Talk:Internet wrestling community
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] RD Wants to get hired by Vince?
I removed the part saying that RD wants to be hired by Vince, as he said himself he has no desire to work there. 68.81.217.114 15:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VFD results
This article has survived a VFD nomination with the result of No consensus. --Allen3 talk July 5, 2005 00:29 (UTC)
I started this page and am glad it survived a "VFD." This is the very first time I created an article and knew it needed "cleaning up" and figured it would be developed over time. I would have voted and stated my case if I was around and knew that was happening. I've been having fun reading all the various topics in Wikipedia (I have far more interests than professional wrestling) and am glad there are safeguards to keep those nutcases from doing too much damage and preserving the integrity.
Anyway, I believe that "Internet Wrestling Community" is a legitimate term and is something that you, if you are wrestling fan on the internet, will here more frequently. It would be inaccurate to make the term synonomous with "smarks" because the IWC would include anyone who follows wrestling on the internet, including those who are true smarts (pro wrestlers, and I bet even Vince McMahon himself) who monitor the internet and could be included in this group. Smark would more likely refer to the individual while IWC refers to the group as a whole.
One can not deny the impact the internet has had on professional wrestling and there is a history to how this developed.
[edit] Criticism of IWC
how about including a section on criticisms of the IWC? After all, they are very biased and hypocritical, and there is plenty evidence proving that the majority of them are fat, spotty teenage boys with no friends and no life that think they know everything about wrestling just because they have cable TV and access to wrestling websites... Matt 21/2/06
And just where is this 'evidence' you speak of? Themachine42 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah......matt21/2/06 they are biased and hypocritical, right, then you blow all credibility of your argument with that childish ensemble of playground-insults, and you say there is plenty of EVIDENCE proving this!!!! It seems you are biased and opinionated on this rather un-contentious issue. This isn't a forum, vent frustration elsewhere. Rdog 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Criticisms of the IWC will be there. This article is not finished yet and will be organized as more is written. When I started looking up pro wrestling in the late 1990's on the net, many in the fledgling IWC were in college and getting degrees, some graduated and have careers and may still contribute content. This is a very diverse group and can not be categorized with a single label. Most in the IWC have opinions which will make them controversial and some might not like what they have to say. This article is not here to promote any point of view but to chronicle the development of this group. MrMurph101 01:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe mention something about why the majority (yes, the majority) of these morons keep watching RAW and Smackdown every week if they claim to hate it so much??? Cos I'd love an answer to that...
One reason could be that they don't have Nitro and WCW to kick around anymore. It was an easy target, especially in the last couple of years after the NWO faded and Bill Goldberg lost his heat and the fact that backstage gossip was so easy to come by in WCW. The WWF/WWE programming was better at the time too, not saying that today is horrible, in my own opinion. Those two things make it easier to complain about the WWE today.
Also, I would say that a lot of the IWC are "armchair bookers" like armchair quarterbacks in football as in they think they can do better than the booker/coach and improve the show/team. Some of them might have some credibility while others probably do not know what they're talking about.
Another answer is that you can compare your typical IWC'er to a Trekkie. Trekkies are big Star Trek fans but will spend time finding plot holes and character inconsistencties. A lot them say that the two in charge most recently, Brannon Braga and Rick Berman have ruined it like those in the IWC will say about Stephanie McMahon booking the WWE. These are just hard core fans who concern themselves with things the casual fan does not care about. Well, there's my explanation. Maybe I'll put something in the article related to this, we'll see. MrMurph101 03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Matt, they are right, because whatever evidence you're talking about doesn't exist. You're just assuming things and everyone knows the old phrase about assuming, "When you assume something, you make an ass out of you & me". So, Matt, next time, before you start typing, do something called "RESEARCHING" 24.7.217.221 18:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] History
There could be more expansion of the historiography of the article. The early days of Scoops, Webber4, early prowrestling.com, the the countless newsletters that helped to forever blow the cover of kayfabe. Right now, it seems very glossed-over. youngamerican (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- It definately could be expanded. The section is generalized but I was leery of pointing out specific sites because there were so many of them early on and people may continuously edit them in regardless of notability. I remember Scoops but have never heard of Webber4. I think MiCasa was an influential site early on but other people might have a different opinion. I'm also surprised that you didn't mention RSPW, the newsgroup that heavily influenced the IWC. Anyway, expansion is needed, but I'm just trying to be careful not to bloat the section. MrMurph101 02:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed: Criticisms of IWC
The entire section is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It is full of opinion, no citations to ANY reasonable source, and in general poorly written. I am all for having a "criticisms" section but it must quote wrestlers' interviews (eg JBL, who has been outspoken about the IWC), Vince McMahon talking about it, etc. As it stands, comments like "These casual fans also do not appreciate those who post spoilers everywhere and ruin the suspense, which may or may not be predictable at any given time" and Smarks believe that fans would prefer to see the superstars wrestling rather than arguing. There is, however, little evidence to back this claim up" again, are just opinions. Bssc81 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I know. A section like this is valid but is a haven for POV-laced entries. I started this article and included this section on request. Some have added to it and gradually made it more POV. I will look this over and try to revise it. Thanks for your input. MrMurph101 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
A lot of what is written in the 'criticisms of IWC' section is true though - "Smarks" tend to prefer for the wrestling side of WWE, while the casual fan watches it mainly for the storylines. Also, WWE is aimed at the 'casual fan' rather than the smark, though it does reward the smark on occasion. Matt
- I took the "disputed" tag off, revised the section a little bit and added a citation. I would say that what is said here would be generally considered true by most. Some might be concerned about POV issues. If you have issues with the article you can always contribute to improve the article. That is what wikipedia is about after all. MrMurph101 03:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Members of the IWC should not be allowed to edit the criticisms section, as most of them can't take the fact that THE MAJORITY OF WWE viewers don't care to see 60-minute long Chris Benoit Iron Man submission matches every week...
- Also, your comment:
" "There is, however, little evidence to back this claim up" again, are just opinions. Bssc81 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)"
-
- As much opinion as your claim that "THE MAJORITY OF WWE viewers don't care to see 60-minute long Chris Benoit Iron Man submission matches every week" Pot meet Kettle. Vladamire Steelwolf 08:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
The External Link to the Australian View is utter nonsense. The writer insists, "The above isn’t a reflection of every wrestling fan on the Internet, but if the above bothers you or pisses you off then it must be true." The logic here is absurd. If somebody is pissed off that Ernst Zundel keeps saying the Holocaust is a hoax, the fact that a person is offended by the remark does not make the remark true. It's a pathetic premise and illogical.
- It's just there because it discusses the IWC. It does not necessarily mean it's an authoritative source on the subject. There might be better articles out there on the IWC but this is still relevant. It's just someone's opinion on the matter and should be taken as such. The description of the link may need to be reworded though. MrMurph101 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Another exception
In this sentence :"In many cases, what would have been considered a major shock to fans a decade ago would be almost common knowledge to today's fans (one exception being Eric Bischoff's debut as RAW GM)". For me there is another exception, Angle signing with TNA, nobody see that coming (or only 1%...). What do you think about that ?
[edit] IWC should stay
the IWC has influenced wrestling heavily lately. It has inspired the Cyber Sunday PPV event, and has called for other promotions like TNA Wrestling and Ring of Honor to step up their game. And by the way, not all of the IWC are fat boys, that was an uncalled for statement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.14.47.165 (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] External Links
Why so many external links? Surely links of this number aren't necessary.
Chrisch 02:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I took them out. Someone put them there recently. They come across as advertisements for those particular sites. They portray what would be considered the IWC, but it would be better to have links which focuses on the group itself, not who or what it consists of. MrMurph101 04:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've added a link at the bottom for a typical IWC site to show people what a typical site is like. Pastie252