Jump to content

Talk:History of WWE

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.196.67.65 (talk) at 18:33, 22 January 2023 (→Attitude Era timeframe). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconProfessional wrestling C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconHistory of WWE is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Universe Era???

I was scolded for changing this back to "PG era" which it was beforehand for many years on this page. WWE themselves acknowledged this timeframe as the PG era in a poll on wwe.com which can be found at THIS link...

https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCircle/comments/7fi4xw/wwe_recognizes_the_reality_era_20142016_as_a_thing/

In NO way has WWE ever referred to this as the "Universe" era. In fact, in addition to that poll, several wrestlers have also called it the "PG era" over the years. Two specifically were Natalya on her Table for 3 episode and Triple H the documentary "Thy Kingdom Come". With this information I will wait for the moderator of this page to change it back to the correct name of PG Era. If not I will step in and change it back soon with the above link sourced. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

68.196.72.173 That is a blog from Reddit blog from reddit and not even counted as WP:RS or WP:PW/RS, you were warned not to make disruptive edits without understanding WP:RS, but you have continued and even threaten to do WP:EW thus you will be reported. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that the source could not be used. I have apologized. Obviously I would not have added if I knew it would be removed. Below is the real source from WWE.com. That being said I do not understand how a source from DeviantArt.com with a FAN made poster is grounds for being a "reliable" source to determine the timeframe of the Reality Era. I also (in my edit) added another very good source from WWE themselves which was a video of Triple H stating on March 24th 2014 that this is now the reality Era. The PG Era, as you will see in this link below, was 08-13. May I please be allowed to revise the article with the correct sources/info? The portion of the article in question is a mess with one part in particular about a crowd chanting "Same old sh-t" that is completely and utterly unnecessary. I have been a fan of WWE for 35 years and know the company backwards and front and would like to contribute correct and good information. Thank you.

https://www.wwe.com/polls/what-is-your-favorite-wwe-era — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

68.196.72.173 The Change to the PG Era was accepted as I had mentioned before on your talk page, but the issue is the other edits you have made removing sources and replacing them with WP:NOR and non WP:RS contents. You received warnings by bot because of that. Please do not do that again and you being a 35 year long fan is insignificant as wikipedia only uses WP:RS, original research is not allowed. Please check the WP:RS guidlines and particularly for pro wrestling articles WP:PW/RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AEW mention by Zayn

Is this a joke? Why is this on there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.209.220 (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page length

According to Wikipedia, this page is too long. Some of the subsections, preferably the ones with main article links, should be shortened. --JFred 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its long enough. I want to know about everything not just parts of it. Don.-.J 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
we will HAVE to give Capitol Wrestling its own article!!! --Too Cool 14:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
dudes, i know CWC is part of WWE's history but this page is too long. --Too Cool 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
any comments? --Too Cool 08:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the page is too long. I like it. --Tommyf10170 05:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE novels

So far there has been 2 novels made by WWE. Journey into Darkness and Big Apple Take Down is this worth any mention on the article. Bencey 14:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They should be added. --Tommyf10170 05:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PRIDE and WWE

Excuse me, but the proposed deal between WWE and PRIDE FC has been called Off! Why? because Nobuyuki Sakakibara the president of PRIDE has handed over PRIDE to Lorenzo Fertita, also one of the co-owners of Zuffa, the parent of the UFC. Im the one who had posted about the deal between PRIDE and the WWE in the article a long time ago, probably under a different IP address, and now the deal is Off so i feel it should be removed. Sakakibara explains about his decision to hand over the the company to the Feritas in this article, he also states that all planned and proposed deals between all other companies, inluding WWE and Wall Street investors, etc have been cancelled due to the move, Click here for article . I had removed the info about their deal in the article before, but it was reverted, and so im explaining the issue here on the discussion page. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.77.150 (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Benoit

Should there be a Death of Benoit part, granted the WWE had nothing to do with his death or the murders he committed, but I was just wondering if there should be something mentioned in this history part about that since it has effected the WWE in some way since it's been on the news and the steriod controversy that's brought back up.

That's a good question

I personally think that there should be a Benoit section because as stated above that it has had a profound effect on the WWE, and caused controversy.

Sports Entertainment or Professional Wrestling?

Should WWE be referred to as a sports entertainment promotion or professional wrestling promotion? -- Tommyf10170 05:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Lrrr IV 02:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Benoit's Double Murder-Suicide

On June 24, 2007, Chris Benoit was supposed to wrestle CM Punk at the WWE's monthly pay-per-view event, Vengeance, but did not show up to the arena. It was later that the WWE had found out that Benoit had murdered his wife and son and then hung himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.151.234 (talk • contribs)

Where did the Benoit heading go?

The Benoit murder-suicide was a very important even in the history of World Wrestling Entertainment. There was a section previously on here, why was it removed? JSelby 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Hart section has no references and is incorrect

This is Fresh Price Carlton here, I am very peeved at the way the article is sourced ([38] but no source link) an the facts are wrong. I am so blatant about the facts being wrong becasue I have a book in my hand now called: Sex, lies and headlocks: the true story of vince mcmahon and the WWF. It states in the intro facts conflicting with the facts stated in this page. For Example: It sates he fell 80 feet and he hit his head head against the turnbuckle causing his head to jerk back violently. He did not die in the ring, and it is not confirmed if he was DOA. Like I said before the section has: unsourced and incorrect facts, typed poorly and is vague. Can this be further discussed so the section can be properly fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.180.227 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the change to PG covered?

I have a question here: Why isn't the Change to PG covered? How is that not significant enough for placement in the article?--Screwball23 talk 02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned, just not largely. Not really that significant.--WillC 04:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. You need to be neutral in editing wikipedia. Anyway, why isn't it covered? --Screwball23 talk 19:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major revision

I've hacked out a ton of stuff that was uncited or undercited for the allegations it repeated. Some of it was BLP, and cannot be returned unless cited properly, but much of it was simply sloppy and probably easy to cite. Feel free to source and reinsert anything related to allegations about professional conduct, but please check with me before attempting to readd controversial material about living persons. Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that you and Collect are buddy-buddy, and there's not much use talking with you. I am going to mediation regarding this issue, because you completely deleted good referenced info without a good rationale. This is not a BLP article, and I have no idea why you think this page is a BLP, the citations were there, which you are free to read. As to checking with you before re-adding material, I do not see why you feel you have the authority to hack an entire article to pieces and then claim that you are the article's steward in charge of what goes in and what doesn't.--Screwball23 talk 00:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an article mentions a "living person" it is covered under WP:BLP. Period. Collect (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to clarify: by "check with me" I meant on my talk page. I don't have this page watchlisted. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so there is no confusion and to confirm what Collect is saying, BLP applies everywhere not only on bios - if you are talking about a living person, WP:BLP applies. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really not okay. There are no good information on how it started. I really need information and I am starting to doubt WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by K9Ndakota12 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition in WWE article

The conditions for keeping this article at the recent AfD was that the history section in WWE be summarized. Until that's done this article is largely redundant to that one. -- Ϫ 14:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please fix/edit

someone put a big blue link saying john cena is awesome atthe begining of the forth paragraph under the cwc section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.126.70 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. -- Ϫ 06:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PG Era

The latter part of this section sounds like it was written by an opinionated fanboy. Cases in point:

1) Mention of the "IWC": It stands for "Internet wrestling community", which isn't clear to the more passive fans of the product, let alone people coming to Wikipedia to garner information. There is no other mention of "IWC" in the article, nor any indication of what it stands for

2) It's full of weasel-words

3) It speaks for fans, but doesn't offer any citations

4) It attributes motives to WWE, but again, no citations

The latter part of the section is unworthy of an encyclopedia. I recommend the latter part be scrubbed until it can be written more coherently and properly cited. 67.175.56.225 (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Not every sentence needs to have a citation.

Citations are a good thing, and every fact or figure presented should come with one. But not every sentence in an article needs to have a citation because not every sentence is presenting a fact or figure. Some sentences are used as transitional/connecting sentences to move from one collection of facts to another. Hence the (somewhat tautological) sentence stating that the WWE (WWF at the time) needed to tour the nation to be a national promotion does not really require a citation. What would it cite exactly? When I see a [citation needed] after a sentence that claims Vince McMahon started selling VHS tapes of WWF shows I am sure that there is, out there somewhere, an article, book, documentary, or vintage VHS tape that can verify that. However, the sentence stating that a national promotion needs to tour the nation does not need a citation, especially given how it is used in context as a way of transitioning to a new paragraph, a new collection of facts.

Technically speaking there is no 'rulebook' for wrestling promotions that says a national promotion needs to tour the nation, hence there is nothing out there that could ever be cited to satisfy that particular [citation needed] request. Since the NWA was the closest thing to a national promotion (a promotion of promotions as it were) prior to the rise of the WWF, and the NWA Champion toured the nation, wrestling in each NWA participating promotion (see Ric Flair's biographical documentary in which he states he toured not only the US but also Japan as the NWA World Champion), then it could obviously be ARGUED but never PROVEN that a national promotion needs to tour the nation. You could just as easily say: "Vince decided that to be a true national promotion one would need to actually tour the nation." And turn the sentence into a matter of Vincent K. McMahon's opinion, as proven by his actions at the time and since.

The point is this: please don't just slap up a [citation needed] just because you see there is a sentence that doesn't have a citation after it. Please read the sentence in context and discern whether it actually NEEDS a citation first. This should go for all other articles as well, but this article is the most egregious example (in my opinion) of using the request for a citation wantonly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindumuninc (talk • contribs) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR says you're wrong. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages?

I am new to this, but whoever wrote this has said that the WWE has been going since the middle ages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.107.82 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplishments, Records and Statistics

This information belongs on the titles page not on this page. MB1972 (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still here though MB1972 (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed this needs to change 2605:E000:ACC2:500:48A5:469D:6D52:2385 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in History of WWE

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of WWE's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Cawthon":

  • From Steve Rickard: Cawthorn, Graham. "JCP 1983". Jim Crockett Promotions/WCW: Ring Results. TheHistoryofWWE.com. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
  • From Owen Hart: Cawthon, Graham. "WWF Ring Results 1998". Retrieved 2007-04-08.
  • From Jeff Hardy: Cawthon, Graham. "1994 WWF event results". IGN. Retrieved 2007-07-13.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Other"

Everything in the "other" category can easily be fit into the first two sections. most of of it is pretty much the PG era. which is not mentioned in any way in the article.

This is how the sections need to be organized. feedback please?

1.World Wide Wrestling Federation (Some Eras are missing here) 2 World Wrestling Federation 2.1 1982–1993: The Golden Age 2.2 1993–1997: The New Generation 2.3 1997–2001: The Attitude Era 2.3.1 Death of Owen Hart 2.3.2 The WCW/ECW "Alliance" Invasion and the nWo (2001–2002) 3 World Wrestling Entertainment 3.1 2002–2008: Ruthless Aggression Era 3.1.1 Brand extension 3.1.2 WWE.com (Renamed Section "WWE Online") 3.1.3 Legends program and WWE Hall of Fame 3.1.4 Money in the Bank 3.1.5 The death of Eddie Guerrero 3.1.6 The return of ECW 3.1.7 Chris Benoit's double-murder and suicide 3.2 2008–2012: Universe Era 3.2.1 Social media and WWE HD 3.2.2 The launch of NXT (This needs to be split up as there are many things in this section that don't relate to NXT) 3.2.3 Pink Ribbon campaigning 3.2.4 WWE Network

And the Youngest Champions Section doesn't belong on this page

A)If you want to add parts about the early history of WWWF/WWF, add it. B) As I explained when the changes were reverted the other day, there's no such thing as all these "era"'s you've invented. C) Not everything in the sections needs to be exclusively about the title of the section. D) What's wrong with the youngest champions section? It's part of WWE history, which is the title of the article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The Universe Era and the Reality Era are both real eras endorsed by the WWE. They need to their own sections.

If the youngest champion section fits here, why not oldest? biggest? smallest? why not youngest RR winners? youngest MitB winners? The section doesn't make any sense in this article it's more suited to the Current Champions page.KingMayuke (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those eras are not real. Not everything needs to be dubbed an "era". It's perfectly fine as it currently is. Find some sources for those record-breaking champions then. Historical champions doesn't belong in a current champions article. That literally makes no sense. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not real because you say so? even though they have been officially endorsed? and that the WWE is a lot different now than it was in 2002? If the youngest champions section doesn't make sense in a champions page how the heck does it make sense here?KingMayuke (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A) Nobody cares if it's WWE endorsed. This is Wikipedia, not the WWE encyclopaedia. B) I said historical champions has no place in a current champions article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I care and so does everybody else who has tried to change it. They are real eras. They are recognized by the WWE and all of it's fans. The current champions comment was just an example of where it would be more relevant. Stop clinging so hard to that comment. There are many other pages where it would be more relevant. It makes no sense here.KingMayuke (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also even if it DID fit here, it's incomplete. So it should at least be completed. If not then it should be removed.KingMayuke (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A) I just did a search for those so-called eras on WWE.com, and there's not a single mention of "PG Era" or "Universe Era", and the only mention of "Ruthless Aggression" era is about a theme song. Surely if they were real, the official website would give them more than a passing mention? B) Where would a list of historical WWE records go if not in an article titled History of WWE? How is the list incomplete? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can use WW2K14 as source (maybe). In the storymode, WWE talks about ruthless agression and universe era.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill McNeal is an idiot who thinks he's right, guys. He doesn't watch the product and therefore thinks he can decide what realities don't exist. I agree that respective eras such as Ruthless Aggression, Universe Era and Reality Era need to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebelrick123 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End of the brand extension

The brand extension ended in 2011 not 2012, after it was announced in august 2011 that superstars from raw could now appear on smackdown and vice versa.

Era's

Not every single day of WWE history is a part of some all-encompassing "era", stop adding this shite. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RealDealBillMcNeal is a fool.

According to everyone here, we are not fond of the way you handle the 2002–present page. Do you even watch the product? Many times including the WWE 2K14 video game distinguishes the respective eras. Those being Ruthless Aggression, Universe Era and literally last week as Triple H stated, Reality Era. My contributions are accurate and it's insulting how you have "Brand Extension" as if that was the only history for 10 years. I categorized by eras and even added important information you left out, because you think you know better. You are an idiot and need to stop acting like you own this page. Now you've gone and snitched so I can't rightfully edit this page. You are a coward and an idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebelrick123 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources you've got there mate. Aye, a video game, that will fly. LOL. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still this. Promos and commentary and video games are still not remotely credible sources for these alleged all-encompassing periods of time. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least fix

At least fix the title for Christ's sake. The Brand Extension title makes no sense when you talk about events after that. And I beg you to watch the product. While the PG/Universe Era was never said onscreen, the Ruthless Aggression Era and Reality Era have and are clearly real. One day you will see a documentary on the Network and I guarantee they will be listed as such. Watch Stone Cold's podcast with Triple H from last Monday, there's at least one confirmation for your ignorant narrow headed mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebelrick123 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, things that are never said on or offscreen, and the future. Good sources you've got there. LOL. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been nearly two months and you still haven't attempted to discuss and still haven't found any sources. Stop reverting. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quit putting BS paragraph titles.

I am accurate as the links and sources I have used. What the hell is The Authority Era? I've never heard that ever. The eras I have listed actually happened and for BillMcNeal the Brand Extension wasn't from 2002-2012, it went until 2011. Dumb paragraph title. Quit being a troll.Rebelrick123 (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, you literally think "the Reality Era" is a thing and you tried sourcing it to "the future". Wind your neck in. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, I'm no wrestling expert at all, but [1] seems pretty strong evidence that there was an Authority Era (or something that could be called that). However... [2] and a few other sources point to there being a Reality Era as well. You do realize you could both be correct on some points, and wrong on others, right? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, those are some rancid sources. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraphs sound like a promo

The entire second introductory paragraph reads like it was written by someone from the PR department of WWE. I don't usually edit articles here so I am not sure if that should be updated. Calling on someone more experienced to take a look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.128.207 (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Launch of NXT?

The launch of NXT section is in the Reality era section and I think that should be in the PG era section as that paragraph has more to do with the original incarnation of NXT rather than the current one. I think a different paragraph on the evolution of NXT should replace the one currently in the Reality era section and the one there should be moved to the PG era section — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMayuke (talk • contribs) 23:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is there a need for the "other" section

All the sections there seem to fit in nicely with the main article and can all be classified as being important factors in each era — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingMayuke (talk • contribs) 23:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not add Alexa Bliss winning two Women's titles in the new era

There is nothing special about Alexa Bliss winning both the Raw and Smack Down Women's title. This has happened in the past in the Ruthless Aggression era and PG era when many female wrestlers won both the Women's and Diva's championships, so this has been removed, only unique information like Sasha Banks being one of the first female superstars to main event a ppv and wrestle a hell in a cell match need being added, but there is nothing special about title wins unless they are the inaugural champions like Finn Balor being the first Universal Champion, so the information should only be added to Alexa Bliss solo article. Goldberg's win is special because he returned after 13 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengoman1993 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on History of 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:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unnecessary to add James Ellsowrth helped Carmella win the women's MITB ladder match

This article is aimed to summarize historical facts like introduction of the WWE Network or the first women's MITB ladder match, not give elaborated details of individual achievements. You gave details of James Ellsworth helping Carmella win the match which is unnecessary, and such information should go to their individual articles. This is not an article to give match details, otherwise there have been countless MITB ladder matches in which people interfered on behalf of wrestlers (like Paul Heyman interfered in the 2013 one of the MITB ladder match to cost CM Punk the match). We should only summarize significant matches not elaborate details. For instance there is no information that Andre The Giant vacated the WWF Championship due to a controversial ending in the Main Event 1988 when Hogan raised his arms while the referee made the counts. There isw no info even about the event though it was historic, it had 33 million viewers largest number for a wrestling match/show in history. It is mentioned "In August 2002, Shawn Michaels would also return as a wrestler at SummerSlam after a hiatus of over four years." Neither the result of the match or name of his opponent is given, only thing relevant was his return because he is a legend thats why it is mentioned. Match details are for the individual articles of HBK's wikipedia and the wikipedia on SummerSlam 2002. So why should we give the details of the con controversial ending here? Is not mentioning that this is a controversial ending enough? These details regarding James Ellsworth are not necessary, only thing note worthy in a history article is that it being the first women's MITB match and because of "controversial ending" a rematch was held there is nothing noteworthy specifically mentioning what the controversial ending to the match was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeptchjijihhtgghbyjhhmkkkl (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything isn't notable just because "it is done by a woman" !

The first womens elimination chambers match is historically significant and with all respect should be included. But I have reverted the inclusion of the second one. We Do Not List Every Elimination Chamber Match Performed By Men There Is Nothing Notable About Every Elimination Chamber Match By Women, Only The "First Ever" Is Historic, This Isnt A Feminist Article But A Summary Of Facts And Historically Notable Events ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.230.106.26 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude Era

Didn't it end in 2001? This article claims that it ended for good in 2002. I know they officially changed their name to WWE in 2002, but the attitude era ended some time before that. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F196:EE00:7069:5FDB:49F6:152E (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Eras

There is some eras (2) that are not mentioned in this article:

  • An era between the Capitol Wrestling Era & the Golden Era (sometimes named as the "Madison Square Garden Era", where Bruno Sammartino was the face of the company... and where it was the debut of the World Wide Wrestling Federation)
  • An Era between the Attitude Era and the Ruthless Agression Era (when WWE was trying to recreate the WCW... there was also the beginning of the Evolution stable)

Seiken Flame (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Ruthless Aggression" era began around June 2002 for sure, with Vince's in ring promo about it. Evolution didn't begin until January 2003.

PG era name

refering to this period as the 'PG era' is not a smart idea, as this is basically a name to criticize the company. Its a joke name and doesent make the company look positive at all. In 10 years time I assure you WWE will not be referring to this period as the PG era so I kindly ask that this name be removed and references to it be taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.186.244 (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think it makes more sense to call the PG Era - The "WWE Universe Era", it is there official marketing... and 'Post-Attitude Era' is a bad name, I would think 'Brand Split Era' more aptly describes it. The Invasion was pretty much the culmination of the Attitude era and that was all finished by 2002 and totally complete with WMX8. After that Wrestlemania all the new stars debuted... Ruthless Aggression Cena, Deacon Batista, Lesnar and Orton. I know the Brand split didnt officially end until 2011, but there were more an more crossovers for years before and the split PPVs ended in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.130.159 (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triple H himself acknowledged that it is called the "PG Era" in his DVD "Thy Kingdom Come" as did Natalya on the WWE Network episode of "Table For 3". Also, Brand Split Era for a name over the Ruthless Aggression era sounds poor and does not make sense seeing as how the split did not end until 2011. "Ruthless Aggression" was used many times throughout the 02-08 time period.

The Ruthless Aggression Era began shortly after the Brand Extension occurred. This was one of the longer periods in WWE (it ended in 2007). It was their official marketing back then, They had a toy line marketed towards it and everything. (Even the recent video game WWE 2K14 has the Ruthless Aggression era in the 30 years of WrestleMania mode)So it needs to be added on here. I also agree with the "Universe Era", as again the same thing. it is their current marketing and even the recent game mentioned above references it as such.

HHH, a figurehead of the WWE, recently announced the Reality Era. Although CM Punk certainly introduced a shocking 'promo' in 2011 that blurred kayfabe, the current turn of events have more than ever seem to lean towards blurring the lines of kayfabe and reality, aggressively using social media, acknowledging the audience's usage of wrestling jargon and behind the scenes know-how, and pushing internet darlings. Vince McMahon has become very noticeably absent from appearing or appearing to influence the shows and PPV, where instead HHH is seen as the authority figure. Most recently is Brock Lesnar defeating the Undertaker, whose gimmick basically revolves on kayfabe and how it affects the 'streak'. Considering that it's been 6 years now since the founding of the "Universe Era", I believe that the "Reality Era" should definitely be considered a sub category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.158.103.220 (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have used citations from contemporary sources as well as references from the games themselves to rename it Universe Era. The PG era was never an official name, it was just used as a mockery by internet smark fans. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before 1997 WWF was pg, we dont call that the pg era just based on TV ratings. We dont call the attitude and ruthless agression eras as TV 14 eras based on ratings. Even after what the so called pg era ended during the Reality Era and New Era WWE is still rated pg. Television ratings do not equate an era. There are official WP:RS that uses the term Universe Era so that should be the period 2008-2014. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wwe.com/polls/what-is-your-favorite-wwe-era

If this link doesn't settle this argument I don't know what does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a poll, WWE has officially named the period Universe Era on their games as with WWE 2K14, but irrespective of that please never uses sources that violate WP:RS as you did using a reddit blog in the past. Also you are using a poll as a source which is unreliable. There has been a long dispute whether the name should be Universe Era or PG Era, and the PG title has not been changed, but you have continuously removed WP:RS links. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WWE did not officially name it at all, technically. "Visual Concepts" did with their video game WWE2K14. Whether or not they even got actual permission from WWE is technically up in the air. What's not up in the air as a question however is the link to that poll on WWE's actual website which states in black and white that 2008-2013 was in fact called the PG Era. In addition, they show the Reality Era as being the years 2014-2016 yet this article does not reflect that timeframe which is what I spent an hour trying to fix and clean up.

The Reddit post was not a proper source, yes, and I have apologized for that, but are you saying the link from WWE themselves is also not allowed to be used simply bc it's a poll? If so I cannot find any information on the rules page stating if a poll is acceptable or not. Even if a poll isn't deemed appropriate I find it hard to believe that a link to WWE.com themselves isn't considered passable but a link to a fan made poster from Deviant Art is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Reality Era Incorrect Timeframe

Hello I am requesting to edit and clean up the Reality Era section of this article as the wrong timeframe and subsequent information is given by user Dilbaggg. The user is using their own personal views on the subject along profanity and a source that is nothing more than a fanmade poster. I will leave three reputable sources below, (two of which are from WWE themselves), that state the era began in 2014. I have helped greatly in editing and improving this article over the years and now this page is locked.

https://www.wwe.com/polls/what-is-your-favorite-wwe-era

https://www.thesportster.com/wrestling/important-matches-wwe-reality-era/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hemBUIEc1uo

Also a period is missing at the end of the PG Era portion. Thank you. 68.196.72.173 (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done. Punctuation fixed, but for the rest, it's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given my sources I would just like to change the Reality Era timeframe to 2014-2016 and move around the information to reflect this. The sources will be added into the article as well. Thank you.

Can we get the link to the main page of The Reality Era back in there please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.72.173 (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Distinction

History of WWE article is mainly about storylines and chronological events from kayfabe perspectives while WWE article is more about the corporate and business affairs of WWE as a company. Please do not mix them up or make this a copypaste of the History of WWE article. Dilbaggg (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


PG Era to The New Era is solely written in kayfabe

I mean, there isn't much to say other than that. No mention of the Saudi Arabia deals, the Wednesday Night Wars or the (declining) ratings. It may not be a whole lot, but it exists, and if it's mostly negative stuff about the WWE, then so be it. If people want to hear about the history of the company, they won't find this article satisfactory at all; there are plenty of ways of summarizing the history of the kayfabe universe without ignoring the real one. 118.208.187.206 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemic era

It is more suitable name to the era we having now Randominternetuserfromsomewhere (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would count as WP:OR. We go by what the reliable sources call it. — Czello 10:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio

Hi. First time would-be editor here.

I noticed that the caption under the picture of Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio in the Ruthless Aggression section describes them as "the two most successful Mexican wrestlers in WWE history" and this is inaccurate. Rey Mysterio is famously from San Diego, CA and Eddie Guerrero is famously from El Paso, TX. Eddie's whole gimmick in Mexico even was that he was American. I would suggest the phrase possibly be changed to :the most successful Mexican-Americans in WWE history"

Thank you for your consideration

Doc Diamondfire (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "Mexican" to "hispanic" to make it less specific. I've also reworded it to say "two of the most successful" as the earlier claim was unsourced and WP:OR. Thanks. — Czello 15:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Market Expansion

From a quick search, this article does not address the major international expansion WWE has pursued in the Asian/African markets in the last several years, notably in India, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc.

This is significant because as WWE has decreased in domestic popularity since the Attitude Era, they have focused on other markets, becoming increasingly profitable overall, but perhaps alienating diehard fans in the American market base, with the multi-year push of Saudi Arabian PPVs, etc.

Regardless of opinions on this phenomenon, the basic situation should definitely be mentioned in this article, as a central part of the history of WWE since the 2010s. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 06:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_WWE&oldid=1135113924"