Talk:Survivor Series (2006)/Archive 1

STEALING CREDIT: The TJSPYKE Story
Once again tj always has to have the I'm the One who Edited it Moment, he knows what i'm talking about. The World Heavyweight match. --- Kings bibby win 01:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's because you want to add in spoilers. You added the match before it was announced. You have made several bad faith edits before too, i'm starting to think you are just a troll since you ignore the rules even after being told to stop. TJ Spyke 01:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Tj, listin to me very closley, spoiler or no spoiler it's going to happen. I have put in spoilers before if thats what you mean by bad faith but what about you? Every single time i look at WWE Talk pages your arguing with somebody then you have to have bulletproof bail you out. What do you have to say about that? Kings bibby win 01:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignoring warnings (both in the future event tag at the top and in the article itself) saying not to add stuff that hasn't aired on TV or wwe.com. Also, vandals tend to argue when their vandalism is reverted. What is your problem? TJ Spyke 01:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I really respected how you edited even when other editers disagreed, but now I understand what they mean. Personally I have nothing wrong with you except your an Atheis.--- Kings bibby win 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Get a Life King bibby win, all you do if winge, winge, winge, TJ is doing what is right for this Article and all of Wikipedia, i agree with him, that Spoilers should not be added, expecially for this PPV since all of it is being named by WWE.com every day not on the TV Shows, so King Bibby get life, grow some ball, and then come back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.211.30 (talk • contribs)


 * First of all Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. 2nd If you were a true wikipedia you would have known that me and TJspyke have already settled this. You would have looked into it and read TJ's talk page before you go and shoot your mouth off.-- Kings bibby win 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The poster thats put up is fake
Absolutly no way that poster can be real. At WWE Cyber Sunday somebodys going to lose their title. In the poster they all have their title. That PPV is just one PPV away, somebody clarify. -- Kings bibby win 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The poster is real, WWE is even offering it as a wallpaper download for cell phones. TJ Spyke 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually one of the titles will be on the line at Cyber Sunday, but the current tilteholder could win the match. So they may still have their titles at SurvivorSeries Dustinwayne 20:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What do u know the title holder kept the belt--Jay the wiz 01:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

NWO?
Did someone actually put Team Edge and Randy Orton as Team NWO? are you serious? Kings bibby win 00:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Poster
Just a warning to anyone thinking about putting it up. There is a supposed SS poster featuring the DX letters over the nWo logo. This is NOT confirmed to be real and should not be added unless it is confirmed as real. TJ Spyke 06:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It was confirmed FAKE on 8/2 there is also another 1 floating around, that is more realistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.57.210 (talk • contribs)

No poster should be added in unless it is confirmed to be real. I remember there was a One Night Stand 2006 poster that floated around and looked very real, but it was eventually confirmed as fake. TJ Spyke 06:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope this stops some people (at least) from putting the poster on the page. I know for alot of PPV's, there is plenty of fake posters that go around on the internet. RobJ1981 04:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So as most people understand now, two to four Survivor Series posters are circulating, amongst them are ones showcasing the SD main event being the speculated Elimination Chamber and a few of it's participants, the other involving Cena with the D-X and NWO logos opposite him, this one is definatly fake, the other is a photoshop job, the last one is too small to be taken as fake or real, but it also shows four of the SD main eventers behind an Elimination Chamber -Dr. R.K.Z

Does anybody have a link to the posters? Kingjoey52a 01:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I Double what KingJoey said Kings bibby win 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try using Google, type in "Survivor Series 2006 poster" and the very first link is to the fake nWo/DX poster: TJ Spyke 21:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok i got that one now what was the one about Cena?and the Elimination Chamber?

hey Guys take a look i think its real http://www.4w-forums.com/images/Survivor2006.jpg supermike 21:29, 4 October 2006

it was confirmed real on pwmania.com User:Dustind http://www.pwmania.com/newsarticle.php?page=161983222 is the link 12:49, 9 October 2006

This pwmania is just another wrestling news site. It won't be confirmed real until WWE has posted it on their website. User:Jayorz12

bit of a spoiler might happen the website i got is hardly ever wrong. Local advertisements last night that aired during RAW listed a Raw vs. ECW vs. Smackdown team match for Survivor Series. They listed John Cena, Triple H & Shawn Michaels vs. King Booker, Batista & Rey Mysterio vs. Big Show, Rob Van Dam & Sabu. Bencey 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the warning below, WWE runs local ads all the time and they aren't always right. They are just to get people to buy tickets. Matches are only considered official if they are announced on NATIONAL TV or wwe.com TJ Spyke 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding local commercials revealing Spoilers
This is a big issue that seems to attract a lot of vandalism to upcoming wrestling event articles. The problem being that random people deliberately add matches to the upcoming event's card that have supposedly been announced on commercials aired during RAW, Smackdown!, or ECW. Once these people are confronted about their additions of these spoilers, they tend to use the commercials as their source. The problem is that they do not seem to realize that these promos shown when a WWE broadcast goes off the air during commercials are actually only airing on specific local areas and are NOT in fact being shown nation wide. WWE (at times) unintentionally releases commercials and promos on future events, spoiling matches and sometimes even their outcomes, to the specific local media outlet. This is stupidly done to attract interest from fans in that local area and increase possible attendance and buyrate figures for the upcoming event. The most recent case being the Vengeance DX promo notable for being released in some areas roughly two months before the actual event took place. Only when matches are announced on-screen by talent or during the actual WWE broadcast and NOT during commercials can this sort of information NOT be considered a spoiler. Some may argue, "So what if they aren't shown nation wide, they were still released by World Wrestling Entertainment which means they are legit and therefore all matches spoiled have a right to be added to articles!" Now the problem with that simply is this... It is unencyclopedic. You see, what these people fail to realize is that Wikipedia is NOT, I repeat, NOT a Wrestling News site. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore cannot provide spoilers on future history or events that have yet to be. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, in other words, it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you honestly feel the need to be an Internet Troll and add content spoiling what has yet to occur (in this case about wrestling), then please do so elsewhere such as... oh wow! ...a Wrestling News site! As best stated on Wikipedia Policy... "Before adding any sort of content, ask yourself what would a reader expect to find in an encyclopedia." ...and I highly doubt that you would be expecting to find out who will be in the main event at WrestleMania 100, even if you do happen to find a promo somewhere right now announcing it to be Hulk Hogan vs. Vince McMahon's grandson. Content such as spoilers, rumors, and other nonsense will be removed on the spot for the reasons just explained. This content simply does not comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines and the addition of it is considered vandalism. Once again, please do NOT add any sort of content that even you would know is a spoiler (spoiling future history and events that have yet to be} and unencyclopedic. If you do in fact feel the need to be an Internet Troll, please do so elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. Thank you for reading and I honestly do hope that this clears up any confusion over spoilers and why they are being removed. Thank you. -- bullet proof  3:16 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If I might add one more thing, on all those adds the WWE puts out, its says "Card is subject to change," So even if it is released by the WWE, it still might not happen. Kingjoey52a


 * Very True, eg GAB 2006 four matches were changed on that event. Night Bringer 22:07, 20 September 2006

Semi-Protected
I put the sprotected on because i noticed a lot of people have been putting up the promotional poster but it has not been identified by WWE. If you don't think it is needed then remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayorz12 (talk • contribs)
 * Just putting doesn't actually protect it, it just makes the template show up. Only an admin can actually protect it, you can request protection though. TJ Spyke 04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Challenges
Challenges are not to be listed as they have not been confirmed as official matches as of yet, nor have they been accepted. GShton 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Challenges ARE listed, as is traditionnal. TJ Spyke 21:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You listed it under "Scheduled Matches", The match has not been officially scheduled, hence it should not be listed under "Scheduled Matches".GShton 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardy Boyz
On WWE.com it says the Hardy Boyz will be teaming up for the first time since 2002. Should we put them as a team in the article like DX is?Freebird Jackson 00:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because The Hardy Boyz are no longer a team. They may be part of Team DX, but they are not a tag team anymore. TJ Spyke 00:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they should be listed as a team as WWE.com reports they are wrestling as a team it makes it fact. GShton 03:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WWE.com lists it, so it is official. Any changes to it (along with re-adding that stupid Hardy note, when people edit) will be reverted. RobJ1981 05:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yo, I just wanna apologize for losing my cool earlier with my edits. They were out of line and uncalled for. I just don't see why we can't list them as the Hardy Boyz if we list the Brothers of Destruction. User:Killswitch Engage
 * True they will reunite BUT they are part of a 5 man team not just a 2 man tag team. They are a part of Team DX not Team Hardy Boys. So it should not be listed in the match section. Maybe in a Trivia section. Jayorz12 05:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a 5 on 5 match, so listing them as Hardy Boys doesn't imply they are a seperate team at all. It's clearly listed on WWE.com, so there is no point to go against an official source. RobJ1981 05:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jayorz is right, they are part of a 5 person team. If this was a normal tag match (or a tag team elimination match) then it would be worth calling them Hardy Boyz. TJ Spyke 05:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but WWE.com does not list the Hardy Boyz in the match listings they list them as the Hardys not the Hardy Boyz just to save space. We should follow how WWE lists it not how we think it should be listed Jayorz12 05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Plus, Jeff and Matt are part of different brands, so it is highly unlikely that we will see them compete together again in the near future, or even officially reunite. trivialbass619 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Edge and Orton name

 * Can we change the name of Edge and Orton to Rated RKO? They are officially realised as Rated RKO (Cyber Sunday press conference), but I can't because of protection, thanx ;) - nathanLukeK
 * WWE has never called them that. TJ Spyke 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They were called Rated RKO in the cyber sunday press conference by each other and Johnathan Coachman - NathanLukeK
 * Yes they were, but since then there has been no mention of the name. RobJ1981 00:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes type in the search bar "rated RKO" and guess who will come up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkoed (talk • contribs)
 * That's because it was changed into a redirect. And remember: SIGN your posts. RobJ1981 00:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Lets make randy and edge a clickable link, agreed?--- Kings bibby win 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It already was a link, you just made it into a redirect (since "Rated RKO" redirects to "Edge and Randy Orton", the link that was already there). TJ Spyke 00:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Divas's tag match:Team Mickie vs. Team Lita
survivor series havent had divas' tag match since 1999.but back at cyber sunday, victoria did little interfre in diva lumberjack match. so will it ever be team lita vs team mickie at survivor series or what?134.124.92.124 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a possibility, but wait until such a match is announced before you post anything on the article.  trivialbass619 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Undertaker vs Mr Kennedy
Undertaker has accepted this challenge on WWE.com and on various TV shows like WWE Heat and WWE Experience. He has announced that this match will be a First Blood Match. I live in Australia so our times are a head of you. BUT THIS MATCH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldandan (talk • contribs)
 * It does not say that anywhere on wwe.com. Also, why would they advertise next week's SmackDown as Undertaker responding and then annnounce it on shows which don't mean sh*t to WWE anymore? Finally, I have checked and no sites are reporting this. TJ Spyke 00:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The preview is not always right like when they said John Cena would win Cyber Sunday. As i said i live in Australia so we are a head of you. And i did'nt just say WWE.com. Do u watch WWE experience? when Josh Matthews said that Undertaker has accepted this as a First Blood Match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.233.167 (talk • contribs)
 * WWE Experience doesn't air here anymore. No preview said Cena would win at Cyber Sunday, I don't know what you are talking about. Also, even if your info is correct (which I doubt it is), the policy here is use US TV. TJ Spyke 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The Match yes has been annouced on the Australian TV Show WWE Experiance, but it still does not count since it will not be offical until WWE.com annouces it, and from past history WWE.com aint right, i say the match will probally be named on Sunday, when the next match is named. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.211.30 (talk • contribs)

Whats the point?
Whats the point of deleting the first blood stipulation from the Mr Kennedy vs Undertaker match when we know that its true. WWE wouldnt say this on one of their programs if it wasnt true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.179.220 (talk • contribs)


 * We don't know if it's actually true as nothing has been said on WWE.com nor is it actually listed on the official Survivor Series page so until an official announcement is made, don't list it in the article. vDub 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WWE.com now says it will be a First Blood Match, so I'm adding it in. Anakinjmt 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, looks like someone already did. Regardless, now we can leave it in. Anakinjmt 20:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing the Champions?
Just wondering why we aren't listing the champions in the Survivor Series matches (Cena, Big Show, Nitro, Helms, Flair and Piper), I added them before and saw an edit clearing that out stating champions aren't listed in non-title situations, but previous events (even Cyber Sunday most recently) have listed them. Shouldn't we be mentioning them in the listings here since the WWE, ECW, IC, Cruiser and World Tag titleholders are all involved in matches on the card? --- CyclopsScott 21:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it. Makes sense to say who's champions in the match. Maybe it's thought some of them may lose their titles between now and Survivor Series? Anakinjmt 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We never do that. If the title isn't on the line, then what does it matter? Also, all titles listed were on the line (or possibly on the line for the main event). TJ Spyke 22:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd think it matters since they are being billed as the champions in the matches, so it makes sense to make note of it. Ans specifically having many champions meeting or teaming up can be viewed as historical events, since this is the first time the ECW World Champion has been involved in a Survivor Series, let alone leading a team that's opposing the WWE Champion's team, as well as the Intercontinental and Cruiserweight champions on one team (potentially for the first time ever too) CyclopsScott 07:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Except 9 times out of 10, WWE will go The Chain Gang("WWE Champion John Cena, Kane, Lashly, Sabu, and Rob Van Dam) vs. ECW Champion Big Show, Finley, Umaga, Test, and MVP." Just because their titles aren't on the line doesn't mean we shouldn't list them as champions, especially when you know when they come out for their match, the announcer will say "He is the WWE Champion, John Cena!" or "He is the ECW World Heavyweight Champion, The Big Show!" And, besides, people will wonder "Where's the WWE Champion and the ECW Champion?" People will get confused if we don't list them as champions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anakinjmt (talk • contribs)
 * Somehow I doubt they would care if they don't even know who the champion is. Besides, they can also check the WWE article or the individual brands articles. Titles don't have anything to do with the match if they aren't on the line. TJ Spyke 22:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The only problem with checking the brands articles is that eventually, the championships will change hands, and so it will do no good to people to read that. And, besides, people shouldn't have to check the WWE article to know if anyone fighting is a champion. If the WWE lists them as being a champion, they should be listed here too! Doesn't matter if it's not for a title; they're a champion and should be recognized as such in any PPV event they're in. Anakinjmt 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But the title has nothing to do with the match. The person will still be the champ after the event, and listing the title does nothing to help the article. If a title is not on the line, you want to add that too? Like: "The Women's Champions Lita did not wrestle"?. Also, the only titles mentioned on the SS page are the two titles on the line (US and World). TJ Spyke 22:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point, with WWE.com only listing Benoit and Booker as being champions. Still, to provide the most information possible, does it not make sense to list ALL champions that have matches, and not just those for their titles? I realize that Flair and Piper aren't putting their Tag Team titles on the line at SS, nor are Cena, Nitro, and Big Show putting their respective titles on the line. Still, to have the most complete articles, shouldn't they be listed as champions as well, even if they're not defending them? Anakinjmt 23:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes the titles should be listed, but I doubt they will be. Several people love to control PPV articles and decide things without discussing it with others. That kind of editing is just wrong, and shouldn't be happening, in my opinion. RobJ1981 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WHY should they be listed if they are not on the line? The titls has nothing to do with the match and the match won't affest who is champion. TJ Spyke 23:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They are still announced as the champion, while they are coming to the ring during the match. That's more than enough to justify listing them as champions here too. Why leave out important information? RobJ1981 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it's NOT importent. They sometimes announce other things (like when Chimel announced King Booker as the 2006 King of the Ring and Champion of Champions, or Gregory Helms announced as the longest reigning champion in sports entertainment), do you want those added in? TJ Spyke 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They announce it while it's still fresh; when Booker won the King of the Ring tournament, they did announce him as the King of the Ring, and while that is significant (as is Gregory Helms being the longest reigning champion), it is not important enough to note. Being a champion, however, IS important enough to note, because ultimately that is what will be remembered in the history books: what championships were won and how many times, and that is what is most remembered about wrestlers: their championship reigns. Anakinjmt 01:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Check wwe.com and other sites for past results, they don't list titles that weren't on the line because they aren't importent. TJ Spyke 01:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because WWE.com doesn't do it doesn't mean we shouldn't. We are supposed to display all pertinent knowledge; listing if someone in a match is a champion is pertinent information about the competitors of the match. Anakinjmt 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How is listing a title that has nothing to do with the match pertinent information? First you say we should put it in because WWE announced it, then when I show you they don't record them in the results pages you say we should ignore them. TJ Spyke 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "I see your point, with WWE.com only listing Benoit and Booker as being champions." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did say there that I could see your point as to why we shouldn't list it. I thought they did, but I checked and they didn't. My mistake. It's pertinent to the competitors in the match, not necessarily the match itself. They are fighting in the match as a champion, so they should be listed as a champion. And, quite honestly, despite what you may think, just because YOU don't like something in an article does not mean it's going to happen. If there's a general consensus that it should be in (and so far, you appear to be the only one that doesn't think so), it's going to be in. If you can show me any police of Wikipedia explicitly saying not to put in, I will say "Okay then, that's fine" and that's the end of it. Otherwise, so far, it appears as though people want it in. Most people appear to agree that saying who is what champion will make this article the most informative possible.
 * Realize I'm not attacking you here at all, I'm just bringing up a valid point. Anakinjmt 01:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, a consenus was reached awhile ago at WP:PW. They are importent to the wrestlers, and thats why it's listed on their pages. It's not really importent to the match or the event though. TJ Spyke 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a specific link where that was reached? I don't see it on the main page, and I don't want to go through all of the archives. If that's an actual policy, that I don't have a problem with it.Anakinjmt 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How about a vote. Remember to put your user.

Should be listed--Should'nt be listed

Cooldandan
 * To follow up, I think that there wouldn't be any confusion over title matches vs non-title ones, since title matches are clearly labelled already. Non-title ones just happen to have the Champions in non-defending situations.  Also thoughthey are being billed as the champion, part of the draw isn't just Cena and company vs Show and company, but its a Champion vs Champion draw as well. CyclopsScott 07:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this should be listed at WP:PW since more people would see it. TJ Spyke 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, we should list them for accuracy. Just because it mentions the Championship doesn't mean that has to be defended in the match. I don't think anyone would be confused by the additions of it. But instead of bolding the Championships, why not just make it just a link before the Champions name? The only time it may become confusing is if people listed a singles match that involved a champion, but even then we could just add that it was a non-title match after listing it. How about this as an example:

(5 on 5) Survivor Series match: Team Cena (WWE Champion John Cena, Kane, Bobby Lashley, Sabu and Rob Van Dam) vs. Team Big Show (ECW World Heavyweight Champion The Big Show, Test, Montel Vontavious Porter, Finlay and Umaga)

It's either that or some other kind of formatting because either way, it's worth mentioning that they are the champions. semper fi — Moe  16:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make the article any more accurate since the titles have nothing to do with the match. If anything, it HURTS the article because it gives the impression that the titles are on the line or have any effect on the match. TJ Spyke 02:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of your points but I do think its worth to put their championships so i vote yes put them in. -- Kings bibby win 19:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I still don't think they are worth mentioning if the titles aren't on the line. They have nothing to do with the match, they don't affect the match in anyway, and they don't help the article. TJ Spyke 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Come on TJ, we had a vote. -- Kings bibby win 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * An informal and unofficial vote, with no consensus. TJ Spyke 02:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * true, although as vote none of the less, more people agreed,Therefore it's inconclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kings bibby win (talk • contribs)
 * And since the titles were not there in the first place, that means they should stay out since no valid reason has been given and no consenus has been reached. TJ Spyke 02:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to start a argument with you Spyke, but for this time and for now I have to strongly disagree with you. When people see this they'll know, okay John Cena: WWE Champion, Big Show: ECW WOrld Champion. Thats what the base of the match is about. Champion vs. Champion-- Kings bibby win 02:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No it's now. It's a 5 person TEAM versus a 5 person TEAM. The WWE Championship and the ECW Championship have NOTHING to do with the match since they aren't on the line. TJ Spyke 02:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True, although the TEAM CAPTAINS are Big SHow and John Cena, but for now we'll keep it your way. Kings bibby win 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Championships that are not on the line do not need to be listed. It is just plain unnecessary if the bout is a non-title match. Other articles do not list a contender as a the champion in non-title matches either, especially in past Survivor Series articles. Information such as... who is champion in a match where it doesn't matter... is better suited for a wrestling news site, which is something that Wikipedia is not. -- bullet proof  3:16 03:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No valid reason? There has been valid reasons, just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid or valid. Your opinion isn't the only thing that counts TJ. Article controlling needs to stop. A survey is now up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling about the matter. Since it concerns all PPV articles (not just this one), that's the better place for it. RobJ1981 04:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Article controlling is one thing, however, upholding Wikipedia policy and WP:PW guidelines, which what TJ is doing, is another. --  bullet proof  3:16 05:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Guidelines can and should be changed from time to time. They shouldn't remain the same, if something works better: then a guideline could be changed if need be. Where exactly in the guidelines does it say "don't list champions if the title isn't on the line"? I read the section on pro wrestling events and don't see it listed at all. There certainly is no regular Wikipedia policy about this saying "don't list the champions because it's not notable". Unless I see an actual guideline (that I missed) on WP:PW (that was created a while ago, or before this discussion started), I'm lead to believe there is no policy against this. Back things up with facts next time. RobJ1981 05:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Simple. Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. I suggest you follow your own advice. -- bullet proof  3:16 06:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * None of those apply to this. Listing them as champions, because they ARE champions is certainly not original research. A clear and obvious statement is notable. Nice try though. NPOV: n/a at all. Verifiability: almost the same as what I said for original research. It's an obvious fact they are champions. It's not like it's something made up and just created for the PPV article. RobJ1981 06:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Make a note about Roddy Piper
We should probably add a note saying how originally the Legends vs Spirit Squad was going to include Roddy Piper but due to intestinal problems was replaced. I don't know how to do that yet, so I'll let someone else do it. Anakinjmt 03:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did last night. TJ Spyke 19:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Should we also make a note of who replaced him? Morgan Wick 07:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Whats with the with
on the match with Team Legends and Team Squad it says (w/Arn Anderson) and (w/mitch) why is that there and why do we nead it? Yowiki 15:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're not wrestling. They're in the corner. Interference, perhaps. S2DB 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Kayfabe?
How do u know that Litas match at Survivor Series, being her retirement match is kayfabe. Ive been hearing for months that shes supposed to be retiring Don.-.J 18:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Kayfabe or not, it should be mentioned in the article. Why leave important things out? Some editors really need to accept changes by others once in a while, before just reverting things they don't agree with/don't like. RobJ1981 01:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. She mentioned it on Raw; it's valid. Anthony Hit me up... 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the survey wouldn't need to exist if people would accept other's edits instead of just reverting them because of their own personal opinion on the matter. The majority should decide these things, since talking with these editors gets no where. I'm going against a brick wall here, and I'm simply fed up with editors controlling pages. They don't own the pages, so they should certainly respect some edits (more often than they do), instead of reverting it right away and calling it "non-notable, vandalism" and similar comments in the edit history. It's vandalism they are doing as well, by reverting and not letting any other edits they don't like into the article. RobJ1981 05:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Here is a survey to settle this matter. If you support listing Lita's retirement in this article, post support with comments and your signature. If you oppose, post oppose with comments and your signature. --RobJ1981 05:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.


 * Support. Lita clearly said it on Raw, it should be in the article at this moment. It shouldn't just be left out and only listed on Lita's page. RobJ1981 05:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not relevent to the article. It's the same reason that Undertaker's WM win streak is not mentioned on every WM article. So it's staying out. TJ Spyke 05:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wrestler related trivia and/or notes belong in their article. Polls are evil. Because they are. --  bullet proof  3:16 05:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Identifying a match as a wrestler's last match or retirement match is different from mentioning Undertaker's WM win streak. Often times, the retirement matches are billed as such, and while I'll admit often times a match that is billed as a wrestler's last match ends up not being (Shawn Michaels anyone?), it should be noted it's their retirement match, at least until they come back for another match, if they ever do. It's talking directly about the match itself, not just the wrestler, so it should be here. Anakinjmt 19:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it should be noted it's their retirement match, at least until they come back for another match, if they ever do. -- bullet proof  3:16 19:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It can stay up for now, but after SS it should be removed. TJ Spyke 00:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's not how this works. This isn't just a temporary thing. If it's all just kayfabe and Lita doesn't retire (or doesn't retire for long), then the note can be changed to whatever happens. It's an important note, period. Don't try to just get it removed, it's one article.. life goes on. RobJ1981 00:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not notable though, and it's not like this is a binding poll. If she shows up on RAW this monday, then I will remove it. I won't remove it for now though. TJ Spyke 00:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * One person opposes the note. Any changes (even after the event) are vandalism. Why go against the majority? Even if this poll isn't binding according to you, the majority decides in this case... since regular discussion didn't help the matter at all. An article is edited by anyone, not just you. If I need to bring the admin into this, I will. There seems to be no reasoning with you. You do NOT own the article, nor does anyone else. This controlling issue needs to stop. Your opinion isn't the only factor in what is in (and not in) the article. RobJ1981 00:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT a democracy . -- bullet proof  3:16 00:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you had read what I said, I said I won't remove it if she doesn't show up again. Please try reading. Cruft just shouldn't be on an article, this is no different than something like the Undertaker's winning streak (and that is more importent than Lita's retirement since Lita has barely wrestled in the last 20 months). TJ Spyke 00:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I'm tired of this. There is no reasoning with you, period. Things don't go your way, and then you threaten to go against the majority. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, well controlling an article shouldn't be a part of Wikipedia either. Others have every right to edit without being reverted... due to article controlling. As I've stated before, what's the point of even editing, if you decide what goes and stays in the article? If there wasn't a talk page post on this, I somehow bet a revert war with 3RR violations would be happening to several users... once again, because of article controlling. RobJ1981 00:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I wanted to try and control the article I would have removed it already, I haven't. 01:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if she does appear on RAW tomorrow, that doesn't mean the note should be removed. People can be retired and still appear on the shows (Ron Simmons anyone?). I KNOW that Ron Simmons is wrestling tonight, but the point remains. They can retire from wrestling while still being involved in the wrestling business. If Lita has another match, THEN the note should be taken out, but don't take it out just because she shows up on RAW after the match (which we don't even know if that'll happen yet). Anakinjmt 23:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. Lita and WWE announced it as her retirement match. 131.230.184.181 21:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship: King Booker (w/Queen Sharmell) (c) vs. Batista

 * If Batista loses, he will never get another shot at the World Heavyweight Championship while King Booker is champion.=

didnt these happen already at Summerslam the same rules and everything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.107.245 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, and Batista won by DQ. TJ Spyke 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Cryme Tyme something to do with Lita?
WWE.com is reporting that Cryme Tyme somehow embarresed Lita. Can we add something explaining this, as I'd like to know what happened. Anakinjmt 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not really worth noting in the article. Cryme Tyme went into her locker room and "sold" some of her stuff to "fans", things like her underwear and a dildo. TJ Spyke 03:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be added, there is no reason why it shouldn't, it was part of the PPV.81.110.2.1 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But not a notable point. TJ Spyke 00:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

HEELS AND FACES
Is it just me that noticed that 6 out of the 7 face wrestlers in the rivaries won and Ken Kennady from what I'm what hearing should have lost.--Kevmicester2000 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

20th anniversary??????
how is it the 20th anniversary if the first one was in 1987?--No body you need to know
 * It's the 19th anniversary, but the 20th event (remember to count the first one). TJ Spyke 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

DX win?
Should the fact that all of Team DX survived the match be posted under the result? Seems like it's something notable to me... trivialbass619 03:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its obvious that the table says it all. -- bullet proof  3:16 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant the fact that they'd been the first team to do it in 11 years. trivialbass619 03:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess it could be listed in the "notes" section. -- bullet proof  3:16 03:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically Big Show did it a few years ago in a Handicap Elimination match. TJ Spyke 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd noted that too the first time I put it in. trivialbass619 04:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the fact that Team DX won 5-0 (note the emphasis) is worthy of mention beneath their table (or somewhere in their match space), given the fact it is such a rare feat; if it were more common, I'd say not but here it merits mention. The Big Show handicap match doesn't count, IMO, since he won despite the odds. Briguy52748 14:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)]]

The trivia section
Why do people insist on re-adding the Orton note about it being his first Survivor Series loss? People lose for the first time at SS all the time, it's not that notable. Also, a few articles people should check out: WP:TRIVIA and Avoid trivia sections in articles. Wikipedia isn't against trivia altogether, but sections shouldn't be full of clutter and shouldn't be excessively long. RobJ1981 21:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Undertaker vs Kennedy
Whoa, why does it say Undertaker beat Kennedy? I ordered the pay-per-view, and Kennedy won the match after MVP accidently hit Undertaker with a steel chair when the ref was out. MVP WAS aiming for Kennedy. That's why Undertaker attacked Kennedy after the match: because he was angry. I dont know how to edit stuff on this website, so I just wanted to point this out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.190.131 (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Some vandal probably, I would have corrected it myself but I couldn't get online for the past 2 days. TJ Spyke 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Survseries07.jpg
Image:Survseries07.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

DVD cover
Please explain why you feel it's not notable, IP. Gavyn Sykes 00:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)