Talk:WWE

Legacy Content/WWE Video Library

I changed the name of WWE Libraries to Legacy Content. WWE refers to the video library to legacy content. WWE mentions the video library department as the legacy content team in the article about the last battle of Atlanta on WWE.COM. The link is here: http://www.wwe.com/classics/last-battle-of-atlanta-rich-sawyer. WWE lists job offers in the video library department under legacy content.

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2024

Change -Rhea Ripley defeated Charlotte Flair "on" WrestleMania 39 Night 1- to Rhea Ripley defeated Charlotte Flair "at" WrestleMania 39 Night 1. InsanityDesigns (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamietw (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Addition of corporate website to external links

The only link currently featured is for the storyline website, wwe.com

Surely an informative encyclopedic entry should also include the business website. Currently I only find a link in references, but it should be featured more prominently as an external link. 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:BD51:4D39:3899:5164 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There a link to the corporate site on the front page of WWE.com. Per WP:EL, only one link to official websites should be used, and any subsequent links to subsites or social media accounts are to be done through that link, nit have redundant external links here. WWE.com isn't solely in-universe, even if results and recaps of recent shows are the first thing one sees. oknazevad (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is immediately evident however that one can access the corporate website, by going through wwe.com.

I do not believe linking to the corporate website here on wikipedia is redundant... 2604:3D09:927F:E900:65:53A:BA67:19D7 (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe it doesn't change the fact that it's already policy compliant. oknazevad (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your arrogant tone.

Thanks 2604:3D09:6A86:F300:95F2:C91E:A8B4:EF47 (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Removing Vince/Linda From "Founder" Status of WWE

While Vince McMahon / Linda McMahon are often credited as a "founder" of WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment), this designation overlooks the historical context of the company's origins and misrepresents McMahon's role in its development. Here are several key points to consider:

1. Historical Context: WWE was originally founded as the Capitol Wrestling Corporation (CWC) in 1953 by Vincent K. McMahon (Vince's father) and his business partner, Toots Mondt. Vince McMahon Jr. acquired the company in 1982, inheriting a functioning business with established talent and a regional fanbase.
2. Business Expansion, Not Founding: McMahon's significant contributions to the company lie in his strategic expansion and modernization efforts. Under his leadership, WWE transitioned into a global powerhouse, leveraging innovative marketing strategies, television deals, and event promotions. However, this does not equate to founding the company.
3. Comparative Analysis: The analogy with Elon Musk and Tesla is apt; Musk is often credited with transforming Tesla into a major player in the automotive industry but did not found the company. Similar to Musk, McMahon's impact was transformational rather than foundational.
4. Recognition of Predecessors: Acknowledging Vince McMahon as a "founder" diminishes the contributions of those who built the company before him. Recognizing his role as an owner and a pivotal figure in WWE's growth is important for a more accurate historical narrative.
5. Terminology Accuracy: The term "founder" implies the inception of an idea or business from scratch. Since McMahon took over an existing entity, a more accurate description would be "owner and architect of modern WWE."
6. Terminology of "Modern WWE": Referring to Vince McMahon as a founder of "modern WWE" does not change the foundational history of the company. The term "modern" suggests a new era or transformation but does not negate the fact that he acquired an existing business. Thus, regardless of the era being referenced, the distinction between founding and ownership remains critical to understanding WWE's history.

In light of these points, I propose that we revise the language surrounding both Vince McMahon and Linda's role in WWE to reflect their actual contributions more accurately, emphasizing that Vince purchased the company and played a pivotal role in its expansion, rather than founding it. BusinessFanatic17 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Technically Vince purchased assets from his dad, including the WWWF/WWF trademarks and other IP, but Vince and Linda did found Titan Sports, Inc, later World Wrestling (Federation) Entertainment, Inc, the corporate structure that ran using the WWF/WWE name until the merger with Zuffa (UFC) to form the TKO Group (at which point WWE was reorganized as World Wrestling Entertainment LLC). So they are properly listed as the founders of the prior corporate entity. That said, this article is both for the promotion as an ongoing business and the corporate entities under which it has operated, and the promotion was founded by either Vince Sr or his father Jess (they were both involved and it's unclear which was the official founder). oknazevad (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

While it's true that Vince and Linda were instrumental in the creation of Titan Sports and later WWE, the title of 'founder' should reflect the origins of the wrestling promotion itself. Vince Sr. and Jess McMahon established the foundation of what we recognize today as WWE. The corporate structure is secondary to the legacy and history of the promotion itself. Removing Vince and Linda's founder status based on the evolution of corporate entities doesn't diminish their contributions but acknowledges the true lineage of the promotion. Companies can change names and corporate structures, but that doesn't alter the original founder status. BusinessFanatic17 (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)