Talk:WWE Raw/Archive 1

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

Hey everyone. Created this page to replace the WWE Monday Night Raw page since the official name is now WWE RAW. I fixed all the redirects. wwfmike 07:46, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Commentators

Kevin Kelley commentated alongside Ross and Lawler for a while in the mid/late 90's. That's about all I remember.

Pay-per-views

I don't see a reason to add upcoming or previous results of pay-per-views. This is why there is a seperate page of them. Maybe just a mention, but this is an encyclopedia, not free advertising. -- CMC 00:37, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that, however I there should be a list of pay-per-views hosted by Raw.--Tqwerty 15:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a page for that: List of WWE pay-per-view events. Lrrr IV 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

well in recent months wwe has made the desicion to do tri branded pay-per-views so there would be no reason to start a page for just raw hosted pay-per-views —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.88.13 (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

List of champions

The list of champions was reverted back to a table. The list is really simple - it just consists of the Championship name and the wrestler(s) holding that championship. While it may look better as a table, it's simple enough for a list. See Wikipedia:How to use tables#When tables are inappropriate for more information. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Cutting Edge

Although it was stated on Survivor Series about "The Cutting Edge" the show failed to debut until December. I suggest it should be corrected. J. C.

Live Sex

The Live Sex segment between Edge and Lita didn't actually go all the way. The way its written here, stating that the rating remained TV-14, makes you think that it did.John cena came and stopped the live sex.

It wasnt John Cena who stoped it, it was Ric Flair who came down and broke up the sex then Cena came down and saved Ric Flair

TitanTron

This may be trivial to the article, but does anyone know how the TitanTron (Titan Tron?) works?

I used to think it was just a big video screen (although years later that seems quite expensive)... But ever since Steve Austin destroyed it - Well it's clear it's not.j

Then I thought it was just a projection screen, but I'm not sure about that either because wouldn't you see the light from the projector like you do in a movie theater?

I think it is a projection screen, only the projector light comes from the back. As a result, even if you are at the front of it, there is no shadow. I've seen a smaller version of it once. - 上村七美 01:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus some video screens are just way too low to the ground to such a point the fans would get in the way (such as PPVs).

Anyways trival, but this seemed the best place to ask.--Anthony 11:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Try Jumbotron. Hope that helps. --Oakster 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Simialr question does any one know the demensions of the ring.

The WWE uses a 20-foot Federation-sized wrestling ring. 1 As for the TitanTron, it is a projection screen with its image projected into it from the backside. I attended the WWE Monday Night RAW broadcast on May 29th at the Tacoma Dome and witnessed the teardown of the TitanTron right after the show ended. The three smaller TV displays below it are LED display panels. User:Srosenow_98
Don't know if this helps, but I noticed you can't see what's on it in photographs. Yet it shows up on video (obviously) and in person :).--Attitude2000 16:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
In some pictures you can, WWE just seems to want to remove them in pictures for some reason. TJ Spyke 23:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Smackdowns TitanTron is a projector, i have seen it on a special edition of smackdown when Randy Orton Drove Eddie Guerreros low rider into the Smackdown Entrance Titantron, but I dont know about the RAW Titantron °≈§→ Robomæyhem: T/←§≈° 09:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I can help answer this. I was at a SuperShow and had really bad seats almost directly in line with the TitanTron. Well, while I was there, I saw projector lights shooting at both the TitanTron and the Smackdown Entryway. So it's safe to assume that the SmackDown tron is a projection screen as well. John cena123 15:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

World Tag Team Champs

who got off saying that the tag team champs will soon be Umaga and that Armondo guy. thats not NPOV and you know it. Im gonna change it until it happens.--Killswitch Engage 00:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)KE

Coach

Where has coach been these last week? He wasnt at backlash or WWE Raw? does anyone know exactly?

I think the plan is for the RAW announce team to return to being just King and JR. I've heard rumors that Coach might manage Shelton Benjamin, but those might be unfounded. Jeff Silvers 16:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
That sounds about right. Here is how WWE is playing it at the moment: Where is Coach? --Naha|(talk) 16:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys watch A.M. RAW? Why is RAW so lucky by having a morning show? Couldn't SmackDown! have like A.M. SmackDown!

Why does WWE have Stone Cold and The Rock on their superstar page? They are retired.

They have Stone Cold and The Rock on their page because when they do make appearences, they make it on the RAW brand.--Mannytime 00:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of Episodes?

Does anybody have the correct amount? JR just said the next RAW would be the 686th episode, according to Wikipedia though the next one will be the 675th. I think JR was right because the 650th episode was back in October. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs) .

Don't know, but do we really need to keep a running count? Soap operas like General Hospital which also run on a continuous basis throughout the year don't have running count of the number of episodes. --Jtalledo (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record, soap operas do keep a running count of how many shows they've ran. In addition to that, it was noted by Jim Ross on the September 11, 2006 edition of RAW that it was their 694th broadcast. Srosenow 98 06:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The 700th episode was broadcast a couple of weeks back, although I can't remember the exact date of the broadcast. Will2710 03:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My WWE RAW Website

In the RAW article it has under the external links a few web sites that give the results, were they made by fans and if so can i add my web site to to. http://don.-.j.tripod.com/wwemondaynightrawsite/ --Don.-.J 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference though. We included a results page as Wikipedia doesn't have one and at this point has no plans on doing so. Your site though isn't notable enough, sorry. --Oakster (Talk) 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thumbnail Images

Is there a reason why my WWE Raw image taken from a live televised event in Tacoma was removed - twice? I think since we include a photo taken of a WWE RAW televised event at Wembley Stadium, we should also include one taken from a similar vantage point at home. The TitanTron showing Shawn Michaels' entrance is OK, but it only illustrates the TitanTron and was most likely taken in a much smaller venue than the Tacoma Dome. User:Srosenow_98 August 2, 2006.

Erm...it would make more sense to have a pic of the titantron than another photo of simply another arena's vantage point of which there is already a photo. Sure, it's a bigger arena than the one the titantron pic was taken at, but at least the titantron is a completely different vantage point of the arena. I actually came to the WWE RAW page to look for an image of the titantron. Andyroo316 12:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A photo of a Raw house show? Come on! That has got to change. We need a photo of the set. 71.201.59.253 21:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is New GM of RAW?

the raw gm has not been named since last december because mr. mcmahon had a feud w/ DX (HBK & HHH). the question still remains, who's the next general manager of RAW?

Technically there is no GM right now, Vince has been the temporary GM. I sometime think they've forgotten about it, it doesn't help that Vince loves being on TV.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wasnt there a picture of RAW's giant screen, i think its called the RAWTRON, so, where is it, it oughta be here, it should, it IS necessary!!! T00C00L 13:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not the RAWTron, it's still the TitanTron!

For some reason it was replaced by a picture of the arena when they went to London, i'll try to find the original pic since it's more appropriate for the article.

Stephanie McMahon's return

We know that she had a baby back in july of last year.but is stephanie scheduling to return to RAW to alling w/ her brother & father if vince & shane continued their feud w/ any superstar on different brands?134.124.143.149 16:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stephanie wasn't full-time before getting pregnant, I don't see it changing anytime soon. TJ Spyke 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Live RAW broadcast events

This is trivial to the article, but has anyone noticed on the Live Events schedule at WWE.com that RAW does not have a schedule after October 30th of this year? Can anyone conform the reason for this, perhaps? Is RAW being taken off the air or going on a hiatus? Srosenow 98

Put back WWE Monday Night RAW Page?

I think someone should recreate the WWE Monday Night RAW page, because I have DirecTV, and on the guide, it always says WWE Monday Night RAW, not WWE RAW, and I think that its the same on all guides, and JR Always says Monday Night RAW, so I think the WWE Monday Night RAW page should be brought back, But that's just me... TJ Sparks 03:30pm, Sept. 21, 2006 (UTC)

Looseing power?

last nights raw lost power in the whole arena and had to revert to mikes with chords and lights... was that kayafabe or true? if it is true it should be added24.128.202.124 18:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Im fairly certain it wasent kayafabe.... Although they played it up nicley to seem that way.

what happened was when the pyro went off it set off heat sensors that made the power shut off this is a safety feature to keep fires from spreading74.218.88.13 13:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Jutrup08

raw theme song

wwe will change raw theme music from union underground to papa roach to be loved next monday here is the link to the site that says it.[1]--Micheal21 19:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was Move. Also, note the common usage of "Raw", "Fox", etc. —Centrx→talk • 17:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

WWE RAW → WWE Raw – Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) calls for not adopting the unconventional spelling "RAW". A similar case is Time magazine, whose trademark is "TIME". Croctotheface 20:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support per my own nomination. :) Croctotheface 06:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose' Offical Name [2]BionicWilliam 21:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia policy is very specific about this. THL 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Just to make it very clear, although WWE uses "RAW" as its "official" spelling, Wikipedia policy calls for using "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment: avoid: REALTOR® instead, use: Realtor". I already mentioned the Time magazine case. Additionally, wrestling publications such as Pro Wrestling Torch follow a similar policy regarding using "Raw" instead of "RAW" and "Impact" instead of "iMPACT". Croctotheface 08:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Another example is the Fox Broadcasting Company, which uses "FOX" as the "official name" of all its related companies, television shows, and other intellectual property, but Wikipedia follows standard English writing conventions and uses "Fox". Croctotheface 08:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet another example: Wikipedia uses Korn, not "KoЯn" or "KoRn", which is the spelling the band uses on their official site. It is clear that Wikipedia policy supports this move. Croctotheface 09:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
What about IPod? The first line in the article says: The correct title of this article is iPod. The initial letter is capitalized due to technical restrictions.. This implies that if not for the technical restrictions of Wikipedia, it would be indexed under the name iPod. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
"Raw", "fox" and "time" are English words independent from WWE Raw, Fox Broadcasting Company and Time Magazine, while "iPod" and "eBay" are not. Besides, capitalizing the second letter of a word instead of the first more closely approxomates standard English than captializing the whole thing. Do you really not see the very direct similarities between Time, Fox, and Raw? Do you really think iPod is a more similar case? Croctotheface 20:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I see similarities, but what I'm saying is there are flaws in the guideline and as a result, I don't agree with a move until some of this stuff is hammered out. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
If you disagree with the policy, you should propose changing it. Not agreeing with a policy is not cause for intentionally ignoring it. I don't agree with the policy that calls for commas to be placed outside quote marks, but I don't write my edits that way out of protest. Croctotheface 20:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not a policy, it's a guideline. According to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Also, I'm not opposed to the guideline either, it makes sense, but the language used to describe it is not concrete enough to make me fully believe that it applies in this case. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I stand corrected on it being a policy. I don't see how it could apply to Fox and Time without applying here. It's essentially the same situation. Croctotheface 20:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I see where you're coming from here but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) doesn't really convince me here. With all the show's different names, I'm not sure WWE even uses "Raw" in the title to refer to the English word anymore. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(I'm removing the indents before they get too out of hand.) Also, lest someone get the wrong idea about guidelines, the top of the trademarks guideline page says, "The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines." I see absolutley no reason that this case comes close to meriting the "occasional exception" that the language you quoted refers to. "Fox" and "time" are English words that are also trademarks, as is "raw". In all three cases, the companies and trademarks in question call for the words to be capitalized. In the cases of "Fox" and "Time", Wikipedia does not capitalize the whole word. So, it should not do so in this case either. As to the idea that the title of the show no longer refers to the English word, that calls for speculation. The same could be said about Fox as well, which probably has more power as a brand name now that it evokes foxes. Croctotheface 21:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

It SHOULD go back to "WWE RAW" since that is the correct name. TJ Spyke 00:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No doubt. The result should have ended with a No Consensus as only three users voted. And one of the votes shouldn't even count (Nominator). -- bulletproof 3:16 00:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's True, Why not Capitalize? After All, I saw a WWE RAW Video, that said that RAW is an abbreviation, it stands for Really Awesome Wrestling.

Dn't mean to be rude but DON'T PUT THAT THERE! As in don't put the fact that it stands for "Reall Awesome Wrestling" down on the article as it sounds like opinion. And Me, I HATE FANBOY OPINIONS AS MUCH AS WIKIPEDIA HATES THEM. In fact I doubt it even stands for that. Sounds likea deranged fanboy to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyKombat (talk • contribs)

Theme Songs

There should be info on the previous theme song(s) and the dates they were used. Tim Long 02:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A sentence would suffice. *Sam* 17:19, 22 October 2006
I have added a clause in the sentence regarding the current theme tune that states the previous Raw theme, (Across the Nation by Union Underground). *Sam* 17:25, 22 October 2006

Infobox

I changed the image in the infobox back to the image I uploaded - Image:wwe_raw_logo.png. Logos like this should really be in PNG format and Image:3460856.gif doesn't have source information or fair use rationale on its image description page.

Also, I removed the international broadcasters from the infobox as well. According to Template talk:Infobox Television#Usage, international broadcasters should not be included here. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So how is the blurry image Image:RAW.jpg better than Image:wwe_raw_logo.png? --Jtalledo (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll try and find a better quality image to replace the current one. Perhaps Image:Mondaynightraw.JPG may do the trick? Not quite as blurry as the other one.-- bulletproof 3:16 06:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to change what it says on the last image on the RAW article. This set is no longer being used to present. Either change the dates or change the image to the new RAW set (Oct 9 2006-Present) 24.57.39.138 22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That is the correct set, at least as of this past Monday. TJ Spyke 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Does the logo count?!?!? Duhhhhhh! Look at it carefully and you'll see the previous logo. 24.57.39.138 00:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But the set itself is still the same. TJ Spyke 01:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Will the AM RAW logo now be changed with the new WWE Raw logo? ViperBite 15:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is Raw taking all the best wrestlers off of Smackdown?

I am wondering why WWE take all the wrestlers who are good on smackdown and put them on Raw? Jackster608 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a question for a message board devoted to discussing wrestling, or maybe even a wrestling blog. This page is meant strictly for discussing THE CONTENT of the article. --CJ Marsicano 16:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sorry but I am quite new Jackster608 17:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

R.A.W => What does it mean ????

The question is in the title. What the RAW initiales mean ?

Thanks.

Its just the name of the show... Jeez...-- bulletproof 3:16 23:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

RAW is a word, not an acronym. It is all caps for the same reason FOX and TIME are all caps. --James Duggan 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RAW is supposed to be WAR backwards, in which the WWE created it's name known as RAW. HA HA 23:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Originally the show was called 'RAW is WAR', then they dropped the WAR and just went with RAW.Will2710 03:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The show's title was NOT "Raw is WAR." The show's original title when it debuted in 1993 was "Monday Night RAW" which it still is technically to this day (As both Vince McMahon, Jerry Lawler, and Jim Ross both reference it as such). It only became "RAW is WAR" at the beginning of the Attitude Era in 1997. Srosenow 98 04:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
RAW stands for Real American Wrestling. MISSINGNO. was here. 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't mean anything, in the same way smackdown doesn't mean anything. Skitzo (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Raw = Live

Back in the days before Monday Night Raw, every wrestling show that was on television was taped. (ie: Prime Time Wrestling, WCW Saturday Night, WWF Superstars, All American Wrestling, etc.) So, it's my understanding that the Raw in WWE Raw means Live where they coined the phrase, "Anything can happen in the World Wrestling Federation" as opposed to showing something that happened at a live event a couple of weeks back (i still can remember those days). Salisbury Steak (complaint dept. - contribs)

I believe the 'RAW' part, as well as simply being a reversal of 'WAR', used to signify the popularly termed 'Monday Night Wars', was a reference to the live nature of the program, significantly the 'IS WAR' extension was dropped sometime after the purchase of WCW, lending further weight to the theory.

Of course as with most things which enter pop culture, the words were giving numerous meanings. Sentinel618 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Results

Does anybody think that complete match listings with results for all episodes of Raw would be a project worth undertaking? I would do it if anybody thought it worthwhile - but I don't know. PPV results and storyline progression is noted, so should this be the case with Raw and therefore possibly Smackdown! in the future? Like I say, I would undertake the project in a sensible format if anybody thought it would be an article worthwhile. The results and notes would have to be concise with sources cited. Thoughts? *Sam*

No, we've already gone and delete pages for iMPACT and RAW results before, so any such page created would just be deleted. TJ Spyke 21:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
OK - thanks, just an idea *Sam**Sam*
The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was no move. There was a poll above which called for WWE Raw not to long ago, and that decision was confirmed in this requested move. There is definitely not a majority to move the page to WWE RAW. —Mets501 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 2

WWE Raw → WWE RAW — The reasoning in this it's the official name, and there wasn't any consensus. If you count the nominator, the vote was only 2-1, not an all inclusive vote BionicWilliam 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey 2

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Oppose. There was just a vote on this, and Wikipedia policy is crystal clear. See above. Croctotheface 18:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. RAW has nothing to do with Raw Meat, plus the offical name is WWE RAW see WWE Offical Page. WWE never gave an explaination to the use of RAW. It is what is popluarly known as and spelt. BionicWilliam 18:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the official name of the show. I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia that provides the best information on a topic possible. And your taking away the information by changing the name because of some crap rule. --  Mikedk9109  (talk)  18:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose WWE RAW would be in blatant violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks), which clearly says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". The letters R-A-W in this trademark are pronounced /rɔ/, just like the English word raw, so there is no legitimate reason to capitalize all the letters. "Official name" has consistently been shot down as not being a valid justification for violating the naming conventions, so arguments that "this is the official name" are completely inapplicable and votes based on that argument should be disregarded. Nohat 18:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's the official and correct name. Also, WP:MOS is only a guideline, not a policy. TJ Spyke 20:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just so you know, Nohat is an administrator. When he says that arguments "should be disregarded", he means that they WILL be disregarded. As such, the vote is currently 2-0 against moving. Croctotheface 20:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't have been move in the first place since the vote was only 2-1. Currently the vote is 3-2 in favor of moving. TJ Spyke 20:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm doing my best to stay civil here, but what part of what he wrote don't you understand? Are you just willfully pretending you don't know how Wikipedia works? Guidelines should be followed, not ignored because it suits you personally. If you disagree with a guideline, try to change it, don't pretend you can choose not to follow it. Croctotheface 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:MOS is only a guideline (ie. rules with a loophole), not a policy (ie. law) so Its up to all interested parties to decide on the name of this article. Answer this question, are you going to change all the other Wikipedia’s to there word for raw? Probably not since raw doesn't mean raw meat in most of the other languages.BionicWilliam 20:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The MOS also says not to invent new formats, "Raw" is rarely ever used to describe the show. TJ Spyke 20:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Why does this deserve an exception from the MOS? Because you say so? An ADMINISTRATOR already described why the argument that has been used so far is invalid and will be disregarded. Croctotheface 20:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Because its not about raw meat, many TV Schedule Listing list as WWE RAW so RAW commonly used as the spelling, and are you going to change all the other Wikipedia’s to there word for raw? Probably not since raw doesn't mean raw meat in most of the other languages. Plus you do not have the authority to decide whose vote is valid or invalid. BionicWilliam 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support moving it back to RAW. There is no policy first off, just a guideline. Next, the guideline also says that we shouldn't create new formats (i.e MSN). semper fi — Moe 21:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment So "Raw" is a new format? Strange, I see it popping up a few places: [3] [4]] [5]. "New format" means that the usage has no precedent at all. I'm quite positive that "raw" has been spelled without capitals before. Croctotheface 21:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why are people comparing RAW to MSN? RAW is just a word while MSN is an acronym that stands for something. James Duggan 01:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Same reason Fox Broadcasting Company and Time (magazine) don't have their names capitalized in the page name. But that doesn't mean we can't type RAW within the article itself, so the only thing affected is the article name, not the rest of the article. James Duggan 01:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.It should be the name of the article.Halbared 20:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Raw is not being used as an acronym, it recalls the adjective "raw". --Jtalledo (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, Raw is just a normal word. Dragons flight 22:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. WWE RAW's logo is all in upper-cased lettering. So that should be the show's Wikipedia's page, should it not? Proper English, people!!!! Budd16 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Proper nouns (such as the titles of TV shows) are written with the first letter capitalized and the rest in lowercase. Capitalizing all the letters is IMPROPER English, which is why the Manual of Style requires the current usage. Croctotheface 04:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion 2

Add any additional comments:

  • Comment. This isn't a discussion, it's a requested move. If it was discussion that you wanted, this isn't the way to go about it. Croctotheface 18:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait, are you familiar with what a requested move is? Because you used the formatting, but I don't think that you actually filed for one. Croctotheface 18:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • not really I'm pretty new at formating,I just wanted to restart the old disscussion since it was ended to early plus I belive that Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling should be notified 1st since this page it apart of their project.BionicWilliam 18:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, one more time, I'm going to articulate/repeat my reasoning on this. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) has a section that deals with trademarks where the trademark owner uses ALL CAPS. It reads, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment: avoid: REALTOR® instead, use: Realtor". Such items should only be capitalized if each letter stands alone, either because it is short for something (like WWE) or reads as if it were (like MCI or SAT). The fact that the owner of the trademark uses all caps as its "official name" DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL. It has no bearing whatsoever; in fact, the whole point of the policy is to say, essentially, that Wikipedia does not acknowledge the so-called "official name" (you really mean "official spelling") for this kind of case. The move here was 100% correct. If you disagree with the guideline, you can try to change that. But it was applied correctly. As to the notion that I should have notified the project, I suppose it would have been considerate of me, but it's by no means necessary. I went through all the proper channels with the vote. The vote actually lasted longer than average--it was on the "backlog" of the Requested Moves page. A disinterested Wikipedian (who was not me and who did not vote) closed the debate. To be honest, though, this kind of move probably did not need a vote, as it is simply bringing the article in line with the MOS. Croctotheface 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This is not a ballot, the sheer number ("the vote was only 2-1") is irrelevant to whether it will be moved. Wikipedia naming conventions and reasons are the means of deciding whether it will be moved. —Centrx→talk • 22:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll break up the bulleted list formatting here. ;) The Manual of Style isn't binding, yes, but unless there's a really good reason to deviate from it, it should be followed. There's no real good reason that the show should be the exception to the rule - articles for large corporations like Fox follow it and so should this article. WWE does not use the word "Raw" as a acronym and a new officially licensed product of theirs, WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007 uses the lowercase spelling with no issue. As for films and other properties with strange formatting in their titles, that's really an issue that should be raised on the talk pages of those articles. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment: Raw vs. RAW

This is a dispute over whether to use Raw or RAW in connection with this article and subject matter. 21:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) clearly specifies that standard English should be followed. Precedents such as Fox Broadcasting, Time magazine and Byte magazine further support this spelling. Croctotheface 21:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To compromise I suggest we use WWE Raw as the title to conform with WP:MOS , but use WWE RAW within the article to appease the users (myself included) who want to use the official spelling in the artcle. BionicWilliam 21:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a terrible solution. Either one or the other is correct, not both. With style issues, it's better to apply substandard style consistently than try out every permutation out of the hope you get it right once. Besides, the MOS is crystal clear here. The fact that you use the term "appease" suggests you recognize as much yourself. Croctotheface 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I was proposing somthing like the MSN article. BionicWilliam 21:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What's the issue there? It seems pretty clear to me that MSN should be capitalized. Croctotheface 21:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant The Name of the artcle is WWE Raw (ie MSN) but the Infobox name is WWE RAW (ie Microsoft Networks)BionicWilliam 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Thats different: it's two names for the same thing, like WWE and World Wrestling Entertainment, not a style dispute. Croctotheface 21:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's common sence for Wikipedia to use proper spelling and grammer, As Croctotheface said the offical spelling is WWE RAW not WWE Raw. BionicWilliam

Capitalization and spelling are two completely different concepts. All of these are spelled correctly: grammar, Grammar, GRAMMAR, gRaMmAr, gRAMMAr. Actually, you just argued in favor of WWE Raw because capitalization falls under grammar rules, and in the English language we render proper nouns that aren't initialisms in mixed case with a single initial capital followed by lowercase. Hence, WWE (an initialism) Raw (a word). – flamurai (t) 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Comments

From what I understand, we can still use RAW within the article. James Duggan 01:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

When I tried doing that, Croc reverted it and tried to call it vandalism. TJ Spyke 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted it because it's incorrect per the MOS. Additionally, the matter was and is being discussed in the requested move. To go ahead and make the move anyway, despite the fact that the matter is under review, not to mention despite the MOS and the words of Nohat, who is an administrator, struck me as not dissimilar to vandalism. I may have been wrong in calling it that, but I was not wrong to revert it. Additionally, I see no reason that the MOS would support using the spelling RAW under any circumstances. This is not a case where two variations are equally correct per the MOS: one (RAW) is wrong, and the other (Raw) is right. Again, if you don't like it, try to change the policy. Croctotheface 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, TJ and I were talking about within the article itself, not the name of the article. Are we not allowed to use the actual trademark in the article either? James Duggan 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The MOS covers all of Wikipedia, not just article titles. So, no. Again, feel free to propose a change to the guidelines. Croctotheface 03:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I have, [[6]], I suggested allowing exceptions for Movie/TV show/video game titles. The MoS also isn't always enforced, I ♥ Huckabees should be at I Heart Huckabees or I Love Huckabees. TJ Spyke 03:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[[I see that you have. Doesn't seem to be going your way just yet. I ♥ Huckabees would almost definitely be moved if someone nominated it citing MoS:TM, which, for some reason, is not the policy you proposed changing. Croctotheface 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)]] I see now that you did propose changing MoS:TM as well as the Manual of Style more generally. In hindsight, I appreciate that you posted in both places for maximum exposure. It appears that I ♥ Huckabees was the source of some debate already. I suspect, though, that if someone did propose changing it, it would go. No guarantees, though. Croctotheface 04:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

More on Raw and RAW

I'm posting here rather than above because the Request for Comment shouldn't be overrun (as it is now) with debate from interested parties. I have to confess that my interest in this silly edit war is growing thin. I'm not going to repeat, yet again, the many reasons why "Raw" is the superior spelling, as I sincerely doubt that there is anything that I or anyone else could say that would change the minds of some people here. Those who really are interested can reread whats's been said, and perhaps read the first reply to TJ's post here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Movie.2FTV show titles for a very thorough description of why the current guidelines call for "Raw". Nohat, who is an administrator, already specified that "official name" and the like are not legitimate reasons to move the article. At this point, I'm more interested in figuing out where we go from here.

First of all, I want to say that if it turns out that after a fair and thorough discussion of the applicable MOS guidelines, a group of disinterested editors (which means, not you, not me, not our friends) agrees to change the guidelines, I would abide by that. Likewise, I request that those of you here who disagree with me agree to similarly abide by the guidelines if they are upheld. It seems to me that a lot of what's been said in favor of "RAW" boils down to a disregard for the MoS and a desperate search for some example somewhere wherein the MOS wasn't followed. I don't doubt that there are occasional exceptions made to the Manual, and I'm even more positive that there are examples of articles where the Manual should be followed but is not, for a host of illegitimate reasons. The bottom line here is that if you are unwilling to write your Wikipedia edits in such a way that follows Wikipedia's Manual of Style, then I wonder why you want to write for Wikipedia in the first place. People who are so impassioned that they are reverting the article despite MoS:TM, despite the Move, despite what Nohat said, and despite everything else should really reconsider what their goal is, and why it's so important to them. As it stands, I think we have a textbook candidate for WP:LAME, and that's not something to be proud of. Croctotheface 04:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm of the mindset "What's in a name?" There's arguments from either side. Yes, the manual of style should be followed, but I've never understood the obsession with arguing over the article names. The whole thing is confusing with article names like huckabees, .hack and We ♥ Katamari. There have been arguments over Dreamcast versus just Dreamcast, Sonic The Hedgehog vs. Sonic the Hedgehog, etc. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jtalledo. Names aren't a big deal. RobJ1981 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You may be surprised to learn that, for better or worse, I agree as well. The people who are going really crazy, moving the article with no authority to, making a minor change to the article with an edit summary like "+1 for WWE RAW (the CORRECT name)" are not the people who want to leave the article at "Raw". So if you believe that names aren't a big deal, you should probably be talking to those people, not responding to my comment. Croctotheface 14:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think that WWE has worked its spell yet again by making people fight for the all caps spelling. lol --Jtalledo (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

WWE spells it RAW everywhere it is mentioned on WWE.com it is spelled RAW. If you read articles about RAW they spell it with capital letters. It should be how WWE spells it not how Wikipedia's Manual of Style says it should be. Also the pages shouldn't be changed back and forth until this issue is resolved. Jayorz12 15:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This is like I'm with You (as per Wiki MOS) vs. I'm With You (as per Avril Lavigne), Time (magazine) (as per Wiki) vs. TIME (magazine) (as per AOL). This is Wikipedia, so we'd follow Wikipedia... BUT, I'd suggest we use WWE RAW on the article, in the infobox etc., even once (like WWE prefers "WWE RAW"). --Howard the Duck 16:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A minor point: there first line of the article does acknowledge WWE's capitalization. I would be fine with rewording it. Croctotheface 17:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with that, but it'd be better if we use "WWE RAW" on the infobox too. (And should TNA Impact! be at TNA Impact!, too? --Howard the Duck 04:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that wrestling publications like Pro Wrestling Torch and Pro Wrestling Insider use "Raw". If you seriously believe that the MoS should just be abandoned because it conflicts with how a company presents its own trademarks, then there's no reason to even have a Manual in the first place. Wikipedia would have no consistency and read like a series of press releases. Croctotheface 17:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Matt Hardy on RAW

Is it true is he going to raw—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoed (talk • contribs)

No. TJ Spyke 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Aparently it is Now that the hardys have the world tag team championships.mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.230.251 (talk • contribs)

You do realize you replied to a 5 month old section? TJ Spyke 21:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

the best

There best show is when they go to england.--Kingforaday1620 23:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a messageboard. Besides, last nights RAW was pretty bad. TJ Spyke 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Speak for yourself; the DX segments were freakin' hilarious. Everyone of them were great. Anakinjmt 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WWE Raw vs. "Monday Night Raw."

Shouldn't we petition to get the article renamed to "WWE Monday Night Raw"? It is, technically, the correct name for the show as recognized by WWE, both on air and off.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle C Haight (talk • contribs)

Actually, the correct name is "WWE RAW". WWE sometimes calls it "Monday Night RAW", but that's just the same way they sometimes call Triple H "Hunter" or Mr. Kennedy "Ken". TJ Spyke 04:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why, then, do TiVos, on-screen guides, and things of that nature, as well as WWE.com refer to it as "Monday Night RAW", if your argument is correct? I still believe the correct (new) name of it is "Monday Night RAW." Compared to how "SmackDown!"'s name was highly publicized as changing to "Friday Night SmackDown!" last year, "RAW" quietly became "Monday Night RAW" around the same time. Furthermore, why is the "SmackDown!" article titled "WWE Friday Night SmackDown!" instead of just "WWE SmackDown!"? Kyle C Haight 05:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

TV Guides/TiVo, etc. get show names wrong a lot. For example, before this season on-screen guides would call every Pokemon seaon "Pokemon" despite the show getting a new name every year (Pokemon: Johto Journeys, Pokemon: Master Quest, etc.). wwe.com almost always says "WWE RAW" and only sometimes calls it "MNR". You can ask at WP:PW, but i'm sure they will agree that it's just "WWE RAW". TJ Spyke 05:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
It's actually a gray area, but technically the show's name was never changed from "Monday Night RAW to "WWE RAW." Vince McMahon, Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler, plus several wrestlers still refer to the show on-camera as "Monday Night RAW." In fact Jim Ross said two weeks ago, "This is happening on the WWE Flagship. Monday Night RAW" while referring to the main-event match that night. There's even been versions of the former RAW logo (the one that was just recently replaced) with the words "MONDAY NIGHT" in the upper portion of the logo itself. Also, "Monday Night RAW" is used in greater frequency as opposed to just "WWE RAW" when discussing the show.Srosenow 98 04:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, "RAW" is used far more often than "Monday Night RAW". The official name is "WWE RAW", they just call it "Monday Night RAW" sometimes (the same way Triple H is sometimes called "Hunter" or Hardcore Holly called "Bob"). TJ Spyke 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I still think the issue is a gray one. Having done a consensus of the last four episodes of Monday Night RAW, in conjunction with one I taped back in May (the May 29, 2006 edition, of which I was there in person to see) and again in July, Jim Ross and Jerry Lawler, as well as Vince McMahon all made the "Monday Night RAW" reference on a greater frequency than "RAW" or "WWE RAW." In fact, if you watch the show more closely, Jim Ross clearly states "Monday Night RAW" in almost every mention of the show, usually in conjunction with the line "The WWE Flagship" preceding it. Likewise with Vince McMahon, he tends to refer to the show as "Monday Night RAW" on a far greater frequency than "RAW." This week's edition in particular was rich with references to "Monday Night RAW" versus "WWE RAW" or simply "RAW."Srosenow 98 12:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Overall, we need to make sure we are consistent. So, if the page stays at WWE RAW, Smackdown should become WWE Smackdown. That's my opinion and what I do. That being said, there is reason to have it be WWE RAW and WWE Friday Night Smackdown: the logos. The RAW logo is just that: RAW. Smackdown, however, is Friday Night Smackdown on the logo. Yes, there is just the Smackdown logo which still gets used, but the match preview thing that shows the wrestlers says Friday Night Smackdown. In addition, the title that shows at the end of the Smackdown video says Friday Night Smackdown (if you don't believe me, you can look here and yes that's my video), whereas for RAW it just says RAW. While I would personally do it how I explained above, if we want to be sure, we should go by the logos; hence RAW is WWE RAW and Smackdown is WWE Friday Night Smackdown Anakinjmt 19:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also it just says RAW in the opening sequence.-—Preceding unsigned comment added by GD1223 (talk • contribs)

Flagship Program?

The top of this article states that RAW is 'generally considered' as WWE's 'flagship program' over Smackdown! and ECW. While this may be true for ECW as it has not been established as a WWE brand for very long, is there any reasonable cause for suggesting that RAW is considered flagship over Smackdown!? And 'generally considered' by who? Isn't this an example of weasel words? Does anyone else agree? Will2710 03:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WWE themselves have said on more than one occasion that RAW is the flagship program of WWE. I think the main reason is because the show has been around for about 13 years and gets the highest ratings. TJ Spyke 03:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Don’t forget the meaningless fact that all of the WWE original titles are on Raw and all of the WCW original titles are on Smackdown.--Prince Patrick 19:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The WWE Tag Team titles don't originate from the WCW Tag Team titles, but your point is still made: Smackdown holds all brand extension/WCW originated titles. RAW holds all WWE original made titles. Anakinjmt 20:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I worded my statement incorrectly.--Prince Patrick 14:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ratings Success

Shouldn't u guys mentioned the impact ,raw has in cable telvision. I mean it is the highest rated show in cable tv,a lot of network crave to have a show that constatly draws those high ratings.One of the very few shows that get 3 hour specials,and has greatly hepled the usa network become the highest rated cable netowk in primetime in 2006 .Without raw,disney channel would have gotten that honor,but raw made it possible for the usa netowk.So consider it.

Tribute to the Troops

What happened to the separate page for this? Why does it redirect to the Raw page now?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.118.178 (talk • contribs)

There was an AFD for it, and the consensus to delete it. You can request a deletion review if you want, and maybe bring it up at WP:PW. TJ Spyke 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Tribute to the Troops, what was the Creed song used in the commercials for the Tribute to the Troops in 2006 (I don't know if they used it in 2005, I just remember it in 2006)? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perkowitz1 (talk • contribs)

Logo section

Should we put all logos together making a logo section? 244pupil6

I don't think it's really needed, because all the logos are already pictured next to the areas of the article that the logo goes with. A logo section would just be clutter, and again, they're already in there just fine. Anakinjmt 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the logos are already used in the article. No need to make another section for it. TJ Spyke 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

TJ's revert back to using "RAW"

I just noticed that someone had changed all instances of "Raw" to "RAW" despite the lengthy discussion that established a consensus for "Raw". As this was done without discussion, I have reverted the change and will continue to do so. Ignoring this, WWE.com doesn't even use "RAW" when they write about their own show. Croctotheface 10:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

bulletproof has a good solution, they only starting calling it "Raw" after the 700th episode. All references before that should be RAW. Besides, there has never been consenus. TJ Spyke 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There was enough of a consensus to move the page. There is no valid reason to ignore MoS:TM, which was the rationale on which the previous consensus was based. The name was never "changed" in any case; the name has remained the same, but WWE no longer uses nonstandard capitalization when they write about it. There has been no valid rationale given to ignore Wikipedia's style guide. As such, "Raw" is the correct usage in all cases. Croctotheface 07:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It was 2-1 to move it to Raw. In the next Move, it was 6-4 to move it back (but wasn't). The name has changed, it's the same way Sunday Night HEAT became HEAT and later Heat (or how The Bottom Line became Bottom Line or SmackDown! became Friday Night SmackDown!). TJ Spyke 13:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You are aware that vote counts are basically irrelevant to decision making, right? I mean, tell me honestly, is there any point in trying to have a discussion about this with you? Are you at all capable of considering that you might be wrong about this? Is there anything at all that could happen that would prevent you from reverting the page every chance you get? Croctotheface 09:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I only brought it up because you said there was consensus to move it. TJ Spyke 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
So I'm guessing the answer to my questions is no? Croctotheface 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You can have a discussion with me. I can admit when I am wrong, but I don't think I am here. TJ Spyke 04:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) OK, let me ask you, then: do you reject MoS:TM? If you do not reject it in all cases, why don't you think it should apply here? Croctotheface 12:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag Championships

There is probably goign to be an editing problem as RAW has yet to air in Pacific, but the *SPOILER WARNING* Tag titles have changed hands, so keep an eye on the page until we are allowed to put the change in. ProtoWolf 01:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We are allowed to put the title change in NOW. We go by as soon as it first airs in the US, which is now. People on the Pacific Coast are used to this by now. TJ Spyke 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah, well I was unaware. Okay, that solves that then. ProtoWolf 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, you are new so you didn't know. TJ Spyke 01:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can people please insert this pic Rawlogo.gif It is so much nicer and has better sourcing than the one used now! I got blocked by an idiot for replacing it with a better one, just look under history and click on the ones that say Candicesfan. Tell me what you vthink of my logo compared to the old one and current one!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.161.3 (talk • contribs)

The current one comes straight from wwe.com, how can you get a better source than that?. TJ Spyke 03:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I have blocked 206.148.161.3 for being an abusive sockpuppet of the blocked user, Candicesfan. --Yamla 03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I have one with perfect clarity that is bigger that also came from WWE.com (got it when they were doing voting for WWE Cyber Sunday. However, it has a black background to it. Are we content with the logo that is currently in place? Kyle C Haight 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The current one is fine, but you can upload that other one so we can decide whether to use it or not. TJ Spyke 01:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

RAW

does anyone know if raw stands for real american wrestling or not? Sub619 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If it does, WWE has never stated it. I think it's just something fans came up with. TJ Spyke 20:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • that was just something that was mentioned in svr 2007 by kurt angle;it does not stand for anything.HEY Y did someone deleted what I added a couple of minutes ago about the draft lottery?????????????!!! sorry about all the the ? and !Urena198 01:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Because there is no need for it here. It's mentioned at WWE Brand Extension (where it belongs). TJ Spyke 01:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • ok. thanx. i just thought to add it since it will take place on raw Urena198 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Raw = Live

  • Back in the days before Monday Night Raw, every wrestling show that was on television was taped. (ie: Prime Time Wrestling, WCW Saturday Night, WWF Superstars, All American Wrestling, etc.) So, it's my understanding that the Raw in WWE Raw means Live where they coined the phrase, "Anything can happen in the World Wrestling Federation" as opposed to showing something that happened at a live event a couple of weeks back (i still can remember those days). Mrsteak613 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

no because RAW never used to be live, back in the monday night war era WCW used to give away their results because it was TAPED.Skitzo (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WRONG. Please do some researsh because otherwise you sound ignorant. RAW was both live and taped. They would do a live episode or RAW on Monday, then tape next weeks episode on Tuesday. So it would be live one week and taped the next. TJ Spyke 00:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Vagueness in the intro

What does "and its preference over the other brands" mean? Please rephrase the sentence if you know the answer. Wimstead 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it means that WWE usually saves big things (like most match announcements and the Draft Lottery) for RAW. TJ Spyke 00:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say that it means most people choose RAW as their favourite brand and most big things are on RAW 20:42 5 June 2007 Ydna21

Garcia/Roberts

hey anyone know why Garcia and Roberts have profiles stating that they are the current ring announcers? 20:43 5, June 2007Ydna21

Garcia is still technically the ring announcer, but Roberts has been doing it since March (when Lilian injured her leg in a skiing accident). If Roberts is still doing it when Lilian is healthy, then I would consider it permanent. I hope that happens because Roberts is a better ring announcer IMO. TJ Spyke 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree he reminds me of the old Howard Finkle days.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Y2J RKO (talk • contribs)

RAW results

should we put raw (and smackdown and ecw) results just like we have for ppvs and snme?  Sub!  14:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

NO, that wouldn't be good because it's a hassle, people would vandalize, and the whole page would be too long once half a year is over. And btw, there is vandalism above the contents, could you please remove it? Thanks! Derrty2033 07:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A.M. Raw

The article states that A.M. Raw currently airs on Saturday morning at 2 and 9 ET, however according to WWE.com [7] and my television guide it air on Sunday mornings at 2. Now, I was going to change the article myself, but it goes into detail about when the show changed timeslots. Assuming this information is correct, the show would have changed timeslots again at some time, although I do not know when that was. If I were to change one part without changing the other, because then the article would contradict itself, but I don't want to remove the latter portion of the section to justify changing the first portion. If anyone knows anything about this, such as when a second change took place, would they please make the appropriate edit? Thank you. Calgary 22:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

803 Episodes???

How can there be 803 episodes of RAW if back in October 2006 they celebrated their 700th episodes??? Last time I checked, there are only 52 weeks in a year making it 52 episodes of RAW per year. There is no possible way there can be 803. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavo Masis-Flores (talk • contribs) 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some vandal messed it up, this week was the 746th episode. TJ Spyke 00:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Special Episodes

Would it be a good idea to find out what took place in every special RAW episode and treat them like PPVs and list matches? I think that would be awesome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Dagon (talk • contribs) 19:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, that wouldn't really help the article. If they were turned into seperate articles, they would likely get deleted again (several of time used to be full articles and then were deleted by AFD's). TJ Spyke 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but maybe they don't have to be all seperate articles, kind of like PPVs that aren't in the main four (WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series and Royal Rumble). We could have one article and go through the list like those. I'm just suggesting because some important matches took place at some of these special episodes, such as the Loser Leaves RAW Matches that took place between Kane and Umaga and Edge vs. Matt Hardy. Again, I'm only suggesting because it seems like a neat idea, and the same could be done with SmackDown's! special episodes. --Lord Dagon 15:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

RAW or Raw

Question, is it WWE RAW or WWE Raw? It needs to be decided upon. It is not conistent throughout wikipedia and not even on this page. I think it should be RAW, the logo shows it in all caps. What does everyone else think? --Crazy4metallica (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Even WWE isn't consistant on this issue since they use both. I personally think it should be RAW. TJ Spyke 00:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I prefer "Raw." But which version is more consistent with the Manual of Style is the real question. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
WWE uses "Raw" in most of its relevant stuff on WWE.com. The Manual of Style calls for "Raw". Two requested moves went in favor of "Raw". This is a very straightforward decision. Croctotheface (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:MOS prefers WWE Raw. I have changed most of the relevant mentions of RAW to Raw where I saw it. — Save_Us_229 23:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Raw XV article.

I spent a good deal of time improving the Raw XV article from a very rough stub which had been created, and now it has been removed without a word on my talk page. Could anyone please explain this to me? -- Kevin Browning (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but it is per WP:PW consensus that these special episodes are non-notable and do not need their own articles. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I put my own opinion on the PW discussion that it is notable. I think some of the special episodes are more notable than some pay-per-views. Whereas sometimes there is no story development on PPVs, Raw XV for instance saw returns of many past wrestlers and stables that could affect future storylines. It seems the only criteria for all PPVs being deemed notable is the fact that people pay for them, anyway. Thanks for replying. -- Kevin Browning (talk) 03:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of Hogan and maybe R.V.D non of the other returnees will be wrestling for them any time soon, the Evolution "reunion" was just an angle to make the 6-man tag, WWE anniversary shows and other special occasions such as a tribute show hardly ever maintain canon or further story lines they are usually just a 1 off show to pop a rating.Skitzo (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

1)It wasn't "Raw XV", it was "RAW 15th Anniversary Spectacular". 2)Skitzo is right in that it was no different than any other RAW except for having a lot of past WWE wrestlers appearing, none of which will have any real future effect (based on similar specials like the RAW Family Reunion and RAW Homecoming). TJ Spyke 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Raw/Archive_1&oldid=1092066584"