Talk:Unforgiven (2008)/Archive 1

Picture
Where did the Unforgiven pic come from. (Huhyhpt2 (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC))


 * The source is in the image article. It will be replaced when WWE releases theirs if that isn't the official poster.-- Will C  23:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the official one- someone photocopied it from a Kane DVD. Get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.41.128 (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct, the official one features HBK. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 06:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that is the official one, because it looks fan made.-- Will C  06:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't actually seen it due to my current internet difficulties, but it has been reported that this one is THE official poster released by WWE. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 09:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it has HBK but I wouldn't think that WWE would put the crossface on the poster SuperSilver901 (talk) 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Its fake now WWE released the real one SuperSilver901 (talk) 2:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Official Poster
Can someone please add it im to stupid to

Click on the number 1

thats the locations and its legit Huhyhpt2 (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2008 (U TC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhyhpt2 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It don't look real, but it does have HBK on it and the right date and everything RacinFreek2448 (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said I wouldn't think they would put the crossface on there SuperSilver901 (talk) 28 July 2008 (UTC)

. It is the actual picture. Aslo WWE have been allowing superstars too use the crossface in past matches. with no regardes to Chris benoit (RIP)
 * If I'm going to regret it, why is that a dead link? Killswitch Engage (talk) 06:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Link Should be Fixed

Try to get the poster without PWmania on it and it looks fake but it will do until WWE themselves release it also these spoiler sites don't know everything and you cant believe them all the time. SuperSilver901 (talk)02:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The poster has not been distributed to any of WWE's official media partners (e.g. Indemand, Sky Box Office), therefore it cannot be treated as the official poster. SubzeroWrestling (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes Indemand post fake ones like Summerslam and GAB SuperSilver901 (talk)10:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Those aren't "fake" posters. Those are posters that have not been finalized by WWE and used for initial promotion and marketing.  Hazardous   Matt   14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the original poster http://indemand.com/product/view/90888 This one is fake. Miroa12004 (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2008.


 * Since it is from In-demand I doubt it is fake. It is just the poster WWE gave them to promote the event.-- Will C  00:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed the image, as InDemand is more reliable than WWE Affiliates. D.M.N. (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

BS! http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2000/2000_10_02.3.jsp WWE recognizes WWE Affiliates plus its way more reliable SuperSilver901 (talk) 05 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you can say more I ask you which one looks more professional? And if you want to we can vote on which one to use SuperSilver901 (talk) 05 August 2008 (UTC)

HBK Vs Y2J
The Shaw michaels Chris jericho match there is no such rumor or speculation of that match and it has not been announced world wide that they will fight at unforgiven

Uhh okay SuperSilver901 (talk)11:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone had made a match HBK vs Y2J right at the bottom of the page in the middle of nowhere so i deleted it and if they read the discussions they will know not toHuhyhpt2 (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WTF?
"An unknown number of professional wrestling matches, performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real, will be featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that take place before, during, and after the event are planned by WWE's script writers."

what is that?? i dont know who put that up, but is that really neccesary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.146.122 (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a new decision made by WP:PW. If you would like to see the finished project of what articles will become now look at Lockdown (2008), The Great American Bash (2005), SummerSlam (1988), or SummerSlam (2003).-- Will C  20:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not allowed, according to you, wikipedia
yeah. thats unnessasary. every one knows that, there's no need for it to be posted there. its actully quite insulting to us fans of the WWE. it should be removed, as i find it very insensitive. it's an attack on us a gruop, or community, which ever, and personal attacks are not allowed, according to you, wikipedia. i cant put in words just how angry i am at it. and at how long it's taking for it to be removed. it does not take to long, so remove it, please.
 * We are an encyclopedia, not everyone likes or knows a lot about wrestling. That's why it's like that. How's it a "personal attack" BTW? D.M.N. (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, if I may be bold to suggest, why bother adding it in the first place? There's a fine chance they won't even come to this page. -- BS01Swert  (Talk) 09:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To comply with wikipedia's guidelines about writing about fiction and it's featured article criteria, which includes writing out of universe. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm just a bit biased towards all those policies, but that's just me. -- BS01Swert  (Talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * so it's your policy to be insensitive losers, and write pointless remarks. OK. and the comment about other people viewing it, that arent fans. 1) why would they know about the ppv? 2) why would they care? 3) if they dont no wrestling is scripted, then they're pretty thick. 4) if they were "researching" then they would know it scripted. and last, who ever aded that, is dumb, it makes me laugh that you think people would view it if they didnt know what it was. You say your not here for wrestling fans. Who are you here for? because its not the general public, because they all know that its scripted. so, that must mean that your here for the tinnyest portion of people who are unbelievably dumb. why would they come to encyclopedia site? willc needs to think a little more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.194.247 (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL LOL LOL, "to be insensitive losers, and write pointless remarks" from the guy who is whining about that we're placing in that it is scripted. How does it effect your life? Oh no my life is over because Unforgiven says that WWE is fake, does this mean Batista isn't really an animal. I should think, maybe you should learn that "no" is really spelled "know". Also there are plenty of people who come on here and read these articles and not know what they mean. I've had a friend come on here and read Lockdown to know if it sounds right and he hasn't saw wrestling once in his life. Like I've stated before, get over it, nothing is going to be changed.-- Will C  18:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * you're more blatantly immature attacks won't help your cause ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.91.254 (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not being immature, I'm being sarcastic because there is no reason to be upset because we are saying it is scripted. As I've stated before, does it effect your life greatly? No. It doesn't effect anyone's life. It just makes it more clear to people. We want it clear enough that even Khali can understand (crap, we have a long way to go). It matters little but IPs ,like yourself, are making it a big deal when you don't have too.-- Will C  06:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a pro wrestling fan, but I agree with this policy. Too many incidents have occured where vadalizm has been driven by "marks" who take the storylines far too seriously or beleive that everything is "real", and not at best written and prepared well in advance from scriptwriters, to performers.

The sad truth of the matter is Wikipedia attracts people who are, indeed, exceedingly dumb, and they have a record of displaying how dumb they are in articles pertaining to Adam Copeland and Dave Bautista

Dr. R.K.Z   16:06, 26th August 2008 (UTC)

Its dissapointing
The WP whtever it is, is starting to become king and do whatever it wants, we all know wrestling is fake(scripted). You odn't need to rub it in the faces of people who enjoy it. First it strted with the tables with the problem of tidyness. Then the way the wrestlers names are to be mentioned, and now with the unforgiven page, about how it is all planned. They say they do this to make it look respectable. I mean come on this is wikipedia, where anyone can change anything if u know what ur doing. Well teh free encyclopedia may as well get rid of all registered users and jut be run by these guys who want things done thier way. Honestly the point for wikipedia is for everyone to access information not a group of people wo control what we the public view.

If anyone else wants to add feel free.Huhyhpt2 (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It has to written where everyone can understand. That is why it is written like it is. The real names besides their ring names is done in many articles, not just pro wrestling articles. Imagine if you were handed a report on a evolution. It was wrote in scientific terms. You wouldn't understand it. You would want it written where you could understand it. That is what we are doing, making sure everyone can understand it. We are not here to cater to wrestling fans.-- Will C  05:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * you hit it right on the head Huhyhpt2, wikipedia was all about allowing people to come in and contribute, but any edit is deleted just because it isn't a contribution from their "moderators" or "experts", and to WillC, you guys have finally gone over the deep end, not only can we not contribute anymore, not only can we not even add time anymore without you flipping out over no source for something you can't get a source for, not only have you made the pages on ppvs way too detailed, but now your insulting wrestling and it's fans. you say you don't cater to wrestling fans, seemd to me your just insulting them while scoffing at how only your type can make contributions and none of the regualr users can. wikipedia has sold out and lost it's entire point ever. like you said Huhyhpt2, wikipedia minus well get rid of user contribution and let the "experts" do everything. i'm sick of them hiding behind this fasade that they allow others to contribute, complete BSRepChristian07 (talk) 19 August 2008


 * Wow, we pissed wrestling fans off (comment at bottom will take care of the rest). You can get a source for times. Just look at pro wrestling history.com as well as 411mania and slam sports. They all place the times up. If you don't like it then I'm sorry. I don't like the out of universe, I don't like the tables in the results. I don't like it that TNA stuff doesn't get as much attention as the WWE. I get over all of it. Does it matter? no. Should it matter? no. Do I care? no. It is an article that is written a way that wrestling fans don't like, that is why people won't get over it. They don't like to know that Cena can't actually beat a 7 foot four retarded Indian. They don't like to know that Batista can't actually beat Booker T, since he got knocked the crap out at a smackdown taping in 06. Question do you even read the background and event after it is done? I doubt it. So why are you whining?-- Will C  06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * you pissed off more than 1 wrestling fan (so much for no personal attacks on wikipedia), and contribute? wrestling fans have contributed to wikipedia time and time again and continue to be denied just because it wasn't a contribution by their "moderators" or "experts" who appereantly don't even respect the subject of the article, again as you can see many people who bother to look up these articles are pissed off with the changing and more insulting modifications to the wrestling articles. running around making personal attacks while denying that there is no bias from your type is not going to make the problem go away. (talk) 20 August 2008


 * It isn't a personnel attack, I don't have to take everything so seriously so I'm not, and I'm going to be sarcastic. Yes IPs have contributed, but some don't help, like ones that say Y2J vs HBK at Unforgiven 2 months before the ppv. No source what so ever for the match. Would you say to just leave it. Then all IPs edits should be left, if that was the case then today the summerslam article wouldn't even have a results section. We have to revert certain IPs. People who remove the lead stuff without discussing have to be reverted. You want to contribute then add in on discussions. But no, all you want to say is we aren't being civil or you weren't informed. What do we have to find every single IP on wikipedia plus users and tell them that WP:PW is changing its articles. Would you like that. Everytime you get on you see 8 billion messages on your talk page saying, today we moved Latin American Exchange to The Latin American X-Change, four sentences in A.J. Styles were removed. Lockdown (2008) had a copyedit. You want to know about every little detail then we'll tell you. Otherwise get over not being told because there are about 8 billion links to the talk page of WP:PW and there is the discussions. Find out for yourself. We aren't here to give pro wrestling respect, we are here to write the articles, that are actually hard to write.-- Will C  06:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, I enjoy wrestling. I know it's fake, I know it's scripted, and I know that there are people who refuse to believe it until they move out of their mothers' house. I also like to know the facts about shows and little trivia no one would really know. I'm a fan of the truth and if other users here can't handle the fact, then that sucks for them. -- Will, nothing but total respect for you because wrestling fans can get crazy. Everyone else should get over it and understand the shows aren't live, these people are bad actors at best. Think about it..World Wrestling ENTERTAINMENT. There is a reason why Floyd Mayweather got laughed at in the professional community. It's not a sport, its not an athletic thing. It's fake. Get over it.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Raw IS live in the US, at least. And yes, wrestling is scripted, but not everything about it. Real injuries happen, etc. and some wrestlers are legitimately talented athletes (Shelton Benjamin) though that's not a requirement (The Great Khali). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * actually it's not. ive gone to a TAPING of the show on a monday..why is it that even though its clearly dark in denver do they make it seems like it is still light..because its taped when it IS light outside to make you belive its going on right now....its not true..its not live...and while i suspect very few of them are actual athletes..shelton and kurt..do you understand how much they arent.. brock lesnar in the nfl..get real..deal with it..i was there for the taping and at home in time to watch it on tv...never is live..ever..and at most if it is live its at least delayed by some amount to prevent controversial things to be said over and over or seen over and over...but even then its a small amount of shows that are delayed..ppvs.--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * True, and thanks. I don't like the beginning of the lead myself, but as long as it helps me get articles to a higher class quicker I'm for it. As long as Bound for Glory IV becomes an FA by the end of the year or beginning of next year I'm fine with the changes, I just don't see how IPs don't understand that we are just trying to do our best on here. We want to make the wrestling section on here more important.-- Will C  21:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

well here what bothers me all the fun facts and Travis that I like are taken away because a couple of people don't like knowing that 5 year ago these two wrestler wrestle on these same PPV for the same title I find that inserting and saw no problem with it so why take away something that BRING people to your website I mean do you want Wikipedia to be closed down Supermike 07:45, 19 August 2008

If this crap is gona be added to the wrestling pages, why not add it to pages about tv episodes. cause that would be stupid right? yea. So why the hell is all this bulls**t about being "scripted by WWE writing staff" on the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidlube28 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First off this is a WP:PW decision. TV episode and movie type articles have their own project. Take it up over there for them to decided to include stuff like this on those pages. Take a look at these WP:Fiction, WP:In-U, and WP:Jargon. These are Wikipedia policies. We didn't write them, we have to follow them. So there is no reason for the discussion.-- Will C  18:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

why does this keep getting added? its not approprate
An unknown number of professional wrestling matches (performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real) will be featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that take place before, during, and after the event are planned by WWE's script writers. <--- why does this keep getting added?--Jwein (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because of the new consensus made at WT:PW and it will continue to be added.-- Will C  05:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

thats not right thought.i will continue to remove it regardless its not right to ruin something that some people believe in.--Jwein (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not ruining it. It is policy. WP:Jargon and WP:FICTION. It is written for anyone to read and understand now.-- Will C  05:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why can't it be both policy and ruining it? I mean, I like it just fine because it feels nicer, but no one should go around thinking that just because something is policy, it's automatically good.67.142.130.28 (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ruining it" is subjective. Wikipedia aims to have articles that are encyclopedic in nature. That's it. In order to meet qualifications by standards that are beyond the control of the Project, they need to be written as such.  Hazardous   Matt   20:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While this is informative, it's a really ridiculous thing to include on EVERY SINGLE page for a wrestling event. It's completely unnecessary, redundant, and will be very unappreciated by marks who stumble across it. AndarielHalo (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (For the ips: I come to add in on the discussion, not to back up my so called friend "Matt") Professional wrestling tries to push itself off as real. Like with the storylines. It is like a tv soap opera, for men. Lets say to a little kid he sees wrestling as real. Now a kid doesn't understand it isn't until almost their teenage years for some kids in certain states of america. Since WWE, TNA, or ROH never say that we are just acting and we do not hate each other, which means we can't go as if everyone knew it was scripted. Explaining it helps improve the project. I wasn't around last year but I do believe IPS and others users were probably upset at the expanding the articles in general. After a few months everyone will be fine with the change and get use to it if I'm correct about the beginning of expansion.-- Will C  03:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New policy
I dont think the new additions to the professional wrestling event pages are needed, 'an unknown number of professional wrestling matches (performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real) will be featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that take place before, during, and after the event are planned by WWE's script writers.'

I think it gives too much detail, simply because its a well known fact that professional wrestling is scripted, and for those who dont know, they can simply click on the link to professional wrestlins main artical to find out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.229.222 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The new consenus is regarding all articles, not just this one, so you'll need to discuss it at WT:PW as that is where the discussion is taking place.  Hazardous   Matt   14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

obviously wikipedia should know how ticked off they've made wrestling fans with these insulting remarks in each article, but hey they never let us contribute so where's the shock? RepChristian07 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We pissed off a wrestling fan! IS THERE NO GOD!!!!??? (scarcasam, there is) There is no insulting mark in any of the articles. You can contribute. As long as it is helpful, if it isn't, then it is removed.-- Will C  05:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles aren't written for wrestling fans to get week-by-week results and news or rumours about a particular wrestler. That seems to be a primary factor in the confusion. Wikipedia is not a wrestling news site, it is an encyclopedia. Being an encyclopedia, it needs to provide information to those who are not familiar with the product. (I've heard arguments that only wrestling fans would look up the wrestling articles, which is just not true. I'm not a fan of a lot of the things I research on WP.) The information needs to be presented to correspond with numerous guidelines, and pro-wrestling has boxed itself in with it's "fake-posing-as-real" way of doing things. And finally, no one is stopping you from contributing. If it's vandalism, or goes against the criteria for articles at WP:PW then yes, edits may be reverted. But no one is stopping you from contributing.  Hazardous   Matt   13:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sick of these "wrestling fans" coming to these article complaining about the new policy, he newbies and IPs, its POLICY per WP:PW PPV Guidelines. [Case Closed] S R X  13:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * and im sick of dumbasses who dont know that its scripted. and its not cased closed. moron. oh and willc. it is insulting, dont be such a prick, saying thats its for people who dont know about wwe, and ppv's. they wouldnt even no about this article. think a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.194.247 (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First, remain civil. Second, as stated numerous times this is not the place to discuss disagreements regarding the WP:PW policies. It expands to more than just this article.  Hazardous   Matt   16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * civil? have u read will's comments lately? what are you his butt buddy?


 * Dude, I'm being civil. I haven't called you an idiot or anything else. All I've been is a little sarcastic because we've told all the ips that we have to do this and all they say is your making wrestling look fake and your making it lose respect. I'm not the one calling people dumbass or prick.-- Will C  06:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No you havent. thats not saying that your not one though. you are, however, being very insensitive (being sarcastic) and its not needed. your being a big prick about the whole thing

ic) On the positive side, you're making WWE money, since none of the actual viewers of the PPV will come here for results, they'll just shut off the computer and buy the PPV. It'd be easier than having to argue a pointless comment which should never have been approved. Also, WHY does this stuff get approved before anybody else is notified? Shouldn't there be, like, a small notice for people about this? "Come here to decide the fate of this policy!" I promise you had I known, I would have fought it to hell and back. -- BS01Swert  (Talk) 18:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These changes are not announced on every wrestling-oriented article. They're discussed, decided and announced at WT:PW where anyone is free to join, contribute or critique the project and it's policies.  Hazardous   Matt   18:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * no one is informed, wikipedia has become more tyranical in it's ways and should stop user contribution if no one is going to be allowed contribution and if they're going to make insulting remarks like how wrestling is fake
 * It's policy, case closed. I don't mean to be a dick, but if you don't like it, don't contribute and don't visit wikipedia. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one is it? Are we encouraged to discuss our feelings and ideas on the WT:PW page (which I and several other users have done in an intellectual, civil fashion)? Or are we expected to simply suck it up and deal with it? Considering this is an open-source encyclopedia, I would like to think that open discussion would lead to some middle-ground without having to resort to the tired, "If you don't like it, don't look at it" mentality. --ECWAGuru (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussing your feelings is fine. But that doesn't change the fact that the old style of WP:PW writing violated WP:FICTION, WP:JARGON, WP:IN-U and a few other policies I can't recall right now. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really getting me angry people can't except the fact it's a new policy and they are getting all butt hurt about it because it "offended" them. Enough, okay? If you don't like it then don't go to Wikipedia any more simple as that.SuperSilver901 (talk) 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with an earlier point: Yes marks reading wikipedia may get upset, but we can hardly have the Father Christmas article claiming that he exists. Wrestling is WORKED, by the way, not FAKED. The main difference between the two (and it's a big one) is that working is to pro-wrestling what acting is to film. No-one would expect the Dark Knight article to begin with a whole spiel along the lines of: 'The Dark Knight is a motion picture, a production made of of visual and audio information broadcast to the listener via film. The scenarios that are portrayed are produced by a scriptwriter, and the actors in it use fictional personalities...' etc. etc. etc. This is not how a professional encyclopedia would look. If people don't know that Pro-wrestling is artistic, constucted of appearance and not actuality, basically a modern sort of theatre or drama, they can go on the pro-wrestling article and find that out. Policies like putting wrestlers' legit names after ring-names are acceptable on the grounds that you would certainly do that for a film. Wrestling is not fake the same way that an opera is not fake: it is a very real performance. It would be fake, like opera, if, and I can not stress this enough, THE PERFORMANCE IS FAKED (i.e. it is a perfomance of a performance). Real wrestling fans (known as smart-marks) know that it is a performance, a work, and understand the skill involved. Watch some ECW, ROH or PWG if you need evidence of this. I think that what has annoyed many people is not that wikipedia says that wrestling is worked, but that it has a very condescending way of doing so. An encyclopedia should assume a basic knowledge of the subjects it talks about when dealing with specifics, and expect readers to look at main topic articles if they do not have one. Lafraisne (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks very much for pointing that out. but how much do you want to bet willc will either say that its policy, or try and be sarcastic. or will his bum chum matt say it instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.194.247 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Per this report on WP:ANI, incivility will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Please try to discuss issues in a productive and impersonal manner; remember to comment on the edits, not the editor. Some of the posts above have already crossed this line, and others are skirting close to it. Please also remember that a friendly explanation of current consensus, and the reasons for it, can often diffuse difficult situations. Per WP:BITE and WP:BOLD, all editors, IP or otherwise, are welcome to contribute to our encyclopedia. Regards, EyeSerene talk 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Prepare to have your minds blown
Heh, reliable source? ;) Mshake3 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess we can't argue with that, looks like we can add it, I think?-- S R X  12:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been bold. D.M.N. (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just when I think it's safe to look, any chance of being surprised and shocked is thrown out the window by Wikipedia. If you're gonna be an arse and ruin the fun for everyone just for the sake of being the first person to announce the information, three whole days early, there should at least be a spoiler warning. On the plus side that'll be a good photo addition to the page when writing up the background. Tony2Times (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If I'm asking if something is a realiable source by providing a link, then some new information is almost certain to be on the other side. Mshake3 (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant about it being on the page, bringing it to the discussion board first was the more sensible and upright thing to do, I just wish the decision went the other way is all. WWE.com have announced there to be a championship scramble on SD with 'unknown competitors' anyway though so I guess it didn't take too much of the shock away, I can just rest easy that Khali is out of the way. Tony2Times (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Championship Scramble
At present the rules are somewhat ambiguous, however the following phrase from the WWE report Whoever the champion is when the clock stops will officially be recognized as the World Heavyweight Champion suggests that the title won't actually change hands during the match (eg JBL pins 2 minutes in but then Batista pins 5 minutes later wouldn't mean a WHC reign for JBL) just at the end of the match. I think this needs to be stressed in the article, but the wording is very hard so I was wondering if anyone could think of a succinct way to put it? Tony2Times (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What about "the participant who scores the final pinfall will be awarded the championship"? It doesn't imply recognized title reigns, but doesn't deny it. Simple might be better.  Hazardous   Matt   15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

unless I heard wrong,I thought that Ademle said that after someone made a pinfall they would be World champion. Meaning The Brian Kendrick could become champion for 2 minutes or Triple H could catch up to Flair's title reigns.
 * That's part of the problem. Adamle has made plenty of on-camera flubs, so can we trust the source itself? Is there any information on the WWE site that explains the match?  Hazardous   Matt   20:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Though I haven't checked the website to see what it says, my suggestion would be waiting for the SD show. That might clear things up. If whoever announces the WWE Championship Scramble uses the same wording as Adamle (Speaking of which, he seemed to be quite clearly reading from a script so as to not make mistakes), then I think it would be clear what it means: the only recognized champion is the one with the last pinfall. (And that's what I believe currently.) -- ~|ET|~ (Talk) 21:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Adamle also said the part I highlighted up there, emphasising the word official, implying that it is only one championship changeover if any. A blog I read says that the WWE Fan Nation gives more specifics but I can't navigate that page with my low speed at the moment; if anyone else can it might help clear things up, and may help with wording. Tony2Times (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, on SmackDown, Vickie essentially said the same thing as Adamle: only the last person to get the pinfall would be officialy recognized as the champion. It was also stated several times throughout the broadcast by Tazz and JR while discussing the Scramble. Only the one to have the championshiop at the end will be the official champion.

So, I say that this fact should be stressed in the article, as originally suggested. -- ~|ET|~ (Talk) 13:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Only the person who is champion at the end of the 20 minutes will be reconised as champion per WWE.COM http://www.wwe.com/shows/unforgiven/matches/7891244/preview/ and i quote "a Superstar scores a pinfall or submission on any other Superstar in the match, he is declared the "interim" champion for match purposes (and is not officially recognized as champion in the title history). He holds that designation until another Superstar scores a subsequent pinfall or submission on any other Superstar." Adster95 (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Would the two Championship Scramble Matches for the WWE Championship and the World Heavyweight Championship be the same as the Hardcore Battle Royal Match for the WWF Hardcore Championship which took place at WrestleMania 2000 in Anaheim, California (without the weapons and there only being five wrestlers in the ring at the same time of course)? Gibsonj338 (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection
Since the event will take place on September 7th wouldn't it make more sense to have the protection expire on September 8th. It's something to consider. DeadmanUndertaker 04:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There will be more IP edits after the event is over. Better for it to end around the wednesday after the event. So maybe it should be changed.-- Will C  05:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

confused
i thouught it was big show vs hhh and a fatal four way for the wwe championship between punk batista cena and jbl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.137.3 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Both Brands are having a Championship Scramble. The matches were announced on the RAW after SummerSlam and then SmackDown yesterday. --WestJet (talk) 05:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.137.3 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is This paragraph section really needed
"These matches are planned with predetermined outcomes by WWE's creative staff and feature wrestlers playing a character for the entertainment of the audience. The buildup to these matches and the scenarios that take place before, during, and after the event are also planned by WWE's creative staff" 75.185.37.156 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:Fiction and WP:Jargon.-- Will C  02:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No --Degenerate-Y (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Degenerate-Y
 * Actually, per WillC's references above, it is.  Hazardous   Matt   18:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Dont bother argueing. he sticks up for his "special" friend. (willc) this argument is all ready being held up the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.194.247 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, it goes by the Manual of Style and for other users who do not know how wrestling works. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The articles have a new writing style. If you have any suggestions on how to improve the new style, leave them here. If you have no suggestions, understand that complaining about it is just pointless. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think its so hilarious to know that people still believe that wrestling is real. when i was young yeah i thought is was real..but as you GROW up you understand the fallacies involved..hence why they say randy orton suffered a legitimate injury to his collarbone. because all of the other"injuries are simply cured with a decently done wheelchair, or cast, or whatever else is needed to sell the injury which ultimately leads to them to use said injury to their advantage. get over it. the paragraph stays. stop whining and leave the subject alone..its dumb--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, this talkpage is not a forum. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

change
How about, instead, " the matches and story lines leading up to, and after the ppv are scripted and performed by the wwe wrestlers (also known as the wwe superstars) that sounds so much better. its to the point, describes it exactly, its correct and hardly offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.194.247 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Send your suggestions, here. -- iMa tth ew  T.C. 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Real names
Can some one take the wrestlers real names in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.25.137 (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? "Take the wrestlers real names"? Can I steal them? If you mean take the real names out then the answer is no. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You are so clever with your wordplay OMG. Now this new policy is doing nothing, but making the articles look like shit and cluttering them up, in my opinion. Herotastic (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you I am so clever. You have made such a massive contribution to the project, so it is an honour to be endorsed by you. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your opinion. Articles should be written in which everyone is able to understand a subject that an individual is not familiar with. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well that not very logictly since most everyone know their wrestler name not their real one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You know that such a sweeping statement cannot be true, and whether or not everyone in the world know the real names of every single wrestler is not the point, the guidelines come from WP:FICTION. I know Christian Bale is Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight but the article still states that. Remember what happens when you assume. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey if your dumb enough not to tell the different between a movie and real life that your own problem im just sick of the pages looking like a 8 year old wrote them, Remember You want people to come to the website not drive them away got to think about other people besides yourself Supermike (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The articles need to be accessible to all others, not just wrestling fans. Hence the changes.  Hazardous   Matt   18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

But people who don't watch wrestling don't know their real name just their wrestling names so again why change something that just going to make people go to a other website to find what their looking for. You can't be selfish you got to think about Others just because you hate their names doesn't mean we do.If we wanted their Real name we would go to their websites or read their book.Supermike (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say it is unnecessarily cluttering the article. If you want to find the real name of a wrestler, you can click the link to their "kayfabe" name and its there in their biography. Having everyone's real names in brackets works only when you have a synopsis of a film. Yes these guys are entertainer but I'm pretty sure the Simpsons episode descriptions don't have: "Bart (Nancy Cartwright)" in them. It's inmaterial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.220.156 (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You do realize that wrestling is scripted and that basically that wrestlers are basically "acting" and that their "ring names" are sometimes not their real names. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is all the more reason to NOT do it. Actors who use professional names don't have their real names in parentheses after their professional name in every appearance. Try addressing Raven or the Undertaker by their real names and see how far that gets you... trying to say that their "ring names" are on the same level as characters is like saying Kal Penn should be referred to under his real name. Thusly, "Steven Richards" is more along the lines of "Kal Penn", not "Dr. Lawrence Kutner". Drjayphd (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Scripted
You do know everything is Scripted from wrestling show to the 2008 president elections so have say for a scripted program it made such amount of money when everything on TV is scripted Supermike (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The information is still relevent. I changed "scripted" to "promotional", which I feel is more accurate.  Hazardous   Matt   16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pinfalls
Should we add a section after "Results" that lists the order of pinfalls in the Scramble matches? This would be similar to what is already done for elimination matches (see Survivor Series (2007)) and Iron Man matches (see Judgment Day (2000)). Bmf 51 (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and no, yes because it shows who was temporary champion, no because its not about eliminations, but mostly yes and will be added later on/.-- S R X  01:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely should be added as per Iron Man. Tony2Times (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Disqualification
If there's an unsanctioned match, why would there be a disqualification win for Jericho? Plus the WWE's website says that Shawn Michaels "picked up the win"

user:Seanwarner86 Good Night and Good Luck 01:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where on the website, nowhere is it say that HBK wins. On other sites it says that the referee stopped the match and declared Y2J the winner.-- S R X  01:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the WWE site. It clearly says Shawn Michaels defeats Chris Jericho. user:Seanwarner86 Good Night and Good Luck 01:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw it, it said HBK won SuperSilver901 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its stated right here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrestling = Fiction = BS!
Wrestling's not fiction, it's a performance art. That "fake" crap needs to go... 74.183.60.33 (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say "fake" anywhere in the article. It's made clear that it's staged and scripted, but that the performers can still be legitimately hurt. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The scramble matches weren't 20 minutes
Just saying. Mshake3 (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Qualifying match
I don't watch ECW and I know Raw didn't, but SmackDown had qualifying matches for the Championship scramble. Qualifying matches are listed on the Rumble pages and I've seen it for a TNA event, forget which, so shouldn't they be listed here too? I'd be bold but I can't remember them. Tony2Times (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath
On the September 12 episode of SmackDown, The four contestants in the SmackDown scramble competed in a Fatal 4 Way Match to determine who would face Triple H for the WWE Championship at No Mercy. So the match was Shelton Benjamin vs Jeff Hardy vs MVP vs The Brian Kendrick. Hardy won the match to urn a title match at No Mercy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.85.178 (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Manger's
Ok there are several mangers forgot in this Pay-Per-View

Mark Henry had Tony Atlas as his Manager Finlay had Hornswoggle Chavo Guerrero had Bam Neely Chris Jericho had Lance Cade in his match against Shawn Michaels and

The Brian Kendrick had Ezekiel Jackson as his mangaer

please add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nudist1 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hornswaggle, Bam Neely, Lance Cade and Ezekiel are not managers. They are a fictional son, an enforcer, a lackery, and another enforcer. Tony Atlas might be considered a manager. I guess that one is good.  Hazardous   Matt   18:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, given the formula of the scramble, listing any managers would seem more out of place than helpful.  Hazardous   Matt   18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

True,and I agree with you,however all of the ones I posted was in the corner of the wrestler.

I'm trying to keep this right as I own my own wrestling fourm where I keep my stuff up to date.

Anway getting back on topic,I think it should be added,if not,I understand fully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nudist1 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did the refree stopped the Unsanctioned match
Why did the refree stopped the Unsanctioned match between Chris Jericho and Shawn Michaels as there were no rules and no regulations

Bilal2009 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a forum.  Hazardous   Matt   16:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

because michaels would not stop hitting jeiricho after chris was injured Slash Johnstone 1st November 13:00  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slash Johnstone (talk • contribs) 14:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph
These articles still seem to be struggling with the ambiguity of kayfabe vs. reality. In the second paragraph, it states, "CM Punk, who was the World Heavyweight champion, was suppose to defend the championship, however, an incident backstage left him unable him to participate in the match." This is written before the entire "predetermined outcomes" schpiel. So to me, it leaves a reasonable level of uncertainty as to whether or not the "incident" was legit or scripted. Obviously, we know...but I don't think this problem is limited to the Unforgiven article. --ECWAGuru (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

World Title
Was the World Heavyweight Championship vacated after CM Punk was unable to participate after being attacked backstaged? J.C. (talk) 06:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd think so, but WWE aren't saying so on their title histories page, probably due to the short time between the attack and the match, and the possibility that he might have still fought in it. Tony2Times (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)