![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
After Chris Jericho won both the (WCW) World Heavyweight Championship & WWE Championship, he became the first WWE Undisputed Champion, even though he still carried both belts. Even though both belts weren't considered retired, they were considered ONE championship from that point on, until they were split up into the World Heavyweight & WWE Championships we have now. The current situation with the WWE Tag Team Championship & World Tag Team Championship is the same. The Colons are considered the Unified WWE Tag Team Champions, even though they still carry both sets of tag titles. Even though both sets aren't retired, they are considered ONE championship, the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. So there, WWE has set a precedent for how their championships are viewed. If you're still unsure of what to do, then hold a poll and ask what should be done with the tag titles. 24.12.89.226 ( talk) 02:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Will is right. Besides the two titles became one after the creation of the WWE Udisputed title. Sid 4x ( talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to explain this better
First and foremost on the Jericho point, yes Chris Jericho won the WCW Championship and then went on to win the WWE Championship. Following this, the WCW Championship was unified with the WWE Championship. However, with unification matches, the result of the match can spawn two different outcomes. One outcome results in one of the championships being decommissioned with the champion choosing to hold a single championship (...as was the case with the WCW U.S. and WWE IC unification match at Survivor Series 2001, where Edge chose the IC championship.) The second outcome results in the champion choosing to hold both championships (...as was the case with the WCW Cruiserweight and WWF Lightheavyweight unification match on July 30, 2001, where Xpac continued to defend the two titles both simultaneously and separately.)
With the Undisputed Championship, the WCW Championship was decommissioned and since it hasn't been reactivated, in theory, it is still merged with the WWE Championship. WWE Undisputed Championship wasn't "split" to create the World Heavyweight Championship. Unless the WWE Undisputed Championship was split back into the WCW Championship and WWE Championship, the WWE Undisputed Championship wasn't split. The World Heavyweight Championship spun-off from the WWE Undisputed Championship just as the WWE, ECW, and WCW Championships spun-off from the NWA Championship. It is for this reason that the World Heavyweight Championship is connected and related to the WCW, WWE, and NWA Championships; because it was created from the WWE Championship, which contains the WCW Championship, which was created from the NWA Championship.
So with the WCW Championship decommissioned and still merged with the WWE Championship, it is obvious that the first outcome from the two listed above took place. Now with The Colóns and the situation with Unified Tag Team Championships, it is unfortunately still too early to tell which of the two outcomes listed above will take place. As both title histories on WWE.com still list The Colóns as current champions for both the World Tag Team and WWE Tag Team Championhip without making use of the words "Final Champions" on either page, there is no evidence pointing towards either of the two possible outcomes. It is too early to tell which of the two championships will be decommissioned or whether both titles will continue to be active. It is for that reason that nothing has been done about the Unified Tag Team Championships on the subject's related articles.-- Unquestionable Truth-- 03:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Kind of reminds me of the J-Crown: championships that were still active in one way or another, but unified with a different name. 69.226.236.202 ( talk) 22:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Rolmo
Under the cost cutting header, there is a claim that there were several wrestlers who were let go by the company. Which wrestlers were let go exactly? -- Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. ( talk) 21:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
why isnt the Insane Clown Posse mentioned in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.149.183.41 ( talk) 05:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we add "Miss Wrestle Mania" to the other Accomplishments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.215.203 ( talk) 18:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that the montreal screwjob and the dx takeover of wcw should both have a major part on here sense they were both big parts in wwe history and are very important turning points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshawthorne ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The DX takeover was a big part of history because that was really the beginning of the downfall of the wcw, which lead to it being purcased by the wwe, which was a major accomplishment by DX. And the Montreal Screjob was more of a turning point but it still was an accomplishment in Triple H's career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.3.66 ( talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I meant to say Shawn Michaels not Triple H. But even if they arent included in accomplishments, because i realize they are not this type of accomplishment, they should have their own thing under this page. The DX takeover was the first time either brand had recognized the other any time, they never even mentioned the other existed on the show. WWF was falling to WCW because all the stars were leaving for it and they needed to get some viewers. Just read the DX biography, it mentions both. At least one of the two should be mentioned. If you mention the acquisition of the WCW you should at least say something about the beggining of the downfall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshawthorne ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
i meant to say the first time that the WWE had decided to mention it. The wwe had even made RAW is WAR and went to war with the WCW in april and may. On april 27th of 1998, when both were in Virginia, DX went to the arena and were insulting the WCW to the fans and saying they give out free tickets to fill up seats for tv. They even tried to enter the arena in heir jeep. Another show of RAW is WAR showed Triple HHH flying over the WCW headquarters in a plaine with skywrite saying wcw sucks, and DX says suck it. This was realy the beginning of the takeover, after a rough time for the wwe. Especially after one of their biggest superstars, Shawn Michaels, went out with a back injury. I dont see why this cant have its part in this or even create a new tab with the downfall of WCW and big events between the two companies leading up to the purchase of the WCW by the WWE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.3.66 ( talk) 18:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are the actors' parts outlined from the perspective of a general WWE fan's suspension of disbelief? The ups and downs of the Trish Stratus' "wrestling career" is told as if she were in fact a professional athlete. I chose her at random, of course - it appears a policy decision has been made to portray the characters in this manner. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.211.96 ( talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Should The PG Era Be Mentioned? (which sucks I may add) this in cludes the WWE Kids and Bringing the rating down from TV-14 to PG. KingRaven (>$.$)> ( talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Bit out of date-- Awiki90 ( talk) 07:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to make the edit, but got a "blocked link" message in response. Shane McMahon resigned last week, with a letter to the fans on the WWE site and a lot of coverage in wrestling media.
"It is with great sadness that I announce my resignation from the WWE, effective January 1, 2010.
I have never even considered a future outside the walls of the WWE. However, sometimes life takes an unexpected turn and while it is the most difficult decision I have ever made, it is time for me to move on.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my father for the incredible education working with him has provided and for giving me the opportunity to play a role in building WWE into the global phenomenon that it is today. I am extremely proud to have been the 4th generation in this business, and I am grateful for everyday I was able to work along side not only my own, but the entire WWE family.
Thank you to all of the WWE Superstars both past and present for your passion, pride and dedication. You are truly the engine of the organization and it has been a pleasure to work with, learn from and get to know all of you. Thank you for the privilege of sharing the stage with you and for allowing me to become but a momentary member of your elite brotherhood. I have so much appreciation for the many sacrifices you endure, both physically and personally, to make this business the success that it is. The respect I have for each of you is immeasurable.
Finally, there are no words to express my gratitude to WWE fans the world over for supporting this company through good times and bad and for your unbridled passion that fuels the Superstars' performances. I am profoundly grateful to have been able to entertain you both in front of the camera and from behind the scenes. You are the greatest fans in the world.
I will always love this business and will remain a fan forever.
Shane" 214.3.138.234 ( talk) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Steve
Jillian is not the divas champion, the current champion is Melina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maht0701 ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well Jillian WAS Divas Champion, for about 2 minutes (lol). Dwibley ( talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
In November of 2009, Linda McMahon resigned from the Board of Directors all together. She resigned in September as the CEO. She should be removed from the list of people on the Board of Directors
Source: http://www.sescoops.com/wwe-news/linda-mcmahon-gone-from-wwe-campaign-spending —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenttowsley ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
To whoever tagged this article with the copyright concern, where is the problem material? !! Justa Punk !! 09:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The belt is a RAW brand and RAW owned belt, therefore, it should be placed as such. The article about the belt says it is a RAW belt. The note is enough to say that a current SmackDown superstar holds it, but Raw owns the belt. – Turian (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You could also mention the WWE Draft in 2008 that sent Triple H to Smackdown with the WWE Campionship —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulkamania007 ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes he has a point but on the title it says MON NITE raw on a side (jimmy cracked corn)
I think the color for the Dual-Branded(Unified Tag Team Championship) section should be purple, since they appear on both Raw(which is the Red brand) and SmackDown(which is the Blue brand). I know the purple will remind people of ECW, but since it's not being used now, why not use it for the Dual-Branded section. Anybody disagree?-- Yugiohmike2001 ( talk) 17:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe there's something wrong with your browser?
Why isn't the Entertainment or Post-Attitude(as WWE calls it) era not apart of this Article? it was an important era that started when The Attitude Era ended.-- Rmisdice2 ( talk) 04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)-- Rmisdice2 ( talk) 04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
PG Era is your typical internet smartass term. No Original Research-- Unquestionable Truth-- 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, that's getting too personal. Sine the Attitude Era is over, and the style of programming and advertizing has clearly and obviously changed, something needs to be stated about the current era. And nobody needs somebody making "typical internet smartass term" type comments. Keep that sort of thing to yourself. There's no place for that on wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Straw Hat Guy ( talk • contribs)
Well, how was it trolling to suggest that the article be restructured to emphasize the end of the Attitude Era, and state more clearly that the modern era(whether it's called the "PG Era" or not) be more clearly illustrated to be significantly different? And just because WWE doesn't refer to it as such doesn't necessarily mean anything. You clearly state that the term is in use by many people, even if is mostly on the internet. I would think that calling somebody an "IWC smartass" is a far more obvious case of trolling, then somebody who makes suggestions about restructuring the article! Straw Hat Guy ( talk) 13:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If the PG era is real than give us reliable sources. NOT third-party sources.-- Curtis23's Us al ions 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe the PG era is "real" wrestling. If there is no reliable sources to prove that it is, then the notion that it is should be disregarded. Wehatweet ( talk) 12:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Updated list of board of directors with reference to corporate.wwe.com, will do so for Executive Officers shortly, several need to be updated! Joe8609 19:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe8609 ( talk • contribs)
Updated list of executive officers w/ reference as per corporate.wwe.com website on 4/18/10 Joe8609 16:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/113003-report-wwe-closes-down-australia-office
There hasn't been an office in sydney for quite some time. I suggest that this needs to be amended.
Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.0.94 ( talk) 06:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There Should Be an Article About WWF/WWE.COM and How it was started and what its about and Etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmisdice2 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The given financial data (Revenue, Income, Operating Income) only state the results of 2010's first quarter. It is highly uncommon to only present a fraction of the fiscal year in a company's overview. Also, since the parentheses read "2010" it could lead to misunderstandings, for it could be read as FY2010.
Therefore, I propose to return to the numbers for the Full Year 2009 as officially given in WWE's Annual Report.
Blocpark ( talk) 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I found it strange how 2010 was listed. When is the fiscal period for the company? Kingjeff ( talk) 19:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
WWE's fiscal year runs simultaneously to the calendar year. That's why (2010) in the company's overview looks strange. At least it should be altered to (Q1/2010) or something like that. Blocpark ( talk) 07:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Has already resulted in one 3RR. Please discuss changes. Don't risk a blocking when "the wrong version" can just stand for a little while to give discussion some time. There is no rush. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dcheagle, WP:N applies to sections of articles as well as articles entirely. I've taken a look at the content being warred over. Firstly, the ref [2] is a deadlink so a new one would have to be found. I've copy-and-pasted the section below, and it should remain here, not in the article until we have some conclusions.
the disputed section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In 2008, WWE initiated a change in its programming content. The United States parental guidelines rating system now rates all WWE television programs "PG" indicating family-friendly content in the programming. [1] [2] WWE has reportedly gained more business sponsorships and celebrity involvement as a result of its change to PG [3] The reasons for the change to PG are debated. Vince McMahon has noted that the change to more family-friendly content is due to the changing demographics in WWE viewership. As of 2010, women and young children make up 40% of the company's audience. [2] The PG change may have helped lay a groundwork for Linda McMahon's Senate campaign in 2010. [4] It has also been suggested that WWE always had a tendency towards PG entertainment, and after the collapse of its main competitors, WCW and ECW, it became free to express itself. [5] Many older wrestling fans, who were more accustomed to the violence and controversy of WWE's Attitude Era switched over to TNA or ROH, or stopped watching altogether. [4] |
If JustaPunk is aware of previous consensus, could they provide a link to it? I'll drop a line to WP:PW asking for the project members to come here and lend a voice, and await Screwball's message regarding the sections notability. In the mean time, don't re-add the content, please. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
With regards to the addition of "TV-PG rating" heading, this chunk of text "The reasons for the change to PG are debated. Vince McMahon has noted that the change to more family-friendly content is due to the changing demographics in WWE viewership." has no source and is OR. This chunk "It has also been suggested that WWE always had a tendency towards PG entertainment, and after the collapse of its main competitors, WCW and ECW, it became free to express itself." has only a blog to back it up, and "Many older wrestling fans, who were more accustomed to the violence and controversy of WWE's Attitude Era switched over to TNA or ROH, or stopped watching altogether." is an assertion not supported by the ref. In addition the use of "TV-PG rating" is not a suitable section heading as it is a US only identifier, as the UK does not have a TV rating system. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The change to PG is a hotly discussed topic regarding WWE.
Where?
It has brought about much discussion and is an ongoing topic.
Where?
Vince McMahon has spoken on it, and even the Bryan Danielson termination has been implicated in this.
Where and how?
The argument that WWE is still rated differently in Australia/UK is not relevant because WWE programming has changed its storylines and ratings here in the US, which is documented and which has been brought about by the direction of Vince McMahon.
WWE is a worldwide company with a worldwide presence. Therefore it is relevant and proves that basing an era on it's rating requires more appropriate sourcing.
The fact that TNA is rated M in Australia again makes the rating completely useless as a barometer of entertainment style.
WWE is also rated M in Australia.
I would like to remind you that there is already a paragraph on the PG rating, which I had to fight the same senseless arguments to finally get placed.
No, the argument was about notability and still is. You wanted a new section. The rest of the Project made a concession in order to be balanced over the whole argument. That should have been enough to satify you, but it wasn't.
This material is not Original Research, and even those who are trying to delete this material know that it is documented in my references.
It is
WP:OR because it is YOU (not the sources) that is asserting that the change in rating represents an era. The change in rating is easy to source. Proving that this is an era is what you are refusing to do in your sourcing. Where is it on the WWE website (primary source), and given it's controversial nature where are the back up sources?
The Sun article, "The Game Had to Change", discusses the change in WWE entertainment fully, including Linda's run for Senate, the population of WWE's audience, and the shift of many viewers to TNA and ROH for edgier entertainment.
Not notable because they have done that before - at the time of the Rock'n'Wrestling connection. Linda's run for the senate is completely unrelated because she is no longer on the board of the WWE.
Again, please suspend your biases before you put more of these faulty arguments on the page.
I believe in this manner (and I apologise for being "long winded" [LOL]) I have proven the fault in Screwball's arguments and supports the view that the version as it stands is the correct one under WP rules. !!
Justa
Punk !!
04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with you there Justa you and many others have asked him to produce other sources and he has not produced even one if he would I might be more for his little add in but tell then its a no go from me.-- Steam Iron 07:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
There are editors who are disputing the fact that WWE has changed to PG. For those of you who may not be familiar, I would like to list some links for your convenience. I am not saying this is a good or a bad change, but I am sure each one of you has your own opinion, and you are entitled to that.
Vince McMahon, Linda McMahon have both commented on it, Triple H has been quoted in the NY Times talking about how the WWE has changed from the days of the Attitude Era, and I want readers to know the truth about WWE's shift.
Here are my links. Enjoy!
http://fans.wwe.com/nomorekids - a forum on the PG change
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/228564-wwes-pg-rating-a-product-of-greed-or-change - an article on the WWE's change
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100506061700j112.nb/topstory.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10wrestle.html
Please list your opinions below. I think there should be a section about "Change to PG". What do you think? Should the issue be covered? Should it be called the PG Era so people will know WWE has changed from the days of the Attitude Era? Please list your thoughts below. Thank you! :-) -- Screwball23 talk 05:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The NYT article does not say there is a new era, there is a quote from HHH about how they have "evolved". There is no direct reference to a "TV-PG era", which it has been agreed is a US term and does not reflect a world view. If you want we can hold a straw poll, though the results would be fairly easy to guess. Darrenhusted ( talk) 09:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
And that is all wonderful, except that the assertions that you continually added are unsupported. Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
I regret to inform you That I am unable to give a WP:Third opinion due to more than 2 Editors being involved. Might i suggest an WP:RFC or Help From an associated WikiPRoject?— Weaponbb7 ( talk) 22:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
.
Okay so i may not be a wrestling fan but there are too many or few or attitude era fans who dont like the PGs return they want it to see some barbaric things again,Although i like the PG which is just like the 80s,I guess they dont want the PG rating what do you think? is it alright to let me edit about the Fans PG criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belrien12 ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like third party opinions to join the discussion on World Wrestling Entertainment. There has been a change in its programming that is more family-oriented, and it is currently under dispute whether it should be in the article or not.
This article is on wrestling, but anyone's opinion is just as valuable here. We ask for a open mind and willingness to be fair. Thank you! -- Screwball23 talk 04:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay well to start with many fans of the attitude aand post attitude dont like it,Though some fans and some wrestlers accept it,so what caused the PG rating and did many fans dont like it? Editor didn't sign
An RFC and mediation is overkill. I have twice given Screwball a line by line rebuttal, and now the list of editors in disagreement is six and he keeps going, like the Duracell Bunny. The change in programming is already in, the additional text is superfluous and consists of OR commentary, I post this here because I'm not going to be involved in mediation when one editor refuses to listen, and does not see being reverted by five editors as an opposition to his extra text. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
EVERYONE JUST STOP IT! This argument is pointless and it seems that nothing will be resolved from here I suggest we just end this argument because it seems that the consensus it to keep the page as it currently is.-- Curtis23's Us al ions 03:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I want to lay this discussion out in very clear terms. This is my material, line by line, which is true and verifiable. There has not been any productive discussion on this, and I am going to do a line-by-line talk on each point in the material, which is the first time this has been done.
The last discussion on this issue was fruitless because no one was willing to discuss the facts with me, and everyone was much to happy to claim consensus and make up wikipedia policies. Please read the material and debate the material. Any other discussions are useless, and I can say that because the objections that have been raised have served no one in the past few weeks.
These two lines are absolutely noncontroversial, and the sources given are more than adequate. [1] [2] [3]
Nothing I am saying here is under dispute. The reasons for the change are debated. That is true. Vince McMahon has noted in an interview that the change is due to changing demographics in WWE viewership. He was interviewed, and the interview is provided. [2]
The Sun wrote an article which has mentioned Linda's Senate campaign as a possible reason for the change to more family-friendly entertainment. [4]
I am open to let this one go because the sources I have found on this are the most contentious to the Original Research and Verifiability people. [4]
Again, this is in The Sun article. [5]
-- Screwball23 talk 04:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Screwball, It's not the end of the world if we don't have a section for the change in programming so why do you keep arguing for it when the past 2 discussion on this at WT:PW have had the consensus to stay as it is.-- Curtis23's Us al ions 22:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
oh hey lets just delete all the talk page..idiot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 ( talk) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is this being nominated for GA? This article clearly fails the criteria. Just to show this, I'm going to review it against the quick-fail criteria real quick.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
According to the quick-fail criteria if the article fails at least one of the following it can be failed without a full review. This one fails at least three. I say this should be removed from GAN because this needs alot of work. It certainly is no where, and I repeat no where near a GA.-- Will C 05:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
After Chris Jericho won both the (WCW) World Heavyweight Championship & WWE Championship, he became the first WWE Undisputed Champion, even though he still carried both belts. Even though both belts weren't considered retired, they were considered ONE championship from that point on, until they were split up into the World Heavyweight & WWE Championships we have now. The current situation with the WWE Tag Team Championship & World Tag Team Championship is the same. The Colons are considered the Unified WWE Tag Team Champions, even though they still carry both sets of tag titles. Even though both sets aren't retired, they are considered ONE championship, the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. So there, WWE has set a precedent for how their championships are viewed. If you're still unsure of what to do, then hold a poll and ask what should be done with the tag titles. 24.12.89.226 ( talk) 02:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Will is right. Besides the two titles became one after the creation of the WWE Udisputed title. Sid 4x ( talk) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to explain this better
First and foremost on the Jericho point, yes Chris Jericho won the WCW Championship and then went on to win the WWE Championship. Following this, the WCW Championship was unified with the WWE Championship. However, with unification matches, the result of the match can spawn two different outcomes. One outcome results in one of the championships being decommissioned with the champion choosing to hold a single championship (...as was the case with the WCW U.S. and WWE IC unification match at Survivor Series 2001, where Edge chose the IC championship.) The second outcome results in the champion choosing to hold both championships (...as was the case with the WCW Cruiserweight and WWF Lightheavyweight unification match on July 30, 2001, where Xpac continued to defend the two titles both simultaneously and separately.)
With the Undisputed Championship, the WCW Championship was decommissioned and since it hasn't been reactivated, in theory, it is still merged with the WWE Championship. WWE Undisputed Championship wasn't "split" to create the World Heavyweight Championship. Unless the WWE Undisputed Championship was split back into the WCW Championship and WWE Championship, the WWE Undisputed Championship wasn't split. The World Heavyweight Championship spun-off from the WWE Undisputed Championship just as the WWE, ECW, and WCW Championships spun-off from the NWA Championship. It is for this reason that the World Heavyweight Championship is connected and related to the WCW, WWE, and NWA Championships; because it was created from the WWE Championship, which contains the WCW Championship, which was created from the NWA Championship.
So with the WCW Championship decommissioned and still merged with the WWE Championship, it is obvious that the first outcome from the two listed above took place. Now with The Colóns and the situation with Unified Tag Team Championships, it is unfortunately still too early to tell which of the two outcomes listed above will take place. As both title histories on WWE.com still list The Colóns as current champions for both the World Tag Team and WWE Tag Team Championhip without making use of the words "Final Champions" on either page, there is no evidence pointing towards either of the two possible outcomes. It is too early to tell which of the two championships will be decommissioned or whether both titles will continue to be active. It is for that reason that nothing has been done about the Unified Tag Team Championships on the subject's related articles.-- Unquestionable Truth-- 03:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Kind of reminds me of the J-Crown: championships that were still active in one way or another, but unified with a different name. 69.226.236.202 ( talk) 22:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Rolmo
Under the cost cutting header, there is a claim that there were several wrestlers who were let go by the company. Which wrestlers were let go exactly? -- Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. ( talk) 21:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
why isnt the Insane Clown Posse mentioned in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.149.183.41 ( talk) 05:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Should we add "Miss Wrestle Mania" to the other Accomplishments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.215.203 ( talk) 18:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that the montreal screwjob and the dx takeover of wcw should both have a major part on here sense they were both big parts in wwe history and are very important turning points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshawthorne ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The DX takeover was a big part of history because that was really the beginning of the downfall of the wcw, which lead to it being purcased by the wwe, which was a major accomplishment by DX. And the Montreal Screjob was more of a turning point but it still was an accomplishment in Triple H's career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.3.66 ( talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I meant to say Shawn Michaels not Triple H. But even if they arent included in accomplishments, because i realize they are not this type of accomplishment, they should have their own thing under this page. The DX takeover was the first time either brand had recognized the other any time, they never even mentioned the other existed on the show. WWF was falling to WCW because all the stars were leaving for it and they needed to get some viewers. Just read the DX biography, it mentions both. At least one of the two should be mentioned. If you mention the acquisition of the WCW you should at least say something about the beggining of the downfall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshawthorne ( talk • contribs) 18:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
i meant to say the first time that the WWE had decided to mention it. The wwe had even made RAW is WAR and went to war with the WCW in april and may. On april 27th of 1998, when both were in Virginia, DX went to the arena and were insulting the WCW to the fans and saying they give out free tickets to fill up seats for tv. They even tried to enter the arena in heir jeep. Another show of RAW is WAR showed Triple HHH flying over the WCW headquarters in a plaine with skywrite saying wcw sucks, and DX says suck it. This was realy the beginning of the takeover, after a rough time for the wwe. Especially after one of their biggest superstars, Shawn Michaels, went out with a back injury. I dont see why this cant have its part in this or even create a new tab with the downfall of WCW and big events between the two companies leading up to the purchase of the WCW by the WWE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.3.66 ( talk) 18:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Why are the actors' parts outlined from the perspective of a general WWE fan's suspension of disbelief? The ups and downs of the Trish Stratus' "wrestling career" is told as if she were in fact a professional athlete. I chose her at random, of course - it appears a policy decision has been made to portray the characters in this manner. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.211.96 ( talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Should The PG Era Be Mentioned? (which sucks I may add) this in cludes the WWE Kids and Bringing the rating down from TV-14 to PG. KingRaven (>$.$)> ( talk) 00:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Bit out of date-- Awiki90 ( talk) 07:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to make the edit, but got a "blocked link" message in response. Shane McMahon resigned last week, with a letter to the fans on the WWE site and a lot of coverage in wrestling media.
"It is with great sadness that I announce my resignation from the WWE, effective January 1, 2010.
I have never even considered a future outside the walls of the WWE. However, sometimes life takes an unexpected turn and while it is the most difficult decision I have ever made, it is time for me to move on.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my father for the incredible education working with him has provided and for giving me the opportunity to play a role in building WWE into the global phenomenon that it is today. I am extremely proud to have been the 4th generation in this business, and I am grateful for everyday I was able to work along side not only my own, but the entire WWE family.
Thank you to all of the WWE Superstars both past and present for your passion, pride and dedication. You are truly the engine of the organization and it has been a pleasure to work with, learn from and get to know all of you. Thank you for the privilege of sharing the stage with you and for allowing me to become but a momentary member of your elite brotherhood. I have so much appreciation for the many sacrifices you endure, both physically and personally, to make this business the success that it is. The respect I have for each of you is immeasurable.
Finally, there are no words to express my gratitude to WWE fans the world over for supporting this company through good times and bad and for your unbridled passion that fuels the Superstars' performances. I am profoundly grateful to have been able to entertain you both in front of the camera and from behind the scenes. You are the greatest fans in the world.
I will always love this business and will remain a fan forever.
Shane" 214.3.138.234 ( talk) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Steve
Jillian is not the divas champion, the current champion is Melina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maht0701 ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well Jillian WAS Divas Champion, for about 2 minutes (lol). Dwibley ( talk —Preceding undated comment added 15:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
In November of 2009, Linda McMahon resigned from the Board of Directors all together. She resigned in September as the CEO. She should be removed from the list of people on the Board of Directors
Source: http://www.sescoops.com/wwe-news/linda-mcmahon-gone-from-wwe-campaign-spending —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenttowsley ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
To whoever tagged this article with the copyright concern, where is the problem material? !! Justa Punk !! 09:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The belt is a RAW brand and RAW owned belt, therefore, it should be placed as such. The article about the belt says it is a RAW belt. The note is enough to say that a current SmackDown superstar holds it, but Raw owns the belt. – Turian (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You could also mention the WWE Draft in 2008 that sent Triple H to Smackdown with the WWE Campionship —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulkamania007 ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes he has a point but on the title it says MON NITE raw on a side (jimmy cracked corn)
I think the color for the Dual-Branded(Unified Tag Team Championship) section should be purple, since they appear on both Raw(which is the Red brand) and SmackDown(which is the Blue brand). I know the purple will remind people of ECW, but since it's not being used now, why not use it for the Dual-Branded section. Anybody disagree?-- Yugiohmike2001 ( talk) 17:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe there's something wrong with your browser?
Why isn't the Entertainment or Post-Attitude(as WWE calls it) era not apart of this Article? it was an important era that started when The Attitude Era ended.-- Rmisdice2 ( talk) 04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)-- Rmisdice2 ( talk) 04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
PG Era is your typical internet smartass term. No Original Research-- Unquestionable Truth-- 17:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, that's getting too personal. Sine the Attitude Era is over, and the style of programming and advertizing has clearly and obviously changed, something needs to be stated about the current era. And nobody needs somebody making "typical internet smartass term" type comments. Keep that sort of thing to yourself. There's no place for that on wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Straw Hat Guy ( talk • contribs)
Well, how was it trolling to suggest that the article be restructured to emphasize the end of the Attitude Era, and state more clearly that the modern era(whether it's called the "PG Era" or not) be more clearly illustrated to be significantly different? And just because WWE doesn't refer to it as such doesn't necessarily mean anything. You clearly state that the term is in use by many people, even if is mostly on the internet. I would think that calling somebody an "IWC smartass" is a far more obvious case of trolling, then somebody who makes suggestions about restructuring the article! Straw Hat Guy ( talk) 13:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If the PG era is real than give us reliable sources. NOT third-party sources.-- Curtis23's Us al ions 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe the PG era is "real" wrestling. If there is no reliable sources to prove that it is, then the notion that it is should be disregarded. Wehatweet ( talk) 12:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Updated list of board of directors with reference to corporate.wwe.com, will do so for Executive Officers shortly, several need to be updated! Joe8609 19:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe8609 ( talk • contribs)
Updated list of executive officers w/ reference as per corporate.wwe.com website on 4/18/10 Joe8609 16:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/113003-report-wwe-closes-down-australia-office
There hasn't been an office in sydney for quite some time. I suggest that this needs to be amended.
Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.0.94 ( talk) 06:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There Should Be an Article About WWF/WWE.COM and How it was started and what its about and Etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmisdice2 ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The given financial data (Revenue, Income, Operating Income) only state the results of 2010's first quarter. It is highly uncommon to only present a fraction of the fiscal year in a company's overview. Also, since the parentheses read "2010" it could lead to misunderstandings, for it could be read as FY2010.
Therefore, I propose to return to the numbers for the Full Year 2009 as officially given in WWE's Annual Report.
Blocpark ( talk) 15:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I found it strange how 2010 was listed. When is the fiscal period for the company? Kingjeff ( talk) 19:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
WWE's fiscal year runs simultaneously to the calendar year. That's why (2010) in the company's overview looks strange. At least it should be altered to (Q1/2010) or something like that. Blocpark ( talk) 07:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
![]() | Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Has already resulted in one 3RR. Please discuss changes. Don't risk a blocking when "the wrong version" can just stand for a little while to give discussion some time. There is no rush. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dcheagle, WP:N applies to sections of articles as well as articles entirely. I've taken a look at the content being warred over. Firstly, the ref [2] is a deadlink so a new one would have to be found. I've copy-and-pasted the section below, and it should remain here, not in the article until we have some conclusions.
the disputed section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In 2008, WWE initiated a change in its programming content. The United States parental guidelines rating system now rates all WWE television programs "PG" indicating family-friendly content in the programming. [1] [2] WWE has reportedly gained more business sponsorships and celebrity involvement as a result of its change to PG [3] The reasons for the change to PG are debated. Vince McMahon has noted that the change to more family-friendly content is due to the changing demographics in WWE viewership. As of 2010, women and young children make up 40% of the company's audience. [2] The PG change may have helped lay a groundwork for Linda McMahon's Senate campaign in 2010. [4] It has also been suggested that WWE always had a tendency towards PG entertainment, and after the collapse of its main competitors, WCW and ECW, it became free to express itself. [5] Many older wrestling fans, who were more accustomed to the violence and controversy of WWE's Attitude Era switched over to TNA or ROH, or stopped watching altogether. [4] |
If JustaPunk is aware of previous consensus, could they provide a link to it? I'll drop a line to WP:PW asking for the project members to come here and lend a voice, and await Screwball's message regarding the sections notability. In the mean time, don't re-add the content, please. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
With regards to the addition of "TV-PG rating" heading, this chunk of text "The reasons for the change to PG are debated. Vince McMahon has noted that the change to more family-friendly content is due to the changing demographics in WWE viewership." has no source and is OR. This chunk "It has also been suggested that WWE always had a tendency towards PG entertainment, and after the collapse of its main competitors, WCW and ECW, it became free to express itself." has only a blog to back it up, and "Many older wrestling fans, who were more accustomed to the violence and controversy of WWE's Attitude Era switched over to TNA or ROH, or stopped watching altogether." is an assertion not supported by the ref. In addition the use of "TV-PG rating" is not a suitable section heading as it is a US only identifier, as the UK does not have a TV rating system. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The change to PG is a hotly discussed topic regarding WWE.
Where?
It has brought about much discussion and is an ongoing topic.
Where?
Vince McMahon has spoken on it, and even the Bryan Danielson termination has been implicated in this.
Where and how?
The argument that WWE is still rated differently in Australia/UK is not relevant because WWE programming has changed its storylines and ratings here in the US, which is documented and which has been brought about by the direction of Vince McMahon.
WWE is a worldwide company with a worldwide presence. Therefore it is relevant and proves that basing an era on it's rating requires more appropriate sourcing.
The fact that TNA is rated M in Australia again makes the rating completely useless as a barometer of entertainment style.
WWE is also rated M in Australia.
I would like to remind you that there is already a paragraph on the PG rating, which I had to fight the same senseless arguments to finally get placed.
No, the argument was about notability and still is. You wanted a new section. The rest of the Project made a concession in order to be balanced over the whole argument. That should have been enough to satify you, but it wasn't.
This material is not Original Research, and even those who are trying to delete this material know that it is documented in my references.
It is
WP:OR because it is YOU (not the sources) that is asserting that the change in rating represents an era. The change in rating is easy to source. Proving that this is an era is what you are refusing to do in your sourcing. Where is it on the WWE website (primary source), and given it's controversial nature where are the back up sources?
The Sun article, "The Game Had to Change", discusses the change in WWE entertainment fully, including Linda's run for Senate, the population of WWE's audience, and the shift of many viewers to TNA and ROH for edgier entertainment.
Not notable because they have done that before - at the time of the Rock'n'Wrestling connection. Linda's run for the senate is completely unrelated because she is no longer on the board of the WWE.
Again, please suspend your biases before you put more of these faulty arguments on the page.
I believe in this manner (and I apologise for being "long winded" [LOL]) I have proven the fault in Screwball's arguments and supports the view that the version as it stands is the correct one under WP rules. !!
Justa
Punk !!
04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with you there Justa you and many others have asked him to produce other sources and he has not produced even one if he would I might be more for his little add in but tell then its a no go from me.-- Steam Iron 07:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
There are editors who are disputing the fact that WWE has changed to PG. For those of you who may not be familiar, I would like to list some links for your convenience. I am not saying this is a good or a bad change, but I am sure each one of you has your own opinion, and you are entitled to that.
Vince McMahon, Linda McMahon have both commented on it, Triple H has been quoted in the NY Times talking about how the WWE has changed from the days of the Attitude Era, and I want readers to know the truth about WWE's shift.
Here are my links. Enjoy!
http://fans.wwe.com/nomorekids - a forum on the PG change
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/228564-wwes-pg-rating-a-product-of-greed-or-change - an article on the WWE's change
http://newsblaze.com/story/20100506061700j112.nb/topstory.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/business/media/10wrestle.html
Please list your opinions below. I think there should be a section about "Change to PG". What do you think? Should the issue be covered? Should it be called the PG Era so people will know WWE has changed from the days of the Attitude Era? Please list your thoughts below. Thank you! :-) -- Screwball23 talk 05:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The NYT article does not say there is a new era, there is a quote from HHH about how they have "evolved". There is no direct reference to a "TV-PG era", which it has been agreed is a US term and does not reflect a world view. If you want we can hold a straw poll, though the results would be fairly easy to guess. Darrenhusted ( talk) 09:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
And that is all wonderful, except that the assertions that you continually added are unsupported. Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
I regret to inform you That I am unable to give a WP:Third opinion due to more than 2 Editors being involved. Might i suggest an WP:RFC or Help From an associated WikiPRoject?— Weaponbb7 ( talk) 22:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
.
Okay so i may not be a wrestling fan but there are too many or few or attitude era fans who dont like the PGs return they want it to see some barbaric things again,Although i like the PG which is just like the 80s,I guess they dont want the PG rating what do you think? is it alright to let me edit about the Fans PG criticism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belrien12 ( talk • contribs) 12:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like third party opinions to join the discussion on World Wrestling Entertainment. There has been a change in its programming that is more family-oriented, and it is currently under dispute whether it should be in the article or not.
This article is on wrestling, but anyone's opinion is just as valuable here. We ask for a open mind and willingness to be fair. Thank you! -- Screwball23 talk 04:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay well to start with many fans of the attitude aand post attitude dont like it,Though some fans and some wrestlers accept it,so what caused the PG rating and did many fans dont like it? Editor didn't sign
An RFC and mediation is overkill. I have twice given Screwball a line by line rebuttal, and now the list of editors in disagreement is six and he keeps going, like the Duracell Bunny. The change in programming is already in, the additional text is superfluous and consists of OR commentary, I post this here because I'm not going to be involved in mediation when one editor refuses to listen, and does not see being reverted by five editors as an opposition to his extra text. Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
EVERYONE JUST STOP IT! This argument is pointless and it seems that nothing will be resolved from here I suggest we just end this argument because it seems that the consensus it to keep the page as it currently is.-- Curtis23's Us al ions 03:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I want to lay this discussion out in very clear terms. This is my material, line by line, which is true and verifiable. There has not been any productive discussion on this, and I am going to do a line-by-line talk on each point in the material, which is the first time this has been done.
The last discussion on this issue was fruitless because no one was willing to discuss the facts with me, and everyone was much to happy to claim consensus and make up wikipedia policies. Please read the material and debate the material. Any other discussions are useless, and I can say that because the objections that have been raised have served no one in the past few weeks.
These two lines are absolutely noncontroversial, and the sources given are more than adequate. [1] [2] [3]
Nothing I am saying here is under dispute. The reasons for the change are debated. That is true. Vince McMahon has noted in an interview that the change is due to changing demographics in WWE viewership. He was interviewed, and the interview is provided. [2]
The Sun wrote an article which has mentioned Linda's Senate campaign as a possible reason for the change to more family-friendly entertainment. [4]
I am open to let this one go because the sources I have found on this are the most contentious to the Original Research and Verifiability people. [4]
Again, this is in The Sun article. [5]
-- Screwball23 talk 04:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Screwball, It's not the end of the world if we don't have a section for the change in programming so why do you keep arguing for it when the past 2 discussion on this at WT:PW have had the consensus to stay as it is.-- Curtis23's Us al ions 22:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
oh hey lets just delete all the talk page..idiot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 ( talk) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is this being nominated for GA? This article clearly fails the criteria. Just to show this, I'm going to review it against the quick-fail criteria real quick.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
According to the quick-fail criteria if the article fails at least one of the following it can be failed without a full review. This one fails at least three. I say this should be removed from GAN because this needs alot of work. It certainly is no where, and I repeat no where near a GA.-- Will C 05:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)