Talk:SummerSlam (2008)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HBK[edit]

On WWE.com it say he will make a appear at summerslam I myself don't see the reason to put it in but just though you should know WillC 06:56, 05 Auguest 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels Announcement[edit]

WWE.com has this listed as a match here. Maybe we should list it as a match as well. :-) -GuffasBorgz7- 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No i think we should wait till the ppv's over and put it in the event section! Adster95 (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be under matches since its not a match SuperSilver901 (talk) 05 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy vs. MVP[edit]

Jeff Hardy vs. MVP was just announced on the smackdown TV Tapings. Can someone add this in please. Craigtubby (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, spoilers can only be added by a reliable source or when SmackDown airs on WWE TV.SRX 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres the proof that it has been added. http://www.wrestlezone.com//article.php?articleid=220050284 --24.224.154.249 (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable SuperSilver901 (talk) 05 August 2008 (UTC)

It has been announced on wwe.com! See why didnt you trust me? Haha! I was right! You should trust me next time! Craigtubby (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? We are NOT going to trust you unless you have reliable source for your info SuperSilver901 (talk) 07 August 2008 (UTC)

oh my god supersilver, we already decided that a spoiler site counts as a reliable source...Mjtwh (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not any site with a spoiler is considered reliable, however. There are several wrestling websites that are considered reliable, but not all.  Hazardous Matt  12:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure and content[edit]

Just read the SummerSlam article, and I'm not sure I like how it reads. My issues are mainly this:

  • The introductory paragraph, which reads in part, "Professional wrestling is a type of sports entertainment in which theatrical events are combined with a competitive sport." I think that most people that read this article are at least aware of what professional wrestling is about. If they are not, then the provided wikilink would provide the unaware reader a way to read more about professional wrestling.
Also, I'm not fond of how the rest of the introductory paragraph reads; I think that all that really needs to be said, in essence, is that the feuds on the various shows ("Raw", "ECW" and "Smackdown!" helped set up the main events at Summerslam. Again, the wikilinks for various terms, including feud, would allow readers unfamiliar with the term to click on the article and read it.
  • Main feuds section, which lists the wrestlers' real names. While it adds a bit of clutter to the article, I believe it also clouds the kayfabe that many professional wrestling-related articles should maintain, such as the identity of the wrestlers. Also, I believe most people who read Wikipedia are aware that feuds are "scripted rivalries," and not legit.

I may return to this article later and revise the intro and make some other changes in accordance with what I have written and with the WP:BOLD policy, but I wanted to explain myself before anything happens, and to possibly open the door for discussion. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

This is new consensus at WP:PW, as SummerSlam (2003), a Featured Article candidate is written in this format as this is the way Wikipedia articles should be written. Articles should not be limited to the understanding of one certain type of readers per WP:JARGON and WP:IN-U. If you disagree with it discuss it at WT:PW.--SRX 02:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It must be made clear that the events are fictional (see WP:FICTION) and that the articles are jargon free (WP:JARGON). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a wrestling specialty site, so articles must be written in a way that everyone can understand them, even non-fans. Nikki311 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly and NO article should ever conform to the rules of kayfabe. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. My concern was that this - and other WP:PW articles - had to have this disclaimer and there may be a better way to so state this. Thanks for the referral to the WP:PW page, however. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
A P.S. here (actually, a couple of them) — first, I think most people realize that professional wrestling is fictional; to further discuss that would be outside the scope of Wikipedia. Second, SRX, you mention the article intro is per new concensus. Would you please link me to where this discussion originated so that I can reply? Thanks! [[Briguy52748 (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Its stated here, here, here, and here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the "Professional wrestling is a type of sports entertainment in which theatrical events are combined with a competitive sport" sentence has been removed, which makes it flow a little better. The exclusion of that one sentence does wonders to the intro, IMO. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
I can understand the desire to have the "out of universe" explanation for the pay-per-view, but "professional wrestling matches, performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real, were featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after the event were planned by WWE's script writers. The event starred wrestlers from the Raw and SmackDown! brands: storyline expansions of the promotion where employees are assigned to wrestling brands under the WWE banner" is written exactly the same in both the 2008 and 2003 Summerslam articles. Though that is currently only on those two pages, that is a lot to repeat on every single page for wrestling pay per views, and no one of them would seem like a featured article with the same introduction re-used so many times, so is there a better way (or at least shorter) to still acknowledge that this live TV show is...well...a TV show? --Vyran (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody reprotect the article?[edit]

Numerous of IP's just recently ruin the page but its fixed now. SuperSilver901 (talk) 06 August 2008 (UTC)

TLC[edit]

Do really have to say a Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match is a match with tables, ladders, and chairs? I think it's pretty obvious, even for non-wrestling fans.Qwerty36095 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would probably reword it to say "a TLC match is a match with tables, ladders, and chairs..." and then expand a little bit on what a Hell in a Cell match is with something simple like "an oversized, enclosed steel-cage".  Hazardous Matt  20:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Team Champions[edit]

Should "(c)" be next to John Cena and Batista's names in the match list as they are both champions as in Tag Team champions? Gibsonj338 (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The (c) denotes a champion, and champions are only noted when championships are on the line. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nici. The belts aren't on the line so it makes no sense to place (c) besides their names.--WillC 08:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real names...[edit]

Why are we including wrestlers' real names along with their stage names now? That seems unnecessary. SuperSonicTH (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is new consensus at WP:PW for more info look above Adster95 (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least not put it in the table since it clutters it up.Qwerty36095 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it up at WP:PW Adster95 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you do not like the new consensus, bring it up for discussion. Things can always be changed, but it's easier to discuss things than to randomly revert edits due to new policy.  Hazardous Matt  15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting the real names is incredibly stupid and takes away from the match and the participants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.195.9.105 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it doesn't matter what you think, it only matters what the criteria is for FA and GA, also what reviewers think of the articles. So far they like the way it is being done.--WillC 16:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea all this new policy crap is incredibly pointless and confusing. Nothing will be changed guys. they keep making this more and more complicated. i dont know about you guys, but im not using wikipedia for WWE, TNA, or any other wretsling info ever again. I hope the rest of you guys do the same. User:CTUnick —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bye, have fun. After SummerSlam 03 becomes an FA everything will be wrote like this.--WillC 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wrote" like this? Written like this surely? And CTUnick, I don't think I ever use this site for "wretsling", if you can tell me about this wonderful "wretsling" maybe direct me to some sites about the subject. The new format is staying, I suggest you either get on with editing or leave the articles alone. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WELL SCREW THIS THEN. I SURRENDER MY WIKIPEDIA ACCOUNT.SuperSonicTH (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing says mature like ALL CAPS. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More mature than taking shots at people after they've left, that's for sure. I also believe this is a retarded rule and makes the page unreadable. I used to go to Wiki for my wrestling results, I'm having strong reconsideration's about that now. Killswitch Engage (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great because Wikipedia is not a newsite but an encyclopedia of relevant information that is understandable and readable by all English readers not just wrestling fans.SRX 01:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact is, it's distracting. Edge (Adam Copeland) is unnessecary. It makes it harder to read the page. Chill out buddy. Killswitch Engage (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is new consensus and a new format for FAs, if you pay attention to discussions at WT:PW you would understand why it is like this, also your vote at SummerSlam (2003)'s FAC is not relevant to the survey and will be disregarded.SRX 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your showing just how pathetic your reading ability is with every post. Did you just see the username and block my vote, or did you actually read my post? Killswitch Engage (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you personally attack me, I did read the post and I replied to your "complaint" and addressed why your vote will be disregarded. If you attack me once again, you will be blocked for personally attacking a user.SRX 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And when was this supposed "first time" I attacked you? No, really, I'm interested in knowing. Killswitch Engage (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This can be classified as an attack, if this is not enough the attack below to User:Wrestlinglover is another attack.SRX 02:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting someones grammer is personally attacking them.......totally confused.Killswitch Engage (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What or who was I attacking? I call "Triple H" "Triple Faggot" all the time. I call him many things, I don't like him. Just look at my comments on Youtube. Also the caption of his picture on my User Page. I wasn't attacking a user, I was making a simple statement.--WillC 02:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was referring to me apparently "personally attacking" you. Killswitch Engage (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mater to me. I have alot of people in real life that piss me off so I get use to people being pricks, I'm not saying you were but I can't tell if someone is making a personal attack anymore.--WillC 02:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I wasn't trying to be a prick, I'm just in a bad mood with Wiki crumbling. I never meant to attack you, just came off that way with my mood at the moment. Killswitch Engage (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could tell you were a little pissed off, but most are on here.--WillC 02:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or are people on this getting more stupid by the day. Give me 1 reason why putting in their names is good for the article. WeLsHy (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it complies with Wikpedia's policies on writing about fiction and it's featured article criteria. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JBL/Punk[edit]

Why isn't the feud for JBL and Punk wrote? Khali and Triple Faggot is wrote, why not Punk/JBL? We can have more than 4 feuds wrote.--WillC 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would probably get an answer if your grammer didn't suck. "Is Wrote"? What is that? Is written would probably be the correct usage. And as to why there is nothing for JBL/Punk, I don't know.Killswitch Engage (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I didn't care about the sentence above. I didn't have to be correct on a simple statement. If someone tries then there can be enough written for their feud.--WillC 02:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, people are too scared to try for fear of violating cardinal rules involving the new format. I don't want to touch any of the pages because the new system is too confusing. Sorry, you'll have to ask someone else. Killswitch Engage (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to just try and write their feud. Crap, look at the feud for B.G. James and Kip James in Lockdown (2008). Even though a very little happened before their match at Lockdown I wrote a fairly good paragraph for it. I would write it but I have to finish Destination X (2008), Lockdown, Sacrifice (2008), Slammiversary (2008), Victory Road (2008), Hard Justice (2008), and I have to begin No Surrender (2008).--WillC 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a shot, but it will be deleted with people screaming, "IT'S NOT IN THE NEW STYLE!!!" Killswitch Engage (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think of it, I'll just let the masters and rulers of Wikipedia do it. I'll go start changing some other pages to this "new style". There is no point in arguing, Canadians have no chance here. Killswitch Engage (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new style is annoying but if it makes it a little easier to make an article FA then it is usefull. After I fix all that I've said above it will probably be easier for me to get Bound for Glory IV to FA.--WillC 02:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HBK's announcement[edit]

Shouldn't we include the Shawn Michaels' announcement in the background? Brady4mvp (Talk) (Sign my guestbook!) 02:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because he made an announcement and did not feud with anyone. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How?[edit]

Can we at least have something about how the matches were won? it would kinda help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbhsfootball28 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be added in the prose later on when expanded.--SRX 01:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not add it now? I think its just as significant to the event as the match time and the stipulations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbhsfootball28 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime this is added i will remove it[edit]

Seven professional wrestling matches, performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real, were featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after the event were planned by WWE's creative staff. The event stared wrestlers from the Raw, SmackDown, and ECW brands: storyline expansions of the promotion where employees are assigned to wrestling brands under the WWE banner.

Not Approprate i will remove it ever time it is added.--Jwein (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you will be blocked from editing if you continue to remove it. It is new consensus at WT:PW. Go discuss it there. They have a discussion open for it.--WillC 05:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, keep your senseless edits. Yes this site is supposed to be encyclopedic but frankly these changes your "group" has made to the editing standards are just causing needless fluff to pile up on the articles. On top of that, why acknowledge wrestling as fake in this fashion? I thought our role as editors was to treat kayfabe as mostly real (only acknowledging its presence as a suspension of disbelief where absolutely necessary). Anyway, the point is I'm not happy with this (along with my previous contribution to this page) and since I feel like any rebuttal I make against the point will be fruitless I think it'll be easier on everyone if I just quit editing pro wrestling pages. SuperSonicTH (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a bloody stupid thing to put at the start of the article. Remove it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.134.201 (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New policy per WP:PW/PPVG.SRX 23:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Whoever thought up that policy should be castrated. Ridiculous. For a website which 'anyone' can edit, it sure is rather stupid that a select few have a say what happens.

It's wikipedia policy. Article must be written out of universe if they are about fiction. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And who made this diabolical policy? Was there a vote. Does anyone else in the world get a say? Is someone going to go through every tv show and type. 'This show was portrayed by actors who are not actually real'.?

Umm, Wikipedia did,if you have a problem with that click the "Contact Wikipedia" button to your right, have a good day.SRX 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, every single article to do with TV and Film on here needs to include the words 'This program/film was portrayed by actors in a fictional setting' or some words to that effect. Better get cracking. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CGJ (talk • contribs) 00:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real' That has to be the stupidest shit I've read in my life. Everybody knows its fake. You don't have to insult peoples intellegence with bullshit like this.

There's a difference. Other televised shows make no attempts to pass themselves off as real. Wrestling does. You don't see 12 year olds that think that think their favorite shows are real unless it's wrestling, generally. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody change al of the wrestling results sections back to the way they wre about 5 months ago Who decided to go f*** with all of them?

It's not going to be reverted to the old method, the new method is the result of WP policy which came about during the review of some feature article candidates. If you have suggestions on how we can improve the current method we'd be happy to hear them.  Hazardous Matt  18:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavyn Sykes - I see a load of people believing their favourite tv shows are real. You might as well put "Santa is not real" at the start of the article for him then. People believe he's real, so why not? After all, Wikipedia is not supposedly "censored" Xkingoftheworldx (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be mentioned to the corresponding projects, then. WP:PW doesn't handle non-PW television shows or Santa Claus.  Hazardous Matt  21:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

length[edit]

how long r the matches —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.137.3 (talk) 18:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that information hasn't been added it's because there isn't a reliable source with that information just yet.  Hazardous Matt  18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is working on this article?[edit]

Is anyone working on this article? Like to take it to GA or something or is it orphaned.--WillC 23:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length of the Jeff Hardy/MVP match[edit]

The match length was 10:12, not 19:12 as the article states at this point. I personally record the match lengths myself as I watch events and have been doing so for 2 1/2 years, the match wasn't nearly as long as the article states. Just a friendly suggestion. I won't edit the page myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.93.115.44 (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SummerSlam (2003) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SummerSlam_(2008)&oldid=1210394714"