Talk:WWE/Archive 7

Untitled

are there any talks about bringing back the pg-14 rating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.154.19 (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Company name change?

Official rebranding confirmed per WWE's corporate website at http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2011/2011_04_07.html Joe8609 19:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe8609 (talk • contribs)

IT IS NOW OFFICIAL. IT IS JUST NOW KNOWN AS WWE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.158.59 (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems the company's name has changed. For example, on their corporate website most references are now made in the name of WWE, Inc. instead of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.. Just a point of interest, that's not to say they actually changed their name.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 17:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That`s an abervation. WWE has been used for years.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily the case now. There's a report from [Observer's Dave Meltzer] that the World Wrestling Entertainment name is to be dropped altogether with the company to be known exclusively as WWE. If this verifies, the article title would presumably have to soon change as well. EvWill (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Could be true. I don't think they would just drop all the World Wrestling Entertainment references, both on their corporate site and on WWE.com for nothing.--Tærkast (Communicate) 11:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation of World Wrestling Entertainment.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 15:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not if the World Wrestling Entertainment name is being retired. That's the point. WWE wouldn't be an abbreviation if the full name no longer exists.EvWill (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think most people know that, which isn't the point of the discussion. The point is whether the company, and according to that source is quite possible, will officially change it to simply "WWE", i.e. "WWE, Inc." not "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc."--Tærkast (Communicate) 15:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I take what Melter says with a grain of salt. Besides that, I see ZERO coverage of the "new" name in that link. Until another proven source comes along that says WWE has went the ways of KFC, the full name will stay as I have seen ZERO consensus (other than wheel warring) to make the change to WWE. Therefore, I have requested full page protection to assist in this, and until a reliable source comes forward that confirms the change. I believe though, for legal matters, the company will still use the full name.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It does look like they're going to be known as simply WWE since they're removing references to the full name from their official websites. But until they issue a press release to that effect, the article should not be edited to reflect a change in name. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that there shouldn't be a name change until an official release reflects in, their corporate documents, and NYSE ticker. This is just a discussion so far, nothing wrong with that. But as I said, they're increasingly using "WWE, Inc." (with the incorporation) instead of "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.", which is still reflected on the NYSE. If it does officially change all references to just WWE, then the "legal name" will simply be "WWE, Inc." accordingly. Nothing's set in stone so far, so we'll wait. --Tærkast (Communicate) 18:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

As for that source from Meltzer, here is the quote "There was a meeting yesterday where the subject was to no longer be called World Wrestling Entertainment, because of Vince's decree to eliminate the word wrestling from the product, and just be WWE."--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just another addition, they are using just "WWE" in their newer corporate documents.[1] [2] --Tærkast (Communicate) 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The ticker symbol will still be WWE as far as I can see. As far as legal issues, I was referring to legal proceedings where they would be required to use the full moniker.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The point is about them legally dropping the full name and changing it to just "WWE, Inc.". There wouldn't be "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc." anywhere, though, so using "WWE, Inc." for all future corporate and legal affairs. They're already using it in their documents.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, assuming there is an official name change, the article should be relocated to just WWE, not WWE, Inc. per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). --Jtalledo (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we may be getting a little ahead of ourselves at this moment in time. The best thing to do now is wait.--Tærkast (Communicate) 18:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Official press release via WWE corporate, name change to WWE announced. EvWill (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cman, 7 April 2011

Please rename the article to " WWE Inc. "

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110407005166/en/WWE%C2%AE

Cman (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Or to just WWE, assuming this is the primary target, or WWE, Inc. (with the comma). --Tærkast (Communicate) 16:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on that press release, I would say WWE. Also see my comment below regarding common name.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Time To Change

It is official World Wrestling Entertainment,Inc is now WWE, Inc. Source you say? well this is coming from the official WWE Corporation website [3] Zanwifi (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it needs to be renamed now. It's no longer an abbreviation, it is the full name of them now. — Moe ε 20:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Before that can be accomplished, Moe, I feel consensus is needed to establish the new common name. WWE? Or WWE, Inc.?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

According to the press release they have it as WWE without the comma. Zanwifi (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Legally wise, on the corporate site, the stock and corporate documents use "WWE, Inc.", but this article would probably need to change to just WWE, because WWE's the primary redirect to this page, only Apple Inc. uses the incorporated in the title.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"WWE, Inc." is used at the bottom of most WWE websites now, presumably the WWE will file for official change from "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc." to "WWE, Inc." in their SEC filings and the NYSE, but as I said, the suffix in the article title isn't really necessary.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Inc." doesn't need to be in any article titles. Every major corporation has "Inc." or something similar in their name for stock market purposes, i.e. Google, Inc. is just Google. — Moe ε 23:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And if we're speaking in terms of a common name, no one refers to them as WWE, Inc. anyways. Only the stock market and corporate website will refer to them as that. To the general speaking population, they refer to them as WWE. That is its common name. — Moe ε 23:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well now that it is agreed that the page is WWE When or who do we need to contact to make the move Zanwifi (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You should start a requested move in a new section on this talk page. —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was moved as uncontroversial.--rgpk (comment) 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment → WWE — World Wrestling Entertainment,Inc is now WWE. Zanwifi (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support - Per official name change.--Tærkast (Communicate) 12:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The name change is official, so it's a no-brainer.BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Official name change. Hazardous Matt (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - It's official. World Wrestling Entertainment is now just WWE. Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia don't can miss out of company decisions. Christian ^msg 21:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - If they just wanna go by WWE, then that's what we have to abide by. Vjmlhds 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support- i agree with everyone else, let's rename the page to WWE, Inc or just WWE. --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - that's the new name then lets rename the the page.--Ncam 21:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - It doesn't make sense to refer to a company by their former name. -- CollisionCourse (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - WWE is the official name. Calgarykid47 (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - They have chosen WWE is their new name so it should be changed here on Wikipedia. It does not make sense to keep the page as World Wrestling Entertainment. Socks ⁰¹ 09:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support This is an easy decision.  WWEFan225 ^Message_{Contributions} 16:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support No-brainer. Same reason per say of Kentucky Fried Chicken becoming KFC.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 17:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support as per the official press release issued by World Wrestling Entertainment. Jeff Silvers (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Vince says they're just 'WWE' now so I say we go along with it. InFlamester20 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - name change to WWE official per WWE Corporate press release EvWill (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support - WWE is what the company is officially known as now, so the page should be changed. Steveweiser (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

WWE programming and events were already listed and advertised as "WWE", and the official site was already WWE.com. The move is unlikely to cause any confusion. Calgarykid47 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I have to wonder why the page was recently move protected again, after the company has changed its name.--Tærkast (Discuss) 12:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is supposed to run for a week to allow consensus time to develop and possibly change. Although it appears unlikely that this will happen, is there a reason to rush the requested move process? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I was just wondering, it doesn't usually happen, though, move protection, which is why I was wondering about it.--Tærkast (Discuss) 22:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Niles Lewis, Columbia, S.C - Why are you guys thinking about changing the name of the company?It's name has already been changed more than enough in my opinion. Changing it might be confusing to your viewers. Plus it would cause money to get everything changed right? I would like it if would reconsider changing the name of the name of the company. Please WWE look me up and find me so i can appear on RAW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.21 (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk about bad timing. WWE just released a statement last week saying that they had already reached their 2011 quota for Wikipedia editors featured on RAW. You're welcome to apply again next year, though. Just place your request on the talk page of any Wikipedia article—they scan through them all when they're making their selections. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, and opinions on the name change are irrelevant. It's official, so we need to reflect that. And I highly doubt it would be confusing seeing as how WWE currently redirects here.--Tærkast (Discuss) 09:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we please have an admin move the page now. The discussion on the move is unanimous.--Voices in my Head WWE 23:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Vince McMahon is confusing!

Which name should the Wikipedia name be? This new pdf http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/WWE2011ShareholdersMeeting.pdf calls the company WWE but then list owner ship to WWE, Inc so whats it's gonna be WWE, Inc or simply WWE Zanwifi (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, the common name is "WWE". The legal name for the company would be "WWE, Inc." and would not form part of the article title, i.e. we don't call Microsoft Microsoft Corporation, or Sony as Sony Corporation. The exception is Apple Inc. because "apple" is generic, therefore it's necessary to disambiguate in that sense.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't use exact corporate names, unless we really have to, like I said with Apple Inc., per WP:NCCORP, which is why this article isn't titled "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.", because it isn't necessary.--Tærkast (Discuss) 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay Zanwifi (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

NYSE

In the first sentence of this article it links the New York Stock Exchange profile for World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. as some kind of proof that the company changed to WWE. The problem with this is that the NYSE profile still uses the full name: World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.. WWE is merely the SYMBOL on the ticker.

I would like to see more conclusive proof of the company name change. We should remove the stock exchange, it is not proof. Please replace with a proper reference. DB (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

A name change on the stock exchange does not occur overnight. It will be expected that the company will begin SEC Filings, which again, do not happen quickly. Since the company has rebranded itself, it is expected that a formal name change will occur soon. The company itself has begun using "WWE, Inc." Look through the corporate website and its documents.--Tærkast (Discuss) 21:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the actual reference is in the link to the corporate document, i.e. "WWE, Inc.[6]". I'd also like to point out that when WWF became WWE, it continued trading as WWF until such time as the stock market reflected the name change. [4]--Tærkast (Discuss) 21:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

WWE Universe Shutdown

Should it be put in that as of 1,1,2011 WWE Universe has been officially shut down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarioMan9112 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read the section on the WWE Universe social network...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Champions section redesign question.

I was wondering, can I/we change the current champions section? I was thinking of replacing the brand-specific title branding with a tier system. At the top would be the WWE and World titles, secondary titles like the US and Intercontinental would be in the middle and the divisonal titles (Tag and Divas) be at the bottom. It's alot better than it being brand specific due to the fact that WWE likes to have their champions appear on all brands. Plus, it'll have a section to show what brand (Raw or SmackDown) the titles are on. Do you agree with my redesign?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No. The WWE title has mostly been a Raw title, and the WHC has mostly been a Smackdown title. I think the current table is fine the way it is.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 12:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrestler link redirects

I don't believe the redirects are necessary nor really productive to the article. Yes, WP:NOTBROKEN says redirects are fine, but those links were already in place before a user changed them.--Tærkast (Discuss) 10:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sydney headquaters

I don't know if this has been addressed before, but I noticed that there is a reference to an office located in Sydney in the beginning of the article. It has been closed down for a while now.

Sources: http://www.onscreenasia.com/article-4329-wweclosesapacoffice-onscreenasia.html http://www.wrestling-online.com/news/News_9/WWE_closes_Sydney_office_as_part_of_the_cost_cuts_from_last_week.shtml http://bleacherreport.com/articles/113003-report-wwe-closes-down-australia-office — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.186.102 (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the same with the office in Toronto. The list of offices was from way back in 2007; I updated it with current info from the WWE Corporate website. --PlasmaTwa2 03:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jbakewell123, 7 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

James Bakewell Jbakewell123 (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jbakewell123, 7 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

James Bakewell Jbakewell123 (talk) 09:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi James. For us to help you edit this page, you need to post what you specifically need changed underneath the edit request template. Posting a blank request isn't very helpful in this situation because we can't tell what you want us to edit. If what you want to add is in any way controversial, you will also need to provide reliable sources that back it up. ThemFromSpace 09:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Logo

For the current logo, should we have the clear and 3D logo or the bold one? 161.130.178.7 (talk) 01:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The logo keeps changing and I just want the page to have one version of the logo. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

WWWF section

Added (and sourced) a bunch of material from issues of the WON. Notamisfit (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ashman444, 19 July 2011

Let me edit this page

Ashman444 (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry that is not how an edit request works, however if you will tell me what you would like changed I would be happy to do the changes for you.--Dcheagle 04:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

HHH

Triple HHH is chairman now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.243.150 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, he isn't. He is the kayfabe chairman. The real life chairman is still Vince McMahon. 161.130.178.7 (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The WWE's status as a company...

Technically, WWE is an ENTERTAINMENT company, not a media company. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not according to WWE. Their corporate website listed WWE as an "integrated media organization", which includes 'entertainment' (a very vague term). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.94.179 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC) :

OK. Well, according to WWE, Vince McMahon is a billionaire. But, according to most websites, he actually isn't. The company can say whatever they want about themself, but the article has to represent how the world views the company and the world views it as a wrestling promotion first & an entertainment company second. It's the same deal for Sony. In fact, you can see what I mean by going to the discussion page for media conglomerate & checking out the section titled "Discrepancy with Sony". 76.235.248.47 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Requst for CEO and Chairman spot...

Change the CEO for Vince McMahon to Triple H. 76.235.248.47|76.235.248.47(talk) 9:20 22 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyboykaliq (talk • contribs)

 Not done This page reflects the real life chairman, not the storyline chairman. Vince McMahon is still the real life chairman of the company. See http://corporate.wwe.com/governance/board.jsp. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

New WWE Tag Team Champions

Kofi Kingston & Evan Bourne beat David Otunga & Michael McGillicutty in the 22nd August 2011 edition of Raw.

84.91.238.105 (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It was changed roughly 5 hours before you posted here. That page is routinely updated whenever new champions are crowned, so there is no need to make any change requests here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

CEO/Chairmen

Now i've haven't been on the WWE page of quite some time but i've known that Triple H is CEO of the company now so i didn't want to change it without a dissucion of why it's now changed or is it a storyline from the company?

No, he's not the CEO - he's the storyline COO - big difference.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Still World Wrestling Entertainment/opening line

The full name 'World Wrestling Entertainment' is still referred to in WWE tv programming, even on the commentators desk under the WWE logo is says 'World Wrestling Entertainment'. The organization as a whole was simplified to WWE to incompass WWE Movies etc., but it was not "formally World Wrestling Entertainment" as listed in the article. Shouldn't the opening line read WWE (abbreviated from World Wrestling Entertainment) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.94.179 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

http://101wrestlingnews.blogspot.com/

Raw Rating For 24th October 2011 is 3.3

Abbinav (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly where in the article did you want this edit made? Darrenhusted (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

f d d 24.209.47.84 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Not a request. Zidanie5 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Scripted wins

James Guttman (2006) says the the wrestling matches are scripted on page 55 in the book World Wrestling Insanity. Does this need to belong in the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary here since this is the case for all professional wrestling so it is more relevant on the Professional Wrestling article where it is already mentioned.--69.159.111.142 (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for clear scripting explanation

User 69.159.111.142 is wrong. Scripting is not mentioned at all in the Professional Wrestling page. A passing mention is made of referees' actions being "sometimes" scripted in the Rules#General Structure section, but even then it is deep down in a later paragraph. On this page it is again mentioned only in passing in the change_of_business_model section, but again, deep down within the article. I think the significant fact that pro-wrestling is scripted needs to be underlined much more robustly and explained both on that page and on this page - also, a clear distinction needs to be made and explained between "scripted" and "fake", because the great skill and athleticism of the wrestlers is undeniable. All of this needs to be explained on BOTH the Pro Wrestling page AND on this one because WWE is by far the most widely-known brand of Pro Wrestling in the world - not explaining its scripted nature here "just because it's already mentioned in the Pro Wrestling" page is not a good enough excuse, because not all pro wrestling the world over is scripted, and when it is, it's not always done to the same extent. I'm not going to change the article myself as I'm not any kind of authority on the sport, but the omission is quite glaring. BigSteve (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with Bigzteve. Mentioning this in the article would appropriate. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to merge History of WWE into WWE

I have proposed that History of WWE should be merged into WWE. My reason is because most of the information (or possibly all of the information) in History of WWE is already in this article (WWE). Besides, updating both infoboxes and information on both articles after something new or big happened is too much. I think we should omit everything from History of WWE, and whatever information that was not in WWE, but is in History of WWE should be added to this article, otherwise leaving a redirect. In other words, if there is information on the article, History of WWE, that is not in this article, WWE, there should be a decision if it can be added to this article, or omitted. --JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 05:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

• Nominate already in WWE--JC ^{Talk to me} _{My contributions} 06:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Change the name

The company it's not WWE, it is WWE, Inc.

--MarioSumD (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

According to its latest 10-Q SEC filing (quarter ended March 31, 2012), the exact name of the company as specified in its charter is "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc." The WWE as letters only is just a DBA thing, thank goodness. Hanxu9 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Founding

I'm not sure it's accurate to put 1952 as the founding date, and the role Jess McMahon played in its founding is rather dubious too. Through a Google Book search, some credit him with founding it, others credit Vince, Sr. with founding the CWC or WWWF as the predecessor company. The dates vary, too. The two articles on the elder McMahons, Jess and Vince, Sr. seem to contradict each other, Jess apparently having founded CWC and Vince, Sr. having founded the WWWF.--Tærkast (Discuss) 22:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

WWE is a real sport

Hello. I'm wondering why hasn't the author of the article mentioned anywhere that WWE is scripted and that most of the moves there are faked? Sander Tammist. sandertammist@email.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.235.64.113 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done - I'm wondering why the reader of this article would be under the impression that it states professional wrestling is a legitimate sport? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes and the term professional wrestling itself means a "mode of spectacle, combining athletics and theatrical performance. Jordan123235 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Jordan123235

PEGI ERA

as there is the attitude era in the article and the pegi era on the run i wonder why till now it isn´t mentioned that the wwe did concentrate on kids and families after the attitude era. I guess this is pretty important for the company or not?--Nakurio (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Should We Note The Arabic site Of WWE?

Hi, I'm from Saudi Arabia I Was Surprised When I was Trying To go to wwe.com when I Was transferring to this page arabia.wwe.com Is It a Page Supported by the WWE? Can We Noted This in article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.249.183.253 (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

the WWE King of the Ring accomplishment

Sheamus won the crown in November 29,2010. Its been a year & a half. Shouldnt it be moved into the defunct section? At least for now. If they bring it back fine, move it, but until then, its as gone as the Cruiserweight title.

Also, maybe renaming the defunct titles section to Retired Championships might sound better?

The king of the ring is now held every 2 years. If it is not held by the end of the year I would agree that it should be moved. --Travisbickle87 (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

FCW Divas Champion

It's no longer Raquel Diaz. Caylee Turner defeated Diaz at an FCW Live Event to win the championship. You've made this correction on Turner's Wikipedia, but everywhere that lists the FCW Divas Champion (as on this WWE Wikipedia) it still reads Raquel Diaz. Please fix this accordingly. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.229.230 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrestling is fake. Duh.

This paragraph has been removed several times:

The matches have predetermined outcomes in order to heighten entertainment value, and all combative maneuvers are worked in order to lessen the chance of actual injury. These facts were once kept highly secretive but are now a widely accepted open secret. By and large, the true nature of the performance is not discussed by the performing company in order to sustain and promote the willing suspension of disbelief for the audience by maintaining an aura of verisimilitude.

It's essentially a long-winded, verbose way of saying "wrestling is fake." It says nothing in particular about WWE, since this is true for pro wrestling in general. After someone else re-added it, I added a line that also says "wrestling is fake" in the first paragraph that should suffice. It flows a lot better and doesn't end up veering off into a non WWE-specific tangent. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

One editor's behavior to consider is "Kumarila".[5] Many of his edits are an "undo" of the contributions of editors with years of experience, such as Mikeymike2001, Saget53 and TheRedPenOfDoom. He's already been given repeated block warnings, so as of August 13, 2012, you may not have to worry about him.

But as to your other point, the existing paragraph now reads:

These two brands feature storyline-driven combat sport matches with predetermined outcomes and fighting maneuvers that are worked, all promoted as legitimate bouts."

That is, to a discerning reader, it reads "wrestling is fake". In fact ... why I'm here right now ... I just had to explain to someone online, who, after being quoted the paragraph, said "predetermined outcomes" doesn't mean it's fake. The WP:UNBIAS Wikipedia language here is not being sufficiently direct. The word "worked" is used too and hyperlinked, but that link is not even directly to the closest Wikipedia entry ("Gaming the system"). Instead of "worked", the article might need a more direct term less subject to interpretation? How about: "contrived", "fake", or "not sports events", instead, or in addition to "worked"? A word or two redundancy wouldn't hurt to nail it down. Leptus Froggi (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Added "Like other professional wrestling promotions, WWE's shows do not feature legitimate sporting contests." --Jtalledo (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Grin. I'm pleased with that. Just so long as they don't stage a "WWE wrestler body slams Wikipedia editor in reverse" event. Leptus Froggi (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Subsidiaries

Subsidiaries in the infobox might not be accurate. Here is a list from their SEC filing from 2011: http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/110307/WORLD-WRESTLING-ENTERTAINMENTINC_10-K/exhibit21-1.htm --Jtalledo (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Move

The WWE is still the World Wrestling Entertainment but since its doing business as WWE everyone keeps changing pages such as the Triple Crown and Grand Slam pages as well as other articles which mention the WWE in general and War over changing it so I say since its still the World Wrestling Entertainment that we change it back from just WWE BlackDragon 21:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:RM on how to request a page move, and please don't move the page with no consensus. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK so do you think we should. I do since the name should be full since WWE is just the business name of the World Wrestling Entertainment. BlackDragon 00:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Considering WWE released an announcement regarding the name change and the LA Times (among many others) have reported it, no. This has been explained to you already here, here and here. Would explaining it again make a difference? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2012

Jacob642 (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC) let me edit

No.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

WWE

Wwe or also know as world wrestling entrtamont is a compney set up in the usa and is run by vince.k mchman. the Wwe is a world wide bussnes know by nearly everyone anround the world and it is world famous . Though out Wwe year the have big monthly shows witch are called Ppv or Pay per views witch are heldo on sundays and diffrent to the weekly shows wwe bring you . In one way they are diffrent as Wwe like to call them There flag ship show are held every week one on Monday and that is called Monday night raw the other held on Friday and called Friday night smackdown . Also Wwe's Flap ship show's has there very own wrestlers and they are on Brands . Going back to when Wwe had just stared it was called Wwf aka world wrestling fedraishion but they had to change that and Wwf consisted on two show like Wwe dose now but back then they were called Monday night war and Wcw there was no smackdown till about the 2001 . On each show they have Championships witch the wrestlers fight for on there brand Smackdown mainly has the world championship and intercontanentle while Raw has the Wwe championship or the united states championship but one titel can be on both brands and that is the Tag team championship . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbadboy (talk • contribs) 22:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like a typical WWE fan!

80.41.70.139 (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Your point being? How does any of this help improve the article? please remember WP:NOTAFORUM on talk pages. MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - ^{(Chocolate Cakes)} 14:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Slammys & Other accomplishments

I think an entry for the slammy awards should be listed under the blue MITB winner. Have the latest winner be a link to the most recent section on the slammy page. & of course the date they were held on RAW.

I think the Other accomplishments chart should have a column for when the MITB is used for its title match reward. Also, a column for the previous winner.

CobraMorph 24.24.231.104 (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

the WWE PPVs

Hello, I think the schedule of upcoming ppv should be moved to the main WWE page, or at least mention the next coming PPV right before the titles chart is listed. Everything on RAW builds to the PPV, so it deserves a larger mention than just another link in the see also section.

CobraMorph 24.24.231.104 (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Reception

What about a reception area for the page to show its long lasting impact in our pop culture and reviews of the series from critics? Will there ever be a section? --Matt723star (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

citations

It was my understanding that citations for subjects couldn't come from the article subject itself, i.e a website owned and edited by that person or company.

However, a large percentage of citations on this article are from WWE related website (WWE Corporate etc).

78.146.169.72 (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. I'll tag the References section accordingly. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that this is still the case. All the citations are still from WWE's own website, WWE.com

2.28.99.103 (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

WWE Page move

Since WWE real name is World Wrestling Entertainment,We should rename the WWE page to World Wrestling Entertainment. WWE is only trading name which was adopted in 2011(Renamed for World Wrestling Entertainment,Inc) While World Wrestling Entertainment is still the legal name of WWE. Therefore please listen to my request and rename the WWE page to World Wrestling Entertainment.

N Not done and not likely to be done. As per WP:COMMONNAME, we use the most commonly used name of the subject for the article title, which in this case is "WWE" (it's rare that anyone ever calls them "World Wrestling Entertainment" any more. In fact, I can't recall hearing that name being used on-air since Punk's pipebomb promo, a full two years ago). I've also heard (though I haven't had this verified, so it might be untrue) that they're not called World Wrestling Entertainment any more, and that they've completely changed their name to simply "WWE", which doesn't stand for anything. Again, though, I don't know how true this is. — Richard BB 12:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Fine then edit and move every article of this wiki to its common name. Like Total nonstop action wrestling to simply TNA. It would be good to use real name rather to use some "Common Name".---Hrishi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma Hrishi (talk • contribs) 15:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles are at their common name. If you have a problem with Total Nonstop Action, you'd have to take it to their talk page. Though, as I said, part of the issue here might be that WWE doesn't stand for anything (or so I've heard). — Richard BB 15:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that here and here were very explicit. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As HHH points out, this isn't even a common name issue. WWE is the actual name of the company and has been since 2011. Moving to World Wrestling Entertainment wouldn't make sense on any level.LM2000 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

WWE PAGE MOVE!!!!

WWE page should be moved to World Wrestling Entertainment. And please dont give reasons of common name. Then you should change every article of this wiki to its common name like Google Chrome to simply Chrome and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling to simply TNA. I am really sick of a legal name being deprived of like this. Even it is used on telvison like the one of CM Punk and Paul Heyman. More evidence? Here

    www.wwe.com/help/contact-us‎
    www.wwe.com/help/generalfaq/copyright‎

Beside them We all know that WWE is just a trade name.

Therfore please accept my request and move the page WWE to World Wrestling Entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma Hrishi (talk • contribs) 11:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We've been through this. WP:COMMONNAME applies whether you like it or not. If you have a problem with Chrome being called "Google Chrome" and TNA being called "Total Nonstop Action", then take it to their relevant talk pages. This isn't the place to discuss it. Finally, please do not make clumsy copy-paste page moves just because the requested move failed. — Richard BB 11:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Come on man,Using common names doesn't mean to use abbreviation . And in this case World Wrestling Entertainment is also the common name...So why not move WWE page..to...World Wrestling Entertainment.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.194.76 (talk • contribs)

Except that common names does mean using abbreviations, if that is the most common name. In this case, it's clear that "WWE" is used far, far more than "World Wrestling Entertainment". Hell, even WWE themselves rarely use the name "World Wrestling Entertainment". — Richard BB 08:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The legal name should be used in the introduction, then the common name as well, per WP:NCCORP#First sentence. I implore people to look at this source, which confirms World Wrestling Entertainment remains the company's legal name.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes it should be included in the lead, but it should not be the first thing mentioned in the lead. Per WP:BETTER; "As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be in boldface as early as possible in the first sentence." STATic message me! 21:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is it's legal name per nasdaq, I agree that it would be in compliance with WP:NCCORP#First sentence to include the World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc in the first line. I disagree with how the "Doing business as" part is phrased, given WWE's convoluted rebranding, but that's just a matter of semantics I suppose.LM2000 (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it can be included in the first sentence, but the article title "WWE" should appear first and foremost, which is done in all articles outside of BLPs. Something like "WWE also known as World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc...." STATic message me! 10:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That works for me.LM2000 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well actually the common name are more appopriate replacement for historic names,But beside that The title should be World Wrestling Entertainment with WWE on first line.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.206.239 (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why should it be? We've explained why it's more appropriate for the title to be "WWE". — Richard BB 08:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Company history section

This section still needs to be trimmed massively. The whole point of the History of WWE article is that it is highly detailed. The section on the main article does not need to be anywhere near as detailed, merely touching upon only the key moments and people: Capitol: Roderick
WWWF: Vince Sr and Sammartino
80's WWF: Vince Jr, Hogan, Rock N Wrestling, WrestleMania (and starting other PPV's and SNME)
90's WWF: mid 90's fall and rise into the Attitude Era (Montreal, Austin), purchase of WCW, Invasion
WWE: Brand split, Cena, ECW, Guerrero and Benoit, NXT
Lawsuits: steroid scandal and WWF name should be mentioned

Only brief details, with appropriate links to main articles. As it is, there is far too much detail considering there is a sub-article about the History of WWE. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

WHC Briefcase

Now, the brand extension and the WHC both disapeared, so I think the SD/WHC Briefcase should be eliminated from C&A. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In the past we've waited until after new MITB when new guys win the case to change them, right? I think we should probably leave it as is until the next MITB match, when we can get rid of both the WWE MITB and WHC MITB, and have one WWE WHC MITB listed.LM2000 (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Why? One championship and one roster... put two MITB briefcases is pointless. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as their is apparently only going to be one, somebody can provide a source for this, right? Either we leave it at two, or it goes back to the previous sole holder of a MITB, Jack Swagger. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It should be two - Randy Orton and Damien Sandow. We can't just ignore them altogether as you seem to suggest with the Jack Swagger idea. I think a consensus is needed here on the talk page. BerleT (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've reverted back to the two while this is nutted out here. BerleT (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2014

swagger. Orton was the last wwe championship/raw/red briefcase, so makes sense to put swagger as money in the bank holder. However, we can delete the name.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense because you are totally deleting Orton and Sandow, and for what? What if - for the sake of argument - that Sandow still had his case? BerleT (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is my opinion. Swagger or Orton, it depends if we consider the next MITB as the continuation of the sole version (edge, rvd, punk...swager) or the continuation of the Red briefcase (which Orton won) for the WWE World heavyweight championship. One title, so I don't see the point to include Orton as the last holder, because he hold a version of the briefcase. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Might as well just keep it with the two until this years event so there is no conflict or dispute. For all we know there might be two heavyweight championships again by then. STATic message me! 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering?

I've asked this before but didn't get an answer, so again I ask, shouldn't there be a "reception" section? Or maybe an "Impact" section as it is was and still continues to be a major part of pop culture, it's common knowledge. --Matt723star (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the thing to remember is that this is an article about the company WWE, which doesn't so much have a public "reception". It has a public perception, to an extent, but still it's important to make a distinction between thoughts on WWE-the-corporation, vs. opinions of their entertainment products or of professional wrestling in general. The latter two would be topical to articles about those products, or an article dedicated to the subject, more so than the WWE company article.

There's already some attention paid to public opinion/reaction (too much, now that I look at it) in the history sections, particularly The Golden Era and The Attitude Era. But perhaps a useful guide to what "should" be here are articles about other corporations that run well-recognized brands. Take technology companies:

• The IBM article reads like a company press release, to an almost embarrassing degree. So, that's not much help.
• The Microsoft and Apple Inc. articles are more useful, since they profile companies so controversial that they've given rise to companion articles, Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Apple Inc..

A Criticism section in this article would certainly be appropriate, in my opinion, if someone wanted to do the research. But it should focus on the company's business practices, not its products, in the same way that what's covered in Criticism of Microsoft is distinct from product-article Reception sections like the one for Windows 8.

Notes

Request for protection

David Bergman (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is already semi-protected - although for some reason the little padlock symbol is not currently appearing on the top RH corner. Arjayay (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2014

Under "The Wellness Program" please change "The Talent Wellness Program is a comprehensive drug, alcohol, and cardiac screening program initiated in February 2006, shortly after the sudden death of one of their highest profile talents, 38 year-old Eddie Guerrero.[59]" to "The Talent Wellness Program is a comprehensive drug, alcohol, and cardiac screening program initiated by a team of physicians independent of WWE in February 2006, shortly after the sudden death of one of their highest profile talents, 38 year-old Eddie Guerrero.[59]"

129.133.125.138 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

The third parargraph of the article begins with "Like", better written as "As". Analogy, rather than symbolism. That's it :) 109.186.53.179 (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

((Done}} - Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014

Vincent K. Mcmahon is not the CEO/ majority owner, or chairman. Triple H (Paul Micheal Levesque) is the majority owner, chairman, and CEO. Bkellar (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 23:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Vince McMahon is indeed the chairman, and CEO of WWE. Proof: Vince McMahon. Your friend, Billy (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Vacant

How is removing the name of the previous title-holder helpful at all? The header clearly states "Previous champion(s)". Bryan/Barrett were clearly the previous champions. Stop being daft! RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2014

I would like to change the page Because I feel lots of things are wrong mainly about its History Please Reply Mohammed13mahgoub (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass removal of content

This concerns the repeated and unexplained mass removal of content by Torrian. The user has been warned not to remove the content without discussing it first, but refused to heed the warning. If the user fails to discuss it here they shall be reported. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Torrian has yet to provide a valid reason for removing. They claimed "wikipedia" was responsible for removing the content in the first place but that isn't true. Then they say the information is inaccurate. They removed a huge bulk of material and most of it was sourced to a reliable outlet. What exactly was inaccurate? The content should be reinstated until some sort of reasonable argument is presented.LM2000 (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I have warned the user, he is one revert away from a 3RR violation, though given his previous blocks he should have been reported after the first revert. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2014

JackMista231 (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2014

remove the last sentence in the general info section. "WWE was created by Justin Bieber." Voices17 (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WWE HQ Picture

Hello, Please stop adding the picture of WWE's HQ. It is not needed. No picture= Best for Business. Otherwise, feel free to add the picture somewhere else on the page and NOT the infobox. Thank you. thatwweguy_619— Preceding unsigned comment added by thatwweguy 619 (talk • contribs)

A Wikipedia rollbacker put the picture back up there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torrian2014 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

And rightly so. There is no legitimate reason why it should be removed. Mister Q101 (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you as everyone else has because you have failed to provide a good reason for its removal. Other then the fact that you don't believe that it belongs in the article and also from your comments on other users talk page about the fact that the TNA and ROH articles don't have pictures of their HQ in the infobox. Just because another article doesn't have something that this one does is not a good reason to remove the image from this page.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 09:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Please change the royal rumble winner from Roman Reigns to Curtis Axel 92.99.231.215 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

picture of headquarters

Please do not add back the picture of the WWE world headquarters. It is not necessary. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatwweguy 619 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Complex article

I find this article by Complex (magazine) to be very interesting, especially paragraphs 5 - 8. From "There is no fandom" to " if it were a "real" sport." Could the information in there fit in this article? @LM2000: @Gloss:@InedibleHulk:@HHH Pedrigree: starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Any info in particular? Definitely can't fit it all in. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A small bit about the fandom may not be a bad idea as we are an unusual bunch.LM2000 (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

We're starting to blend in with the MMA marktards, as UFC takes the basic tricks WWE isn't using anymore (per Jim Cornette). CM Punk goes that way, Chael Sonnen comes this way. Lesnar rules everything. But they've still got a while to go before they can claim to have the craziest crowds. WWE has had a few generations to mess with little kids' mushy brains. That really helps breed loyalty. I'm still rooting for Mantaur!

But yeah, sum something up in a few sentences. It'll probably be fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguity in Top Summary

@Oknazevad:: I disagree with your revert of my edit. To recap, the sentence says

The WWE also refers to the professional wrestling promotion itself, founded by Jess McMahon and Toots Mondt in 1952 as Capitol Wrestling Corporation, and as of 2014, the largest in the world, holding approximately 320 televised and non-televised events a year, and broadcasting to about 36 million viewers in more than 150 countries.

Maybe to you the sentence seems perfectly clear, but to me it still seems ambiguous. Of what is it the largest? Is it the largest company in the world? The largest company in the world? The largest media company in the world? The largest wrestling-focused company in the world? Maybe this is common knowledge to you or certain other people, but to people like me, who have virtually no knowledge of the wrestling world, this is an ambiguous phrase.

Or is there something here I'm missing, perhaps?

SarahTehCat (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The largest professional wresting promotion, which is the subject of the sentence. That said, looking at it, it is a run on sentence, so it should be rephrased either way. I'll take a stab at it. oknazevad (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see your posting here until now. Sorry, for some reason, Wikipedia hasn't been alerting me of edits for the past month or so... I'm unsure why.

Anyway, yeah, thanks, okie dokes. SarahTehCat (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015

Change | owner = Vince McMahon To | owner = Vince McMahon Feedthedogs2 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: He's already wikilinked earlier in the infobox, under Founder. No need to link it twice. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 23:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The latest section introduced; "Contracts" should be removed as it is not sourced. I request that this section be removed, or that a citation needed tag be added to it. 1.152.96.136 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Done I've added a tag that it needs to be sourced. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 23:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2015

Please change "| founder = Vince McMahon Linda McMahon" to "| founder = Jess McMahon Toots Mondt", seeing as how the Capitol Wrestling Corporation is listed as WWE's predecessor & Jess & Toots founded the CWC. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Deny request please. The information is correct. Vince took over the original company. The current company and the CWC are not the same corporation. The CWC as it was no longer exists and hasn't done since the takeover. 120.144.28.194 (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done per 120.144.LM2000 (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Madison Square Garden records

This page should mention the WWWF's run in MGS more thoroughly. In particular the several times that the promotion broke the attendance records in the arena, beginning with the Rocca/Pérez team to the reign of Pedro Morales... Despite being mentioned, Samartino is only mentioned superficially. At the very least, it should mention the Morales/Sammartino draw, which was considered a mega event for its time. IMO, by beginning to emphasize the promotion's history during the 80s it is disregarding the history of the time when it really became established after breaking away from the NWA. 208.54.44.222 (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No. What you are talking about predates this company, formed in 1980 as stated in the article and confirmed above. Your suggested content belongs here. 1.136.97.80 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. There's a distinction that needs to be made between the parent company, which changed in the early 80s when Vince the younger took over from his father and itself has since changed names, and the promotion, which is a continuous entity and collection of intellectual properties, previously owned by CWC, later owned by Titan Sports/WWFE inc/WWE inc. This article is not just about the corporation, but also the promotion. In fact, it is about the promotion firstly, and the corporation secondly. And it should cover the entire history of the promotion sufficiently. While I really have a hard time considering coverage that begins with 30-year-old events as RECENTISM, the article is lacking in earlier history, essentially glancing at everything from before the national expansion. oknazevad (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Business "law" (for want of a better term) disagrees with you. WWE is it's current form was born in 1980 and it (Titan Sports) and CWC/WWWF were both about for two years. Sorry, but you are making a case that doesn't work in cold hard light of day. 1.136.97.84 (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

The most recent edit at the time of commenting added "Chief Operating Officer" to Paul Levesque's credentials. I think we know this is a kayfabe title and it needs to be reverted. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done oknazevad (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The New Generation

Wcw Monday Nitro did not debut in May 1995. It debuted it September 1995. The show also did not go to three hours until 1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.59.62 (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the date. But I don't think we need that much detail about when it's runtime here. oknazevad (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The article states that in mid 1996 Nitro went to three hours and that is completely false. It was only expanded to two hours in mid 1996. Three hours came in 1998.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.54.181 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Removed it. Missed it the first time. As I said, the exact details of the time slot are unneeded for this article. And it was the nWo that was the important part, not the length of the show. Thanks. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

World Wrestling Entertainment

Once again, (I know a few people dont care) but the WWE has been constantly referring to itself as the World Wrestling Entertainment lately

From Paul Heyman bringing it up, HHH etc.

During this years SummerSlam event the name "World Wrestling Entertainment Inc" was used. And during the past RAW events, the trademark in the bottom right current reads "WW Entertainment Inc", with the WW of course standing for "World Wrestling"

Can we please change the name of this page back to "World Wrestling Entertainement" and let this name be used in articles.

having it be "World Wrestling Entertiainment/WWE" Doesnt make any sense.

More Importantly the official website http://www.wwe.com/ reads

"All WWE programming, talent names, images, likenesses, slogans, wrestling moves, trademarks, logos and copyrights are the exclusive property of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“WWE”). All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. © 2015 WWE All Rights Reserved. This website is based in the United States. By submitting personal information to this website you consent to your information being maintained in the U.S., subject to applicable U.S. laws. U.S. law may be different than the law of your home country. WrestleMania logo TM & © 2015 WWE. All Rights Reserved."

This is all the proof you need. Not an old source from 2011 BlackDragon 17:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I also bring

• http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/07/06/why-world-wrestling-entertainment-incs-stock-jumpe.aspx
• http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WWE
• http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/WWE:US

Once again.

The company's legal name never stopped being "World Wrestling Entertainment Inc", they've just been doing business as "WWE". Nothing in the links you've provided show otherwise.LM2000 (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

-_- Your doing this again......

If their name is "world wrestling entertainment" and you acknowledge this, why do you keep denying it?

The PROMOTION is also still World Wrestling Entertainment.

The sources I provided DO say that. Even if they do business as WWE, that changes nothing.

And the quote from the official website says "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and its subsidiaries (“WWE”)"

Please stop this. You are wrong. You dont own the WWE pages. BlackDragon 22:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

We reflect what reliable sources report. Here's what the Los Angeles Times said in this article:"Vince McMahon is taking the wrestling out of World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. No, this isn't an outrageous plot the colorful impresario has cooked up for his wrestlers to act out in front of thousands of screaming fans. McMahon, the chairman and chief executive of WWE, wants to give the company a makeover, starting with the name. From now on WWE will no longer stand for World Wrestling Entertainment. It will just be WWE, plain and simple." Emphasis mine. If WWE were to change back to being called "World Wrestling Entertainment" (notice the lack of Inc), we would still have to reflect that they did rebrand in 2011, although none of the sources you have provided reflect this. You've been blocked repeatedly for edit warring over this issue and we've tried to explain this to you a hundred different ways, at some point you should count your losses and move on before you face further blocks.LM2000 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, that is a link from 2011!

On their shows and on the website they were going by WWE inc.

But recently, the website, the logos on the shows, etc have not being using WWE Inc anymore. They have been using the full name.

And I believe the OFFICIAL website trumps all sources when it comes to reliability. By going back to the old source, you are basically saying they cannot change their mind. They will forever be only WWE inc.

Again, in 1990, the COMPANY was known as Titan Sports Inc. however the PROMOTION was World Wrestling Federation

Now, maybe it WAS WWE Inc legally, but the promotion never changed its name.

NOW the WWE has been going by World Wrestling Entertainment Inc once again, and the promotion never changed its name

You dont need to be rude. You keep ignoring my points and sources because you dont want to be wrong or something. You dont own these pages.

The correct term needs to be used.

Question???? Do you even watch the product? Or are a fan of the World Wrestling Entertainment? BlackDragon 22:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Black Dragon, please review WP:CIVIL before posting again, and your opinion (and this is what you are presenting) is not relevant to the article or any other article on Wikipedia. You MUST cite a proper reliable source (see WP:RS for instructions) and until you do, the 2011 source stands as it has not been properly trumped. The WWE website is not reliable in this regard because it carries the usual false information of a wrestling promotion. The sourcing must be third party and independent. In other words, you have failed to prove conclusively through a reliable independent source that what you say is true. Your word is not good enough. Do you understand? 121.220.23.33 (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

1. the OFFICIAL website is wrong??? Alright then.

2. If WWE cant have a say on their own name then this site is crap. 3. I provided MANY, MANY third party sources that also back up the WWE's claim??? from this year. Not 5 years ago

I had no clue the WWE isnt a reliable source for the WWE. Silly me -_-

This isnt my opinion. Its a fact. And that source from 2011 links to a non existent page. So that source is not valid

Also a guy that has had an account for ONE day, doesnt really know the ins and outs of what can and cant happen. Just sayin BlackDragon 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You just admirably demonstrated that you don't understand, particularly the issue of sourcing and the difference between fact and opinion. You have presented your translation of the sources you are using. This is not fact and it never will be. If you are unable to accept this then it's quite clear you are not here to contribute. 121.220.23.33 (talk) 01:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious fact that the official website repeatedly declares false information in the style of all professional wrestling promoters, it is not a second or third party source, and will always be unacceptable as a reference on Wikipedia, Black60dragon. However, this fact is being added to the discussion far too late to be useful. 71.31.239.110 (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2016

wwe eric schutt

20eric16 (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. /wiae ★ /tlk 06:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable resources

From a logic point of view, I agree with that "WWE.com should know what it's talking about (regarding WWE)", however, I would like to remind editors of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works

2.27.22.234 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016

Can somebody change the Start date and age template from the current {Start date|1980|02|21} to {start date and age|1980|02|21} to correspond to WWE's official founding date? 173.73.242.76 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2016

The following should be changed:

The 1980s "Wrestling Boom" peaked with the WrestleMania III pay-per-view at the Pontiac Silverdome in 1987, which set an attendance record of 93,173, a record that still stands today.[23]

To:

The 1980s "Wrestling Boom" peaked with the WrestleMania III pay-per-view at the Pontiac Silverdome in 1987, which set an attendance record of 93,173, a record that stood for 29 years only to be broken at Wrestlemania 32 which had 101,763 people attend.[23]https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/wrestlemania-32--record-and-reputations-tumble-075620564.html

Mootlmootl (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done, though slightly differently phrased. oknazevad (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2016

Copypaste of entire article removed

27.2.128.60 (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-
"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request ... another editor may remove your entire request."
This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"preliminary wrestler"

§ Prior to Titan Sports says

After gaining a television program deal and hiring preliminary wrestler Lou Albano as a manager for Sammartino's heel opponents, the WWWF was doing sellout business by 1970.

Preliminary wrestler redirects to Job (professional wrestling), which doesn't mention the expression at all. Needs a definition!

I've put an appeal up at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports § Professional wrestling, and I'm also linking from there to here.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A preliminary wrestler is just one who wrestles lower on the card ("mid-carder" for the middle, "curtain-jerker" for the bottom). He can also be a jobber, but if they all were, nobody would lose, and the featured bouts wouldn't start till the next morning, after the crowd went home sick of draws. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Acronyms

WWF and WWE are initialisms not acronyms. For example, under legals disputes the text: "regarding Titan's use of the "WWF" acronym" should refer to an initialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.97.97 (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:ACRONYM. As noted in the extensive discussion there, the distinction between the two is pedantic and unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from the current {Start date|1980|02|21} to {start date and age|1980|02|21} to correspond to WWE's official founding date?

108.45.29.72 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

edit regarding brands

I've reverted the recent edits regarding the three WWE brands. I think the opening paragraphs should be concise, which the previous version was. It is NPOV, as the claims that Raw and Smackdown are main roster and NXT is a developmental brand are sourced to reliable sources. Also, I don't think it is appropriate to say Raw and Smackdown are "considered" as main roster and developmental, rather than actually being such. The edit I reverted also said than NXT was a "level below" the main roster, which isn't supported by the source. To me, the distinction between main roster and developmental isn't about how they are perceived, but a factual claim of what what purpose they serve, and how the company operates. We could elaborate on how NXT operates, but I don't think this is appropriate for this article, as it meant as a summary of the company. In any case, I think a claim any claims about the status of NXT should include sources independent of WWE, as we shouldn't present only the WWE's view. Silverfish (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I respect Vjmlhds but I think some action will have to be taken against them. To my knowledge, the only time they've discussed this is when it was brought to WT:PW#NXT as a 3rd brand, where, if any consensus has emerged, it hasn't come up in their favor. Despite this, the reverts have continued and now they're using unreliable sources (per WP:PW/RS) to prove their point.LM2000 (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Looking at the sources that have been added we have: [6], which is mostly quoting Triple H, so is not independent. [7] describes it as a developmental territory or brand, as well as calling it a third brand, and [8], which briefly describes it as a third brand. [9] does not seem to be a reliable source. I do not consider a claim that it is a third brand as contradiction that it is a developmental brand. Also, I do not think any of them justify removing the sourced statement that Raw and Smackdown are main roster brands. Silverfish (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Silverfish All right...I'll stand down. Wasn't trying to let it go this far. You ease up on me, and I'll let the article be - no need to threaten people. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted again, as I've already provided an argument against saying the brands are "considered" main roster and developmental, rather than just being main roster and developmental, that you have not addressed. The later is more concise, which is what the lede is supposed to be, and the distinction isn't (IMO) about the perception of the brands (of their quality), but the reality, that at least in part, NXT exists to allow for wrestlers to develop their wrestling and acting skills, develop their characters, and adjust to the WWE style, before a potential main roster debut. Note, I'm not disputing the claim that NXT is a "third brand", which is a rather ambiguous claim, but the idea that it is only "considered" developmental, not actually developmental. Non of your sources seems to address this point, apart from tjrwrestling, which does not seem to be reliable. I might accept partially developmental, or wording to that effect, but only if we have reliable sources that address NXT developmental (or otherwise) status. Silverfish (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed the "considered" language. Made things more clear (at least I think so). Vjmlhds (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 Silverfish oknazevad Here's an interesting article from USA Today, where HHH talks about NXT's expansion.. He even specifically references the June 2016 NXT TakeOver show as the day where "NXT became more than developmental, to being its own brand". To add to that - Here's an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer where HHH talks about how WWE uses Evolve as a feeder system to NXT, and as a place where he can send guys to "get more seasoning" Basically saying that he uses Evolve as a developmental league for NXT. Kinda like Evolve being NXT's NXT. Bottom line, these two articles (both out of the mouth of HHH by reputable sources) say that NXT has gone from developmental to it's own entity, and that WWE uses Evolve as (for all intents and purposes) a true developmental. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Interviews with HHH are, like all interviews, considered first party sources, as they are just reporting what he said. And his job is to promote the company. It's not an objective, independent assessment. But that's nothing new. We've been saying the same thing for months. Please just drop it already. oknazevad (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You've provided sources in the past that say almost the exact same thing.LM2000 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 oknazevad Why should I listen to either of you...what makes you better than me? I say they are good sources, and if I say so, than it's good enough YOU both should drop the stick and quit acting like I'm just some schmuck. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Most of WT:PW rejected your analysis as I recall. Ask more voices chime in if you want but you can't continue edit warring over this like you have been for the past few months.LM2000 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 So now having a conversation on the talk page is edit warring (notice I never touched the article itself) ? Somebody has a case of "too big for their britches-itis". Vjmlhds (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Dropping the stick

I am no longer arguing about how NXT is defined - enough sources say it's developmental, so I won't fight city hall.

However, I did point out in the article that the 140+ current wrestlers under WWE contract are divided up into 4 brands (as verified by WWE.com's own roster page), and that between all the brands WWE holds over 500 shows per year (verified by WWE Corporate).

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 Go to the WWE.com roster page, scroll down past the championship history, and in the tab where it says current superstars, click it, and you'll see separate sections for Raw, SD, NXT, 205 Live, HOFers, and alumni. Vjmlhds 9talk) 04:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Every single wrestler that appears when the 205 Live tab is selected also appears when the Raw tab is selected. So it's not definitive at all. oknazevad (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016

Championships and accomplishments : WWE Raw Women's Championship : Notes: Please add "." (dot) for me, thanks 27.2.128.233 (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the other ones needed to be removed, as the notes are mostly not full sentences. oknazevad (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:WWE tournaments has been nominated for discussion

Category:WWE tournaments, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion by another editor. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2017

Hello,

I would like to request that the name of the WWE United Kingdom Champion Pete Dunn(sp) be removed due to the fact that the tournament for the championship has only just started today and no official champion has been crowned yet. If Pete Dunn does become the UK champion, this could be considered a spoiler and would ruin the event results for anyone who comes across the Wikipedia page. Please put "TBD" (to be determined) instead.

Thank you very much. Gibby4014 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Already done by Silverfish here. JustBerry (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

printing mistake in "9.6 Other accomplishments"

In "9.6 Other accomplishments" date won Royal Rumble is shown as January 29, 2016 instead of January 29, 2017. Year need to be updated. Thanks11:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)11:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)11:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brijeshbmehta (talk • contribs)

 Done oknazevad (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

ESPN Relationship

I think there should be a section about the relationship with ESPN and WWE or maybe a section about how Sports Illustrated or other media outlets are now covering WWE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncam (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

WWE Nasdaq

It clearly is traded on NASDAQ per their site here. As Glickmam continues to remove it from the article I have added a direct link to NASDAQ's WWE page to the article itself. As well as started this discussion here on the talk page. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

World Wrestling Federation, Inc.?

Is there any reliable sources that the parent company ever went under this name? I recall 'Titan Sports Inc.' becoming 'World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc.' but I don't recall 'World Wrestling Federation, Inc.' ever being the company name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbx118 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

yes, when wwe was first started the name was wwf but because of some legal issues the name was changed to wwe in 2002 Rutab123 (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2017

Vince McMahon owns 100% of WWE McMahon WWE (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on WWE. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5esrI6vTu?url=http://corporate.wwe.com/company/contacts.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/company/contacts.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603064744/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2011/2011.5.24.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2011/2011.5.24.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615061524/http://pwchronicle.blogspot.co.uk/2006/01/history-vince-mcmahon-and-steroid.html to http://pwchronicle.blogspot.co.uk/2006/01/history-vince-mcmahon-and-steroid.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516125131/http://www.oowrestling.com/features/mnw-y1.shtml to http://www.oowrestling.com/features/mnw-y1.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070406072307/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2000/2000_02_03.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2000/2000_02_03.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313012636/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2001/2001_03_23.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2001/2001_03_23.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141001140241/http://corporate.wwe.com/company/initiatives/wwenetwork.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/company/initiatives/wwenetwork.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025021149/http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/TalentWellnessProgramOutline2-27-06CORPweb.pdf to http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/TalentWellnessProgramOutline2-27-06CORPweb.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AwKm61x2?url=http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2000/2000_11_02.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2000/2000_11_02.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429134400/http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3773144899.pdf to http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/x3773144899.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119180317/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_05_06.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_05_06.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090119180317/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_05_06.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_05_06.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503190915/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2003/2003_04_17.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2003/2003_04_17.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080419060342/http://www.flynnfiles.com/blog/warrior/warrior3.htm to http://flynnfiles.com/blog/warrior/warrior3.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313010846/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2003/2003_06_12.2.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2003/2003_06_12.2.jsp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509111600/http://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=wwe to https://www.nyse.com/about/listed/lcddata.html?ticker=wwe

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem with a section

The one that mentions how McMahon signed Hulk Hogan and Roddy Piper, and then says shortly after those two, Jesse Ventura was hired as an announcer. Well Jesse was already working for Vince McMahon as a wrestler for a year or two before becoming an announcer. So that sentence needs to changed. Maybe have "after Ventura retired from wrestling for WWF due to injury" in parenthesis.MikeDonovan-Rebels4Truth (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Parenthetical comment makes sense to me. oknazevad (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"Many of the wrestlers that would join later the WWF " ?

It SHOULD say " would later join " . MikeDonovan-Rebels4Truth (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks. oknazevad (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2018

The name before WWF was WWWF. NindyInMotion (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please be clear in what exactly you want changed. WWWF is listed multiple times in the history section, so it is unclear as to what you need changed. - Galatz^Talk 20:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Matt Hardy Andre Trophy

Wrong year listed please fix thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.41.14 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks - Galatz^Talk 11:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

From the WWE#New Generation (1993–1997) section please remove the source http://pwchronicle.blogspot.co.uk/2006/01/history-vince-mcmahon-and-steroid.html from the second sentence and replace it with a citation needed tag. Random blogspot blogs are not reliable sources. Thank you. 2A02:C7D:3CAF:D900:8514:7DF2:FEF:54A2 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Y Partly done Added Template:Unreliable source instead. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Be a S.T.A.R

Should the Be a S.T.A.R program be placed under the charities section? Would it be considered some type of charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncam (talk • contribs) 3:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

While I think it's definitely relevant to the article itself, it's not really a charity. It's more like an outreach program, where no money or resources are donated for community redistribution. Godrestsinreason (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Political Ventures

Shouldn't it be mentioned that the current President of the United States once performed as a WWE actor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.223.174.152 (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is almost certainly not relevant as a "political venture" as Donald Trump was no more than a reality TV star at the time he performed with the WWE. His name doesn't stand out among the dozens of other celebrities that have been involved with the show. Godrestsinreason (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

27.61.233.188 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Add former name

The WWE was once known as the Word Wide Wrestling Federation but it’s not on the template. Cowboysfan3214 (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The WWWF is mentioned in Capitol Wrestling Corporation, which is WWE's previous company. --w^{L<speak·check>} 09:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

Would You Please Change All References Of World Wildlife Fund To World Wide Fund For Nature. Why, Because The WWF Has Traded Under That Longer Name Since 1986, Despite Still Using The Intials And Not Updating Them To WWFFN Or WWFN. 2A02:C7D:3E8E:7200:9596:5996:5C29:6F17 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Bullying and Hazing Allegations Secions is Too Long

This section entirely revolves around one wrestler. This belongs on his page and more allegations should be added from other sources if such a topic needs it's own section. If it must remain this needs to be reduced.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:WWE for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:WWE is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:WWE until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Capitol Wrestling started in 1953 not 1952!

Can somebody please fix this? This mistake is here for years now and it is simply not true. The very first Show of the Capitol Corporation was on January 7, 1953 in Washington, DC --> https://www.genickbruch.com/index.php?befehl=shows&show=309665

Also, the Founder was Vincent J. McMahon, not Jess McMahon and Toots Mondt. Toots operated his own company in New York and Jess McMahon run Wrestling Shows in the 1930s but never created his own company.

You can read all this information in this book. -> https://www.amazon.com/Capitol-Revolution-McMahon-Wrestling-Empire/dp/1770411240/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=tim+hornbaker&qid=1580008168&sr=8-2

Please can somebody fix this. Because I can't edit this page. TheAY1986 (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If they held their first show on January 7, the company would have been founded at least a week earlier, putting its founding in 1952. First show does not equal founding date. oknazevad (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The truth is that in every source you can find there is no exact date to when the company is started. It is only stated that he promoted his first show under the capitol banner on January 7. In fact, he first registered the "Capitol Wrestling Corporation" on August 5, 1957 at the local State Athletic Commision in Washington, DC and 1961 in New York. So there is no actual date whre you can say the company was "created" (if it ever was) prior to 1957. --> Capitol Revolution by Tim Hornbaker (pp 117, 146) TheAY1986 (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

WWE sources state Jess McMahon founded Capitol Wrestling, Vince McMahon Sr's official profile. Unless you want to argue with WWE, then I'm pretty sure that is something to be taken into consideration. In addition, see the following, This, This and This source --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Two official WWE Books also stated that Vincent J. McMahon founded the WWE. I included the sources in the article! Also a book from a Wrestling historian (Tim Hornbacker, who also wrote two more wrestling books) in which the whole history of the New York Territory is described, stated that it was found by Vincent J. McMahon.

You have one source from the WWE Page and two books in which in a subordinate clause it is mentions that Jess did it. I included all those sources and stated that there is some dispute óf who founded the company. Who are you that you can decide what is allowed on this article or not? Especially when there are clearly reliable sources who stated it otherwise!?

And there is absolutely no source everywhere to be found which said that the company whas founded on January 7, 1952. Every source you can find it is said January 7, 1953!

Here are the sources:

In Capitol Revolution from Tim Hornbaker it is stated on page 117: "The character of McMahon's business was evident from day one, and, like his father, he was known for his honesty and integrity. He inaugurated his promotion on January 7, 1953, and booked his talent from several sorces, but mainly Mondt in New York."

WWE Legends from Brian Solomon on page 6: "McMahon formed a company he called the Capitol Wrestling Corporation, and presented his first regular wrestling show under the Capitol banner on January 7, 1953. He set up his offices on the seventh floor of Washington's Franklin Park Hotel. At the time, he was using performers on his cards obtained from both Toots Mondt's booking office and the Carolinas office of Jim Crockett Sr."

In the WWE Encyclopedia of Sports Entertainment it is stated under the profile of Vincent J. McMahon on page 372: "Upon arrival, Vince purchased a small dilapidated venue he later called Capitol Arena. On January 7, 1953, he put on the first-ever Capitol Wrestling Corporation event."

WWE 50 by Kevin Sullivan on page 9: "McMahon eventually settled into Washington, D.C., where he began managing Turner's Arena in 1947. With McMahon calling the shots, the arena began attracting top stars from nearly every genre, including Nat King Cole, Louis Armstrong, Gorgeous George, and Bruno Sammartino. McMahon eventually assumed full control of the venue's lease in 1954 and subsequently renamed it Capitol Arena to coincide with his new wrestling promotion, Capitol Wrestling Corporaion."

On legacyofwrestling.com it is stated "McMahon took over the reigns as the main promoter in Washington on January 7, 1953 and used the old Turner’s Arena. He would use wrestlers from Jack Pfefer’s stable early including The Zebra Kid and The Golden Terror. Booking out of the Franklin Park Hotel, McMahon established a strong east coast promotion."

The best way we can handle this dispute is if we write abouth this in the article like I did:

"WWE's origins can be traced back as far as 1953 when Vincent J. McMahon created the Capitol Wrestling Corporation Ltd. (CWC), which later joined the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). Some sources however cites McMahons father Jess McMahon as founder of CWC." TheAY1986 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"You have one source from the WWE Page and two books in which in a subordinate clause it is mentions that Jess did it. I included all those sources and stated that there is some dispute óf who founded the company. Who are you that you can decide what is allowed on this article or not? Especially when there are clearly reliable sources who stated it otherwise!? - I never claimed to own the article, although your behaviour clearly indicates that you think you do. In addition, your "solution" is to state your point of view as absolute fact while presenting the alternative as merely a point of contention, or another theory. That does not address the wider issue, nor is it an actual compromise, at least, not in the correct sense of the word. It is self-evident that you will be disregarding alternative view points and sources, as long as you get your views in. It's not worth it to contend with someone who clearly views their contributions superior to others. Nothing is worth this hassle.--Tærkast (Discuss) 22:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

So what can we do then? Ignore all those sources who stated it was Vince. I dont think that that should be the ideology of wikipedia. TheAY1986 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

"WWE's origins can be traced back as far as the 1950s when on January 7, 1953 the first show under the Capitol Wrestling Corporation (CWC) was produced. It is not certain of who the founder of the CWC was. There are sources who stated it was Vincent J. McMahon while other sources however cites McMahons father Jess McMahon as founder of CWC."

Can we please agree on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAY1986 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

Please change Triple H's title from "Executive Vice President of Talent, Live Events and Creative" to "Executive Vice President, Global Talent Strategy & Development".

Here are two articles talking about the title change: Triple H Named WWE Executive Vice President, Global Talent Strategy & Development & Triple H Now WWE Executive Vice President of Global Talent Strategy & Development 2600:1700:C960:2270:3C48:28C:DD59:5557 (talk) 07:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

WWE spouses

I propose that the wrestler names be used on spouse section. I have seen Undertaker get reverted and some one put Paul "Triple H" Levesque for Stephanie McMahon let's settle this once and for all. I like the wrestling name because that's how everyone knows them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.248.223 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Fact about being the 6th most subscribed YouTube channel

Where should I put that fact? because I feel like it should be there since WWE is in top 10 most subscribed YouTube channels and it should be pointed out. TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2020

Request to change "XFL: folded in 2001, was a partially owned subsidiary of WWF launched in 2000 which comprised eight league-owned professional football teams. The league included television broadcasts on NBC (the other co-owners of the league), UPN, and TNN." to "XFL: folded in 2001, was a partially owned subsidiary of WWF launched in 2000 which comprised eight league-owned professional football teams. The league included television broadcasts on NBC (the other co-owners of the league), UPN, and TNN. It was subsequently revived for a brief period in 2020, comprising once again of 8 teams before shutting down in April of 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic. it was broadcast on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, Fox, FS1, and FS2." Wikiboogie29 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The new XFL had nothing to do with WWE apart from having the same owner. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, about that. Don't know if you saw the news in the past couple of weeks, but it turns out WWE, Inc. did have an ownership stake, despite the denials. It came out in the bankruptcy filing for the XFL. oknazevad (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AJ Styles title win

https://twitter.com/SeanRossSapp/status/1273127131061661698 the date is May 27th not May 29th

Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.11.34 (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request

In The 2002- section, please change all instances of "World Wildlife Fund" to "World Wide Fund For Nature", the organisation changed their name even before suing WWE.--2A02:C7D:3E28:3100:94A7:B859:98E5:3F14 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• In the USA, where the WWF/WWE is based, the "World Wide Fund For Nature" continued to operate under the name "World Wildlife Fund" even after the 1986 name change. That's why it remains as such within the article. NJZombie (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

If That's the case, then maybe write "World Wide Fund For Nature (AKA World Wildlife Fund)" or something like that. I'm just trying to fix officially incorrect info. --2A02:C7D:3E28:3100:A420:B100:495D:42B7 (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources

I believe that WWE related articles need to be held to the same standard as other entertainment articles (ie sources need to be better). I also believe that there is still too much kayfabe in many WWE related articles, ecspecially older articles from pre 2000. Just look at video game articles to see examples of articles done right. The WWe won't be around in 100 years, but these articles should still be accurate and held to high standards.

In most [realities ], the WWE fully ignored Halloween each year every year on all of their tv programs, wrestling shows, ppvs and websites, past present and future (meaning in those realities there was no trace of Halloween on any WWE tv program, wrestling show, ppv or website ever past present and future). I am serious, just read the Many Worlds Interpretation article and you'll see I am right

Jesen5727 (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

NXT UK Heritage Cup

So WWE now list the NXT UK Heritage Cup in it's Championships Section on wwe.com.

Should we include it here or not? TheAY1986 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

In the section Championships and accomplishments Current championships add: < it is instead of they are from this sentence The WWE 24/7 Championship can also be defended on NXT as they are shared among the brands & The WWE 24/7 Championship can also be defended on NXT UK as they are shared among the brands>

  to section: < below both NXT & NXT UK sections of the current championships>
  reference: < https://www.prowrestlingsheet.com/new-24-7-title-unveiling-video/#.XONkdS2ZNQI> 156.204.36.192 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please format your request better. Thank you. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 14:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nikki A S H Raw Womens Title.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

COVID section is unduly large

I get it seems important now, but as a chapter in WWE's long history, it hasn't even been two years and mostly revolves around a lack of happenings and similar events. I suggest trimming it to a size consistent with the rest, by any means rational, simple and consensual. If no such means are found by October 17, I'll be back with a more concrete proposal. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

wwe is fake As in other professional wrestling promotions, WWE shows are not legitimate contests but entertainment-based performance theater, featuring storyline-driven, scripted, and partially-choreographed matches; however, matches often include moves that can put performers at risk of injury, even death, if not performed ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamed Nabil Abdul Rahiman (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Carmelo Hayes.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WWE should be labelled as a "professional wrestling promotion" in initial opener

The initial sentence starter should be corrected from "...is an American integrated media and entertainment company" to "...is an American professional wrestling promotion". They are primarily known for professional wrestling because they are the largest promotion in the world that produces this type of content. Their entire revenue model depends on them producing this content. Just because they're distributing professional wrestling in various ways does not change that fact.

Here's an example, the UFC is labelled as a "mixed martial arts promotion" as that is their primary business even though you could also call them a "media content producer" of sorts.

The most accurate descriptor needs to be used for the company, not necessarily what WWE wants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLegendaryOne8 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This description does seem to be WWE's own description of itself, which isn't an independent source. It is also a strange sentence -- while not technically wrong, it's not offering due weight in its description. Most sources would describe WWE as a professional wrestling company, as that's overwhelmingly what it is. — Czello 19:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. The current sentence is complete corporate gobbledygook and reads like PR puffery. The fact that it was sourced to their corporate PR site only furthers that. Removed the puffery and stated the plain fact that the company is a pro wrestling promotion. oknazevad (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for being WP:BOLD! — Czello 20:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2022

Under 8.2 Investments: Change "And" to "and" in the line: FloSports: An over-the-top sport streaming service that WWE originally invested into in 2016. In 2019, WWE once again invested into FloSports. The sports that are available in FloSports include amateur wrestling, professional wrestling, track, grappling, mixed martial arts, boxing, softball, gymnastics, basketball, tennis, volleyball, cheerleading, And eSports. 167.224.98.234 (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for pointing that out. oknazevad (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jacy Jayne NXT 2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Link Owen Hart

There is a heading about his death but name is not linked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:D836:F8D0:C8A7:EEEB (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Linked his name to article. Walloper1980 (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2022

Jdh2.0 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request Jdh2.0 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an obvious sock of an indeffed editor. oknazevad (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2022

I am requesting that Jeff Jarrett be added to the infobox under "Key people" as "Senior Vice President of Live Events".

And, for proof that he is such:

Jeff Jarrett On His Intentions As WWE's SVP Of Live Events

Jeff Jarrett comments on his return to WWE as SVP of Live Events

Jeff Jarrett On His New Role As SVP Of WWE Live Events, What's Changed In Promoting Shows In This Era 2600:1700:C960:2270:C4F9:154E:3E:E58 (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Then, @FlightTime:, why is Jeff Jarrett listed as "Senior Vice President of Live Events" here? If Kevin Dunn (EVP of TV Production) is listed under "Key people", then why shouldn't Double J be? Hell, just about every wrestling news outlet has an article about Jarrett's role as SVP of Live Events. 2600:1700:C960:2270:78FB:77A0:E749:7585 (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't have a clue, I do now that the information you want to add needs to be discussed by editors who regularly watch this page and know more about the article subject. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Logo

User:Vjmlhds has frequently changing the logo to his upload which is low quality. Please keep the logo SVG which is high quality. -Imperial meter (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

White lettering on a white background is hard to see. If we can get the "Higher quality logo" on a black background, great. But white on white just doesn't work. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I took my own advice and put the HQ logo on a black background...this should hopefully give everybody what they want. Vjmlhds 04:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Vjmlhds 04:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Think it looks good. oknazevad (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Vjmlhds 04:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Vjmlhds 04:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Seth Freakin Rollins WWE US Champion.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Seth Freakin Rollins WWE US Champion.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)