Talk:PG Era

Keep in mind this is about PG Era 2008-2013, not WWE's transition to PG covered in WWE article. It should be focused on storylines and stuffs from that era as with Attitude Era article. Also only Raw and Raw shows switched to PG in 2008, SmackDown was pg log before and WWE used to be PG before 1997. Just like Attitude Era and Ruthless Aggression Eras are separate eras both rated TV-14, PG Era (2008-2013) and The Reality Era (2014-2016) are separate times both rated TV-PG, and tv ratings do not determine eras. This poll is an accurate source Anyway I believe this article should focus on storylines and events from the 2008-2013 period and this era is alternatively known as Universe Era as per WWE2k14 sources. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No. We need to follow the sources and they describe WWE as being in the PG Era. We can add more details about storylines and such from this era, but we can't pretend that it isn't defined by the transition to TV-PG. WWE themselves make that clear in the books that we cite from them in this article.LM2000 (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course we will follow sources, but this article isn't sley about WWE's transition to PG a single-day event in July 2008, pretty much overnight but the entire period 2008-2013, the transition to PG is more a company business matter which is described well in WWE article and can also have an elaborate article of its own titled "WWE's move to PG", but this article is about the overall events from 2008-2013 and the transition to PG was just a part of it. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This is about the PG Era. Sources are split on how long that period is but they all focus on the shoft towards kid-friendly content. That's why it's called the "PG Era". Even the WWE sources provided talk about the content changes and not much else. The kayfabe storyline stuff is largely not notable.LM2000 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

LM2000 Then I think the title of the page should be changed to "WWE's transition to PG" if thats what is about, rather than the coverage of the period 2008-2013. but if the name stays yes we should mention the family-friendly nature of the period just like Attitude Era mentions the adult-oriented nature between 1997-2002, however, that elaborately discusses popular storylines of that time like say Rock-Foley rivalry, so we can also mention popular stories of the PG Era like Cena-Punk rivalry. Anyway just saying, as you are more experienced editor you have more say, but I think that the article should focus on both storylines and the family-friendly nature of the period as its not an article on the transition to pG itself (which btw occured overnight in July 2008), but of the period 2008-2013, this article should be more similar to the Attitude Era article. Dilbaggg (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The article is about the time of WWE during that era (08-13), not about the fictional storylines that took place in that period. As LM said, most of the sources only covers the changes. I would be like Golden Age of Hollywood just including movie synopsis, not talking about the era itself. In fact, I think the Attitude Era article needs some work, since most of them are the storylines. It's a must to talk about Austin, his feud with McMahon and his popularity, but not about the storylines he had during the attitude, using a tie or attacking McMahon at the hospital. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree Then that would be an exact copypaste of the WWE article which is about corporate and business affairs. The History of WWE and WWE article serves different purpose, one is about storylines and progress of events since inception and the other is about business and corporate strategies since inception. If both were about the same thing the business alone and no focus on storylines there would be no need for two different articles as they would be a copypaste of each other, so those articles serve different purposes and the Attitude Era, PG Era and New Era articles are an extension of the chronological chain of storyline events during the periods, with also focus on the storylines. I believe the PG Era should cover both the storyline side and business side. And I think Punk-Cena rivalry was one of the most important stories of that time and should have a seperate section. Anyway I wont make changes if you people disagree, so no worries, just stating some important points. If the focus is solely on the transition to PG and its business impact, title should be "WWE's Transition to PG and its impact" Dilbaggg (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't oppose adding some mention of storylines from this timeframe, but this should not be the primary purpose of this article. Of the additions you have made, you included some sources but none of them mention the "PG Era" at all. Any additions should use sources that reference things in the context of the era, otherwise this will be a WP:CRUFTY WP:COATRACK of kayfabe. This article goes greater into detail about corporate changes than the History of WWE or WWE articles do, which is good because those articles cover long stretches of time and including all of this there would be WP:UNDUE. The Attitude Era article is a mess, it has had cleanup tags on it for years, so please don't use that as a template for other articles. HHH Pedrigree's example of Golden Age of Hollywood is a better one.LM2000 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, two issues are fan point of view and, most dangerous, plot summaries instead real-life events. I understand storylines are a huge part of a wrestling promotion, but it's not an eciiclopdic article just include storylines from that period. Most admins would read the article and see "pro wrestling era, WWF, Undertaker killed his parents, the brother seeks for reveange, then stated a cult, OMG kayfabe again". As LM said, CRUFT and COATRACK, focus on real life events. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this was a very prominent story, the huge win for 15 years veteran at Night of Champions (2011), against Randy Orton. Henry was really dominant that year beating the likes of Big Show, Daniel Bryan and all, he did win the ECW title in 2008 but WWE didn't recognize that as a world title. Given Henry being celebrated and prolific, HHH Pedigree mentioned Kane in 2010, but Kane was already a WWF Champion in 1998, his second year as Kane, also Henry is more famous than Kane in the real sports world. onee of the most famous powerlifters even, his world title win, his biggest success in the WWE should be recognized and it was part of the PG Era (2008-2013/2014). I just mentioned my points, whatever the majority decides goes, but I think it is important should be added to the storyline section. Dilbaggg (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source about Mark Henry as a notable point of the PG Era? Punk is sourced as one major point of the era, Henry not. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

My point is we need sources about his title victory as a major point of the era. If not, every one would include his personal preferences. Kane won his first world title since 1998 (1 day reign), Christian won his first World Heavyweight title too. But we need sources about his victory in the context of the era. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

All right I accept your points, thanks and take care. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, please review WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and when to give warnings. While PWTorch and The Baltimore Sun count as WP:RS, About.com, pre-2013 Bleacher Report and The Internet Wrestling Database do not. Please see WP:PW/RS. The WWE.com link is dead so I don't even know what that says, but none of the sources say what you're using them for. The Bleacher Report one says: "With the incarnation of the PG era, going "extreme" now simply describes adding stipulations to matches". That doesn't mean the 2012 event was the only event to not be PG, it just means that this annual PPV added stipulations to matches. And why would we devote a whole paragraph to this show? Who cares if DVD Talk liked the DVD release for that show? What could that possibly have to do with the PG Era?LM2000 (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@LM2000 and LM2000: LM2000, I am kinda busy IRL at the moment to engage in edit dispute, but this was highly notable and circulated all over the internet back in 2012 which I vividly remember and can stil source back and has numerous WP:RS featuring its WP:Notability. Can you at least WP:RfC about its inclusion, as you yourself said the article will give more importance to the ratings change itself than the storylines, and Extreme Rules 2012 being the only non PG ppv, the only ppv to receive TV 14 ratings after 2008 is of extreme noteworthy prominence. Anyway decision to RfC is yours, let majority voting decide wheather this notable event stays or not, if you won't I won't bother talking about it further now but might bring up the issue later on. Take care and best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll bypass the RfC and put the information in there myself if you can prove that Extreme Rules 2012 was the only TV-14 rated PPV since 2008! Until then there's nothing to discuss. The sources simply don't say what you said they do.LM2000 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with LM. Sources don't support ER as a PG 14 PPV. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just a simple research. Wrestleview reports the DVD is PG-14. [ https://prowrestling.net/artman/publish/WWE/WWE_News_Extreme_Rules_rated_TV-14_printer.shtml Prowrestling.net], the editors says the PG 14 rating, maybe, it's because the Lesnar vs Cena. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that HHH. Prowrestling.net says that it was rated TV-14 on iTunes but not on Amazon. It sounds like iTunes/Apple perhaps chose to rate it higher, probably because of the violence, but it's still rated TV-PG elsewhere. We could read into that a couple different ways, but I think it's worth mentioning on the Extremes Rules page rather than here. It sounds like this may have been a decision by Apple rather than a deliberate choice by WWE.LM2000 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, if we include a part talking about Lesnar as a no-PG wrestler. Some sources pointed the no-PG personality of Lesnar. There’s no fitting a force of nature into a PG rating. Lesnar used very non-PG era elbows to scar up Roman Reigns’ face. Their rivalry-capping cage match featured plenty of the red stuff (at least enough to warrant a hard PG-13 by Hollywood’s standards) I am the advocate for the most non-PG ass kicker of the PG Era, Brock Lesnar! --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I added a few sentences about Brock and the end of the PG Era.LM2000 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this is sufficient coverage of this crucial event. I must admit your editing style is far better than mine LM2000. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad we can work together :) BTW, have you changed your mind about deleting the article? If so, make sure you let them know at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PG Era.LM2000 (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review

Passed. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:PG Era/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LM2000 (talk · contribs) 10:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheVoicelessWriter (talk · contribs) 09:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I will be reviewing this article. I am a hardcore WWE fan who began watching during the PG Era so I am knowledgeable about this topic.

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
^[4]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Notes

1. [1]

   Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
2. [2]

   Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
3. [3]

   This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
4. [4]

   Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
5. [5]

   Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
6. [6]

   The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

1. Well-written:
More information Criteria, Notes ...
Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The article has neither incorrect grammar nor spelling errors.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The lead section has an adequate amount of brief discussion about the topic. All words used are appropriate. Fixed structure and flow issue in the "Reception" section.	Pass
Close
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
More information Criteria, Notes ...
Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	There is a proper list of references.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	All cited sources are reliable per WP:RSP and WP:PW/Sources.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Removed suspected original research due to a lack of cited source. Finished source spot check. I did not find any issue that is not easily resolvable.	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	No copyright violation or plagiarism detected	Pass
Close
3. Broad in its coverage:
More information Criteria, Notes ...
Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The article properly and adequately discusses the era's history, the changes in content from the previous eras, and the different reactions from opposing viewpoints by fans, critics, and wrestlers. Resolved expansion of women in WWE during the PG era.	Pass
(b) (focused)	All details in the article are relevant to the main topic.	Pass
Close
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
More information Notes, Result ...
Notes	Result
The article fairly discusses different perspectives from fans, journalists, and WWE wrestlers.	Pass
Close
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
More information Comment, Result ...
Comment	Result
No ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass
Close
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
More information Criteria, Notes ...
Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are tagged and the only non-free image has a fair use rationale.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All photos have captions that suit the contents of the image and in the article.	Pass
Close

Source spot check

• 1. Y
• 11. Y
• 19. Y
• 23. Y
• 32. Y
• 36. Y
• 38. (a) Y (b) Y (c) Y (d) Y
• 41. (a) Y (b) Y (c) Y (d) Y (e) Y
• 61. Y

Result

More information Result, Notes ...

Result	Notes
Pass	Criteria passed

Close

Discussion

Thank you for taking this on, I'm eager to hear your feedback.LM2000 (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• @LM2000: please rearrange the Reception section. There needs to be a clear divide between positive and negative receptions, but not necessarily in different subsections. The paragraph about Linda McMahon is fine where it is now. Rearrange the sentences as well to improve structure and flow like grouping similar topics or grouping wrestlers and journalists. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I reworked it so that paragraph one is journalist criticism, paragraph two is journalist praise, and paragraph three is wrestler praise. I hope this works, let me know if you have any more suggestions.LM2000 (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• @LM2000: Please expand the paragraph about women in the "Major storylines and stars" section. The Divas Revolution, or at least the significant events that happened before the Reality Era, should be mentioned, especially the women in NXT. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

   DoneLM2000 (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello folks, experienced reviewer here taking a look for the ongoing GA drive. I made a (very light) copyedit pass on the article and performed an abbreviated source spot check that came up with no issues. Earwig only shows properly attributed quotes and no CLOP concerns were raised during my review of the sources. @LM2000: kudos on a well-written article, and @TheVoicelessWriter: your review looks good and it looks like you also made a lot of positive contributions to the article itself, nicely done. I'm satisfied with both the article and the review, and think it can be wrapped up at the reviewer's convenience. Nice work to all. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.