Talk:2008 WWE Draft

The Undertaker
May it be added that even though he was Kayfabe fired from the wwe Jim Ross said that Undertaker is not eligible for the draft so may it be added that he is the only exception to the draft??Deadman lastride666 (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think no because he was fired from the whole WWE so he couldn't be drafted anyway if JR hadn't of said that but it seems like it is notable. I don't think it should be added though.---- Will C -- 09:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what "not eligible" means, he is unable to be drafted because he is {kayfabe} fired.--  S R X -- Latino Heat  10:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright sorry about that i wasnt thinking thanks for clearing that up though :)Deadman lastride666 (talk) 21:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

23rd
The date is wrong it is suposed to be 23rd or the 26th would be on a Thursday —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.44.44 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

protect
We are a hour into the show and already we are being vandalized. Someone request protection now before there is more vandy.-- Will C  00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was requested earlier, though now denied. I requested it again, lets see if it's granted.--  S R X -- Latino Heat  00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay.-- Will C  01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the vandalism continues. Brady4mvp (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Championship swaps
What source indicates the championship is made exclusive to the brand the superstar is traded to? If Batista defeats Edge, he gets the World Heavyweight Championship, but would probably stay with Raw. Can someone provide a source for the determination that this is not true. Slyfield (talk) 06:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's on WWE.com, please read.--  S R X -- Latino Heat  11:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was listening to a video feed, on wwe.com, and it suggested that Batista could bring the World title to RAW. So this suggests that: RAW gets the WWE Championship if John Cena wins, the World Heavyweight Championship if Batista wins. ECW gets the ECW title back if Mark Henry wins, and Smackdown gets it if the Big Show wins. The titles are clearly tilted towards Smackdown right now, and they always have a way of evening out. But i did hear the announceers say that Batista could bring the title back. And yes, the wwe.com website DOES say the titles are currently defended on the brands, but not precluding the fights this Sunday. Therefore, these are all pending the results from Night of Champions. Slyfield (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The belts are not exclusive to any brands until after the pay per view this Sunday. I would fix the article, but it is locked. So, not just erase the comments that imply that the belts are now exclusive to so-and-so brand now, instead of having to face the facts after sunday night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.4.157 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Supplementry draft
Does any1 know if this is gunna happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.48.169 (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is unknown at the minute. Please check WWE, and not here, this is not a forum. --  S R X -- Latino  Heat  11:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The existance of a supplemental draft is important to the article. So enough about this "forum" crap. Mshake3 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but this is not the place to ask.--  S R X -- Latino Heat  01:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum no, but it is a place to go and try to get information. As far as your comment to go check wwe's website goes, There is nothing wrong with checking out the wiki site to try and get info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.220.220 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IP, you need to remain civil.  S R X -- Latino Heat  13:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reactions from employees?
Would it be notable to include reports of employees' reactions to the draft? I don't have the sources immediately on hand (can't look for that stuff at work) but there are a few blogs from Jim Ross that state he wasn't informed of the move beforehand and that he was tempted to quit without working a Smackdown taping.

There are other reports saying that "many Superstars were happy that Triple H was moved" but the vague accounting of that leaves the notability in question. I'd like to hear thoughts on the JR situation though, as I think it might enhance the article.  Hazardous   Matt   13:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that can be added, but later after the supplemental draft. We can add those reactions to an aftermath section. Good find though.--  S R X -- Latino Heat  13:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Out-of-universe
Should it not be made clear that the event is scripted and that the draft picks are pre-determined and not random, but really booking decisions reached by the writers of the brands and Vince? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel yes. Because someone that isn't familiar with Pro wrestling, WWE, or even the draft will think it is real.-- Will C  22:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the thing is that is hard to source, and if we take this to FLC, it will fail because of that.--  S R X -- Latino Heat  00:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything, I'd think on a pro wrestling page, you'd have more need to source when something ISN'T pre-determined, not the converse.76.226.113.174 (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As would I, but Wikipedia policy disagrees, so oh well. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead should be removed, don't you think? There is not really any importance to it. If it stays, it should at least be moved into a different section. Also, the aftermath, it isn't really for employee's reactions unless it is expressed on live television. JR's reaction is not notable to the draft, unless it is mentioned on live television. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 13:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well we want this to go to FLC don't we? Last time I got told that it should be written more out of universe, thus JR's reaction is out of universe. Also, the second paragraph should remain because it is modeled after the 2001 NFL Draft (sort of), it shows how many draft picks there were, and what they consisted of.  S R X -- Latino Heat  13:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right, but it needs clean-up, so I'll be bold and get on that, instead of complaining. Lol. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 14:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to hide it, I find that paragraph necessary. It shows the stats of the draft, and is necessary to the article.  S R X -- Latino Heat  14:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

D.M.N. removed it, SRX. I re-added it, and hid it until a consensus is formed. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then lets form a consensus, I already stated my purpose and opinion of it.--  S R X -- Latino Heat  14:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I just thought the paragraph et al. looked messy and I thought that part shouldn't of been in the lead. Maybe a new (sub) header entitled "Overview" should be warranted? D.M.N. (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That could work.  S R X -- Latino Heat  16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Televised draft
Currently, I believe that the table is a little awkward. What does everyone think of removing the notes section, to make the tables the same size, and put the notes below it. I've made an example, here. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 14:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it looks that organized. Table sizes do not matter, and do not limit it from passing FLC, its not how articles look, but what they contain that matters.--  S R X -- Latino Heat  14:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but consider those who have a degree of blindness, and can't read the small letters in the table. It may sound far-fetched, but I've seen FLC's bring up the topic before, because it is reality that some cannot read small letters like that, and it just makes it more organized, IMHO. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is absolutely necessary, you should format it with either footnotes or make a section just for notes and number them with the draft pick, I think foot notes would work best, like it is used here in the Booker/Kane note.--  S R X -- Latino Heat  14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So should I do that, or leave it as is, and change it only if it is mentioned in the FLC? -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 14:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I say leave as is for now, if mentioned on the FLC we can always do that. Just create it elsewhere for backup. Also, we have to wait at least after NOC to nominate it, due to the championships and in case they switch brands again.  S R X -- Latino Heat  15:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox?
What do you guys think about having an infobox like this?

-- iMa tth ew  T.C. 22:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it but for some reason I think it is unneeded. But I'm for it.-- Will C  23:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This was discussed before, and it was shot down. I was the original proposer, but now I agree it is unnecessary, not even the other sports drafts have this.  S R X -- Latino Heat  23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Small discrepancies
In the intro it reads "Every WWE employee, Diva, announcer, commentator, and General manager were eligible to be drafted." SO Divas, announcers, commentators and GMs aren't employees? Shouldn't this read WWE Superstar/wrestler, or am I missing something? Also in the table it lists the men as male wrestlers but the females as Divas. Either they should be listed as female wrestlers or the men should be listed as Superstars for consistency.

Further, the commentator drafting wasn't a commentator only draft pick it just 'happened' to turn out that way by luck. If it was commentator only JR would have had more of an idea that he may be drafted and wouldn't have been so annoyed. Or have I remembered it all wrong? Tony2Times (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Nop Justin Roberts announced it an announcers only draft pick saying the only people who are eligible to be drafted for this match are ring announcers, commentators and backstage interviewers! Thanks Adster  95  15:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/nightofchampions/matches/7188540/results/
 * In ECW World Heavyweight Championship on 2011-03-17 19:05:24, 404 Not Found
 * In 2008 WWE Draft on 2011-06-16 15:25:31, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2008 WWE draft. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usanetwork.com/schedules/sched.php?sdate=6%2F23%2F2008&switch=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514184356/http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/results/ to http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/results/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516094156/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_03_27.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_03_27.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514184356/http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/results/ to http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/results/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 WWE draft. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501113830/http://www.wwe.com/schedules/events/eventdetail/?id=6960168 to http://www.wwe.com/schedules/events/eventdetail/?id=6960168

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)