before the takeover (formed in 1980 and operating seperately to the WWF until 1982). !! Justa Punk !! 09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have watched the Tuesday, March 18, 2008 episode of "ECW" on SciFi and/or the Friday, March 21, 2008 episode of "Friday Night SmackDown!" on The CW, the next wrestler to be inducted into the "WWE Hall of Fame" is Eddie Graham. On the video the announcer said that Eddie Graham worked for Mr. McMahon's father when the company's name was CWC. From what I understand the company name was CWC, then WWWF, then WWF and then finally WWE. How come WWWF, WWF, and WWE are listed in the article but not CWC? Gibsonj338 (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is look at the first topic called Capitol Wrestling S-PAC54 23:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Page size

Something I should mention to any admins reading this - the size of this article is 37 KB. Should we prune it? And if so how? !! Justa Punk !! 07:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I might have missed it when I just read but...

I didn't see anything about the WWE going to Iraq to entertain the troops. If I missed it my apologies but if I didn't, shouldn't this be included in the article? --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"as fans were tired of Hulk Hogan's ability to beat anyone and everyone whenever he wanted"

This could use a cite. Without it this looks like original research.Originalname37 17:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introductions seems too long and specific, especially the last three paragraphs. Those paragraphs don't really need to be in the introduction. Notorious4life 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Tag Team Team Match

Can Someone Add Cade & Murdoch (c) VS Hardcore Holly And Cody Rhodes For the World Tag Team Championships On The Survivor Series Page It's On WWE.Com The — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.98.180 (talk • contribs) Never Mind Its Already There — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.98.180 (talk • contribs)

Heh, seems like I gotta buy a license to see said video. Thanks for telling me though, even though this isn't really the time or place to discuss this. ---- Kaizer13 (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's also not the page to mention it. You would have to mention that on the Survivor Series 2007 talk page. TJ Spyke 20:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE logo 2

Would it be okay if I just took this logo and put it into paint then put it in the artical?--Hardcore Hak (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

new template at bottom of main page

on the template for the wwe, there is no link to the wwe alumni page or a link to the current roster of wrestlers. shouldnt those pages be linked like they were on the old template?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Talent Exchange Relationship

how come the ECW & Smackdown brands are involved in the talent exchange except for the RAW Brand?68.188.126.78 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Smackdown is taped the same night and the same venue as ECW is presented live. Raw is presented on a different night and a different venue. !! Justa Punk !! 20:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a mention of the new WWE HD programming???

I do think WWE HD should be mentioned in the article, can we get some opinions on this in here??? We can all cooperate on wether to put the mention of WWE HD in and how we should word it if we decide to put a mention to it.

Also, this article should be an article of the day. It is a great article, built well and is very informal. It was also very easy to read. I am proud of the Wiki people who edited this page to make it the way it is now. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I will work something about HD into it. The article can't be a TFA (Today's Featured Article) until it reaches FA status first. See WP:FA for more info, and consider bringing it up at WP:PW. TJ Spyke 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just read your addition, you did very well on the wording. I'm adding a nomination for this artilce now. Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominating this page for FA

Fresh Prince Carlton (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This article will never be a featured articles since non-WWE references are almost impossible to find, given the secretive nature of the Professional Wrestling business.Spman (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OVW

What happened to OVW?68.188.126.78 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE severed all ties with them, so they were removed from this article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE Cruiserweight Championship

The Title is no more so why is it still on the page Supermike(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE has taken no stance on the title, and still lists it as vacant on their site. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah so they also have the hardcore title and all of WCW and ECW former titles on their and they are not listed so why should a title that havent been seen for 8 months be on here Use common sense dude the title gone Supermike(talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/

Current titles are grouped above the gray line. Abandoned/retired titles below the line. The title is vacant, not defunct. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter the title is no longer in use there for it should not be on the active title list Supermike(talk) 21:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE still considers it a active title, so it yes it should be on the active title list. TJ Spyke 01:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see where Mike is comin' from but I however have to agree with TJ. WWE hasn't said anything on tv, their website, nor issued a statement sayings as it's bein' abandonded. After all, if they abandon it, what's the point in keepin' the Cruiserweight's around? --Crash Underride 02:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comedy relief. ArcAngel (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So How long will he keep it on here Supermike(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Until WWE declares the title defunct by moving it below the gray line. Until then, it stays. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

They already have that now its vacant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 

Vacant and Defunct are not the same. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you go to WWE home page the title is Gone Supermike(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We know. That was only changed about a week ago. The articles have been edited accordingly. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Event Results Pre-Determined or Not?

In this edit, TJ Spyke says of the word storyline, "That says nothing about the matches being pre-determined". Question: Are WWE events pre-determined or not? Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

All I meant was that the source does not mention it being predetermined, you can't take a source and then write something completely different. Since the source doesn't say predetermined, you can't say they did. I don't see the relevance of the paragraph at all though. TJ Spyke 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you agree the victor in every bout is predetermined. And you agree WWE admits that their business model is based upon storylines. Is a storyline anything more than a euphemism for the victors being predetermined? To me, storyline = scripted = predetermined victors. What other conclusion do you draw? You ask about relevance, so I'll tell you. Here you can see that just today I reverted WrestleMania results in the following articles: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007. If WrestleMania results are predetermined, then the victors don't deserve mention in Wikipedia calendar year articles. Their rigged victories are the result of nothing more than predetermined WWE storylines, not the result of their athletic skills in a true contest. When I looked on the WWE website for some type of fine-print disclaimer like "Our bouts are athletic demonstrations, not actual athletic contests", I found nothing of the sort, only the euphemism "storyline" that I cited. I didn't have time to search Wikipedia articles on WrestleMania or World Wrestling Entertainment for an indication that all the victors in bouts are predetermined. If it's clearly stated somewhere else, then please advise, and I'll retract my paragraph. But for a Wikipedia article on highly popular athletic events to never even mention that they are all rigged from the outset, to me that's unacceptably ignoring the elephant in the room. --Art Smart (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Storyline does not alway mean scripted. They come up with storylines for American Gladiators and similar type competitions. Also, professional wrestling already covers wrestling being fake, how is any of that relevent in an article about WWE specifically though? It's not unique to them, and there are hundreds of wrestling organizations. TJ Spyke 02:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you are right that professional wrestling covers the fact that all such events have rigged outcomes. I'll refer to that article the next time I see (and revert) professional wrestling results in Wikipedia calendar year articles. Matter settled. I'll retract my WWE paragraph. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. I thought in the year 2008 we would all know that wrestling has pre-determined results. But that doesn't mean every match is scripted. There are some wrestlers who can call their own shots and wrestle on the fly with no script only knowing who will win the match. And then there have been some wrestlers who have changed their own results in the ring. One notable example I can think of is Andre the Giant winning a match against the Ultimate Warrior because he got pissed in the ring at Warrior. So just because there is scripting doesn't mean that the results are guaranteed to go that way 100% of the time. Now as far as notability on a wiki claendar depends on the guidelines for the page. Is there a guideline that says athletic events with pre-determined results can't be submitted? Or is this your opinion? I personally don't like McMahon and his style of wrestling but that doesn't mean these events are not popular and don't deserve notable mention. To some people an event like Wrestlemania is bigger then the Superbowl. They have big parties and invite a huge group over to celebrate the event and get into it just like the Superbowl, I know because I've been to friend's houses who treat it as such. Alright I'm done decide what you will but do with knowing some of the facts before deciding.OfficialDoughboy (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Vince Mcmahon has admitted that wrestling isn't real and the results are pre-determined, he just doesn't like rubbing it in the fan's noses. --Leo Macintosh (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Leomacintosh--Leo Macintosh (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WWE Kids

Variety March 23- The company has started to aggressively court the youth set with the launch of WWE Kids magazine, as well as plans to create original programming for the demo on its main website and new WWEKids.com destination. A TV series could follow. Should we include this in Expansion beyond wrestling? I mean, it isn't offical yet but still... Meepboy (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

We won't until it's official, but even then, I don't know if we should include it. –Cheers, LAX 20:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for my sake I hope it doesn't happen heh. Meepboy (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WWE globalization

I suggest making an section about WWE's international expansion, it has played a huge role in WWE's current success. Stuff like the international tours, the new offices they have in London, Shanghai, Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Toronto and Sydney. Hers some links for sourcing:

http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2008/2008_01_02.jsp http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_09_26.jsp http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/3QF2007pressrelease.pdf 67.168.207.218 (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Publicly Traded/Privately Run

In the article it states that the WWE is publicly traded/privately run, To that I say HUH? How can a publicly traded company be privately run since it's a public company? I would think that Vince McMahon and his employees are beholden to the Board of Directors and shareholders therefore I doubt that its privately run. Can we please change this? Simon Bar Sinister (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I missed this. Of course it can be privately run! As I understand it, the majority shareholders are the McMahons and they run things their way as is their right. The minority shareholders hold those shares in that knowledge, and they know if the stocks go down the McMahons are just as affected as they are. There's nothing wrong with that paragraph. !! Justa Punk !! 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not uncommon. Take Nintendo for example. They are a publically traded company (on Japan's Nikkei stock market), but the company owns most of the stock themselves and thus are privately run. TJ Spyke 17:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wellness Program

"The program has fallen under intense scrutiny from branches of the media and professionals in the field of doping,[who?] who claim that not only has WWE overlooked, if not, encouraged steroid use prior to these pharmacy busts, but that the steroid testing itself is blatantly misleading. Under WWE drug testing policy, positive test thresholds for anabolic steroids are more than twice that of all other major sporting outfits including the Olympic committee."

I want to challenge this whole paragraph. Especially the last sentence, what other than "good faith" can you use to support this claim? What statistics prove this? I thought there had to be more evidence to make such an statement.WillB003 (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge it - place a "fact" tag after the paragraph concerned. If it hasn't been fixed in a minimum of two months, and there hasn't been any discussion about it on this talk page you should be able to delete it. That's the way I've worked up until now and I haven't been told it's the wrong thing to do. Plenty of people have this page on their watch list so you should get someone to provide a source. !! Justa Punk !! 04:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Highest Ranking Title

I know the WWE Championship is the highest ranking title in the WWE, but when the World Heavyweight was on RAW was it the higest ranking title that time in WWE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Master King (talk • contribs) 08:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not in the WWE, but on a brand. WWE championship is for RAW, World Heavyweight is SD!, and ECW Championship is ECW. 76.110.82.251 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WWE Tag Team Championship

They should be put under the ECW section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.163.182 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. The titles are Smackdown titles. The Miz and John Morrison won the titles as a part of the ongoing exchange program between ECW and Smackdown. This is distinct from Matt Hardy. !! Justa Punk !! 09:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The US title is also a Smackdown! Title - And that is where it is being defended most of the time (out of main events), the same goes with the Tag Belts. Also, when you watch a main event, Adamle and Tazz only commentate on the ECW title match, because the US Title is not an ECW Belt. Although it is on an ECW wrestler, the belt is still "property" of Smackdown!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.38.170 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Something Interesting I Found

Under the "Expansion beyond wrestling" section, the header reads: "In addition to licensing wrestling and performers' likenesses to companies such as Electronic Arts, THQ and Jakks Pacific to produce video games and action figures, WWE has moved into other areas of interest in order to market their product."

Well, despite not being sourced, and although the heading is just giving an example, I don't think Electronic Arts should be mentioned at all because the WWF/WWE has never licensed a game to EA to be published (WCW did with Mayhem and Backstage Assault.). So, could it be removed and replace with Acclaim since they published War Zone and Attitude. JediYoda1120 (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a piont. WWE, to my knowledge, never had anything licensed to EA. I moved it to Acclaim Entertainment. SAVIOR_SELF.777 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Websites Section

Not really needed. It should be deleted, but the article is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Degenerate-Y (talk • contribs) 22:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Under which WP Policy are you claiming this? Why isn't it "needed"? !! Justa Punk !! 13:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

CW isn't a cable network

It says in the article that CW is a cable network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.177.117 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the market. In my local market, the only way to get The CW is to watch it on cable or have a digital TV (locally it's cable channel 16 and digital channel 13.2). The digital TV version is only 480i though. TJ Spyke 17:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)