Talk:List of WWE pay-per-view events/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Edit request from 78.150.196.52, 4 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Jan'11/Royal Rumble I think that city is unconfirmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.228.80 (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

78.150.196.52 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you requesting cause I can do it for you--Nascar king 20:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC).

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source--Steam Iron 07:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I added that because I read somewhere that that's where it would be. So yeah it's unconfirmed.--Nascar king 19:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ineedanapp, 9 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The date listed for the upcoming Elimination Chamber pay-per-view event is incorrect. It is listed as February 27, 2011. The event will actually take place on February 20, 2011. This can be verified on the official WWE website, WWE.com

Ineedanapp (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your right it is. I'll fix it.--Nascarking 19:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done by User:Nascarking. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Night of Champions

When you click on Night of Champions it goes to a body building competition page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.203.205 (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh?

Why is there a pay-per-view called "Tonight's the Night"? is it replacing the royal rumble or something? - 68.110.5.148 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that I know of, it was probably just vandalism. Juggalo Dan 420 (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

over the limit 2011

what happened to the wwe over the limit 2011 page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.252.149 (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It got moved here until it was more fully sourced.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 00:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

NOC PPV

When was the Night of Champions PPV confirmed? WWE.com Events and the official HSBC Arena site doesn't list Night of Champions at all, so I'm guessing WWE has still not confirmed this event? (Darkside05 (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

Probably because tickets haven't gone on sale for Night of Champions and since the event's 4 months away and it's only right now May. It's not WrestleMania where tickets go on sale 5 months in advance. Regular WWE PPV events go on sale usually 2 or 3 months in advance so chances are it won't be on HSBC Arena's website until tickets go on sale.--Voices in my Head WWE 19:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorect Information

The Night of Champions in 2012 is on September 23rd and not the 16. Also Hell In A Cell is on October 28 and not October 7. There is no mention of Vengeance in 2012. This is where i get my information from.

Mlkj1fan (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

References

PPV schedule error

I noticed on the page that the PPV schedule table for the upcoming year has been altered. This was reported on WrestleZone.com from someone who looked up WWE.com's "Shows" page, and as you know with these kind of dirt sheet sites, they do all copy one another. If you look at the two links I have provided, it shows that this page has not been updated in a long time (it is still promoting WrestleMania XXVII from April 2011). I noticed it a while ago and thought that fact that you can not click on the "Shows" tab on the top of the current website is likely an error that no-one has realised to change it (the pictures/graphics for the events are from 2010 also).

http://www.wwe.com/shows

http://web.archive.org/web/20110622114653/http://www.wwe.com/shows/

The archive link is from July 2011 where the page is still the same. WWE recently released a poster for the UK advertising the upcoming 2012 PPV events with no changes to the schedule (http://www.wwe.com/worldwide/uk-2012-ppvs). I think it should be reverted back to its original form. ElliotBayTowers (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Under Former PPVs: Taboo Tuesday/Cyber Sunday & Vengence 2011

I just noticed that TT/Cyber Sunday are not listed as former PPVs with Unforgiven, No Mercy etc.

Also, if its noted that Fatal4 & Bragging Rights returns for 2012 were scrapped, why isnt it noted that the return of Vengence 2011 was supposed to be called Uprising?

CobraMorph 2-2-12 12;54P PST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.221.54 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Protect

Could the article please be protected due to persistent vandalism? Thanks, KANE 19:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

There is false information in the upcoming events section of this page. The venues for Money in the Bank 2013, Over The Limit 2013, & Hell in a Cell 2013 are not confirmed by WWE. The reference link next to each refers to the events only and not venues. I'm not very familiar with proper editing techniques on Wikipedia, so I'll leave it to the experts. WWEfreak (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

June 2013 PPV, and other PPV info

I haven't been able to find ANY source that actually names a June 2013 PPV, only some speculation (or maybe wishful thinking) from a few unreliable ones. WWE hasn't announced any plans for PPVs beyond Extreme Rules besides a listing of DVD releases with a "subject to change" notice. And all this has is names and DVD release dates. No event dates or venues to be found. So as it stands, unless someone can provide a good source, any information about upcoming events past Extreme Rules is pure speculation at best and just fiction at worst. Please refrain from adding events to the upcoming schedule or adding a June pay-per-view name to the Current events list. The June event since 2006 has been: Vengeance, Vengeance: Night of Champions, Night of Champions, The Bash, Fatal 4 Way, Capitol Punishment, and No Way Out. Even if you count the first two or even three as one event, that still means that it's changed every year for the last 4 years. Last year, WWE didn't even add No Way Out to its website, let alone announce a date or venue, until March.

And just for the record, while I would LOVE for the Rumble to be in Anaheim or WrestleMania to be at Dodger Stadium (well, I think I'd prefer the Coliseum or Rose Bowl), changing the page to reflect outright falsehoods is just against the rules. And think how disappointed someone would be to see on Wikipedia that a major event is coming to their town, only to find out later that it was totally false. Wikipedia needs to be a trustworthy source of encyclopedic information. AKKIfokkusu^TaLk 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of main events section

With this article being a list I see know point of having the main events included, This information can be found in the main articles. List of Universal Pictures films does not have a plot synopsis, just the main information. MB1972 (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Main events and a plot are two completely different things, the analogy between the two articles makes zero sense. Even if it did, WP:WAX applies, consensus should be achieved before making major controversial changes. STATic message me! 22:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

should also question what a main event is. Is a WHC match thats first on the card a main even, is a singles match with no title contested but is on last a main event? MB1972 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

NXT ArRIVAL

Apparently NXT is having their own PPV on February 27th: http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt/2014-02-12/sami-zayn-cesaro-nxt-arrival-26181744

I don't believe the NXT specials air on traditional PPV venues, just on the WWE Network, thus they don't belong in this list (IMO, anyway). Further, that they air during NXT's weekly Thursday timeslot, just at twice the length and with a more "important" atmosphere and card, I really don't think they count any more than when the King of the Ring aired as part of Raw or the GAB aired as part of SD. Just my thoughts on the matter.98.243.94.83 (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

False information

The Big Event 1986, Mayhem in Manchester 1998 and Global Warning 2002 we're all NOT a PPV. Can somebody please correct this?

As for the Big Event, this was simply a House Show in front of a large crowd, later released as home video by coliseum video. Mayhem in Manchester and the Global Warfare-Event we're a one night special show for the UK and Australian market. They we're later released as Home Video. The WWE first televised the UK Event Capital Carnage as a UK-Only PPV and from 1999-2002 they produced two UK PPV Events in a Year. But Mayhem in Manchester was NOT a PPV.

I was wondering about Global Warning, and just commented as such on its own page. Unless someone can come up with a cite that these events were actually PPV's, they really need to be taken off the list.98.243.94.83 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct. The Big Event, Royal Rumble 1988, Xperience, Mayhem In Manchester, Global Warning and all the UK Rampage shows from 1989-1993 were NOT pay-per-view events. They all need to be removed from this page. No idea who added them in the first place. Hopefully the Wiki-police fixes this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.94.198 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Sequential numbering for yearly PPVs

I'd like to propose that the articles for each PPV event include the number it took place within a calendar year, similar to how a music artist's album is stated as being their "first studio album", and so on. The lead-in would look something like this, with my proposed addition in bold:

"TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2011) was the third annual TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event produced by WWE, and the fourteenth WWE pay-per-view of 2011."

See I don't even know if it WAS the fourteenth, or the thirteenth. Hell, it could be fifteen for all I know. That's why I'm suggesting the above so as to inform the reader of when, chronologically, a PPV took place. I also think it would be nice if this particular article would include an extensive list of every single PPV, separated by years, starting from The Wrestling Classic up to and including the most recent event—basically the entire chronology. Right now I think it's too condensed and muddled up, especially with so many events either being mainstays, a one-off, or ditched for one year and then brought back sometime later. Since they're ever-changing, lumping them into "active" and "former" is unnecessary and confusing. The brand extension section could use some altering, too. The main text should be incorporated into the history section instead, whilst the statistics would form part of the aforementioned list, with a note on the side stating whether it was brand-specific or not. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this article just over three years after this suggestion, I must say I am very glad that most of the above has been done. The chronological list by year is exactly the right way to go about it, and the navboxes in particular were a perfect addition—I love 'em! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Chamber 2015

It's a "Special event on WWE Network" just like the Supercard in Tokyo since it can't be bought as a PPV.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

2012, interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Elimination Chamber 2015 was available on traditional PPV in many countries in the world. The United States was not one of them. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2014

Please change the location of the June 29, 2014 Money in the Bank PPV from "Boston, MS" to "Boston, MA" -- MS is the wrong state abbreviation. 2607:F140:400:2166:8140:C34B:4CC3:5DD8 (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Taken care of, thank you! Gloss • talk 20:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

2014 Money in the Bank

Kane was added to the main event as of Raw yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.249.124 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WWE Brand exclusive chronology

Hey yo! [ sorry:) ]

On each WWE PPV there is a chronology sub-menu for the entire WWE PPV category line, as well as a chronology sub-menu for each specific PPV event, regardless of the month it occurred in. But, I was wondering if maybe, from May2002 through Feb2007, even if the last brand exclusive PPV was Judgement Day 2006, a third sub-menu should be added to jump from one WWE brand exclusive PPV, RAW, SD!, even the ECW brand, from Insurrection until NoWayOut.

2605:E000:1901:8019:B94F:5E0A:3675:A9DD (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC) CobraMorph

Some Events Need To Be Removed From The PPV List

There is an ongoing debate, even though there really shouldn't be, about certain PPVs on this list and whether or not they belong here.

Those events are:

"The Big Event" from August 1986 - This was NOT a PPV. It was a house show that was filmed specifically for home video release. It never aired on PPV in Canada or anywhere else.

"Royal Rumble 1988" - This was NOT a PPV. It was a live special on the USA Network. This one is a no brainer. I agree it should be included on the Royal Rumble chronology, but not the PPV chronology.

"UK Rampage" from 1989-1993 - None of these were PPV events. They aired live on the Sky channels which are the same as airing on HBO or Showtime in the US. Those aren't PPV channels, they're premium channels. There's a difference. The later WWE UK events from 1997-2003 aired on the Sky Box Office channels which are different from the premium Sky Sports and Sky Movies channels. Sky Box Office is indeed a PPV channel.

"Battle Royal At Royal Albert Hall" from 1991 - See above explanation.

"XPerience" from August 1996 - This was NOT a PPV. It never aired anywhere. Not in Canada, the US, overseas, anywhere. There also has never been a VHS, DVD or Blu-ray release of this show and it has never popped up on the old WWE Classics On Demand channel nor WWE Network. The reason why is because this show was never even fully recorded. It was a glorified house show. Only a couple of segments from this show were recorded by WWF handheld cameras to show highlights on Raw. There is a fan-cam recording of this show that has popped up online, but that is self-explanatory. Some people claim this show aired on iPPV in Canada-only. That is absurd for a few reasons. First off, WWF has never done an iPPV... ever. Second, an iPPV in 1996? That technology was in its most infantile state back in 1996. It's funny that someone would even claim that.

"Mayhem In Manchester" from April 1998 - This was NOT a PPV. It was a house show that was filmed specifically for home video release. It never aired on PPV in the UK or anywhere else.

"Global Warning Tour" from August 2002 - This was NOT a PPV. It was a house show that was filmed specifically for home video release. It never aired on PPV in Australia or anywhere else.

These all need to be deleted from the list of PPVs. Not sure why any of them are on the list in the first place.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.94.198 (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC) 

 Done I agree, also remember to sign your comments. Lukejordan02 (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the signature. I just created an account. Glad to see the list updated. Although I see that "No Holds Barred: The Match/The Movie" from December 1989 was removed from the list as well. That show actually did air on PPV. Not sure why it was removed. Also the "Mayhem In Manchester" event from April 1998 wasn't fully removed from the list as the Main Event is still showing. OldSkool01 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done No worries and I've done the mentions above. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

UTC)

Why was Global Warning put back on the list? I've noticed an anonymous user has constantly been editing the Global Warning page by listing it as a PPV and including it in the PPV chronology. This user also has a history of vandalism on other pages. There is no proof that this show was ever broadcast on PPV anywhere in the world. This has already been established. OldSkool01 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have re-removed it and undone all the other edits as well as warning them. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Number Of Events By Year

This category lists the total number of PPVs at 331(as of Night Of Champions 2014). That is incorrect. Night Of Champions 2014 was the 300th WWE PPV event. Not sure where these 31 extra events are coming from. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

331 maybe is correct within the article what the WWE says may be in accordance to something else, for example there are 28 In Your House events they are probably not counted and the WWE haven't been counting the No Holds Barred as a PPV Or This Wrestling Classic or This Tuesday In Texas thats the extra 31. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

331 is not even remotely close to correct. Just takes 5 minutes and count them up yourself. Grab a calculator. It comes out to 300. Just look at the list. It's self explanatory. And that's including all the In Your House events, The Wrestling Classic, No Holds Barred and Tuesday In Texas. Not sure why anyone wouldn't count those. But even if you don't count them then it comes out to 269. It's simple math. The correct number is 300. Hell In A Cell 2014 will be 301. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Took 5 Minutes, correct. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

PPV match numbers

It seems that over the past few months, the match numbers in the results section have been edited to include Pre-show matches as part of the official show. Why is this? It's not so much of an issue with recent PPVs but with the older ones, we're listing matches that aired as part of Sunday Night Heat as part of the PPV, which isn't the case, surely. Match 1 should be the first match of the official PPV, not what took place before the event officially began, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.190.12 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Every match that took place in the building on the day of the PPV should be counted, just as long as it's noted which ones were dark matches, Heat matches, pre-show matches, etc.OldSkool01 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree they should be noted, but why, then, should the first official match of the PPV be listed as the second match of the PPV just because a match took place before the show went on air? It should just be listed as PS, D or H (something along those lines to correspond with Pre-show, dark and Heat). It's called a pre show because it is not part of the show. A movie synopsis would not include deleted scenes. Similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.233.145 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015

Battleground 2015 has had it's venue and city changed, but nowhere has it been confirmed that it's no longer taking place in St. Louis. Blvd Nights (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 22:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

People Need To Stop Adding Global Warning

It seems every other day I have to remove or undo someone's edit that keeps listing Global Warning on the PPV list. This was not a PPV! This debate pops up every few months it seems and people still don't pay attention. This show did not air on PPV in Australia or anywhere else in the world. It was a live event that was filmed specifically for home video. Simple as that. At least it should be. I have a feeling I'll be removing it again in a few days.OldSkool01 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Elimination Chamber 2015

I don't think Elimination Chamber 2015 should be on the list of PPVs. Since it is not airing on any of the traditional PPV outlets(Cable, Satellite, etc.) it is not technically a PPV. It falls into the same category as the NXT TakeOver Network specials or King Of The Ring 2015. WWE can call it a "pay-per-view" all they want, but it is not a PPV. It is a Network exclusive. I think a new Wiki article should be created with a "List Of WWE Network Live Events". OldSkool01 (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

WWE later announced on their website that the show did air on PPV in several countries.OldSkool01 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2015

|May 31, 2015,||Elimination Chamber||[American Bank Center [Corpus Christi,] |American Bank Center]]|| [[ Corpus Christi,|Corpus Christi, TX]] WWE2K (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Full Protection June 2016

A fully protected page doesn't do anybody any good. As it stands right now there are several things on the page that are incorrect that need to be changed. Most notably the number of PPV events should be 322, not 310. Not sure who changed that. Semi-protection to eliminate IP users and vandals is much more acceptable and practical. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 June 2016

Change Night of Champions from "Current" to "Former" under the Themed pay-per-views section.

JTP ^(talk) 19:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done @NotTheFakeJTP: this page is not currently protected, you should be able to directly edit it. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2016

I think some upcoming pay-per-views are missing like No mercy and TLC.

Sure I have a reliable source here it is: you can go to prowrestling.wikia and type"list of wwe pay-per-views" in the search bar. Kalxtmueudn (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

oh I mean wwe PPVs like No mercy and TLC are missing your table for the upcoming PPVs in 2016 aand I think it must be added to the upcoming pay-per-views' table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalxtmueudn (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now. Do you have reliable sources to back this up? Re-open here if you do. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Money in the Bank Cash-Ins

I think that Money in the Bank cash-ins should not be listed as the main event. They may be the last match of the night, but they are not the advertised main event. They are more like a bonus match, a little extra after the main event. Therefore, I think every pay-per-view that ends with a Money in the Bank cash-in should list its advertised main event, e.g. Money in the Bank 2016 should list Roman Reigns vs. Seth Rollins rather than Seth Rollins vs. Dean Ambrose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.92.234 (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

We always count the last match as the main event. Randy Orton vs HHH at No Mercy main evented but wasn't announced because John Cena had to vacate the title before the show. WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a reason we only list the last match as the main event and that's because if we go by what was "advertised as the main event", that opens up a whole can of worms. Some PPV events it's very easy to decipher what the advertised main event is. Like WrestleMania VI for example. Hogan vs Warrior was the main event. That's not even up for debate. But there are plenty of PPV events where multiple matches get heavily advertised and hyped and it's not clear exactly which match is the most hyped. WrestleMania XIX for example. Angle vs Lesnar closed the show for the WWE Title, but you can argue that it was the 4th match down on the card as far as importance goes. Austin vs Rock, Hogan vs Vince and even HHH vs Booker were more heavily hyped. Then there's situations, like mentioned above, with No Mercy 2007 where there is no specific main event announced leading into the show. The main event wasn't announced until midway through the show. So we really can't go by which match is "advertised as the main event" or which match "gets the most hype" or which match is "the most anticipated". If we start using those parameters to decide which matches are considered the main events, then it becomes very subjective and there's no real clear cut answer. Traditionally in boxing, wrestling and MMA the main event is always the match that closes the show so that's the only parameters where there is no subjectiveness and no complications. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Summerslam 2011 Wrong main event listed

The actual main event was John Cena vs CM Punk for Undisputed Championship. Please correct.

References

Sstonepca (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

See the "Money In The Bank Cash-Ins" conversation below.OldSkool01 (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2016

February 2017 - Elimination Chamber 165.120.74.178 (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this a suggestion? Is it what you think is gonna happen? Provide a reliable source first, with a date, a city and an arena. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No Mercy Main Event

While the triple threat match opened the show it is still considered the main event. WWE has a video package about how Cena just broke the record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8xr1XsGwtI The Broox (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I know. They chose the [WWE] World Title main event as the first match of the pay-per-view portion of No Mercy. This was due to the fact that the Presidential Debate would be broadcast on the same night as this event, and therefore No Mercy could have lost a lot of viewers. However, many reporters acknowledge that the opening bout was still a main event. WWE also wrote the same thing on their website. And finally, WWE uploaded Cena's record for headlining the most PPVs within the company. Nickag989^talk 16:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

First off, WWE can say whatever they want. They've been known to rewrite history at the drop of a dime. I'm going to write again what I wrote above in the "Money In The Bank Cash Ins" thread because this is a subject that doesn't just affect No Mercy 2016, but every PPV in history. Because if we set the precedent that the "advertised main event" and not the final match is the main event, then we have to go back and do the same for every PPV ever and then that becomes a real slippery slope.

There's a reason we only list the last match as the main event and that's because if we go by what was "advertised as the main event", that opens up a whole can of worms. Some PPV events it's very easy to decipher what the advertised main event is. Like WrestleMania VI for example. Hogan vs Warrior was the main event. That's not even up for debate. But there are plenty of PPV events where multiple matches get heavily advertised and hyped and it's not clear exactly which match is the most hyped. WrestleMania XIX for example. Angle vs Lesnar closed the show for the WWE Title, but you can argue that it was the 4th match down on the card as far as importance goes. Austin vs Rock, Hogan vs Vince and even HHH vs Booker were more heavily hyped. Then there's situations, like mentioned above, with No Mercy 2007 where there is no specific main event announced leading into the show. The main event wasn't announced until midway through the show. So we really can't go by which match is "advertised as the main event" or which match "gets the most hype" or which match is "the most anticipated". If we start using those parameters to decide which matches are considered the main events, then it becomes very subjective and there's no real clear cut answer. Traditionally in boxing, wrestling and MMA the main event is always the match that closes the show so that's the only parameters where there is no subjectiveness and no complications. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

But if WWE specifically names a match as a main event who are we to argue. I understand that when the situation is unclear falling back to the final match being the main event totally makes sense. But when they advertise something as the main even (using those words, "main event") shouldn't their word trump all. There is no need to revisit past PPVs because they have never previously billed something as the main even and then not have it end the night as far as I know. This is unprecedented and WWE said as much. The Broox (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, I can name plenty of times when the advertised main event did not close a PPV. The Wrestling Classic in 1985, Hogan vs Piper was the advertised main event. Didn't close the show. Survivor Series 1989, The Hulkamaniacs vs The Million $ Team was the advertised main event. Didn't close the show. Survivor Series '91, Hogan vs Taker was the advertised main event. Didn't close the show. WrestleMania VIII was billed as a double main event, Flair vs Savage was in the middle of the show. SummerSlam '92, Savage vs Warrior was the advertised main event, didn't close the show. Survivor Series '92, Savage & Perfect vs Flair & Razor was the advertised main event, didn't close the show. WrestleMania IX was also billed as a double main event, Money Inc. vs Hogan & Beefcake was in the middle of the show. King Of The Ring '93, Hogan vs Yokozuna was the advertised main event. Didn't close the show. WrestleMania X was also a double main event, Yokozuna vs Luger was in the middle of the show. King Of The Ring '94, Bret vs Diesel was the advertised main event. Didn't close the show. Survivor Series '94. Bret vs Backlund was the advertised main event, didn't close the show. I'm only up to 1994, but I can keep going if you want me to. There's a whole bunch more. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I am so glad you didn't give in to WWE and the new rules and history they like to make up whenever it's fitting. It's awful. For example, according to this new logic by WWE, Cena's Wrestlemania 24 match doesn't count as a main event but No Mercy 2016 does (laughs). While a show can have several "main event" type matches advertised, the TRUE main event is the last match and always will be in my mind. For example, you can't say Eddie Guerrero ever main evented a Wrestlemania even though his WMXX match was advertised as one of the "main events". Survivor Series 1989's main event was the survivors matchup. It should be noted that Cena's 67 main events (WWE's number) were ALL in the final matches of WWE pay per views therefore WWE should be ashamed of themselves for counting the opening match of No Mercy 2016 a true main event because if that is in fact now the case, then Cena's real WWE "main event" number would now be way, way higher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.71.229 (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. WWE also claimed that the Styles-Ambrose-Cena match at No Mercy 2016 was the first time an advertised main event opened a PPV. That too is incorrect. Elimination Chamber 2010 and 2012 both opened up with one of the advertised main events. So even in their own story they contradict themselves. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I get that you guys don't like how WWE "rewrites" history at times (and this isn't really a case of that), but do you really think that Bray Wyatt vs Randy Orton was the main event? The match that was most heavily advertised and billed as the main event was the triple-threat match, which was originally going to close the show but was moved at the last minute because of the presidential debate. If it wasn't for the debate, the match would have been the last on the card and this discussion wouldn't even be happening. --JDC808 ♫ 16:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right. If the World Title match went on last we wouldn't be having this discussion. But it didn't. So we are. Also this has more to do with consistency than anything else. Read this entire thread and you'll understand the point that's trying to be made. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I did read the entire thread and I find it silly that this discussion is even happening. Consistency is one thing, but if you're reasoning for not calling it the main event (despite what WWE and most if not all official sources say) is for consistency, that's a problem. It's good to be consistent, but it's better to be accurate. If we have to break from the mold once or twice, that's not a problem. --JDC808 ♫ 19:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

But it's not once or twice. If we change No Mercy 2016 then we have to go back and change dozens of other PPVs in history. If No Mercy 2016 was the first time in history that an advertised main event did not close the show, then it probably wouldn't be a problem. But as I've mentioned above, this is not the first PPV where an advertised main event did not close the show. I've given a bunch of examples above and I can give a whole lot more. So it IS about consistency. WWE is claiming that No Mercy 2016 was the first time ever that an advertised main event did not close a PPV. That is 100% factually incorrect. They also claim No Mercy 2016 was the first time ever that an advertised main event opened a PPV. That is also factually incorrect. I've mentioned this all above. WWE can change facts all they want, doesn't mean it's true. That is why we're having this conversation. It's not silly at all. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"If we change No Mercy 2016 then we have to go back and change dozens of other PPVs in history." That just sounds like you're just trying to avoid what should be done. If going back and changing them means that they would be factually accurate, then I see no problem in doing that, regardless of how much work it may be. Can you provide valid sources for all the "advertised main events" that you listed above that didn't close the show? We can actually provide valid sources that say the triple-threat was the main event. Like mentioned before, however, this match was going to close No Mercy 2016. Its placement on the card got changed at the last minute, but that doesn't mean it lost its status as the main event. I also want to go back to a previous point, do you or anyone else really consider Wyatt vs Orton the main event of No Mercy 2016? I and most everyone (if not everyone) don't and neither does WWE. --JDC808 ♫ 22:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I can absolutely find sources to prove what the advertised main events were for those shows. Unfortunately WP doesn't consider Youtube videos, WWE network videos, event posters, programs, newsletters and other such proof as reliable sources. There were no websites around back then and unless something is written from a reliable news source today, standard WP rules will not accept anything else as a reliable source. As far as not wanting to do the work, that couldn't be further from the truth. I've done a ton of work on WP over the years, and I even created the "List of WWE Network events" page. The problem with going back and changing all the main events from those shows is that you open up the changes to interpretation. There were quite a few PPVs where multiple matches were advertised as main events. WrestleMania 19 for example had 4 advertised main events. WrestleMania 24 also had at least 3 advertised main events. Mania 28 had 4. And there's a ton more. Do we start typing in multiple matches per show in the main event column? Also, if we do that, the "most PPV main events" chart will change drastically. The fact that WWE even posted that video claiming Cena now has 68 PPV main events while Taker & HHH are tied at 67 PPVs is solely because of us adding the "Most PPV Main Events" section. You can't tell me that it's a coincidence that we added that section a few months ago and all of a sudden WWE does a video mentioning those stats when they've never mentioned any stats like that before. The guys at WWE.com use WP to get stats all the time. So this isn't such an easy solution to just say "Oh, we'll change everything". OldSkool01 (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

So in hindsight, assuming that what you say about WWE using Wikipeida for stats is true, then since you all decided not to list those advertised pay-per-views main events as main events, you caused WWE to report inaccurately, thus YOU (and whoever else) "rewrote" history for WWE. How does that feel? To bring it back to point, if multiple matches were billed as main events, what's the problem in listing them all as main events for that show? Does it matter if that chart "changes drastically"? If we're providing accurate information, that's not a problem. Also, those can be used as sources, especially if it's stuff from way back where print (or online) sources are unavailable or very hard to find. --JDC808 ♫ 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

To answer the first question about how it makes me feel about "rewriting" WWE history. It makes me feel bad actually. Feel bad for WWE that is. Because if they have to use WP to look up THEIR OWN history, then that's pretty pathetic. They're a billion dollar organization with an incredible amount of resources to research their own history, yet they have lazy workers at WWE.com looking up WP for information. That's sad. As for going back and changing all the old PPVs with multiple advertised main events, that will cause a lot more controversy with WP editors. A lot of people feel strongly about only listing the final match as the main event for all the reasons I've mentioned. I wish we had more people involved in this debate instead of just us, this way we can get a clearer consensus on what should be done. If the consensus is to keep things the way they are, then nothing needs to be changed. If the consensus is to go back and change everything that needs to be changed, including the "Most PPV Main Events" chart, then I'll get to work on it. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Knowing WWE they probably specifically called the No Mercy match a main event just to stick it to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.71.229 (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Randy Orton vs Bray Wyatt was the main event because it went on last. It wasn't supposed to be, neither was it advertised to be, but it ended up being the main event by definition. If we change it to double or triple main events, where do we draw the line? How do we measure "most hyped"? Some people might argue that Lashley vs Umaga was a WM23 main event because of Trump, others say it wasn't. So who is right? It didn't go on last, so it wasn't the / a main event. Nobody can measure hype, but we all can see which match went on last.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I heavly disagree with all of this. We can't put in the main event colum some random matches just because was the last match. The ME usually takes place as the final match. However, we are Wikipedia, we don't decide the main event of No Mercy or Hell in a Cell. WWE said Hulk Hogan/Sid and Savage/Flair were the main event and we have sources. WWE siad Styles/Ambrose/Cena was the main event, not Orton vs Wyatt. Hell in a Cell had a triple main event. I don't see the problem, if WWE decides to have 7 main events in WrestleMania, it's his decision. We only reflect the facts. "We have to change the article" it's not an excuse. In that case, we should change the colum to "Last match", because sources say some matches aren't the Main Event --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we are WP and our job should be to seperate fact from fiction. WWE has rewritten their own history so many times, it's ridiculous. They contradict themselves all the time. We're not going to go back and change things every time WWE decides they want to rewrite history. WWE in the last few weeks has claimed that No Mercy 2016 was the first time an advertised main event opened a PPV. Factually incorrect. Elimination Chamber 2010 and 2012 both opened with advertised main events. They also claim No Mercy 2016 was the first time an advertised main event did not close a PPV. Also factually incorrect. The Wrestling Classic, SummerSlam 1992, Survivor Series 1992, King Of The Ring 1993, King Of The Ring 1994, Survivor Series 1994, In Your House: Revenge Of The Taker, and many many more fall into that category. So should we now go back and change all those PPVs because WWE decided to rewrite history? Of course not. As for them advertising Hell In A Cell 2016 as a triple main event, you know in a couple of years they're not even going to acknowledge that and just refer to Sasha and Charlotte as the main event. Just like they no longer refer to WrestleMania 9 as a double main event. Nor WrestleMania 10 for that matter. Both of those shows were advertised as double main events when they first happened just like SummerSlam 90, Mania 8 and many other PPVs over the years. And if WWE decides to have a PPV where every match is considered a main event, like you said, we're not gonna list the entire card in the main event column. If people want to know what else was on the show besides the final match then they can very easily click on that PPV page link and get all the results in details. The specific PPV pages is where we mention whether there was 1 main event, 2 main events, etc. For this page we list the final match because it's simplistic and there's no subjectiveness over it. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You're ignoring sources. Every source (WWE.com and third party) say Styles/Cena/Ambrose was the main event of No Mercy. However, you're saying the Wyatt Orton is the main event without a source. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring incorrect sources. Just because a source says something, even if they are a reliable source, does not mean it's true. And some people say "Well it's their company, so whatever WWE says, goes". To a degree that is correct, but as I already mentioned, WWE constantly rewrites history and WP is a place where we need to tell what is the truth, not what WWE decides at any given moment is the truth. I can go on WWE.com right now and find a ton of their sources that says Bret Hart vs British Bulldog was the advertised main event of SummerSlam '92. In reality the advertised main event was Savage vs Warrior. With that said, we still list Bret vs Bulldog as the main event because it was the final match and that is the only way to be consistent in a world where WWE themselves are very inconsistent with their history. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

WWE says Cena had his 68th main event at No Mercy. But if we count the previous main events WWE style (triple main events and stuff), 67 wouldn't be the correct number. So if we change all the previous PPV main events, Cena would be probably be at 90 main events. So WWE's number of 68 would be incorrect. So whatever we do, it's contradicting to WWE's version. Orton vs Wyatt should remain as the main event on Wikipedia.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. If we go back and start including multiple main events in the main event column, or even go back and change the main events to the "advertised main event", all of those numbers that WWE showed in their most-main-events video on WWE.com, which they took from this WP page, would be incorrect. Which is why we can't always go by "Well WWE said so" as a fact. WWE has also been saying that Charlotte Flair is 13-0 in PPV title matches as of Hell In A Cell 2016, but that's incorrect, she's 12-0. They have incompetent people working on WWE.com. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I said it once before and I will say it one more time. WWE has become absolutely ridiculous when it comes to all this stuff. I have seen it for many years now. They have made so many factual mistakes and have rewritten history so many times that their word being "official" hasn't been the case to me for a long time now. Simply put, as an example that I stated above, with the logic of them calling Cena's No Mercy match his 68th pay per view "main event", they are now also saying that his world title matches at events like Wrestlemania 21, 24, 25 and 26 were NOT main events. Just think about that. Note: the 67 "main events" as listed on this page that WWE likely used as their source, were all LAST matches of ppvs. This is the last I will say on this topic. It just is what it is to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.71.229 (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Vengeance

Vengeance is being promoted by both Ticketmaster, AT&T Center and WWE Live Event calendar as the October 2011 event however someone keeps changing it to Uprising. Uprising was originally announced as the name but it was recently changed. The confusion results from earlier in the week, when WWE announced to a live crowd that Uprising would be the name but on May 20, 2011 when tickets went on sale, the event was renamed Vengeance.

I edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.176.245 (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I still edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.176.245 (talk) 08:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Roadblock March 2016 a PPV?

WWE says Charlotte is 14-0 in PPV singles matches and 13-0 in PPV title matches. That's only the case if you count her Roadblock title match against Natalya. And next month Roadblock is advertised as a real PPV. Does that mean we have to count the event last March as a PPV, considering the Network is the only way to watch a PPV, so what's the difference between a Network special and a PPV anyways?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Roadblock from March 2016 was not a PPV. It aired only on the WWE Network. And the Network is not the only way to watch a PPV. You can watch PPVs through a cable company or through a satellite dish provider. All WWE events still air on PPV channels as well as the WWE Network. So whenever you hear Michael Cole or any of the other commentators say "You can only see (fill in the PPV name) on the WWE Network", that is a blatant lie. This is why we have seperate WP articles for List of WWE pay-per-view events and List of WWE Network events. The PPV events page lists events that air on PPV channels. The Network events page lists all events, ones that air on PPV and ones that air only on the Network. Roadblock from March 2016 falls into the latter category just like the NXT Takeover events and other specials that are only on the Network. As for Charlotte's record. She's 12-0 in PPV title matches. If WWE counts Roadblock from March 2016 as one of those matches then that's their mistake. And they've been known to make factual mistakes time and time again. She's also 10-0 in PPV singles matches as of Hell In A Cell 2016. No idea where they get 14 from. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte is in fact 14-0 on pay per view when competing in SINGLES competition from Battleground 2015 through Hell in a Cell 2016. 13 of those were title matches so yes she is 13-0 in ppv title matches as well. This includes one on one's as well as triple threats. Tag matches do not count towards singles competition obviously. That being said, it is interesting to note that WWE does in fact count her Roadblock March 2016 match against Natalya in this streak even though it wasn't a pay per view. But hey, that's WWE for you. What they really should do is begin acknowledging all these shows as "special events". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.71.229 (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte is not 14-0 in PPV singles matches. Triple Threat Matches are NOT singles matches. A singles match is 1 on 1. I can't believe I even had to explain that. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What happens once traditional PPV dies? Do we stop this List of PPVs page or just count them as PPVs?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

As long as the events air on PPV somewhere in the world, it doesn't have to be on PPV in North America, they still count. But once they are no longer airing on PPV anywhere in the world, then we end this list and just continue with the List of WWE Network events page. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Then we should probably replace the "most PPV main events" stats with "most PPV and Network specials main events".WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If and when the time comes when they are no longer airing shows on regular PPV, then we could merge the two pages into one. Name it "List of WWE Network and pay-per-view events". Then we can adjust the Most Main Events accordingly. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This is one time I have to disagree. Singles competition isn't necessarily one on one in my opinion. It is when a wrestler is competing on his/her own and not in a tag team capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.71.229 (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You can disagree all you want. You're entitled to your opinion. Doesn't mean it's right. Singles competition is 1-on-1. Also you might want to get yourself an actual username. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, singles competition = people competing on their own (except handicap matches).WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Click on this page ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_wrestling_match_types#Multi-competitor_match_variations. As you can see, singles matches and multi-person matches are not the same. If we go by your definition then Triple Threats, Fatal 4-Ways, Fatal 5-Ways, 6-Pack Challenges, even matches like the 13-Diva Title match at WrestleMania XXX would be considered singles matches because the wrestlers are competing "on their own". That's incorrect. A singles match has always been 1-on-1. Another reason it's called a singles match is because it's one single wrestler vs another single wrestler. They have 1 opponent. In a Triple Threat Match they no longer have a single opponent, they have 2 opponents. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Does that mean that a wrestler who only competes in triple threat matches never had a singles career once he retires?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

To answer the question, yes, that's exactly what it means. But my question is where in the world are wrestlers only competing in triple threat matches? OldSkool01 (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2017

Unforgiven pay per view for October in 2017 and the match are not confirmed, please remove. The source is from a reddit type page . As I am someone who works within the company, don't allow comment thread or reddit type pages be sources for information. 167.206.158.130 (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done We do not allow Reddit as a source. The addition was made by a presumably vandalism-only account. Thank you for your assistance. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of WWE pay-per-view events. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222151034/http://www.wwe.com/schedules/television/india to http://www.wwe.com/schedules/television/india
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070319234707/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_03_14.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_03_14.jsp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Most PPV section

Here is the discussion section. The section has no references. It needs references. The other tables have no references. At most there are 5 in the other tables. There are zero references in this section. This section thus is WP:OR. This section has yet to establish WP:Notability. This section needs citations per WP:Cite. This section needs no consensus to remove because it fails actual Wikipedia policies. It has been removed per actual guidelines. Continued addition now that discussion has been created and no legitimate opposing argument has been positioned, will force me to just contact an administrator. The only way to have it in the article will require the same thing from the very beginning, a reference that verifies these numbers. The argument the other tables verify it, is exactly the definition of original research.--WillC 20:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

So glad you started this discussion. As you can see from the table that lists every single PPV, the main event for each show is listed in the main event column. No individual reference is needed for each PPV because the link to each individual PPV page provides all the references you need. For example, if you click on WrestleMania 33 you will see that the main event was The Undertaker vs Roman Reigns. And there are plenty of references there to verify this. Each and every individual PPV page has tons of verified references. If anyone has any doubts as to what the main event of each PPV was, all they need to do is simply click on the PPV page. And if your argument is "You shouldn't have to click on another link to verify something" then that's funny because when you click on any reference link, that's exactly what you're doing. Having an individual reference link right next to the link of the actual PPV is redundant. There's no need for it. Furthermore there was a long and heated discussion last year about what exactly constitutes a "main event". And the consensus that was reached is the final match, regardless of whether it was advertised in advance or not, is considered the main event for the purposes of this page. The next question is "How do we know those numbers in the Most Main Events section are accurate?" Every main event is listed right there on the page. You can very easily count them. It is not original research. OR means someone looked up information and came to their own conclusion based on other websites, tv shows, articles, magazines, newspapers, etc outside of Wikipedia. That is not the case here as all of the information one needs is right here for all to see. It's not debatable. The facts are all right here to be seen. Bottom line is the references you are looking for are right there with each and every individual PPV page. Look at the PPV table chart itself. You can make the argument that there are also no references on this page saying what the main events are for each PPV. Furthermore, if you're going to delete the "Most PPV Main Events" section for lack of references, then you should also delete the "Number Of Events By Year" section, the "Themed Pay-Per-Views" section and pretty much the entire table since there are also no references there. In which case then this whole page should be deleted, which is ridiculous. Why you only chose the Most PPV Main Events section to delete, I have no idea. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

"the main event for each show is listed in the main event column. No individual reference is needed for each PPV because the link to each individual PPV page provides all the references you need." - Show me the wikipedia policy for this. Because this is actually against sourcing policy on wikipedia. And that is actually how I'm going to leave this. Your argument is wrong. It fails on so many levels. From the fact that articles have to provide notability on their own, not from hyperlinks, to the fact you just argued that original research is what is holding this page alive. I'll give you one chance to provide references (by actually referencing the page) or by showing me a wikipedia citation policy decided by a consensus that allows article notability and verification to be determined by hyperlinks. If you can do neither, I'm getting an administrator involved. I've told you for weeks that this article needs actual sources inside of it, not on any other page but this one only. You look like you revert every single edit done to this page by anyone. I don't even edit enough to care so I'm going to make it quick. And as for your last materials, yeah I'm all for deleting the whole page if you references can't be provided. At this point without references it is borderline WP:LISTCRUFT. So that is how it is bluntly, get some references or I consult some administrators on whether this article can stand without them.--WillC 02:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"I don't even edit enough to care". Then why are you even bothering with this discussion if you don't care? There are a lot of editors that do care about this page. A page that has existed on WP for over 13 years. There are tons of "List" pages all over WP that follow the same precedence. Just look up pages that begin with "List of..." and look how many of them are exactly like this one. And if you insist on making threats then go right ahead and invite admins to this conversation. All it shows is that you're arguing this just to be spiteful, and you said so yourself by saying you don't even care that much. And invite every other editor of this page to this convo as well. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to consult other editors and admins on how to improve the article. Before we start talking about deleting a clearly notable article (PPVs are essential to WWE's notability), I'm sure any admin would want us to consult WP:ATD, which suggests tagging until the problems are resolved. Given the hoopla I'm surprised to see this article doesn't have any tags in it.LM2000 (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Blame Tombstoneride for having the "best" idea of lisitng the most PPV main events in WWE. There's literally no source for such thing. Nickag989^talk 14:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

That stats section can be removed since it's generally trivia (see what happened to the Grand Slam (professional wrestling) page). Why are we again having a deletion discussion for an article that has successfully won a deletion debate 11 years ago. The links to each to each WWE webpage or Wayback Machine is more than sufficient for keeping this list as a list page. All you're asking is for us to repeat EVERY single point made in the original consensus to keep the page. retched (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I just modified the Most PPV section. Also added references. No longer an issue to be removed. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Did You Know? Most PPV are hosted by cities, but The Rock beat Angle for the belt in an unincorporated town, lost it to Lesnar in a hamlet and wasn't there at all when The Undertaker buried Kamala in a rich field, somewhere between Cleveland and Akron. As Don "The Rock" Muraco wasn't there at all for Survivor Series '88, having been replaced by Jim Brunzell, the Coliseum itself wasn't there at all for Survivor Series '99, having been replaced by a meadow (the Jim Brunzell of landscapes).

So now "City" isn't there at all, having been replaced by "Location". Fair enough? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the city>location change you made, but what does it have to do with this conversation? OldSkool01 (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not a ton, but I wouldn't have learned that if not for this list of referenced articles. So let's not delete it, it's handy. The only other place here to discover three events were held at the Greensboro Coliseum is Greensboro Coliseum, and people interested in WWE PPVs are more likely to read this one than that one. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

It is amazing to see that one word of two entire paragraphs were caught. While the actual reason that word was even mentioned was lost entirely.--WillC 04:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue at stake here is not deletion, the issue at stake is that around half of the overall article has no sources. And what sources are listed, don't even look reliable. The two sources included finally for the main disputed section don't even look to have credibility. As for the rest, this should definitely be a larger discussion and I'm glad to see others have come around to join in order to actually fix this article. And just because I don't edit much anymore, doesn't mean I have to ignore articles that need help.--WillC 04:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

ProFightDB (the Internet Wrestling Database) is used all over WP as a reference and it's very reliable. You won't find many people who consider it unreliable. OldSkool01 (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If so, then it should be mighty easy to prove how it is reliable. Particular how it conducts its research and how it verifies its content as factually accurate, like any standard news source would that has journalistic integrity.--WillC 04:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I really do think you're trying to trying to have us do work which is already done on other wiki pages for the sake of nothing. If you visit the webpage of ProFightDB, you can read the FAQ which reads: "Whilst many of the results on this site come from our own unique research, some of the results were obtained through a combination of other sources. In some cases, results sent in by our users may have been partially sourced from other sites. All of these deserve credit for their own individual research." And from there they list each of the individual sites and news collectors of pro-wrestling and validate their information. Additionally, they also use official sites and viewings when they can and input the information there. You're literally splitting hairs that others have already done so for an unknown reason at this point. retched (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• A deletion discussion is pointless, the PPVs are CLEARLY notable - they have individual articles, so a list of all of them is an immediate keep - suggesting otherwise seems to misunderstand certain basic principles. however the statement that the list does not need sources "because they're in the linked articles" is also a clear failure to understand basic Wikipedia principles. Should be easy enough to get it sourced right? the claim is that every single article has sources - so go get them. A "deletion" discussion is pointless,but a "quality" discussion is needed - unsourced statements, crufty trivia at the bottom of the list, formatting being a little wonky etc. plenty of work to do. If someone is actually interested in rolling up their sleves and do the actual work.  MPJ-DK  23:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • "...it should be mighty easy to prove how it is reliable.", "...plenty of work to do. If someone is actually interested in rolling up their sleves and do the actual work." I gotta point out how ironic it is when people make demands about doing work yet they themselves have contributed nothing to this article in years and then bark out orders. If the supposed lack of references is really bothering people that much, then what's stopping them from helping the rest of us who contribute to this article on a regular basis? OldSkool01 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Irony-Smirony, I came because I was informed there was a deletion discussion here and it blew my mind that it was even suggested. So I provide my 2.5 cents on the deletion discussion and suggested that a "quality" discussion was needed, as with a lot of poorly sourced articles on Wikipedia. But I guess since I'm not a "regular contributor" to this page I'm not allowed to point out the issues on the page? Cool beans, have fun owning this page.  MPJ-DK  20:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with people giving their thoughts and opinions on how to further productively add to a page. No problem with that at all. What I dislike is when people go around asking other people to do work that they can easily do themselves. And it further bothers me when I see those people have not contributed anything to a page, yet they have no problems telling other people what needs to be done. It comes across like people are just adding their voice to a page that they really have no interest in. Whenever I notice something needs to be changed on a page or something needs to be added, I go right ahead and do it myself. I don't tell other people to do it. That's all my issue is. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh and OldSkool01 since you are blatantly wrong in your claim that it's totally acceptable to not provide sources since you link to articles with sources I figured I'd help clear up your misunderstanding of the rules of Wikipedia. Call it a public service so that you do not perpetuate falsehoods.  MPJ-DK  23:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Is it really "blatantly" wrong when you can do a search for just about any WP page that begins with "List of..." and you'll see that nearly 90% of those pages do not have any references in the actual table charts that link to other articles. With that said, what specific references should be added to the table charts on these "List of..." pages? OldSkool01 (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes. Just because it's common doesn't mean it's right.  MPJ-DK  00:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I almost overlooked that there was a second part. The source should cover the event, date, location, city, main event etc. the same way List of CMLL World Tag Team Champions has at least one reference per entry in the table.  MPJ-DK  00:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Really there never was a discussion to delete. The comment was made as if it was extreme to delete and start over when we have Wikipedia:BLOWITUP as an example. Some users only saw that one word and thought that was the discussion. When the entire point of this was to source an article. Examples of it being unverified and poorly sourced were shown and one particular editor didn't like the idea of actually providing evidence of claims. Really it is a case of inexperience.--WillC 07:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

If the main event was a championship match

Why is this not notated in the main event column, or the match type for that matter? --JDC808 ♫ 21:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Randy Orton 143 PPV matches?

At the Hell in a Cell 2017 pay per view, just prior to Randy's match vs. Rusev, the announcers noted that this was now going to be his 143rd pay per view match, tying Chris Jericho and the Big Show for the same number of matches. Where could WWE be getting these extra matches from? (1 each for Big Show and Orton and 2 for Jericho). Orton and Jericho have never competed in kickoff matches, just incase WWE was possibly using those. Unless the original source for the list is incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.77 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Kane's first ppv match

Kane's first PPV match was in 1997, not 1995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.77 (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

SummerSlam 1995 vs Bret Hart was Glen Jacobs first PPV match. Gimmicks don’t matter. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If gimmick's do not matter then why does it say "Kane"? Kane did not wrestle in 1995. Isaac Yankem did. Personally I think it's more appropriate to use gimmicks since we are talking about the world of pro wrestling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.77 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Then where do you draw the line? Are Papa Shango and The Godfather different? The One Man Gang and Akeem? Demolition Smash and Repo Man? Mankind, Dude Love and Cactus Jack? If you start adding up different gimmicks seperately then you run into unnecessary complications. Besides, once WWE acknowledges that a wrestler used to wrestle under another gimmick then that makes them one and the same. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If we are talking Mankind, Dude Love and Cactus or a Johnny Nitro and John Morrison then of course it's all the same bc they were acknowledged on TV as being the same person. In cases like Papa Shango and The Godfather, Umaga and Jamal or certainly Kane and Isaac Yankem then it's completely different in my opinion. You have a list of most pay-per-view matches with Kane at number one and it should be the amount of ppv matches KANE wrestled. Kane's first match was not in 1995, in 1997. It's all a bit of a weird gray area I'll give you that, but I still absolutely think it should go by gimmick in cases where they were not acknowledged as ever being the other character on TV. Just my two cents as a dedicated and devoted WWE fan for 25+ years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.77 (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

But WWE did acknowledge that Kane was Isaac Yankem in the past. On the WWE Network there’s a show called “The WWE List”. One episode was all about wrestlers who have changed the most in their career. One of the wrestlers talked about was Kane and how he started out as Isaac Yankem. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of that episode. But unless it's actually acknowledged ON television and not the kayfabe breaking world of the WWE Network, I feel it does not truly count.

You mean as opposed to the non-kayfabe breaking world of Raw and SmackDown where one minute the women wrestlers hate eachother and the next minute they’re all smiling together and hugging the breast cancer survivors? I hear ya. Also create a Wikipedia account, sign your posts and then your opinion will be taken into consideration. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2017

In the "Most PPV matches" section, please change "Kane" to "Glenn Jacobs". The table is taking PPV matches from all of Mr. Jacobs's wrestling characters (Isaac Yankem, Diesel, Kane) dating back to August 1995, and erroneously attributing them to his best-known Kane character, which had its first match in November 1997. For the sake of historical accuracy and encyclopedic integrity, I request this change. Thank you. 107.167.229.87 (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

WWE themselves have acknowledged that Kane used to wrestle as Isaac Yankem on a WWE Network show called “Countdown”. Therefore they are one and the same. Furthermore, if a seperation was made, you would need to find a reliable source that lists the number of matches for Kane seperately from Isaac Yankem and Diesel. To further add confusion to the whole thing, at the TLC ppv last week the commentators mentioned that Kane was having his 175th ppv match. We only have 171 listed per the source, and that includes both Isaac Yankem and Diesel matches. If we remove Yankem and Diesel, we have Kane at 165 ppv matches. So where is WWE getting these extra 10 ppv matches from? It’s a can of worms that is being opened unnecessarily. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of WWE pay-per-view events. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123094344/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2003/2003_08_25.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2003/2003_08_25.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123094444/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2003/2003_11_17.2.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2003/2003_11_17.2.jsp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wwe.com/inside/specialtymatches/royalrumble
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wwe.com/inside/specialtymatches/battleroyal

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2018

Sorlowski27 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 03:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

In the Upcoming_pay-per-view_schedule section, the Elimination Chamber is listed as Paradise, Nevada. Paradise is linked to the generic wiki on the concept of Paradise instead of the correct town wiki.

Suggested: change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_Nevada

Additionally, consider changing the location altogether to Las Vegas, Nevada and linking to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas as that is more recognizable for most people and is the place name for the zip code (i.e. if you mailed something to the arena it would say Las Vegas, NV on the address). 24.234.4.138 (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed the city name. Thanks - Galatz^Talk 19:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WWE Announces PPV Schedule for 2018 following WrestleMania 34

WWE has released the schedule for 2018 after WrestleMania, and it appears they have removed Payback & Battleground. From the sounds of the article, all events will be dual branded (A rumour that has been circling for some time now). Given that this is from WWE themselves, it would appear to be 100% accurate & true. http://www.wwe.com/article/wwe-2018-pay-per-view-schedule?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Network-Subscriber-co-branded%20PPV-20180216&utm_term=Network%20-%20Actives%20MINUS%20Global%20Suppression%20%26%20Duplicate%20Accounts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.180.75 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018

Category:Professional wrestling-related lists 59.101.160.154 (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Putting upcoming events section before past events

Wouldn't it make more sense to put upcoming events before past events on the page, considering that the events expected are more relevant than the events that have ended? For a comparative example, the scheduled events are in the section before the past events on the List of UFC events page. 71.51.198.208 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

No, because the list is in chronological order. It's a "List of WWE pay-per-view events", not just a "List of Upcoming WWE pay-per-view events". If anyone is looking for any upcoming PPVs, it takes 2 seconds to scroll to that section. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Its a list of events, so to me it would be in chronological order. I think it looks weird to have the UFC ones in reverse order. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 15:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

number of ppv matches

Kane did not debut until 1997. why does it say 1995? unless this is counting his time as Isaac Yankem and Fake Diesel which it should not. The matches should only fall under the character of Kane as wwe does not acknowledge he was the other two — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.77 (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Except WWE did acknowledge Kane was Isaac Yankem. In November 2015 on an episode of “The WWE List” on the WWE Network, they acknowledged that Kane used to be Isaac Yankem. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Unless it is somehow revealed in an actual televised storyline (not on the non-kayfabe WWE Network show) it should not count. Or you can change the name to Glen Jacobs. Bottom line is that technically Kane did not wrestle 173 pay per view matches and Kane certainly did not wrestle on pay per view in 1995 and 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.77 (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

“Unless it is somehow revealed in an actual televised storyline (not on the non-kayfabe WWE Network show) it should not count.” No. Doesn’t work like that. WWE acknowledged it on their own Network. Kayfabe or no kayfabe. End of discussion. Also, create an actual account. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Explain to me when Kane wrestled on pay per view in 1995 and you'll be good. Until then, your article is wrong and the name should at least be changed to Isaac Yankem/"Diesel"/Kane. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.208.77 (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

He wrestled at SummerSlam 1995 against Bret Hart and at Survivor Series 1995 against The Undertaker’s team. That was easy enough. OldSkool01 (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok because last the time I checked records that was a wrestler named Isaac Yankem. But nice try!

So not only do you refuse to create a username, but now you’re not signing your posts. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing merging List of WWE pay-per-view events with List of WWE Network events. The two pages at this point are mostly duplicates for 2014 onward, with the addition of some Network exclusive events that do not air on PPV. I propose merging both into List of WWE pay-per-view and WWE Network events.

This combined page would in essence work just just like List of NWA/WCW closed-circuit events and pay-per-view events and List of ECW supercards and pay-per-view events. In those combined pages we didn't have two different pages just because technology changed, so why do we need it in this scenario. My proposal would work just like these two pages, we would have a PPV section and a Network section. We could easily just include a note that states that beginning with in 2014 with WrestleMania all PPV events forward were also aired on the network. - Galatz (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. Because "Pay-Per-View" and the WWE Network are not one and the same. PPV television and streaming apps are completely different business models. Not every WWE Network event airs on traditional Pay-Per-View outlets. Comparing this to the NWA/WCW closed circuit/PPV page is different in that only 4 or 5 of the early NWA events aired on closed circuit, and to be honest, I don't feel those events should even be listed on that page because there are no references at all confirming the Bash 86 and 87 events even aired on CC, which I don't believe most of them did. But that's another convo for another time. As far as the WWE lists go, you have 29 years of events airing strictly on traditional PPV television before the advent of the Network. If and when the day comes that the WWE events no longer air on traditional PPV television, then we can discuss merging the two pages. As long as traditional PPV outlets still exist and WWE continues to air their shows on them, we should leave it as is. It's also a very slippery slope by combining them because then the question could pop up about why not just merge PPV/Network/TV specials all into one page also. ANd before you know it we could have all the Saturday Night's Main Events, USA Network specials, etc. all on the same page with PPV and Network events. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Both "Pay-Per-View" and "WWE Network" are different and there not the same. NXT Takeover and NXT UK Takeover are exclusively on the same network and there not a PPV, there just a special programming. In the article of WWE PPV events, there's a listed of PPV; while in the article of WWE Network events, there's also a listed of PPV and specials including NXT Takeover and NXT UK Takeover. There's no need for merged the two articles naming—List of WWE pay-per-view events and List of WWE Network events—into one, just separated it and remained it into two. Movies Time (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've changed my decision to 50/50. Because some of the articles that is related to two WWE article list needs to be merged into one and it doesn't need to merged the two articles into one. But for me, it's up to you to decide whether you want to merged the two articles into one or not. As I said, my decision is now 50/50, but my original decision is still "Strong Oppose". Movies Time (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – It's OK for me to make the two articles merged into one article. I already understand about the proposal and I made my decision to support this merger; and also I would like to support for make the two articles merged into one. Movies Time (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support - The difference from a "pay-per-view event", and a "Network event" is pretty irrelevant. The events are deemed to be "supercards". Anything since the network was created in 2014 have either been Network exclusive, or network and pay per view. The concept of an event being a Pay-Per-View is very out-dated, and the lists in question make no real derivative because of how the event was broadcast. The above two comments don't seem to have read the nomination in full, as it is simply stating that the list could have information from both, with network-only events in a table on it's own. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The articles features supercards. However, the main difference is how are aired. PPV and Network are two different things. It's like List of Disney theatrical animated features and List of Disney home entertainment. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Weak support - per Lee Vilenski. However, I consider HHH Pedrigree's point reasonable as well. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I support the idea based on the fact that there is no real difference between PPV and Network events when it comes to main card offerings from WWE. Merging the page would rid editors of the double updating necessary to maintain both separate pages. In the newly merged page it could be noted, starting in 2014, that all WWE PPVs began to be simulcast on traditional PPV, where available, and on the Network. It can also be separately noted that any events branded for NXT and the like are Network-exclusive. The table at the end, or a key at the beginning, could make that reference, including for other events like UK specials and the Cruiserweight Classic from 2016. It is definitely doable and would make sense, therefore I strongly support this idea.DAndrewC (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support - There is no real differences between WWE pay-per-view events and WWE Network events. Plus the precedent has been set by the WCW, ECW, and FMW pages. Mt.FijiBoiz (Mt.FijiBoiz) 0:934, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • And it’s a really bad precedent that should have never been implemented in the first place. The ECW page is a complete mess. It includes PPV’s, non-PPV’s, house shows and pretty much any other event that had a name. The WCW page includes the early Bash tours from 1986 and 1987, which I don’t believe actually aired on closed circuit and there are no sources to back them up. I stand by my original comment on this that merging the WWE PPV event page with the WWE Network event page will lead to more chaos than already exists. Also there is a difference between PPV events and Network exclusive events. Halftime Heat 2019 for example was absolutely not a PPV event. Forget the fact that it didn’t air on traditional PPV outlets, it also wasn’t built up like a ppv and didn’t have a full lineup like a ppv. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
• I’m willing to work with you guys on this merge if we can all agree on the following:
  • 1)The only events listed from 1985 through the launch of the Network in 2014 are PPV events. That'll be WrestleMania 1 through Elimination Chamber 2014. Do not add any other non-ppv events from that time frame to the list such as The Big Event, Royal Rumble 1988, Global Warning Tour or any other show that never aired on PPV television. 1985 - 2014 is strictly for PPV events only. My biggest concern with being hesitant about the merge is people will want to change it and include every major special event ever, like the ones I mentioned or Saturday Night’s Main Event and whatnot. That’s what I’m against and why I originally opposed the merge.
  • 2)From 2014 onward, we include all of the Network special events, as they currently exist on the List Of WWE Network events page, but we also include another column noting which ones continued to air on traditional PPV outlets and channels. If we can all agree to that, then I’m on board with the merge. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • OldSkool01 your proposals make a lot of sense and I completely agree with you on The Big Event/SNMEs. Mt.FijiBoiz (Mt.FijiBoiz) 0:934, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    • My original proposal would be that the PPV sections would remain unchanged, but the network exclusive events be broken out, so they would not get confused. If everyone prefers it co-mingled and just a not, I am ok with that. My only question is how would you want to see the total events shown? Starting in 2014 to show both numbers?
    • And I agree, not matter what, prior to 2014 should not be changed. Just because WWE added RR 1998 and Global Warning to the PPV section, they were not (TV special and Supercard). - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
• I would rather the Network era (2014 forward) be listed in the table how it currently exists with every Network event listed chronologically. Removing the NXT shows and Cruiserweight Classic and all the rest of the events that didn’t air on PPV wouldn’t look right, even if you place them in a seperate table. As for the total number of events, we can do something like this for example:

==Number of events by year==

• 2014: 16 (12 PPV)
• 2015: 21 (13 PPV)
• 2016: 21 (15 PPV)
• 2017: 25 (16 PPV)
• 2018: 23 (15 PPV)
• 2019: 07 (03 PPV) – 8 more confirmed
• 2020: 0 – 2 confirmed
• Total: 113 (74 PPV) – 10 more confirmed

That’s just to give you an idea. Tweaks can be made, but that would be the general idea of how to do it. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

My only thought is i would do the reverse, so you show network specials as the number broken out, such as

• 2014: 16 (4 Network)
• 2015: 21 (8 Network)
• 2016: 21 (6 Network)

I would say this because then pre-2014 would have nothing, as opposed to repeating the same number. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I would type "Network Exclusive" instead of just "Network" because all shows air on the Network, you just want to point out which ones were exclusives as opposed to PPVs. The only problem is there's going to come a day when WWE is no longer on any traditional PPV channels and every show at that point will technically be a Network exclusive. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Merging

I am working on a merged page based on all the comment above. Please take a look at User:Galatz/test and let me know what you guys think. Most specifically the "Number of events by year" section. I tried to come up with a set up that makes the most sense.

One other comment. It is hard to know from 2014-present as to which ones were network exclusive and which ones were not. Should we add some sort of key? - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Honestly I wouldn’t include the key in the “Number of Events by year” section. I would include an additional column in the regular grid indicating which ones were PPV events, but only from 2014 forward. Obviously every show prior to 2014 was PPV-only, so no need to indicate that the 1985-2013 shows were PPV-only. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we add the championships that were contested for during the main event matches that occured on the 1985-2013 PPV shows? It is already listed on the the post-2013 shows and I feel it would add some consistency to the post merged page. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk), 16 April 2019

Is there a reason its excluded now? It doesn't make sense to not mention it as far as I can tell. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 20:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's my take on the merger: User:Mt.FijiBoiz/sandbox. I added the championships to the PPV events and made the format generally more consistent. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk), 17 April 2019

Awesome thanks, it looks good to me - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at an update I made to the page. User:OldSkool01/sandbox I added the column where it’s noted which events only aired exclusively on the Network. It’s only in the grid from 2014 onwards for obvious reasons. Also I simplified the “Total number of events by year” section. All the keys made it too complicated to read. There’s no need for seperate keys acknowledging how many were on PPV, since all the events from 1985-2013 aired on PPV, it’s redundant to add a key for those. And since there are now notes in the grid to specify which ones aired exclusively on the Network, it’s already known that all events except the Network exclusives aired on PPV. No need to point them out. And finally, when it comes to upcoming events, for now let’s leave out the notations. Until it’s confirmed for sure which ones definitely will or will not air on traditional PPV. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I like the addition of the extra column to the Network exclusive events. However, I think that the column gets rid of the need of a key altogether in the "Number of events by year" section. I think we should just list the total number of events per year regardless of how they aired, I feel the page is easier to read that way. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk), 19 April 2019

If you take another look at my edit page, I combined the header paragraphs of the two pages into one. I removed all of the duplicate sections and trimmed away a lot of the fat that was unnecessary from the paragraphs to make it more concise and chronological. Also I have no problem removing the key on the "Number of events by year" if that's what you want to do. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Another update I made. User:OldSkool01/sandbox I removed the "PPV buys" column for the 1985-2013 shows. The source came from an unknown website that was not reliable. Also I've always felt that column was really unnecessary anyway, not to mention some of those buyrate numbers weren't accurate. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Removing the PPV buys is great, I think if you remove the key from "Number of events by year" section it would be perfect. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk), 20 April 2019

Removed the key. If there’s no other changes you think should be made and everything looks good to you guys then we can move forward with the merger. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead with the merger. Please edit the page for any needed adjustments. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk), 21 April 2019