Talk:Monday Night War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

I was wondering if it would be possible if I could write something to elaborate more on the first four years of the Monday Night Wars. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I'm not following Wikiethic. (vanhagar3000)

I don't see the neutrality problems. I plan to remove the tag, and no one should put it back on unless you can give me a good reason on this talk page.--Desmond Hobson 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tone of the article

While editors are to be commended for the amount of work some of them have clearly put into this article, there are some problems with it. Firstly, there are no reliable sources cited. The only link currently in the article goes to a fan run site, which isn't a reliable source. There's huge amounts of POV as well. One Night In Hackney 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

WWE .vs. WWF

Should all references be changed to WWE, or is WWF appropo considering the historical context? Currently the article switched between the two, and I believe the switch between WWF/WWE will be confusing to anyone reading who is not familiar with the subject. 68.74.164.178 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it as the WWF, as that was in fact the name prior to 2002. --Raderick 02:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Truly in need of sources, one of the more important wrestling articles

I know not everything can be sourced, as most wrestling fans know these facts by heart, but it would be good if the article had some more, just to fully verify, it would also be great if this was cleaned of some POV as well. I re-worded a few sections to remove some bias.

This article is extremely important for pro wrestling, as arguably the biggest names and some of the most important moments happened at this point in wrestling history during the Monday Night Wars. The boom period was a major result of the heated competition of the MNW. Theseven7 12:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Head-to-Head

"The final ratings tally in 253 head-to-head showdowns was: 158 wins for RAW (including 122 straight wins from November 1998 until the war ended), 110 for Nitro, and three ties."

253? 158 + 110 + 3 = 271...--Tyman 101 22:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, but..

Why was the Ratings Listing deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack Shadow (talk • contribs) 05:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Huckster

It was stated in the article that the Hogan character in the Billionaire Ted sketches was named the "Hulkster." That is inaccurate. His name was "The Huckster." I made the appropriate changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

M.N.W.2

I think the WWE/TNA war should be mention in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preparationh (talk • contribs) 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how "the war" lasted less than a few months, I say it should be removed from this article. The very brief "mnw 2" had almost nothing to do with the monday night wars (except in name only) and mentioning it here seems unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.69.10 (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The TNA attempt to compete was so short lived and unsuccessful, it doesn't merit mention in this article. Adding TNA related content to unrelated articles is a common tactic of TNA fans to promote the product. (The NWO article being a prime example.) This type of topic hijacking is bordering on article vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.14.7 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• The blanked content has been restored. You don't get to delete cited information because you don't personally like it or because of some crackpot conspiracy theory you have. Cheers. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

And you don't get to revert vandalism fixes. Cheers indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.14.7 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• You haven't fixed any vandalism. You've simply deleted sourced content because of your theory that TNA fans are out to promote their product. You've offered no proof of this whatsoever, possibly because it's not true. I'd urge you not to continue in this vein. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate

"Monday Night RAW was launched on USA Network in January 1993. The previous WWE program on USA, Prime Time Wrestling (which was edited from syndicated programming), was losing its audience. The WWE decided that it should use its cable time as a showcase for original matches and storylines that would serve as the major build-up to the monthly pay-per-view."

Umm there were no monthly pay per views in 93. Only 4 at the time...

Prime Time Wrestling was never cancelled. The week before RAW debuted they had a final episode of PTW where they hyped the new revolutionary program. RAW was just an upwards progression from PTW.

The list on the right shows the final Nitro as having a 2.6 rating but the article says it was in fact a 3.0 rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.28.224.10 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Monday Night Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110725041319/http://www.wlct.org.uk/Culture/linconline/tnahogan.htm to http://www.wlct.org.uk/Culture/linconline/tnahogan.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110717115829/http://www.twnpnews.com/messages/26367.php to http://www.twnpnews.com/messages/26367.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Scope of the article

This article is about the WWF vs WCW competition between 1994 and 2001. The current WWE brand spilt is not part of the scope here. Nor is the failed 2010 attempt by TNA, which should be removed as well. This is about a very specific and widely commented on period of pro wrestling history, not a general article on a current WWE storyline, which is all the brand spilt actually is; both Raw and SmackDown are WWE shows. They are not separate companies. oknazevad (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There are reliable sources saying Monday Night Wars returned e.g. [1]--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That still says nothing about the made up synthesis you added yesterday and today. That's completely outside the scope of this article. oknazevad (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the source provided is over 7 years old [[2]]. If this was generally considered part of the Monday Nignt Wars we should easily be able to find several more recent sources that that.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Current brand split needs to totally go, there is no "war" there so I say that can go. As for the TNA, at most it is a footnote, Not a large, overly detailed week-to-week breakdown of the 10 weeks where they were crushed by WWE. It was not a "war" and the reliable source predicting a war is not the same as it actually being a "ratings war" - it was a "Ratings spanking" and a blip on the radar.  MPJ-DK  22:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• The brand split stuff needs to go, it's not related to the Monday Night Wars at all. I'd recommend splitting the TNA stuff into a separate article; it was a notable part of the company's history, but this article is about WWF vs. WCW. This shouldn't be a WP:COATRACK.LM2000 (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a similar "Weekly Ratings War" going on, according to many sources, e.g.[3][4]--Kuioooooo (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)→

Even if so, that material does not belong here, as this article is about the WWF vs WCW. WP:COATRACK, as mentioned by LM2000 most certainly applies. The current Raw vs SmackDown quasi-competition (quasi because it's all still WWE) is not the same thing and should be covered elsewhere. It's too new for a separate article, in my opinion, because it's still very much part of the one company, and should be covered at the WWE article. Oh, and one of those sources mention TNA at all, so they're not part of this supposed current war in reality. oknazevad (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If that content belongs anywhere it's WWE brand extension. There's a section on "Interbrand competition".LM2000 (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course. Forgot that we have that article. That, and only that, is the proper place for it. oknazevad (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monday Night Wars. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oowrestling.com/features/mnw-y1.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417115226/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_03_27.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_03_27.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: 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) 07:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monday Night Wars. 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/20090204090422/http://oratory.rajah.com/testfolder/index.php?archive=1461 to http://oratory.rajah.com/testfolder/index.php?archive=1461

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) 10:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2018

73.85.201.46 (talk) 10:27, 3 November 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. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 12:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

The table of the ratings needs to be edited so that there is a break in the middle of the table. J4lambert (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Source for ratings table?

Looking at the ratings table, I can't seem to find any source or reference. LROSE (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

POV

This article, while detailed, is non-neutral. It needs to be rewritten from an unbias, neutral standpoint and not as a retrospective from one's point of view.MarcoPolo250 (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hiw so? It's a pretty serious criticism, so some details on how it is failing at maintaining NOIV is needed. oknazevad (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Taken from ECW?

Seriously? That's the ONE thing all the WCW/WWF bookers/writers from 1995-2001 agree on. Have you heard Cornette, Bischoff, Prichard, Nash, Russo etc. speaking about ECW? What they thought of ECW? I know it's revisionist "history"(thanks to a few dirtsheet writers), but it's verifiable that it ain't true, and never was. Maybe put in a "Some people feel that...", but it can't just be inserted into the lede as "fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.19.22 (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Further, they have NOT stated that "ECW was influential". Maybe Mike Johnson stated it while eating, but Cornette and Bischoff in particular have stated the exact opposite.

Meanwhile "a source of talent"? While some people were indeed signed from ECW, so what? Would anyone say that ECW was "influential" or the "source of talent" where any of those people came from? Foley, Mysterio, Guerrero, Austin and others all had successful careers before their brief stopover in ECW. In fact, the genuine "ECW guys" like Sandman, Mike Awesome and Mikey Whipwreck all flopped when going to WCW and/or WWF.

Barry Diller's USA Network purchase is very enlightening information

As it occurred shortly before the Raw ratings turnaround, it is definitely worth noting.[5]ThatwasmySimpson (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

But how did that actually affect the WWF's operations? Turner's purchase of what would become WCW in 1988 was significant to background, and the AOL/Time Warner merger was important to the closure of WCW. But there's no connection made between Diller's purchase of USA and anything that actually affected the competition, meaning it's just insignificant to the Monday Night Wars as a topic. The ratings turnaround of Raw is properly attributed to creative decisions that pre-date Diller's purchase. I don't think it needs to be mentioned at all. oknazevad (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It affected operations in terms of using less censorship, such as the growing use of occasional nudity that was used in 1998. The USA Network was even reported to less anti-censorship in the Jacqueline Evening Gown blunder.[6] Diller is even acknowledged to be the inspiration for Simpsons antagonist Mr. Burns, so it easy to assume from assumption that he got himself into the Mr. McMahon-Austin feud too. However, I do support consensus and will wait to see if the McMahons are willing to acknowledge more about Diller.ThatwasmySimpson (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

The ownership, management and business decisions made by the TV networks are relevant. It's an article essentially about two TV shows. To claim otherwise and not allow someone to make clearly relevant edits, with a valid citation, is simply gatekeeping. 130.45.24.168 (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)