Talk:WWE Raw

Longest running blah blah continued

Nascarking-Read what you're replying to. The statistic has nothing to do with reality, especially given the fact that other weekly wrestling shows have had many more episodes. --Bix (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• And yet this persists. I edited it to more reflect reality. --198.53.107.40 (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd tagged it as a point of view issue, but it's not one. The claim is cited, but by a primary source (i.e. WWE). I removed the POV tag and clarified the issue on the primarysource tag that I'd originally added a few months ago. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"It is the longest-running weekly episodic TV show in history." Isn't Meet the Press a weekly show? Doesn't Meet the press appear in "episodic" form? There may be something I'm missing here, and if so, please clarify things for me. Raw isn't even the longest running wrestling show, right? Shouldn't this be changed to say: "It is the longest running currently active wrestling show on TV"? I don't know much about the issue, but I feel like this is a junk statistic propped up by the WWE, seeing as how the reference is a book about the WWE.--4.226.153.182 (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be removed. WCW Saturday Night even ran for 28 years which is much longer than Raw has been on the air. I don't know how this fake WWE statistic has found it's way into the article. TheGary (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

900 or 901

How many episodes has Raw as of August 30, 2010? The infobox says 400, but the "Special episodes" states that the actual 400th episode was aired on August 23, 2010, and thus is should have 401 episodes. Which is correct? (Don't whatlist page) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have watched CM Punk's promo during this special episode, the episode when Triple H attacks Randy Orton in his home is numbered #824, which leads to #9OOth when we reach August 30th ! So, for WWE, it's the 900th ( for August 30th ) ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.8.211.165 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not actual anymore, as this information was removed. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

Tagged the article for clean up. There are too many tables. The international broadcast section isn't necessary. Wikipedia isn't a TV schedule. Quality television show pages don't have a list of every network that broadcasts the show. Same with the recurring segment table. But the worst is the "Special Episodes" table. There's over 30 entries in this one, most of which are from the last five years. What is a "Special" episode anyway? It's not like there's any criteria for this list, except that WWE promotes an episode as "special" and they do that for practically every other episode.

Another thing to look out for is the history section. This section is supposed to be about the Broadcast history of the show, format changes, competition, etc. But the 2010 section was full of stuff about storylines relating to Nexus, etc. And then there was that bit about "Raw Roulette", which was in the so-called "Special episodes" section anyway. I removed that stuff, but Nascarking reverted my changes without explanation. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another special episode you should point out is the historic March 26, 2001 episode of Raw when the WWE purchased WCW. J4lambert (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The name is only sometimes stylized as "RAW"

In fact, most of the time, it is not stylized that way by the WWE themselves. Implying that it always is gives readers a false impression. Croctotheface (talk) 07:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Old Taping Scheduals

Raw has never been taped on Tuesdays. They taped in blocks, one show live, the the next show right after. http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/raw93.htm shows the record dates. Not sure how to word it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.164.183 (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

While Raw in the early days(1993-1996) did tape multiple shows in one night, there were indeed periods of time between 1997 and 1999 where Raw was taped on Tuesdays. They would air live on Monday and then tape the next night for the following week. They did this for quite a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.53.198 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we want to elaborate on the "Anonymous GM" gimmick

I am tempted to add a brief footnote to the notes section for the "anonymous Raw GM" gimmick, explaining how the gimmick works. It would say something brief, such as a chime sounding to cue Cole (or whoever else) to the podium to read an announcement, usually pertaining to a match, a wrestler currently standing in the ring, and so forth. What's your thoughts, or would this be going too far? [[Briguy52748 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)]]

Special episodes

Since during many of the special episode's there are differnt matches and even guests could some of the shows have there own page. Also why not add Raw Roulette for 6/27/11, and the Rock brithday show had so many celebrity birthday wishes. We should also place where this shows take place (city and arena). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

What about the WWE Title Tournament that was held on July 18 of this year? That should be a special episode too, they don't happen often. And July 25 marked the first time that there were two WWE Championship matches on Raw, both resulting in new champions. That should be noted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.121.158 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mantaur's RAW debut was special. The one where Big Boss Man ate his opponent's dog was special. Jackie Gayda's nipple was special. Every episode has something that someone could consider special. We can't list them all. If you can find a reliable source calling an episode special AND explaining why, then it might be special enough for Wikipedia. Till then, just an opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

WWE RAW Roulette

RAW roulette is a special episode so someone needs to re add them back in i would but i dont have the dates for them--BlackDragon 04:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

RAW Roulette is a yearly thing like the WWE Draft... BlueChainsawMan (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I just added the 5 occurrences of Raw Roulette to the Special Episodes list with dates and ratings... BlueChainsawMan (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

show name change?

anyone know if the name of WWE's flagship Monday Night program is now known as Raw Supershow instead of Monday Night Raw, if the name change is the official, i suggest the name of the Wikipedia page for WWE Raw to be change to reflect the name change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Until the name is changed on the corporate website, no.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

We should know this soon, also lets list the 1st Raw Supershow as a special episode 952, also let us list the special episode # with each respected show --Cooly123 01:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And what makes the 1st "Supershow" special?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Promotional material used in the USA Network, WWE.Com and the Show's graphics can let you know that the there has been a name change Kerbymanuel (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And it may be only temporary. Let's just wait and see.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

So, about how much time do we have to wait 'till we're convinced that Raw SuperShow it's legit??? Kerbymanuel (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say it's not official until the WWE changes the names of the shows (or perhaps cuts down the shows from 3 to 2, or 1) on the corporate website.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the WWE Live Tour site (www.wwelivetour.com) is promoting ever Raw show for the rest of the year (except England and Mexico) as Raw SuperShow Kerbymanuel (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Still isn't the website that counts.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 02:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WWE has long promoted all dual-branded houseshows under the Supershow name. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

But the last SD that aired was referred to as simply SD, no "super" or anything like that.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 11:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

International RAW

Before it gets deleted once again , the 1st RAW Tribute to the Troops was in Afghanistan , the second and third was in IRAQ . So it makes the count to 8 countries that broadcasted RAW Gpetit89 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Theme Songs

is it possible to add the past and current theme song for Raw and Smackdown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usa409 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the realness of the matches

A lot of people seem to think that these wrestling matches are real and that the wrestlers are actually hitting each other, I don't know why there is such confusion about this. But this article doesn't mention that the wrestlers are actually acting and that no one is really being hit, shouldn't that be a key point in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolawl (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

All covered in the article Professional wrestling.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 10:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

File:WWE RAW 2002-2005 Stage.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WWE RAW 2002-2005 Stage.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:WWE RAW 2002-2005 Stage.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WWE RAW 15th Anniversary - Battle Royal Match

pls more infos about the 15th Anniversary and the gimmick battle royal match.

Participants: Al Snow, Bart Gunn, Doink the Clown, Repo Man, Steve Blackman, Pete Gas, Bob Backlund, Gangrel, The Goon, IRS, Flash Funk, Scotty II Hotty, Skinner, Jim Anvil Neidhart, Sgt. Slaughter, Gillberg.

Elimination (in this order): Gillberg, Bob Backlund, Doink, Gangrel, Al Snow, Pete Gas, Bart Gunn, Steve Blackman, Flash Funk, The Goon, Repo Man, Jim Anvil Neidhart, Scotty II Hotty, Skinner, Sgt. . WINNER: IRS

Afterwards Ted DiBiase the Million Dollar Man came to the ring and offers IRS money to eliminate himself. He puts the money in the briefcase and hops over. New WINNER: Ted DiBiase the Million Dollar Man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.146.249 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

File:WWERawSuperShowLogo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WWERawSuperShowLogo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:WWERawSuperShowLogo.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

"It is the longest-running weekly episodic tv show in history"

This is something that WWE keep boasting about, yet the only link appears to be to WWE! Surely without a neutral third-party WP:RS such a statement can not be included? 41.132.116.62 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.59.131 (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Special

Shouldn't there be "WWE Raw: Featuring Brock Lesnar" from when Brock Lesnar won against John Cena in the Special Episodes?--Mjs1991 (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

John Cena actually won and Triple H changed it back to WWE Raw that night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1717ABC1717 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-promotional claptrap

I guess a WWE employee routinely checks this page to make sure their lie of having the longest running show on TV remains intact. Well, Newsflash to WWE: this is not a WWE website. We need to have real facts on here. RAW is only WWE's longest show, NOT the longest period. Just like WWE's publicly announced attendance rates which are "for entertainment purposes only", much of WWE's "Did You Know" propaganda is just simply not true.172.162.4.204 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I agree. I haven't seen any source for this claim other than WWE themselves. It should probably mention that this is exclusively a WWE claim. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia really isn't concerned with truth, just verifiability That's not a complaint or an insult, just a fact. Reliable sources have made the claim. Wikipedia very clearly attributes the claim to the specific source. The reader can (should, anyway) consider the source and judge the truthfulness of it for themselves. You can't make the claim (in the article) that this is exclusively a WWE claim without a reliable source backing that claim. An editor can't cite his own knowledge ("...propaganda is simply not true") or lack of knowledge ("I haven't seen any source..."). That is considered original research and is absolutely prohibited here. If you can find a source saying Raw is NOT the longest-running show, you can add the counterclaim, but you can not remove the WWE claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Except it can be verified as not true its verifiable that WCW Saturday Night ran longer. It can be verified that many other weekly TV shows have run longer. While there might not be many sources out there specifically challenging the fact the WWE says, there are many sources verifying other shows that contradict the statement, which is reason enough to leave the statement out in the interest of being encyclopedic. Pawnnolonger (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

WCW Saturday Night was only on the aired for 9 years. WCW/Mid-Atlantic had Saturday shows before that, but they were different shows (i.e. "Georgia Championship Wrestling"). TJ Spyke 01:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit like saying that Monday Night Raw only ran for 4 years, as the name of the show was changed to Raw is War in 1997, or that a new show debuted in 2002 when WWF changed their name to WWE. The show might have changed it's name, and the company providing the talent that was featured might have have changed (e.g. Black Saturday), but the show itsself ran from 1972 to 2000. WWE's self promotion aside, their statement is incorrect and it should be changed. The Todd (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It most definitely isn't the longest running show in history, there are several that beat it. The Japanese "Super Sentai" series, for example, has been running continually since 1975 and while each season can be pretty radically different, they're all part of the same core series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.196.124 (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Authority figures

I think that we have to include more AF. I only see AF since 2001. Where the AF before 2001 are? I mean, Shawn Michaels, Mick Foley (commisoners), Sgt. Slaugther, Gorilla Moonson...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Commissioners (Slaughter, Michaels, Foley, Regal) and Presidents (Tunney, Monsoon, etc.) weren't authority figures specifically for Raw. They were authority figures for the entire WWF. SilentGanda (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

April 8, 2013, edition of Raw

Hello, I feel that the April 8, 2013, edition of Raw deserves at least some form mention on this article. Practically all the wrestling critics and wrestling websites, including The Baltimore Sun (which is a mainstream, credible source) have labeled yesterday's edition of Raw as one of the best ever and having by far one of the animated, vocal, and unpredictable audiences ever. All the wrestling critics have been lauding this episode all day. I have put forth many reliable sources such as the Baltimore Sun and can present more. Thoughts? In fact, individuals right from out of WWE are characterizing the show as the best Raw ever as shown here [1] AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WWE tends to hype every current thing they do as the best ever. Hardly can call them an unbiased source. Share some independent sources. I don't think there's any reason to single out this show, but I may be wrong. Didn't see it myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Having seen your intended edit, can't say it's appropriate. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "share an independent source" that doesn't come from the WWE? Last I checked the "Baltimore Sun," "The Sun," etc., weren't apart of World Wrestling Entertainment?! These were the sources that I added. Did you later see this, then come back with that second excuse you posted up there just to try to be difficult and keep my material out of the article?! I'm not accusing you of this, it just sounds like that's exactly what you're doing. Look! All I'm here for is to progress the article, I'm not here for spiteful editing practices, seeing who's better at getting their way, or cliquish tactics with friends.

As far as undue weight, get out of here: The material I added was two to three paragraphs long of three to four lines each. The rest of the sections in this article are like a full-on page or more in length and not only that but without sources, such as that "Switch to HD" section and that "Original format" section. I mean, 90% of the material in these sections aren't even sourced and you're worried about my edit which is well-sourced, well-supported, and placed in a relevant fashion. And when that's the case, it strikes me that you're not here for the good of the article, but that you're friends with the reverting editor. If I wanted to be difficult as it seems you are with regards to what really is a harmless, productive edit I've placed in the article, I could easily just trim away the majority of this article for its total lack of sources.

Again, numerous websites have been going on and on about this past Monday's Raw as a rarity with one of the best atmospheres ever, which is notable. Unsure why this isn't enough to convince you and your friend editor. AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked you to share one, before I saw your edit or knew you'd made one yet. You only Wikilinked Baltimore Sun on the Talk Page. Wasn't very useful. After I saw how your edit gave a shitload of undue weight to this one very recent episode, I gave my "excuse" (also known as Wikipedia policy). Nine lines is extremely undue, when every one of the other 40 or so episodes have one line. Many of these are episodes fans still talk about years later. We have a commercial-free RAW, RAWs from actual warzones, a RAW where the boss exploded and a Benoit tribute RAW on the night we were supposed to have a McMahon tribute. But we're supposed to treat "zany atmosphere" like it's so much more important? Not going to happen.

Not personal, by the way. I don't dislike or know you, and the reverting editors (there were two, by the way) aren't my friends (no offense). We work on the same Wikiproject, so we discuss "business" now and then, sometimes amiably. Okamoto brought up a problem, I looked into it. Then I showed you the policy clearly stating why what you're pushing isn't appropriate. If that reeks of conspiracy to destroy Wikipedia through bullying the progressive thinker to you, I'm sorry to hear it. But I probably can't help that. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:38, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

And yes, please do trim unsourced stuff. Or find sources, if you're feeling ambitious. It would be a much better way to help the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:54, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well over half of this article will be getting garbaged for unsourced material and undue weight. I've got a start on the overhaul and will be continuing later.AmericanDad86 (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is verging on WP:POINT: "If someone deletes from an article "unimportant" or "irrelevant" information which you consider to in fact be important to the subject... do explain on the article's talk page why you feel the material merits inclusion, do not delete most of the remaining article as "unimportant". --Jtalledo (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Jtalledo, please assume good faith. Assuming bad faith is looked down on here at Wikipedia. As per the discussion above, I have trimmed the article where it wasn't sourced/undue weight. This was consensus from the above. The editor above has suggested we follow Wikipedia guidelines strictly otherwise material be removed. Just like my contributions that were swiftly removed despite my sourcing and supported it, it was still removed by the above editor for his feeling that it conflicted with the "undue weight" wiki policy--even though it was only a little over 2 small paragraphs long. So since we need to follow Wikipedia guidelines this strictly otherwise have our contributions removed altogether, I have removed all the unsourced/undue weight material from this article. If you want the material back in the article, feel free to source it, but not until then. And I'm willing to get an administrator involved if the rules only apply to my edits and desires and not of the edits and desires of any small group of wiki-friends that may use each other to engage in article ownership. Best believe that.AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hard to assume good faith with an editor like you. Removing unsourced stuff is one thing, removing anything you feel is undue without any explanation as to why is another. Your comment above indicates your feelings were hurt and you're looking for some sort of petty revenge, not that you're genuinely trying to better the article. If you'd like to continue removing unsourced stuff, do it separately from stuff you feel just isn't important. That way, we can deal with both issues separately, instead of mass reverting everything back and forth. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:32, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, this is the last time I'm going to say this: the material removed was both unsourced and undue weight. You yourself have told me to remove this. I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this because I believe you're not acting consistently with your own statements nor in according logic. I think you see that your wikifriend is sore because he's not getting his way and just want to come up with ways in which he can get his way, throwing wikipolicies my way without following wiki policies in your own right nor applying them to your friend. I'm informing an administrator. Goodbye. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced is alright, but you'll need to give some indication as to why you believe the other stuff is undue, like I did for your undue edit. Only fair, right? I'll take you on your word that you're not going to go back and forth, and revert you for hopefully the last time. I'll also look for sources for the stuff you rightly contested. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Sort of a misleading edit summary here, don't you think? Consensus should come from the article talk page, and involve more than two people. And while I'm mildly scolding you, you shouldn't say "as per". Just "per". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, April 15, 2013 (UTC)