Talk:December to Dismember (2006)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Temp

This page is just temporary, WWE has not announced that this will be the name of the December ECW PPV, it's only been "reported" by sites like PWInsider. TJ Spyke 00:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is now though and the poster looks quite real Jackster608 15:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, but when I wrote that comment it was not officiall since WWE never said anything about it. TJ Spyke 19:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Where was it announced that Big Show would face RVD at december to dismember? Jackster608 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That was vandalism, no matches have been announced for the PPV yet. TJ Spyke 18:37, 18 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. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

November to Remember The Same?

I may be a Dee-Dee-Dee by asking this but is this like November to Remember but just like with a different Name? And Month? What I mean is are they replacing it back to its original name? If u dont understand me just give me the scoop!SUCK IT! 22:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, this was a different event. ECW had a tradition of naming most of their events. TJ Spyke 23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dismembered in the Chamber

At an ECW show today in Milwaukee, Wis., ECW’s “Messiah” Paul Heyman declared that Rob Van Dam will, in fact, receive his ECW World Title opportunity at December to Dismember. However, Heyman also made the monumental announcement that RVD’s title match will take place in the first-ever Extreme Elimination Chamber.

RVD earned his chance at the championship last week in a Ladder Match and, as announced on ECW.com earlier this week, Van Dam selected ECW’s next pay-per-view on Dec. 3 as the setting for his title opportunity. However, the stipulations for that contest fall under Heyman’s own judgment.

Thus, ECW World Champion Big Show will defend his gold against five other Extremists within the lethal chamber structure. In addition to the Extreme Giant and RVD, the remaining four participants will be determined through a series of qualifying matches that will take place over the next few weeks – the first of which can be seen Tuesday night on ECW on Sci Fi.

The only thing more dangerous than the chamber itself will be the throng of hardcore competitors enclosed in its massive walls. Who will qualify for this unprecedented encounter? Exactly what awaits RVD, Big Show and the other Extremists at December to Dismember?

Tune in to ECW on Sci Fi to learn more about this unique and extreme event and be sure to catch December to Dismember on Dec. 3 on pay-per-view.

from WWE.com—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.110.149 (talk • contribs)

Spoilers

Wouldn't CM Punk and Test be considered a spoiler for the event. I thought wiki had soemthing where you are not to post people in a match unless it has already been on tv.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.8 (talk • contribs)

Yes they are spoilers, and thats why I remove them everytime someone adds them. TJ Spyke 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Cm punk and Test in the match?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.99.4 (talk • contribs)

The only people officially in the match right now are The Big Show, Rob Van Dam, and Sabu. TJ Spyke 00:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean Sabu not CM Punk since his match is on next weeks ECW—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.8 (talk • contribs)

Yes, fixed it. Remember folks, no spoilers. TJ Spyke 21:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

But that doesnt mean Its going to happen, did not read bulletproofs post?

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.

There now its explained and stop trying to put in SpoilersOverlordneo 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll just add this. You couldn't know this was a match for the Extreme Elimination Chamber. It hasn't been said on the official website of ECW. Paul Heyman said it during the show that those matches are for the EEC. These are spoilers. I hate that. I know what is the problem, it is because it is taped. We don't see that on RAW wrestlers because it is live. The only website that you should trust for WWE pay-per-view articles is wwe.com and the show if you saw it on TV. That is really not cool to spoil it. Now, I think wikipedia shouldn't be read before the event is on TV. --205.151.6.33 17:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I got this page semiprotected because of the vandalism in the past couple of days. Jayorz12 05:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, I was sick of having to revert all those anon IP's. It seems like its been worse for this PPV than it is for for PPV articles, and it's still almost a month away. TJ Spyke 05:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

i was thinking the same thing. It might even be a good idea to do this with all the PPV till they happen. Bobert21

Matches

I have a feeling that the Chamber is gonna take up alot of the event because thats the only match scheduled currently and theres only 2 weeks left! Belevsquad 06:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

They could be like TNA. TNA announced about 5 matches for Genesis only days before the event. TJ Spyke 06:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah but TNA arnt a multi billion dollar business Mr monday night 20:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And, WHY exactly are you replying to a several-month old topic that is irrelevent? Anakinjmt 23:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hardy Boys vs ???

It hasn't been officialy anounced on WWE.com if Hardy Boys

will face someone.

Who put it there.

And WHY?

From socks_01 at 5:31 pm (NZ Time) 27th November 2006.

Its been removed. If you ee any matches that haven't been announced on TV or wwe.com you can remove them too. Oh, all you have to do is type ~~~~ to sign your posts (which also posts the UTC time). TJ Spyke 04:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing it and telling me that!

Socks 01 04:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

MNM vs Hardys

Last night on RAW, MNM said they accept the Hardys` challenge and it has been confirmed on WWE.com. So it should be written there. 205.151.6.33 14:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

VKM (Voodoo Kin Mafia) from TNA said they want in the match (details at tnawrestling.com). Shouldn't we put a note about that?Freebird Jackson 00:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really, as we only add in official stuff (meaning WWE TV or WWE websites). TNA knows WWE won't do this and are just doing this as part of a gimmick TJ Spyke 00:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was confused by that.Freebird Jackson 00:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The WWE won't do it because they know TNA is better than them and the VKM can get over just fine. User:Dustinwayne

No they won't do it because they don't know who or what a VKM is. GShton 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I hate to disagree but you are sadly mistaken. VKM is just a joke compared to when they were the New Age Outlaws. Tna is trying to start a war with WWE but WWE has yet to respond to any of the Voodoo kin Mafia's threats. As long as they do not respond they will lose against WWE. As long as there is no heat there will be not TNA vs WWE. DX is even more popular now than when they first started because of the legacy that they have already built for themselves and the stable. Not to mention that Ric Flair might soon be joining DX. VKM is just sad to even watch. This war with WWE will fail because TNA is not capable of competing with WWE on the grounds that WWE has a larger fanbase. no response from WWE means no heat for TNA! User: Big Boss 0

Just a question...

Is there only two matches scheduled for December to Dismember, or will they go by the old ECW tradition and just book other matches as a suprise? --TJ Sparks 13:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I don't know how ECW of old did their PPV's, but I was also wondering if only two matches would be there. Maybe the PPV will just be shorter, like 2 hours, or something like that. Most WWE PPV's are about 3-4 hours, right? Well, except for WMXX, but that was just 5 hours, so it was only a little longer. Maybe because ECW is only an hour instead of two hours like RAW and Smackdown are, maybe their PPV's are just shorter. What was ECW One Night Stand 2006 like? I know RVD said he'd challenge Cena to match for WWE Championship, but were the other matches that happened there announced beforehand? If they weren't, maybe that's how it'll be for this PPV as well. Anakinjmt 16:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You'll probably see about 5-6 matches added on WWE.com this weekend. That's what they have done in the past to fill out cards for events. Probably like Sandman vs. Striker, Davari and Kahli vs. FBI, Dreamer vs. Thorn, etc. They've done it in the past for these problems. The issue isn't so much with the talent as with the fact that ECW has only 1 hour a week to promote this PPV, so WWE has chosen to go the route of having one big mega-match to sell the whole thing on. They do it with New Year's Revolution every year. Of course, the whole problem would be solved in there weren't more PPV's than months in the year.

New Match

I've seen an article on http://www.wrestlezone.com that says a new match has been added to the PPV which is The Sandman vs. Hardcore Holly. Does anyone know if this is true because it doesn't say on WWE.com.  Belevsquad  (talk)  01:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably just a rumor. WWE's website only has 2 matches mentioned (EC match and the tag team match) and only 2 matches have been announced on TV. So as of right now there are only 2 official matches. TJ Spyke 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's a rumor then why is it the article?user: Dustinwayne

Vandals do that all the time with WWE PPV's, it's why they always end up having to be semi-protected. TJ Spyke 04:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two new matches that have been added

- Sandman vs Hardcore Holly

- Daivari vs Tommy Dreamer—Preceding unsigned comment added by Evtrumpet16 (talk • contribs)

Those have not been announced by WWE, so make sure not to add those rumored matches. TJ Spyke 02:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

VKM

The Voodoo Kin Mafia wants in the match against the Hardys and MNM should that be in there since it's spread all over the internet? Dustinwayne

I suggest you check a talkpage before starting a new topic, this has been talked about already. TJ Spyke 04:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

After the PPV airs, I would suggest mentioning the VKM angle and 'acceptance' of the challenge as part of the event trivia because it is an anecdote relevant to the event itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Slickster (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure it is, TNA knew it would never happend and WWE knows that TNA isn't really competition yet (and won't be for at least a few more years). TJ Spyke 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandman vs Holly and Tommy vs Davari

These matches are official, please stop deleting and being a dee-dee-dee.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispen Raw (talk • contribs)

They are not official. WWE has not announced them on TV or on their website, therefore they are not official. Unless you think that rumored=official. TJ Spyke 22:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Length of Hardys vs MNM?

WWE.com is saying that the Hardys and MNM "competed in a 30 minute classic", yet the time we have down for the match is just over 22 minutes. Anybody that's watching the PPV, can you possibly explain the time differences? Anakinjmt 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they were just rounding up. So if a match went 54 minutes, they would say 1 hour. TJ Spyke 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but rounding up from 22 minutes to half an hour is more of a jump I'd think. Bah, oh well. Anakinjmt 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Theme?

I'm going to take the "the official theme song for the event was "Bodies" by Drowning Pool" bit because there WAS no theme song for this PPV. There's no argument here, there simply wasn't a theme. 65.189.210.173 04:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you don't check the WWE website, because it was the theme song: http://www.wwe.com/shows/ecw/shows1/decembertodismember/ TJ Spyke 04:44, December 5, 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I won't change it now, since you'll obviously just change it back, but since when does anything on WWE.com matter? It's just the general ECW theme, there were no "official theme song" segments in the December to Dismember promotion (not that there WAS any, but that's another topic). Calling "Bodies" the official theme of the show would be like going out of your way to say that "This is Extreme" was the official theme of every pay-per-view in the original ECW. It's just redundant. VelvetKevorkian 04:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the fact that WWE says "The official theme song for December to Dismember is Drowning Pool's famed incantation "Bodies."" is official enough for you. So "Bodies" was the official theme. You said there was no argument, and I provided proof it was the theme, it's as simple as that. TJ Spyke 04:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Failure

I think under the trivia, it should list what a huge failure the 2006 show was, leading to Heyman getting fired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.41.14.138 (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

That is POV. TJ Spyke 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone added it. Not me 12.41.14.138 14:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"POV", a vast majority asked for their refunds and complaints flooded WWE.COM, start acknowledging this stuff.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. R.K.Z (talk • contribs)

Yeah, sure. What is your source for that BS? Not that it's notable anyways. TJ Spyke 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Check any insider website. PWI, PWTorch, anywhere, and it'll tell you how bad the show was to the the point the ECW fans chanted for TNA, AND their refunds.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.145.201 (talk • contribs)

That means you are too lazy to check. It doesn't matter anyways because it's POV and unencylopedic. TJ Spyke 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard Heyman left cause he was so disappointed with it, maybe thats just POV, but then again i don't have my fingers in my ears...--86.147.35.88 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Heyman was sent home by WWE. He is still under contract to them, so he is basically getting paid to sit at home (likely so TNA can't sign him). TJ Spyke 01:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

UM, on the Brand Extension for WWE, it say's "the nWo-exclusive Souled Out pay-per-view was regarded as one of the worst in WCW's history." Why does this apply to that PPV and not this one. Everyone believes that this PPV was a failure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.66.136 (talk • contribs)

It doesn't, I will give 24 hours for someone to provide a source or I will remove that. Also, please sign your comments from now on. TJ Spyke 00:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here, search this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wwe_brand_extension. You'll see it right at the beginning. Either change that or maybe do something about this right here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.66.136 (talk • contribs)

SIGN your comments. TJ Spyke 09:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It certainly needs to be referenced if included, though I fail to see how it isn't encyclopedic. Jeff Silvers 21:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed Match

It should be noted that it was gonna be Sandman vs Holly but it was changed. Someone may forget. 12.41.14.138 19:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That was never announced, that was a rumored match being reported by "news" sites. TJ Spyke 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mix Tag Match

In the Kevin Thorn and Ariel Vs Mike Knox and Kelly Kelly match should it be listed that Mike Knox left Kelly Kelly during the match above Sandman saves Kelly Kelly? 216.164.198.166 16:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No More ECW

Its not ecw december to dismember because the same as one niight stand its now wwe december to dismember and wwe one night stand

WWE made all ppv interpromotional now so it wouldnt be ECW. 60.225.114.150 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still called ECW December to Dismember as of right now, so for now it will stay under this name. Also, what do you mean there is no more ECW? Do you even watch WWE TV anymore? Because ECW airs every Tuesday night and ECW wrestlers appear on RAW and SmackDown. TJ Spyke 04:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

i meant no more ecw in ecw december to dismember i do watch raw smackdown and ecw so yh i meant in the name of t he ppv not litteraly.

I live in Australia so RAW is Wednesday, ECW is Thursday and SmackDown is on Friday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.112.217 (talk • contribs)

We won't get any more info on the PPV until later this year, as of right now it is still ECW December to Dismember. Also, please use Google Toolbar or something to help you spelling and grammer. TJ Spyke 01:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny how he says that when he misspells "your". Anakinjmt 15:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No More DtD?

rumors from the wwe say that they may cancel December to Dismember from the wwe ppv's. can any one confirm this? User:Dro Boy May 3, 2007 19:07

It's official, the 2007 event was cancelled. Around 7:05 into the conference call this morning: [1]. TJ Spyke 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed title change

I think this article should be titled December to Dismember (ECW). Any comments? --Richard 08:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? There is no need for a disambiguation. I wouldn't mind moving it to "December to Dismember", but that move request already failed. Lrrr IV 22:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need Kayfabe?

A couple sections have kayfabe in parentheses, but isn't that redundant? I'd say just about everybody knows that wrestling is scripted, so wouldn't it be more useful to not have kayfabe references around items, and only note when things are legit?

Chad Hennings 02:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see this discussion and specifically what Nikki has to say about it there. Thanks, --Naha|^(talk) 02:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

1. a (prose): b (MoS):

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

1. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

1. It is broad in its coverage.

1. a (major aspects): b (focused):

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

1. Fair representation without bias:

1. It is stable.

1. No edit wars etc.:

1. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

1. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

1. Overall:

1. Pass/Fail:

So the debate on whether or not the WWE is acceptable for sourcing seems to have grown stale. Since I personally feel that it is, I'm going to undertake this review as if the article makes use of reliable sources. Please keep in mind, however, that the consensus of the matter is still being hammered out, so a sudden change in this may be beyond my control. Anyhow, on to the comments:

1. There's some issues with consecutive word repetition. For example, in the "Background" section, the word "match" is used an awful lot. Is there any other way to say this so that it doesn't become so repetitive?

Would contest sound OK, or bout even? Davnel03 21:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You'd probably be more familiar with appropriate terminology than I would be (which is why I didn't just do this myself) but, yes, that sounds find. Even mixing up those three ways of saying it so that they're not consecutive would be fine. Cheers, CP 03:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Davnel03 08:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Under "Event," the one-two sentence paragraphs should be merged with other paragraphs, because they cannot stand alone.

Merged some paragraphs together. Davnel03 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The lead does not fully summarize the article (it doesn't summarize the results of the event, for example) and, in the first paragraph, includes details that are not included in the main body of the article.

Changed (knowing my look I've made the lead too short!) Davnel03 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The statement "Many fans had a negative reaction to the PPV, as did many wrestling-related websites" is not supported by the reference. That just happens to be one reviewer's opinion, and there's not evidence as to whether or not his review is out of the ordinary for the event. You need to somehow show that the fans and wrestling-related websites had a negative reaction - more examples, more citations etc. etc. As it stands, that statement is currently unsupported.

When I originally expanded this article about a month ago, I never remember inserting that statement into the article. My guess is that an IP inserted it into the article and has since stayed there. Since it probably doesn't adhere to NPOV, I've removed some of the statement. Davnel03 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thusfar. Cheers, CP 21:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope these changes to the article, I really hope it doesn't get failed because of the sources because that would be really harsh, and would not represent the amount of work I have put into making this article what I believe to be a very good level quality article. I hope the article can be passed. Thanks, Davnel03 08:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to fail it because of that, because I don't believe the justification used to fail the other article. I'm just saying that if consensus changes after I promote this, it may get nominated for WP:GAR. Anyhow, I have one final concern. The "Aftermath" section still says "Many fans had a negative reaction..." yet only one source is cited to back up this claim. Even one or two more reviews would be helpful here, because as it stands, I have no way of knowing if that one review is out of the ordinary or not. For example, someone on the Holocaust page could cite a single source from a Holocaust denier and use that to say "Many people do not believe that the Holocaust was as systematized as scientists have previously postulated," which would be blatantly false. Since you're just trying to gauge fan reaction, the source doesn't have to be as "reliable" in the sense that you're not citing an objective fact on something, but people's subjective views. For example, in older video games such as Major League Baseball (video game), to show that the game had "mixed reviews," I cite things like GameFAQ reviews, which are in no way a reliable source on any fact about the game, but can be used to show that a group of people had a subjective opinion on the game. Anyhow, once this has been dealt with, I think it will be good for GA status. Cheers, CP 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Added an extra few. Might not be considered exactly 100% reliable, but the originsal quote from the article was: "Many fans had a negative reaction", so hopefully the extra sources I've inserted reflects that. Thanks, Davnel03 15:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's exactly what I was looking for; I've passed the article. Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 15:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! It's front pagin' it today. Well done to all those involved! Cheers, CP 02:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of the loop

Are you guys doing a great page like this for all of the PPV's, or just this one? If just this one, why just this one/why this one? 71.187.170.75 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Davnel thought he could make a good article like this, so he did it. Then he and another user did the same for each of the One Night Stand PPV's. You would have to ask them why. I guess because they are relatively new PPV's, wheras most WWE one have been around for 10 years or more. It's easier to this for more recent PPV's since the Internet makes it far easier to write about events (and thus provide more info about the event and more sources). TJ Spyke 21:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Time length concerns

As with all WWE PPVs, this one is billed as 3 hours long. Yet when adding up the numbers listed on this page, I only get 76 minutes of actual match time. That leaves a whole 104 minutes (more than half the event) of non-wrestling filler. Is it because the event genuinely was filled with that much filler, or is the article missing material and/or mis-reporting match lengths? AndarielHalo 03:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The PPV ended VERY early (about 10:30PM, wheras most PPV's end about 10:45PM-10:50PM), there were a lot of complaints about this. TJ Spyke 03:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Try 10:18pp, EST. That's when it ended.--Bedford 22:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Dollar sign

Who did the "$"? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 01:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Me, why? Davnel03 09:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You wikilinked the dollar sign? Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 17:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Cheers, Davnel03 17:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy. There are many countries that call their currency the dollar and/or use the "$" sign (Canada and Australia for example). So with any curreny, you are supposed to link to the article on it (United States dollar in this case). TJ Spyke 00:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Table of other on screen talent / Bobby Lashley pic

Not a big deal, but the table is in the Aftermatch section while the pic of Lashley in Tribute to the Troops is in the event section. It would be better if the table of on-screen talent at the PPV was in the event section, and the Lashley pic in the Aftermatch section. Lex ^T/_C Guest Book 17:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Importance

Why on earth was it listed as High to begin with? It's not necessary to know anything about D2D to understand pro wrestling as a whole. Unless I'm confused and all FA automatically become high importance... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like someone changed it here without consulting anyone about it. D.M.N. (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that. But why? That was Moe aka Save Us by the way. He changed names again. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish I knew why, the importance scale has this for High-importance articles: "This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge." A relatively minor PPV that had almost no hype (remember how WWE only announced 2 matches before the show started?) and was one of the lowest watched wrestling PPV's ever is not something that would meet the criteria of a high-importance article. TJ Spyke 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article?

This is great for people who are fans of professional wrestling, but why in the world does this need to be a featured article? If you are not a wrestling fan, like roughly 90% of the world's population, you wouldn't even want to see "Profesional Wrestling" as a featured article, let alone one of the 20 pay-per-view events that they have every year. Honestly, (no offense to WWE fans) who cares about this? 98.27.163.43 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured article just means it is a well written article that passes the feature article process. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the importance of the subject matter of the article. By the way I'd say it's more like 99.9% of the world doesn't care about professional wrestling =) (a joke but I'm serious). LonelyMarble (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

i bet the reason for this being a feature article is because Today, March 30 is WrestleMania Sunday. it makes sense to have a wrestling related article being the feature acticle today due to it being the day that the Super Bowl of wrestling is happening.--Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania Sunday is only relevant to at most 5% of the world's population, and even then only if all of the population of the USA is interested. Shame on Wikipedia for making this an FA! Somewhere in the article it should be made clear that this isn't sport, it's a dramatised event which runs to a well rehearsed script - you just have to look at some of the 'weaponry' involved to see it must be pretty well choreographed otherwise someone would be up a on murder charge! Fizzackerly (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That would explain it ;p LonelyMarble (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop dissing wrestling just because it isn't "consequential" for the world. Sure as hell is more interesting than some poet or gothic fiction piece. --88.91.246.188 (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It IS made clear that wrestling is scripted, read the article again. Kayfabe, storyline, those words take the article out of universe. And the subject matter is irrelevant. How is it a shame that is a FA? It's well-written, and was passed in a FA nomination. The fact that wrestling isn't real doesn't matter in the least. If an article on a Family Guy characters reached FA and got on the main page, would you complain then? Again, subject matter is irrelevant. Just because you don't like pro wrestling doesn't mean this article shouldn't be an FA. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

90%? really? Sure youre not exaggerating a bit? Smart Mark Greene (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you could make this claim about most featured articles. Just go through the archives for March 2008 alone and ask yourself how many of those articles would really be of interest to the general population? Locdog (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We can put this entire discussion to bed right now with this: Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. For the tl;dr crowd: Being "interesting" or "relevant" to a large group of people isn't one of the criteria. Jeff Silvers (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this: A lot of people are against George Bush, but he is still at the top of his game. A lot of people are against pro-wrestling, but this article is still at the top of it's game. Get it? iMatthew 2008 19:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sick and tired of you Wikifags dissing this article. What's wrong with it? Just because you dont like wrestling doesn't mean you should bash it. Kashakak (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, only you need to remain civil and by calling others "Wikifags", you are giving a personal attack. iMatthew 2008 19:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing the math, and playing off the 99.9 percent of people who don't care about rasslin (me included), currently wikipedia has 2.3 million articles. Assuming I personally want to read only 0.1 percent of the articles, that comes out to 2,300 articles to read. Assuming I read three articles per day, that's over six years of reading that 0.1 percent. So should we whine about which article is featured? Nope. Lots of other stuff to do. Kidshare (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-wrestling infobox?

Since every time there is a FA thats wrestling related, someone always has to come in and complain, maybe we should make some sort of an automatic infobox dissing wrestling that can be put on every article to save the trolls time? Smart Mark Greene (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Or we could just point them to WP:FAC and point out that featured articles are judged by how well-written they are, not whether they think the subject is important and serious. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article

Am I the only one who thinks that this article doesn't quite fit FA-criteria? I think this article would make an excellent GA, or A, but I don't really see how it fits the FA-criteria. Any comments? King iMatthew 2008 22:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The theme song isn't even mentioned. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See the first paragraph of the "Background" section. I put it there because it is part of the background to the event. I suggest reading the whole article before making a comment which isn't even true. D.M.N. (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Another thing that sticks out to me is how you explain why Sabu got kayfabe injured. The reasoning is in the event when it should be the background. –LAX 10:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Sabu got injured in the event not before it, hence it is in the event section not the background section. It would be pointless having a pragraph about something that occured in the actual event in the background section IMO. D.M.N. (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Double Swanton Bomb

I have no idea what that is, but in the article it says that Jeff Hardy did it and pinned Nitro. Is it like a Swanton Bomb and another one? or did Matt and Jeff both do one? please be more specific. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 20:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It says "double neckbreaker" then Jeff hit a Swanton. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It did say "double Swanton", but I removed it since it made no sense. --LAX 10:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)