Talk:SummerSlam (2008)/Archive 1

Vandalism
Someones being smart and adding matches, They're gone now 244pupil6 —Preceding comment was added at 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

poster
is any1 shore that thats the right poster --Jhauth11 (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.indemand.com/product/view/87508 --    Me   Holla! 17:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a temporary promotional poster released for promotional purposes until WWE releases an official poster.-- S R X  -- Latino Heat  17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming
This will probably need to be moved, to match the names of other SummerSlam articles.-- Bedford 06:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Would have been much easier if someone didn't already create the stuipid article as a redirect to SummerSlam. --    JT   Holla! 15:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's too early for it to have an article. It will stay a redirect for now.  TJ   Spyke   15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nay, friend, there is plenty of information for a stub, and more will be added. --    JT   Holla! 15:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A date and location is not plenty of information. If every other WWE PPV is indication, no new info will be released for several months (meaning it will stay a stub for quite some time).  TJ   Spyke   15:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.65.210 (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding Matches
Don't add matches until they are confirmed on WWE.com, I saw one with Sting from TNA v.s TBAJkerl8 (talk) 06:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC) JAMWARULES


 * A bunch of IP's are adding stuff like that. Apparently they don't know anything about Sting because he has had 3 contract offers by WWE and turned them all down and said working for Vince would be like working for the Devil. Just revert stuff like that when you see it.-- Will C  07:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Spoilers are already out, telling who's Edge's and HHH's opponents, respectively, at Summerslam. One should be awesome, the other will suck.-- Bedford Pray  03:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection
This article has been semiprotected after a request by CrazyChemGuy. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it should. To many IPs and Users adding matches without them being announced or having a source.-- Will C  03:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

steel cage match:cena and hbk vs y2j and jbl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuda619 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is the source for the match?-- Will C  23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

HHH-KHali
Is it ok to add this yet? Dr Rgne (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be added when either of these criteria are met:
 * Smackdown! has aired (any region) or
 * WWE.com announces it.  Hazardous   Matt   14:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

the rules are simple. although i live in australia, smackdown has to air in the US, or WWE has to announce the match or your not allowed to put it on. not everyone wants to know spoilers. Nic

Edge v The Undertaker
Has not been made yet it will be a hell in a cell match annonced on thewrestlingpost.com
 * Not a reliable source.-- S R X  14:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Setup
Why have people made the wwe PPV pages in tables. i rekon it should be changed back. If we do we can add notes as we use to because having the table all we say at the moment is The participants, the winner and the match type. Previously we had point form which gave participants match type winner and match notes like stipulations, how they won, interferences if there were any


 * There was a discussion at WP:PW to place the results in a table. So FA reviewers wouldn't have so much a problem since they thought that the table would help. Since articles now have a event section that is where most of what you just said is to be placed when it is wrote.-- Will C  09:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See the talk pages for the last two WWE ppvs to see it explained in more detail. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 10:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the whole decision and also think the table is a terrible idea. I wish I hadn't been away from Wikipedia when the whole discussion happened since I would have fought hard against it. I support a discussion at WP:PW to go back to the (IMO) superior format we used to use.  TJ   Spyke   17:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two such discussions have taken place (check the WT:PW archives) since the table format was implemented. But the Featured article reviewers are adamant of this and feel that the old format looked unprofessional and referred to it as a "messy list format." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like the thing either but I've had to deal with it. I tried hard to not let it become a table but it still has remained the way it is. I liked the old way better but there is two of us against an army, to say.-- Will C  00:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * More than two. I prefer the old format as well, and a few other members of the project did too, IIRC. Gavyn Sykes (talk)


 * Without the old setup its like interviewing a wrestler and asking how his match went. " Oh i just pinned the guy" What you didn't hit him or anything? Or " I just beat that guy" How did he beat that guy

With the table itll be a good format if we were able to see points like how he won Maybe it may be set out like Participants This person Def. This person. Match Type Single Match Time 9:57 Notes this person it his finisher after someone interfered.

All that in table format would be good like the page where you go and select which summerslam. [] A setup like that table huhyhpt2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell In A Cell 2
My contribution log does not recount any info of adding a match because i did not use the computer I was using when i started the talk page section —Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalDeathSlayer3 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell In A Cell
I have allready seen smackdown on tv but you guys keep on deleting my matches that i have added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.92.30 (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we need like 3 sections for this? Really come on. Anyways, SmackDown first airs in Australia which is on Thursday. Then the US and UK, how could you have watched it huh?-- S R X  20:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your contribution log shows you haven't edited this article.  Hazardous   Matt   21:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Once SmackDown airs in Australia, then HIAC and the WWE Title match can be added. Steveweiser (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm... Why can't they be added now? It isn't like it isn't decided already... Everyone knows its going to happen, and in fact it was already announced when Smackdown occurred a couple days ago. WWE isn't going to announce it yet because they have to stick with the storyline and kayfabe. But it's stupid to not add the matches already just because WWE hasn't added them. It is pretty clear that we know for 100% what occurred on Smackdown earlier. Why do we have to wait till it airs? Is the ONLY reliable source considered WWE? Besides, if you base all your articles on what WWE releases, then you get NO REAL LIFE input, because 90% of what WWE releases are in kayfabe and are oriented towards the storylines.
 * That's because of spoilers, if those sites didn't exist, would you have known about it? No, Wikipedia is an established encyclopedia for relevant and factual/accurate information based on references to reliable sources.-- S R X  00:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't an arena full of people, over 10,000, MORE than enough of a reliable source, yes, yes it is.Mjtwh (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; WP PW is full of marks. No other Wikiproject relies on primary sources as heavily as the Pro Wrestling one,  Wrestling Observer and PWInsider are utterly reliable, and PWInsider confirms the existence of those matches.-- Bedford  Pray  00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I can't believe how long it takes for this to happen. People will probably say "But it's a spoiler!" Well, there are spoilers for everything, and it's not like it hasn't been announced yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjtwh (talk • contribs) 00:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is someone gonna add the matches? Mjtwh (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When the matches have been announced on Smackdown or WWE.com, yes.  Hazardous   Matt   01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez Matt, we just decided to screw those things because they don't make ANY sense, pay attention please. Mjtwh (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you decided to disregard that criteria. You still need to raise it for consensus at WP:PW. If you're unhappy with any of the guidelines for pro-wrestling articles, that is where you need to go to discuss it.  Hazardous   Matt   01:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OR!! You could stop taking a pro-wrestling page on WIKIPEDIA so seriously, and go on the wild side...do something DANGEROUS! edit wikipedia incorrectly! :O Mjtwh (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The quicker you get with the guidelines the quicker it won't be such a problem. Does it matter if it is placed in on Friday or today. NO! The best bet is to wait till Friday so we all see for ourselves. That way no one that comes on here all upset that they wanted to be surprised but found out that Taker is coming back.-- Will C  01:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything here is acceptable. Everyone seems to forget that Ealdgyth confirmed reliability of many other sites. And the pro wrestling project is not full of marks. Gheez, the whole project is making an effort to convert articles to out-of-universe style. And for the record, spoilers are welcome if they are reliably sourced Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gavyn. Bring a reliable source that says it is happening and then it is may be added.-- Will C  04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning

For THOUSANDS of years... People accurately transferred stories and information orally... You can't tell us that 10,000-20,000 people watching a single event could not accurately transfer the information within minutes to days... Especially with E-Mail, Cell Phones, Cameras, etc...


 * That doesn't mater it is still heresy. You don't go into a court room and say I saw this man kill this girl. You have no evidence that you saw that. So no one knows if it is true or not. Someone came on here a while back and said that SD announced that there was going to be a new title called the WWE Light Heavyweight Championship. It didn't happen. We need a source.-- Will C  23:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Achem... You need to learn the definition of "Heresy" you mean "Hearsay"... But I expect that was a typo on your part. Secondly, I guess the witness of 20,000 people doesn't count huh?


 * 20,000 out of a community of Millions.-- Will C  23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So by your ultra-high standards... We don't really know if certain people of history existed, or if some historical events occurred because only a small portion of people were present compared to everyone else in the world... Do you realize how absolutely STUPID and REDICULOUS your standards are? What do you think about the FACT that people for THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of years only passed things down by word of mouth? AND YET, when those things were finally written down, we have found they faithfully and ACCURATELY preserved them.


 * I'm sticking by what I said. You need a source for the match in the first place. It could happen and then again it could not. Bring a relible source to add it. It is that simple. Also sign your post with ~ .-- Will C  00:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is 100% guaranteed to happen... Blah Blah... "You need a source".... Umm... Are you that ignorant and stubborn? We have 20,000 sources, as well as several websites... Hmph, so funny how idiots today think that eyewitnesses aren't reliable witnesses... Wrestlinglover... Come back when you grow up a little, go to college, get an education and learn some history.


 * I'm trying to remain civil as per WP:Civil. Okay, go get every single one of those 20,000 people. Maybe then it might be able to be added. Also I wouldn't talk about people being idiots since you forget to sign everyone of your posts.-- Will C  00:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides, how long have you watched wrestling for? Honestly... I'm not going to let someone who has been watching it for far less time than I (as I've been watching since 1990) tell me what goes on in the WWE and what is or is not true about it. And besides, who follows rules by the book anyway? Even IRL, the authorities and people who create the rules don't even follow them. Your by-the-book attitude is very weak.


 * First off your right I haven't watched it as long as you have because I'm almost 17. Though I like TNA better than WWE, but lets get back to subject. Do you have a source from WrestleView, PWtorch, Wrestling Oberser, or WWE? If you don't then it can't be added. Also just because you have watched it a few more years than I have doesn't mean you know more than I do.-- Will C  00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How long anyone has watched wrestling is irrelevant. It's the rules of Wikipedia that matter. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling Observer: http://www.f4wonline.com/content/view/6106/105/ WrestleView: http://www.wrestleview.com/news2008/1216795332.shtml That good enough? KCMODevin (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WON, definitely. Wonderful. Now it can be added and cited. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, add it. Make the Wrestling Observer a reference to it as well.-- Will C  01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I was so po'ed about it, but i thought you all were saying that the witnesses and websites such as these weren't enough and that only WWE and the tv showing of it would do for a reference... Misunderstanding, apology for my idiocy. --KCMODevin (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is cool. Debates can sometimes be a little frustrating. I've gotten use to it though, since I've had to argue about the same subject on Talk:TNA World Heavyweight Championship for about 3 months. Mainly WWE.com, WWE TV, Wrestling Observer, WrestleView.com, PWInsider, and PWtorch.com are good sources. From what I know they are.-- Will C  07:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Source
Why are the WWE Championship and HIAC matches up with the sources being SmackDown spoilers?Qwerty36095 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because they have sources which are from Wrestling Observer which makes them reliable.-- Will C  09:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pfff... no spoilers here?, realiable source?, come on, you're in a contradiction. --KingOfDX (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Spoilers are allowed. The only problem is that there is rarely a reliable source to back them up, which is why they are all reverted. The HIAC and WWE Championship matches are sourced by the Wrestling Observer, so there's no problem. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 10:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Those sites are reliable... And as I pointed out in my revision, Smackdown! has already aired in countries such as Australia. Therefore, it is OFFICIAL. --KCMODevin (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Wouldn't it make more sense if Edge and Taker was the main feud on Smackdown because I don't think I ever saw HHH vs. Khali matches more than Edge vs. Taker - SuperSilver901 (talk) 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes.-- Will C  00:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh
"Enclosure based match contested under a roofed steel cell" is that really necessary? Should we just call it Hell in Cell? That seems more appropriate. --SuperSilver901 (talk) 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's per new consensus at WT:PW as Hell in a Cell is wrestling jargon and violates WP:JARGON and WP:IN-U.-- S R X  03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How about we just do that when we actually work on it because no one will be working on the 2008 articles until 2009. Also I thought that was only for FAs since that is a unneeded step for GAs since that is really the only thing that separates GAs from FAs. Also it makes really no sense. Wrestling fans or non-wrestling fans come on here and read "Enclosure based match contested under a roofed steel cell" are going to go either way WTF?.-- Will C  03:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is proper english and is how it should be written per the two policies I stated. This is not only for GAs and FAs this is for all articles from WP:PW now on.-- S R X  03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But it is extremely hard to write like that. I'm all for the expansion but taking unneeded steps that should only effect one aspect of the project effects the whole project that screws everything up. Hell in the Cell to me isn't jargon. It is a match name. Saying "Enclosure based match contested under a roofed steel cell" is jargon in my mine. What would be the point of having any of the pages for matches when the ppv article itself is going to explain it better than the match article?-- Will C  03:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Will. We must to delete the wrestlings types of matches article, we don't need it now......... "enclosure based match contested under a roofed steel cell", WTF... --KingOfDX (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been reading some of the comments for the FA & GA candidates, and a lot of the comments are usually it's all written 'In Universe' and uses jargon. Yes in 'our minds' (i.e. wrestling fans minds) Hell in the Cell is not jargon, but to those that are not wrestling fans Hell in the Cell is, whereas 'enclosure based match contested under a roofed steel cage' while more verbose, is not jargon. I'll admit yes I read that at first and also said WTF? but I did realize why it was there. And if we're going to 'just have to change it in2009' why not save the work and have it that way now? Sorry for this, I know this is not a forum, but I felt like adding my two cents. (Loosie (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC))


 * That's the whole point of having the link to Hell in the Cell. So that people who don't know what it means can follow the link. While we're at it, why not change all mentions of wrestling to 'form of entertainment where two or more performers (one if you're Al Snow) stage a fight'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.170.142 (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Will, JARGON is a type of in-universe writing where you write in words of fiction that represent other meanings in the subject. I understand where all of you are coming from, but this is the first step into a new format and will continue for the next PPVs. I know it is hard to write like that and it is hard to read for people who are used to the wrestling terms. Think about it as a person who knows nothing about pro wrestling, what in the world is "Hell in a Cell" going to sound to them? S R X  14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, keep that in mind. They read Hell in a Cell match, yes their like WTF?!!! Now they read "Enclosure based match contested under a roofed steel cell" and their still like WTF?!!!! Maybe we should just explain everything. Like the Hard Justice first line. Hard Justice (2008) will be the fourth annual Hard Justice professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by American promotion, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA). Instead lets switch it to "A made up title to make you think the whole pay-per-view is hardcore 2008 is the fourth annual, after A made up title to make you think the whole pay-per-view is hardcore 2007, 2006, and 2005, A made up title to make you think the whole pay-per-view is hardcore two men touching eachother sporting monthly bought event for thirty dollars produced by a high-speed over gimmicked company American professional wresting promotion, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA)." I know that doesn't make any sense but isn't that the idea. I was just explaining it out. Should we also explain what professional wrestling is so the people who don't watch wrestling decided to read a entire ppv article for no reason when they don't know what it is. Should we have another section devoted to just explaining the history of pro wresting in each ppv. Around the size of three professional wresting ppv articles. Lets say SummerSlam 2007, Survivor Series 2007, and Lockdown 2008 all rolled into one in this one freaking section.-- Will C  15:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a wikilinked Hell in a Cell should be used, instead of a long drag on clause. Also, I loved that analysis of Al Snow; does Mick Foley now peruse Wikipedia?-- Bedford Pray  20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is pretty extreme and completely unnecessary. Everyone who is a wrestling fan knows what a Hell In a Cell match is. There is no need for this "Enclosure Based Match", why don't we go on to describe the type of steel used? How about we describe the molecule it came from? How about we detail a history of how Shawn Michaels invented the Hell In A Cell match? These are all wild extremes that are completely redundant. Which is what this is. Anyone who reads this will just laugh at the absurdity of the idea. It is completely redundant and ludicrous. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 09:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Unforgiven Poster
I have found the LEGIT poster go to unforgivens discussion page and add the pic for me i have givenn= the link it is 110% legitHuhyhpt2 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why are posting this here? Its the SUMMERSLAM talk page SuperSilver901 (talk) 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, why are you talking about over here? Go to Talk:Unforgiven (2008). There is already two sections open over there. Also the HBK poster is not the official poster. It look likes a fan made slide show poster. If it is the official poster than WWE have lost the ability to make good posters.-- Will C  00:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because you do not like the poster, doesn't mean that it is unofficial. I have seen it on a few sites, so I think we should take it as fact. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 06:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw the Edge spearing Funaki GAB poster. It wasn't official one and I thought it was, and many others did too. It wasn't. Lets just wait and see what WWE places up on their web site or at their poster web site.-- Will C  06:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Match Type Name
When did we start using "standard wrestling" match for the articles instead of singles match, I mean is there any point to this, its shorter and fine o use by my standards--EternalDeathSlayer3 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically, there is no need to write "standard wrestling" match or "singles" match next to a match with no additional stipulations or notes, as any WWE-promoted match which does not have a stipulation attached occurs under conventional WWE Rules. Therefore the box next to, for instance, Cena vs Batista, where the stipulation goes, should theoretically be left blank. SubzeroWrestling (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)