Talk:Armageddon (2008)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleArmageddon (2008) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Spoilers should not be posted[edit]

WrestleView, has been considered merely reliable, it should not be used to source spoilers because of this. See the FAC's of LockDown (2008) and Armageddon (2006). Also, these matches are just used by WWE to promote the event to gain more ticket sales, the subject can change, We are not a crystal ball, WV should not be used to source spoilers or rumors.--SRX 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am going to agree on this..spoilers are just a way to sell tickets..and may not even be true, all i know, wikipedia isn't the place for spoilers, its just for the event.Ruthless-paki (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, per WP:SPOILER it can be added with a reliable source, but WrestleView.com cannot be used to source this type of information per the FAC of Lockdown (2008).--SRX 23:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with WrestleView in Lockdown was ONE user was not sure of it being a reliable source. Though I believe 3 FAs were passed with that source. Sourcing a small thing like promotion isn't going to kill the article now. We aren't trying to get it to FA or GA now. This can be let go.--WillC 23:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not understand that WrestleView.com is reliable for results only not other information per Ealdgyth, spoilers are an example.--SRX 23:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source is a relay from PWinsider. Surely a very well known publication as PWqinsider is fine source.--WillC 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PWInsider is one of the most distrusted websites today.--SRX 00:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that you're opinion? D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matches[edit]

I know you guys were talking about spoilers, but the HSBC Arena in Buffalo, NY is advertising the following matches for the December WWE Armageddon PPV:

Chris Jericho vs. Batista vs. John Cena for the World Title Triple H vs. Vladimir Kozlov for the WWE Title --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent (Muhaha!!) 12:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering Edge is now the WWE champion i think we can rule out the Kozlov-Triple H world title match, while those matches were advertised, plans always change so don't add any new matches until they are announced on television. The Jay Experience 09:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edge vs Triple H vs Hardy[edit]

The match has been announced so it's safe to be added.72.50.61.43 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this match has not been annouced, it may end up that way but there was actual contender named on Smackdown (Loosie (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It has now been announced on wwe.com 27 mins ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.209.106 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and now it on the page and sourced (Loosie (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

WWE championship match announced[edit]

Today on wwe.com, it was announced that Edge would defend against Jeff and HHH.

Yes. It was added to the article already.--TruCo 19:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

In the background section of this article, and other recent ppvs, it says "see also: proffessional wrestling". I think that this is a bit ridiculous to be honest as it implies that all of professional wrestling is a background to this event. Literally everybody who goes on this page will be aware how pro wrestling works whether they're a fan or not. You wouldn't have "see also: American Football" on the superbowl page, or "see also: rock music" on the page of an album, so why is it here?

Why do you believe only someone who already knows about pro-wrestling would view this article? Secondly, no, not everyone is aware of how pro-wrestling works. Some of the "smartest" fans will tell you it's legitimate, and many will tell you it's fake with no true understanding of how an event is put together. The link is there because it's important to the background of the article.  Hazardous Matt  14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who believes it is legitimate?King garthur (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-wrestling fans, see SummerSlam (2003), The Great American Bash (2005), December to Dismember (2006), and No Way Out (2004), which are Identified as Wikipedia's best work (Featured Articles).--SRX 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But that simply isn't true. I apprecate that those are good articles, and I believe that pro wrestling PPV articles are generally very good, I think that this is a rather bizarre practice. Everyone knows the scripted nature of pro wrestling, and just by reading the article you could establish that even if somehow that had escaped you. It's peculiar, there are scores of people unfamiliar with the rules of american football, but I wouldn't find an article on the superbowl saying "See american football" in the description of the play off brackets, which is essentially the same thing.King garthur (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its there because of the intro paragraph saying "This event will featured pro...etc."--SRX 01:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but why is that there? Again, it seems to be dumbing down the article significantly. The December to Dismember article does not have this section, and as far as I can remember this is the only one that has actually been the main page featured article. If the level of traffic it would have got from that could read it and understand it, surely it proves putting absolute base knowledge such as this is unecessary.King garthur (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it passed before the OOU policy was enforced. See WP:PW/PPVG.--SRX 11:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but it has since been kept as a FA after a review. Perhaps my problem is with the actual guidlines. I reluctantly accept that it may be of some value to have the wrestlers real nmes on there, but I think it looks like a bit of a mess. However, the pro wrestling matches are scripted... paragraph is unecessary. Consider something like a soap opera or TV show where events happen in universe. You might see the actors names on these pages, but you wouldn't have a sentence such as "the plot panned out in the manner that had been written earlier by the writers of the show". I hope I'm not coming across as being pedantic or difficult, because I don't mean to, but I am having difficulty understanding why pro wrestling articles are the only ones were something as specific as a PPV would suggest that you read the most general article on the topic.King garthur (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say is that if you had a problem you should have came to WT:PW to discuss it like everyone else did, now the consensus is final because it was recently formed. You can still go to WT:PW to discuss it but it will most likely be of no use.--SRX 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"The consensus is final"... It isn't a consensus if everyone's opinion isn't heard, but to be honest, I haven't been editing wikipedia very heavily recently, and so even if I was aware of this discussion, I probably wouldn't have been involved. I appreciate that this consensus has been reached, and I appreciate that it shouldn't be changed based upon my opinion, but I think you've misunderstood. I'm not asking for it to be changed, I'd simply like to know why this consensus was reached.King garthur (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was decided as a result of the project trying to get more Featuredd Articles and to comply with WP:IN-U and WP:PLOT.--WillC 02:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand, I just think it seems a bit dumbed down, but I get the logic.King garthur (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not like it at first, but you learn to get use to it after a while. I've got to the point that I can't imagine the articles not being Out of Universe.--WillC 10:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Does all pay per view pages have to have the wrestlers real name after it parentheses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.0.249 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PW/PPVG--SRX 11:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Should have a little bit of continuity to it though, i.e. Either David Bautista or Dave Bautista, Christopher Irvine or Chris Irvine, Phillip Brooks or Phil Brooks, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.153 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hardy vs. Vladimir Koslov[edit]

was confirmed in the ECW Spoilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.187.18 (talk • contribs)

No reliable source, doesn't go in article. Period. TJ Spyke 00:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEMI-PROTECTION![edit]

needed!SimonKSK 01:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid caps, its considered shouting. I will request it if these IP's continue to vandalize.--SRX 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Then again, it was protected already.--SRX 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Juliancolton did it for me (per IRC request). ayematthew ✡ 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caps lock sorry. SimonKSK 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armageddon (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Disclaimer: I am indeed a big wrestling fan and a frequent editor of professional wrestling articles but the only edits I've ever made to this article is upgrading three "questionable" sources to three reliable ones, nothing else. I am not a member of the Pro Wrestling project either and will review this without bias towards the subject. If you think this is a problem say so and I will withdraw stop reviewing this article. In the next day or so I will be reviewing the article and provide feedback. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'm posting comments as I read along.

Resolved Review comments on previous version of the article
Lead
  • "It was the ninth annual event" - probably the 9th annual Armageddon event right? that's just not what it says.
  • First time the term wrestler is use it should be "Professional wrestler" to make it crystal clear what we're talking about.
  • "were scheduled"?? that makes it sound like there could have been either or six, how about actually stating that the show featured 7 matches on PPV and one pre-show match, clarity is always better.
  • "in an exhibition against Vladimir Koslov" - Exhibition? that seems to indicate that it was something other than a standard match between the two.
  • You cannot "gross an attendance", grossing is for money.
  • When you mention that it was less buys it'd be helpful to throw in the figure of how many buys that was.
  • "This enabled PPV revenue to increase" - really odd sentence, how about straight out that it earned 15.9 million in revenue?
  • "But was defeated by the" - it's not a contest, therefor it cannot be defeated, it was out earned by the previous year, topped by it, words to that effect, pick some and use them. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Urgh the "WP:PW Scripted event" disclaimer is so lame, but it's the established wording so I'll just leave it alone.
  • Consistency you list Koslov as "(Oleg Prudious)" while most others are not listed like that. Please be consistent and do it everywhere or nowhere, this in between with no rhyme or reason is just confusing. Link the ring name, mentions of Prince aren't listed as "Prince (Prince Rogers Nelson)" after all. It's also irrelevant to Armageddon 2008 that Vladimir Koslov's real name is Oleg Prudious.
    • The rest are known under their common name. The reason Edge, Triple H, etc do not have it like that is they are known more under that one ring name. Koslov is not widely known under one name.--WillC 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is Koslov more known as "Oleg Prudeus"?? Also the distinction seems to be totally arbitrary here as you've got Kofi Kingston mentioned yet he's wrestled 99% of his time as "Kofi Kingston" and is definitely best known as Kingston and nothing else. Also how is "Oscar Gutierez" in any way the "common name" Rey is known as? So it's a bit random/arbitrary plus frankly it's irrelevant what their real names are - it's trivia and nothing more that Kofi Kingston's real name is Kofi Mensah, it does not add anything to this article at all nor does it help with the "Out of Universe" distinctions, if it was an "OOU" issue then everyone should be listed as such. it's either one or the other, being inconsistent with a judgment call made by the author is not the way to do it. It was originally put in because one person in one review suggested it - well I'm one person in another review suggesting it needs to be 100% or 0%, not 45,72% depending on the mood of the author. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, it should be for all the names. But it seems the consensus is to only have it for ones who are not widely known. For people like Edge, he has wrestled for many many years and won several championships under that name, so that is his common name. While Kingston has won championships under that name, but not known widely. Rey as wrestled has Rey Jr which could be considered another ring name. The reason to list names is the wrestlers play characters. Like in films articles. The actors play characters, and to show this their name is listed next to the character.--WillC 18:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • So it has nothing to do with having been known under other names but "how widely they are known", again I don't see a clear definition of what goes where then. And if it's like for actors then it should be for everyone, after all just cause you play Al Bundy for so many years does not mean you're listed as Al Bundy anywhere else. My take is that it should be for none of the names as it's jut a matter of trivia what Kofi Kingston's real name is it does not add anything to the article, in movie/TV articles stating the name of the actor makes sense as he's generally referred to as that when mentioned anywhere - wrestlers, not so much. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well usually wrestlers are called by their real name and said known as blank in wrestling. There is inconsistency in the project. I'll make the article consistent.--WillC 19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If it is one way or the other, it should be all ringnames as this article is about the event, which means the characters. I see no reason to have to list their real name when we don't do that for other people. In an article that mentions Snoop Dogg for example, you don't write "Snoop Dog (Cordozar Broadus, Jr.)". Same thing with actors. In Top Gun (film), you see "Tom Cruise" (not Thomas Mapother IV). I think this GA nomination should fail the article has to use every wrestlers real name for no good reason. I oppose promoting this article while the WillC's current format is used (especially since we have had PPV article's promoted to FA status without using every one of their real names, even though many of them are not known at all by their real name). TJ Spyke 18:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • TJ the most recnt FA that passed was Lockdown (2008) and it had everyone's real name next to the ring name. The wrestlers play characters. We should mention that. It was agreed to have the real name listed next to the ring name. So to follow consensus it should be this way. The common name thing was decided between you and Truco.--19:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
                      • I noticed that you conveniently skipped over my point about how non-wrestling articles don't do this. Do you intent to go and (for example) change every link to Tom Cruise to say [[Tom Cruise|Thomas Mapohter IV]]? That is EXACTLY what you are trying to do. This will not be a good article if the format you want to use stays in, I know I will continue objecting and ask for it to be reviewed again. COMMONNAME applies to wrestling articles too, despite what you think. TJ Spyke 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the name of this article? Oh yeah, Armageddon (2008). Not Tom Cruise. Lets look, Triple H is common in wrestling, but is it common everywhere? If he was to go to a movie primere would they say here comes Triple H. No, because he isn't known enough to even get to go to one. It doesn't matter what is done elsewhere. This is a wrestling article. All articles are different. Hell, wrestlers can't have common names. They've had too many different ring names, like Trips and appeared under their real name a time or two outside of wrestling. You can continue with your harrasment. Wrestling is just a giant film.--WillC 16:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you are admitting that you have no valid argument to support you? Triple H uses that name when he appears outside of wrestling too. He is credited as that in the movie "Blade: Trinity", he was credited as that on Saturday Night Live and MadTV, etc. How am I harassing anybody by applying a WP POLICY (which COMMONNAME is) to the article over your personal opinion on what should be used? This article can not and should not be promoted as long as your own personal opinions are being used instead of Wikipedia POLICY. TJ Spyke 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say the link to Brian Kendrick should include the term "The" or unfamiliar readers will be confused, by linking it you make it clear it's part of his name.
  • "Kozlov then faced ECW Champion, Matt Hardy, but failed to defeat Matt's time in a quicker time than Jeff's winning time, thus having him eliminated." - Matt's time? Generally this isn't very well written, can you please give it a re-write?
  • "A dispute between officials" and then later it was "Vickie Guerrero's decision" - the first one sounds like two referees disagree and not what really happened.
  • Active voice - this article is littered with passive tense like "would have" instead of "had", this is a big problem in the article, I'd like to see all passive tenses like this eliminated, use past tense but not passive.
  • That's it? lost the title, won the #1 contenders match? I appreciate that it's not a week by week recap of the Cena/Jericho feud but this makes it sound so generic.
    • Standard really. I would enlarge it but there wasn't much build to that storyline I believe.--WillC 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regal was without an "official challenger", I'm sure there were plenty of people who'd like to challenge him ;)
Event
  • Was the dark match a title or non-title match?
Preliminary matches
  • In the match description you start off with an explanation of the background of the match, yet you have a section named "background" that'd be perfect for this.
  • "before executing with a chokeslam" drop the "with"
  • Same sentence, before back to back isn't very dynamic.
  • Rey / Punk "execute their signature maneuvers", a generic statement like that is not very helpful to non-wrestling fans, what kind of signature maneuvers? I'd consider rewriting this very generic beginning.
  • Did Punk catch Mysterio doing the 619? it's not clear how they got from the 619 to the go2sleep.
  • ", and earning a match" => ", earning CM Punk a match"
  • Following this match" - perhaps "the match" or "that match", but not this as no match has been described in the paragraph.
  • "Talking about his current situation" - again very generic, please elaborate just a little bit.
  • "After a verbal dispute and Michaels making it abundantly clear that he did not like JBL, he accepted his offer" - who accepted the offer? who is "he", "Michaels accepted the offer"
  • "in a match in a match dubbed a Belfast Brawl, which would be a match without no disqualifications." => "In a match without disqualifications, billed as a "Belfast Brawl".
  • The description of the Henry/Finlay match needs a serious copyedit. Just take a stab at the whole thing again, past tense, not passive is just part of the problem.
  • "knocking Batista to the outside to have the latter gain the advantage" => "knocking Batista to the outside of the ring, only to Batista gain the advantage in the match" or something like that.
  • What are "classic Christmas Icons"?? that description is not very helpful or clear.
  • You'd probably put a comma after "icons" even after you explain what that means.
  • "The match was wrestled briefly"... so it was a short match? I'm a big believer in calling a spade a spade instead of wrapping the basic fact that "it was a short match" in fancy windowdressing that isn't crystal clear.
  • If it's the intention of explaining the Faithbreaker for non-wrestling fans then "inverted belly to back" does not really help much.
Main event matches
  • The FU is in no way a power slam, no matter how much his article may try to claim it is, now "Power bomb" may fit the definition slightly better since the FU is basically a "Fireman's carry powerbomb"
  • "Knee to the face" sounds like he drove his knee into Cena's face like an MMA style move.
  • the "F" in STFU stands for "facelock", which is not a sleeper, it is in fact a facelock as the name implies.
  • the last match is described as "the main event", perhaps "co-main event" or "other half of the co-main event" relates the fact that the two last matches were generally considered equal in importance?
    • Well the last match is the main event which is what this is meant to represent in this case.--WillC 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outside area", sounds like they left the arena, not just the ring.
  • "with Triple H disposing all three announcers tables.", so he threw them in a dumpster? I do not get this sentence, especially since there are plenty of "tables" mentioned in the subsequent description. Confusing.
  • "only to have Hardy reverse it to have it reversed by Triple H, who would push Hardy away to have Edge run across the tables, spearing Hardy through one." I'm confused and I read it three times now.
  • You mention that there were two chairs, one in Edge's hand - then you say "another chair", did he discard chair #2 and pick up chair #3? that's what it sounds like.
  • "he would ascend the top turnbuckle before Triple H prevented him from doing anything,", cannot ascend the turnbuckle if Triple H is preventing him from doing anything at all.
  • Hate to be harsh but the Edge/HHH/Hardy match description is really bad. Needs a total overhaul to make sense and flow a bit better.
Aftermath
  • The aftermath of Edge/Hardy does not need to include the Hardy/Hardy feud, just go to the Rumble.
  • Nothing on Cena/Jericho? the fact that Armageddon may have concluded their running feud could be mentioned.
  • The CM Punk section is clunky. Could stand to have maybe three sentences all together instead of 1 regular and a long elaborate one.
Reception
  • Maybe state why the capacity was reduced
  • Notes on the lead applies here too.
  • One "reception"? that's hardly broad in coverage of the shows reception as it just covers "one man's opinion"
Results
  • Does their managers REALLY need to be listed in the results table? it was mentioned in the text, the results were that "A defeated B" after all.
    • Somewhat, it is the standard/ Usually the managers interfere.--WillC 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Out of 26 references 20 of them are from the WWE themselves, so you've got 77% Primary sources - I'm sorry but to me that's not really good enough for a "Good Article", 3rd party sources helps with neutrality and need to be used for more than the HSBC's normal capacity and the billboard charts.
  • Source #4: title states "Jeff Hardy Found unconscious" - which made me realize that the build to Edge/Hardy/HHH totally neglected ANY of that, please actually describe more of the storyline leading up to the match.
  • Source #5: After having read it I cannot see what part of the match build it actually sources?? Nothing in the source is actually mentioned in the article and the source does not cover any of the described build. Not an appropriate source.
  • Source #6 is for Survivor Series, cannot be a source for the result of Armageddon.
  • No sources on the CM Punk "Aftermath"
  • Source 22: Having read it it's clear that it has not been state if Armageddon even made money - yes PPV's earned "X" but if Armageddon lost say 2 mil it actually did not contribute. Specific figures for Armageddon is the only way to ensure that this is now Original Research.
  • Source #25 does not state that it peaked at #2, it states that it reached #2 on that week (it's second week) not if it climbed higher or not - it confirms that it was #2 but nowhere does it confirm that it never went to #1.
    • That is usually the stand. To search through reports at billboard and find the highest and lowest positions. It was deemed fine at the recent FACs.--WillC 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source #26 - Link does not work.

I've placed the GA nomination on hold, it has a lot of issues, mainly with the prose and I haven't mention all of them I'm sure, it'd be great if someone could not only address the points I've made but had a serious look at the match descriptions as they are definitely not GA level writing right now. This needs a lot of rewrites before it's ready. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed everything. Above I wrote fixed to almost everything because I rewrote the entire article and everything should be fixed. If not, then one word: Shit!.--WillC 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that a whole lot of this is actually rewritten and much better than before. I don't think there is anything outstanding from my previous comments, but as it's had a major rewrite I will have to review it again. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright mostly new-ish article, mostly new-ish review

Lead
  • It's worded to indicate that Hardy/HHH/Edge was the only main event, wasn't the Cena/Jericho the co-main event?
  • "Several matches were featured on the undercard.", a very short sentence, almost a fragment could it not be merged with the mention of the Punk/Mysterio & Orton/Batista match. That would also eliminate the odd "were two featured" end to the next sentence. 2 birds, 1 stone.
  • Factual error, Armageddon did not in itself gross 15.9 million in ticket sales, it didn't even gross 15.9 million at all - later on it's state that the WWE grossed 15.9 million in PPV revenue in 2008, Armageddon may have contributed to that (or it may have lost money) but it did not gross the entire amount.
    • Okay, I've never delt with the gross stuff in PPVs, so this may take me a while to figure out.--WillC 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Should be fixed.--WillC 05:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • In the second paragraph you forgot to mention that it was the main rivalry of smackdown, not of the entire WWE.
  • a match involving three competitors known as a Triple Threat match in WWE for the" => "a match involving three competitors, known as a Triple Threat match in WWE, for the" - commas.
  • I do believe that the term "General Manager" is not exclusive to wrestling and will be understood by everyone if you just put that instead of "Primary authority figure"
    • It has been agreed that General Manager is still jargon. The term may be used here and there outside of wrestling, but most people may not understand what a GM is.--WillC 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah yes, no need to remind me why I'm not a member of WP:PW, alright fair enough it's the "standard", I'll leave it be. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend it be listed as a "Beat the Clock" challenge with quotation marks.
  • Write time the same way through out, one place you have "12 minutes and 13 seconds (12:13)" and the rest it's just "12:13", is there really a point to writing it out the first time?
    • I did that as an introduction. It may be common sense to understand that "12:13" is the time, but it is better to be safe than sorry.--WillC 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, I've been preaching clarity so extra points for having it :) MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result, neither" => "As a result of the tie, neither" just to make it crystal clear why no one was announced as the contender.
  • you don't have to say "won their respective singles matches" when you've already stated it was "four standard matches"
Event.
  • Do you know if the dark match was on the DVD? If so it may be worth noting so that the very small sectiong gets slightly more content to it.
  • "and slammed him down to perform a chokeslam" => "and slammed him down with a chokeslam". You described the move and linked it, no need to over-complicate it.
  • Intercontinental CHampionship contender tournament, not "Championship tournament".
  • "performing a knee strike to the face to complete a move called the Go To Sleep." => "performing a knee strike to the face , a move called the Go To Sleep." Again no need to over-complicate it, it just makes it harder to read
  • "Batista followed by pinning Orton and becoming the victor of the encounter" - Again over-complicating it
  • I think it's misleading to place Batista/Orton and especially the divas match under the heading "Main event matches", this show had 2 main event matches, the other two need to go under "preliminary"
    • Fixed. Mainly was give room to the Hardt picture and since Orton/Batista was one of the main matches.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see that now, but still it's more correct this way. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we writing the description of the finisher to give people an idea of what they are? because then I'm not sure "Holding the person upside down and slamming them face first" does justice to the Styles Clash.
    • It is supposed to be giving the keys points to the move so people who don't know what the moves are can understand without going to the link. Plus the move names are considered jargon so they have to be explained out. It was agreed to cut down the descriptions to better fit the articles. The Styles Clash is a hard move to describe. So the hold upside down and slam face first is the shortest easiest way to describe it I believe.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright WP:PW policy and all. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to the aforementioned move isn't right, there is no subheader of that name.
    • Fixed. Didn't know it was wrong.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey that's why I'm here :) I checked it out cause I was confused about what it was supposed to be. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inflicting pain to Jerico's Face and back - forget the "areas" it's clear enough without it.
  • Other finishing moves are explained but not the STFU? just where it hurts, not what it is.
    • It is hard to explain the move without going in depth. Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last match: Did HHH just let Hardy pin him? explanation needed for why HHH didn't just pin Edge after "forcing his head into the mat"
    • I didn't know, but now I do. Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an encylopedia, it's here to educate people on subjects - as such I think it would be nice to tell people that the "front flip" is the Swanton - heck even wrestling fans may not think it was the same move.
Reception
  • The source states that the 2007 Armageddon got 237.000 buys, you state 350.000

That's what I've found, a much smaller "laundry list" than the previous article. Good work so far. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright it looks much better, one last read through and if I don't find anything major (doubtful) I'll promote to GA later today, good work Will. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've read it, nothing jumped out so I'm promoting it to GA, congratulations. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a pure joke, it is NOT a Good Article and should not have been promoted. First, there is the name issues. Wrestlinglover is obsessed with going against guidelines and policies by listing every wrestler by their real name regardless of how well known they are (and ignoring me pointing out how wrong he is, we do not do this for actors and musicians who don't use their real name. My prime example is Tom Cruise, when talking about him we write "Tom Cruise" and not "Thomas Mapother IV". Same thing applies here with Triple H, he uses that name even outside of wrestling and is never called under his real name. He is even credited in the movie "Blade: Trinity" as Triple H). This article should be de-listed immediately (this is the problem with letting anybody review GA nominees, you can end up having articles promoted when they clearly should not be promoted). TJ Spyke 14:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a good day to you as well, if you read the comments I insisted that this article was consistent, either all names nor no names - I'd prefer no "real names" at all as I find it nothing but trivial but there seems to be a consensus from the project you're a member off TJ that putting the real names makes it more accessible to non-fans, take it up with your project that they insist on the "ring name (real name)" construction at all, I'm just saying that if it's a rule it has to be consistent and you guys never did anything but create a vague definition of when it's there and when it's not. Oh and have a pleasant day sunshine. In conclusion - your problem is with policy, not this article and frankly I can't be bothered to do anything else about it, get the policy changed and I'm sure Will will be happy to change it. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh and I think you need to be clearer, you mean "this is the problem with letting people who disagree with TJ Spyke" review GA's. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The semi-consensus (a lot of members disagree with it and think we don't need to list real names) at WP:PW is to use the most common name the wrestler is known as (and to only use real names if the wrestler is relatively new or has been well known by multiple names, like how Dustin Runnels has been well known both as Dustin Rhodes and as Goldust), Wrestlinglover just disagrees with that. I would switch the article to just ringnames, but then Wrestlinglover would just revert and claim some BS about that not being OOU. When I tried switching the article back to the standards set by WP:PW, Will just reverted it. As for your second comment, that just shows your immaturity and another reason to restrict who can review GA-nominees.
You may have noticed that it was me that said either all have real names or none, as long as it's consistent - so don't blame Will for it being "all names". I'd rather see no real names, I think that listing their real names is just trivia, but that does not seem to be the semi-quasi-sorta policy so it's nothing I can do to change it. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armageddon (2008). 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:

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) 05:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armageddon_(2008)&oldid=1205336273"