Talk:New Breed (ECW)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to Professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Merge?
Well since it has been suggested, might as well talk about it. I don't think we should because these are two totally different stables. The New Breed are not ECW Originals so it wouldn't really make scence to put them in the ECW Originals page. 66.235.35.120 07:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I think they should merge. When I first created this page, I realized the ECW Originals weren't really much of a stable as they were just a group of wrestlers, so I put a section in the New Breed section called "The ECW Originals" to mention them. I agree with merging them again BBoy 19:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)BBoy
- The problem I have is that this article and the ECW Originals article are, for all intents and purposes, mirrors of each other and all signs point to them staying that way until one of the stables dissolves -- and if one stable dissolves there's no reason for the other one to exist. «»bd(talk stalk) 19:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see no mirrors so keep separate--Cowboy From Hell 21:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave
- Aside from the fact that they have the exact same information? I should know, I wrote the bulk of both articles.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wait if we were to merge them both which page becomes obsolete--Cowboy From Hell 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave
- Not obsolete. Instead of having two articles detailing nothing stables it would be one article detailing the feud (like The Invasion), which would certainly brings the notability into question, but that's a whole other issue.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wait if we were to merge them both which page becomes obsolete--Cowboy From Hell 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave
- The term "ECW Originals" existed long before this feud started, I remember Joey Styles using the term shortly after the launch of the ECW brand. So I think they should not be merged. The term ECW originals describes both the current stable, and any wrestler who competed in the original ECW, and there is no way to be sure if either stable would break-up after the feud is over. TJ Spyke 09:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Aside from the fact that they have the exact same information? I should know, I wrote the bulk of both articles.«»bd(talk stalk) 02:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I see no mirrors so keep separate--Cowboy From Hell 21:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)DJ BatWave
[edit] 2006
[1] I'm just going to post this here. You can judge for yourself whether or not the New Breed was a stable in 2006. Based on what I've read and in my opinion, they are, but it wasn't promoted as much as it is now. Mshake3 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- They used the phrase because that was the overall phrase used to promote the new ECW. That doesn't make them a stable. Especially considering how little screen time Knox/Test spent with Heyman or Big Show.«»bd(talk stalk) 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well there was that tag match at the ballroom in August or September. Still, there was clearly a group of wrestlers that were associated with Heyman, and they at least deserve a mention. Mshake3 03:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AFD
Despite what it says at the top, the result was NOT merge. Of the 10 people that were discussing it, only 1 person wanted a merger. So I don't know where the admin got a merge consensus from. Does anybody oppose unmerging them? I will wait until tomorrow, not that I should wait since the closing admin was wrong in this case since the consensus was to keep the article as is. TJ Spyke 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
