Talk:WWE New Year's Revolution/Archive 1

Venue dispute 2005 NYR

To whom it may concern during the broadcast of the 2005 New Years Revolution,the venue is referred before during and after the inagural event as "Coliseo De Puerto Rico." People fail to realize that Jose's name is in the end title for the name of tha arena. However at the time of the PPV and even after the fact if the venue has a name change, Wikipedia refers to Venue as the name it was for the tiem of the event. The Coliseo De puerto Rico redirects to the JOSe name arena

You are right, I just checked wwe.com and they refer to it as Coliseo De Puerto Rico. TJ Spyke 23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legit and legitimate

Repeatedly I have come across sentence like "Wrestler X legitimately injured his leg". Such a wording is wrong as it states that it was only proper that X got injured.

The wrestling slang word proper is "legit" (with the adverb "legitely"), which means that the injury was real and not a work.

So please stop reverting these corrections. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that first phrase states that it was a real injury. Also, "legitely" is not a real word and thus shouldn't be used. TJ Spyke 18:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know full well that "legit" is only a slang word (hence a dictionary will not help). But then again, so is kayfabe and it is used countless times. On my initial concern I will comment after I have taken counsel. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least "legit" IS in dictionaries ([1]), "legitely" is not. I've never even heard anyone say "legitely". TJ Spyke 19:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should use "legit" if my concern proves true. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has been changed to "suffered a legitimate injury". I'm not really qualified to comment, as I know nothing about wrestling, but I'm not comfortable with any of the wordings — legitimately injured, legitely injured, legitimate injury &mdash. They may have a specific meaning for wrestling, but I don't think that the article that Str1977 linked to in this thread really makes it clear what the word means in the context of an injury (as opposed to, say a match, or a wrestler).

I've never come across the word legitely, and it's not in the Oxford English Dictionary. In the extremely unlikely event of my changing the abbreviated (and slang) "legit" adjective into an adverb, I'd write it as "legitly", without the "e". However, I did a Google search, and there were many examples of "legitely", so it seems to exist. I don't like it, and wouldn't use it, as I feel either it doesn't REALLY exist or people will think it doesn't exist. However, I certainly don't like "legitimately injured" either. My immediate reaction is: "What on earth does that mean?" That it's legitimate to injure someone? Unless it means that in wrestling it's contrary to the rules to cause some kinds of injury but not other kinds. My instinct would be to get rid of legitely AND get rid of legitimately. Before we accept "legitimately", we'd have to know what the person who put it in was trying to say.

However, bear in mind that I'm only writing this as a native English speaker with some qualifications in English, not as a wrestling expert. If it's a techincal wrestling term, then I'm unaware of it. If it does have some meaning missed by me but understood by those who are "into" wrestling, then I suggest that the article Legit (professional wrestling) should be improved and expanded, and the word (whichever word is eventually decided on) should be wiki-linked. AnnH ♫ 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ann, for commenting. My main concern in this is that the article should not call an injury "legitimate". I only picked up "legit" and "legitely" along the way and made the changes because it seemed the less intrusive way to avoid "legitimate". However, if this is not liked, I am open to any other way of stating that the injury was real and not "kayfabe". Alternatives might be:

to add the word "legit" in brackets
really
actually

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putting "legit" makes it sound like the injury is fake. I think it's fine the way it is. I don't see what part of "suffered a legitimate injury" is hard to understand, it means that the injury was real and not part of the storyline. I though that was pretty obvious? TJ Spyke 21:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am trying to find a proper way to word this and you just ignore the problem. The injury was not legitimate ... or what did he do to deserve it? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the definitions is genuine or real. TJ Spyke 22:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing it again. And one of the definition is "lawfully". And I never understood why the addition of the word "legit" makes the injury seem "fake". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Location of New Year's Revolution 2007

I do not understand why the location keeps getting changed back to the Scottrade Center in St. Louis. Because on WWEAffiliates.com it says Kansas City, Missouri at the Kemper Arena... http://www.wweaffiliates.com/ppv/programming/schedule/

Maybe because WWE's corporate website (which is more reliable) says it will be in St. Louis? [2] They haven't announced a change either. TJ Spyke 22:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article is now six months old. The fact that December to Dismember isn't on there at all show how out of date it is. I can't access the Affiliate site, but it seems like it would be updated on a more consistent basis. 131.230.135.105 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to verify that info, so as of now the only verifiable info is from their corporate website. They should be announcing ticket info soon. TJ Spyke 20:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE.com has Kansas City as the Venue http://www.wwe.com/schedules/events/eventdetail/?id=3678120—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.198.180 (talk • contribs)

Thank you, finally someone showed some real proof. TJ Spyke 06:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, anyone could have created a fake account on the affiliate page and see that it was changed awhile back. 131.230.135.105 19:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE must have made a mistake regarding St. Louis as the location of NYR because the Scottrade Center website never mentioned it was going to be held there. NewPasha 03:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible WWE planned to have it there but couldn't work things out, so they decided to move it. TJ Spyke 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Poster

Guys what wanted to let you know there a fake poster for NYR2007 on the net http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/3304/nyraffil300x450ok9.jpg [{supermike/supermike}]

That poster's quite real. Where exactly would they get a picture of Triple H dressed like Ben Franklin to plop down into a photoshop—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.182.252 (talk • contribs)

Maybe find a picture of somebody dressed like that and plop Triple H's head in. I have seen people make Photoshop pictures that look quite real. We have no proof if this is real or not. TJ Spyke 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Triple H's head with Ben Franklin's hair?

True that, true that. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe people honestly think thats fake. Its Triple H in a Ben Franklin costume, for Gods sake. 65.30.42.124 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But has it been posted by an official source (i.e. WWE)? Morgan Wick 20:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That's why it shouldn't be there. That has always been the policy, I don't know why some people decided to start having a problem all of a sudden. I have seen peope do even more impressive things with Photoshop, and wrestling "news" sites usually report fake posters as well. Only posters confirmed to be real from an official source (like when the Armageddon poster was posted on Batista's officia site) should be added. TJ Spyke 01:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The promo poster are directly viewable on the WWE domain, but the stories and "kayfabe" can change at the drop of a dime and they will have a different promo poster out like a flash Mibo123 07:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wweaffiliates.com/images/NYR_affil_300x450.jpg

Is that official enough of a source for you?Slickster 19:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's more than enough proof. See... everyone was worried about a fake poster, and it was real the whole time. It never hurt the article once, people were just being paranoid and controlling...period. RobJ1981 19:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone came up with proof. Thank you Slick. Now Rob, this applies for every PPV, wait until an official site lists the poster. Nobody was controlling, and fake posters do hurt an article. TJ Spyke 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same policy goes for leaks? I mean, MAYBE it is the real poster and someone who works for WWE leaked it out on the net...it makes sense, since D-Generation X reformed in early 2006...Punkalicious 13:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

June 2006 was when they reformed (I know becase I attended the RAW where they officially reformed), so mid-2006. It was possible that was fake because some people have created posters that look just as real using photoshop. TJ Spyke 22:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it was after WrestleMania: I just didn't knew the exact date. Thanks for clarifying. And, if there's one thing Photoshopped about that image (or at least I think it would be) is Triple H's head: we all know he's not bald. Well, anyway, the promo picture's been added, so I think there's no more need for this conversation. Punkalicious 23:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake posters don't hurt the article, period. Get over it. RobJ1981 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake posters do hurt the article, period. Get over it. TJ Spyke 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fake posters only hurt the article after the poster is proven fake. ThatsHowIRoll 23:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is proof that a poster is real (i.e. from a WWE related site and not these rumor sites), then the assumption has to be made that it is fake. TJ Spyke 23:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, WWE.com or RAW hasn't even began promoting NYR: maybe they'll do after ECW's December To Dismember over the next RAW editions. And maybe we can begin to see some of the matches that are coming for NYR, other than the Elimination Chamber. Punkalicious 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's highly unlikely they will do an Elimination Chamber at NYR since they are doing one tonight. TJ Spyke 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Elimination Chamber is of NYR: it just wouldn't feel right if NYR went on without the Elimination Chamber. It's like doing Survivor Series without the Elimination Tag Team matches, just to give an example. Maybe they'll use the same steel structure they used for the ECW PPV and save themselves some money. After all, it's only one month of difference between DTD and NYR. Punkalicious 14:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you. The Hell in a Cell used to be a special match, but then they started doing them too often. The same thing will happen with the Elimination Chamber if they do it too often, that's why I don't think they will do one so soon again. TJ Spyke 23:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Hell In A Cell is only used in Unforgiven? Oh well, can't talk about that much since I don't know the Hell In A Cell history...however, if you were talking about the Steel Cage, I'd agree with you. I don't remember where I saw it...in a RAW edition or in Survivor Series, but the Elimination Chamber (the original one, not the "Extreme" one) IS coming. Otherwise, WWE wouldn't be promoting it. And I don't believe that the Elimination Chamber is being used too often by only using it two times. What I do believe is that ECW NEEDS some exclusive matches only to them. Punkalicious 23:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude first off get your facts right Unforgiven has played host to like one of the 15 Hell in a Cell matches in WWE history. Secondly we are now at ground zero so to speak in regards to New Year's Revolution, unless they want to drop a massive bombshell on New Year's Day edition of Raw, I highly doubt the Elimination Chamber will be featured. Also WWE we're probbly promoting the ECW Elimination Chamber, which is exactly the same as a normal one except for the fact that competitors have weapons inside their chamber for them to use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.6.129 (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Match order

Just as a reminder (for when matches are announced): the order doesn't matter. Copying WWE.com's order, isn't a Pro Wrestling Project policy. The same thing applies to which wrestler is listed first (except for title matches: then the champion is listed first). RobJ1981 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that people don't need to re-arranging the order based on what they think are more importent matches either. TJ Spyke 23:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first order of how it's set up, isn't set in stone and can be changed. There is no reason to revert an order that isn't identical to WWE.com. RobJ1981 04:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no need for a user to rearrange he matches just because they think one is more importent than another. TJ Spyke 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the new way things are set up: matches are now in the order of when they are announced on TV: not WWE.com's order. RobJ1981 16:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James vs Victoria

I am not sure it will happen. It hasn't been confirmed and it could happen on RAW.205.151.6.33 16:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed?

Is Cena vs Umaga confirmed for NYR? Just wanted to check. Clay4president 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they announced it on RAW and it's on the NYR website. TJ Spyke 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I would just like to comment on a problem we have almost every pay-per-view. Every pay-per-view, there are editors who go and put matches involving the superstars on the promotional poster. Unless announced on RAW or WWE.com, any uncomfirmed matches will be removed from the page. Just because DX is on the poster does not mean that they will be involved at the pay-per-view. If I see DX vs. ??? or DX vs. TBA, I will remove it immediatly unless it has been confirmed on tv or WWE.com. Local commercials do not count as a source, nor do fansites. For users from countries that get RAW or SmackDown earlier than the United States or Canada, please refrain from adding matches announced until it airs in the U.S. and Canada. Thank you for your attention and co-operation, and lets hope for a good show. Killswitch Engage

Cena and Umaga

I noticed, that WWE Is saying that this match Umaga vs John Cena is still going to happen even Is John Cena loses the title before the match.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.211.30 (talk • contribs)

And your point? TJ Spyke 23:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah so what remember Armaggedon 2005 (I know so long ago) but MNM was set to face The Mexicools for the WWE Tag Team Championships and they lost the titles the Friday night before hand to Batista and Rey Mysterio but the match still went ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.6.129 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

DX vs. Rated RKO- Titles on the Line?

Im wondering...is the DX vs. Rated RKO match involve the World Tag Team Titles at all? I've read from quite a few different places that the titles are on the line...so are they or are they not? Thanks. 5aret 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not on the line, WWE has never even hinted that the titles will be on the line. It could change before Sunday, but it's a non-title match right now. TJ Spyke 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much of a dream championship reign would that be though —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.29.6.129 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's just been announced on RAW that the titles will be defended. michaelgcuk 3:50 1 January 2007(GMT)

It's listed as a title match on the New Year's Rev Website on wwe.com. John cena123 17:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2006

someone keeps deleting all the matches for new years revolution includine the world tag team championship—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.229.13 (talk • contribs)

XPW

If I remember correctly, the Xtreme Pro Wrestling hold an event called New Years Revolution. Does it have anything to do with the WWE's NYR?--JesseOjala 08:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, since XPW was just another indy fed. TJ Spyke 00:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Years Revolution 2008

The WWE has revealed in their revised PPV schedule that New Years Revolution 2008 will air on January 6, 2008. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.120.155 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, this wasn't confirmed though and doesn't appear on any of their sites. TJ Spyke 22:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Brand

The 2007 edition of NYR was the final Raw brand exclusive ppv. Its notable on BB 2003 that it was the first so the last needs to be on there as well —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrestlinglover420 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How do you know NYR is the last RAW exclusive PPV? Anakinjmt 19:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because as of backlash they are no longer doing single brand ppvs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrestlinglover420 (talk • contribs)

WWE's corporate website [3]. Forgive Wrestlinglover, for some reason he never bothers to sign his post. TJ Spyke 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not give grammar lessons ever

What an absolute jokeshop revert war going on at the page, with some choice edit summaries from TJ Spyke such as "Previous user apparently stopped taking English classes in elementary school", and "Rv, it's a little thing called grammar", you really are an example to us all. The thing is though, they're both grammatically correct, although "the" is a bit redundant. Can you imagine anyone ever using the phrase "at the Madison Square Garden"? Or "at the Giants Stadium"? I don't mind any, but Spyke's superiority complex just put me right off, he probably still thinks that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong. 64.38.51.106 11:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the IP of TheTruth2? Generally, you use "the" for arena/coliseum/center/etc. You don't use "the" for garden/stadium/park/etc. TJ Spyke 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not TheTruth, he's a fucking idiot who can't help but post streams of copyvios onto every page he reaches. At least you've not seemingly accepted that you could be talking about generalizations. Your grammar rules seem pretty arbitrary, what's the difference between stadium and arena for example? Try googling the phrases "at kemper arena" vs. "at the kemper arena" and you'll find the former displaces the latter by a wide margin. You may feel that not all instances of the Google search are relevant, but try using a News search and you'll find that is still the case, and most news stories ARE relevant. - 64.38.51.106 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he is right aobout GoogleTheTruth2 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many citations may be mere demonstration of popular error. It should be (IMarrogantO) "the Kempar Arena". http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/esl/eslart.html htom 04:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You all need to come down. TJ and Truth, you both have broken 3RR concerning this article. I would suggest you stop before an admin comes in and locks the article so that only an admin can edit it. Anakinjmt 20:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped. I actually reverted back to his version so I wouldn't violate 3RR, someone else changed it back. TJ Spyke 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Vandalism

Yeah, someone totally vandalized the 2008 entry,someone should change it backMaxwagner7 23:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellation of NYR

Someone noted on this page, as well as the[WWE PPV page that NYR is going to be discontinued by WWE. Could somebody cite that. MITB LS 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to: www.wwe.com/schedules/events.... They've also got rid of Armageddon. Mark handscombe 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible that New Year's Revolution and Armageddon not being on their scheduled events page is just because tickets aren't available yet? For what I've heard, the only PPV WWE officialy discontinued was December To Dismember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.78.111 (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The event is NOT cancelled. It's not listed on their live events page because they haven't decided on several details, they did officially announce the date in their WrestleMania 23 program guide. That means that it stays listed until their is a source saying it's cancelled (like with the December to Dismember PPV was announced in their annual financial report). TJ Spyke 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NYR'08 must be cancelled, because according to WWE.com [4] there is a Raw house show on the day the article has it listed. So either NYR will only feature SmackDown and ECW, or it's not happening. I'm going with the latter. Virakhvar321 04:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a news byte on 411mania with the PPV schedule for the first half on next year [5]. as Virakhvar pointed out, there is a Raw house show scheduled for that date on the WWE.com schedule, and as noted on 411mania it isnt on the list there either. Lynx Raven Raide 11:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is VERY pre-emptive thinking. There are a lot of shows missing in December and January and there's no reason why the house show listed for January 6 couldn't shift forward 24 hours to make room for the pay per view. I say - wait for WWE to make the announcement and until then the show stays. !! Justa Punk !! 11:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wwe.com/schedules/events/?country=United%20States <- See " Sun, Jan 6 WWE presents RAW Live - Utica, N.Y. 7:00 p.m." NYR is cancelled —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.157.106.36 (talk • contribs)

That doesn't say NYR is cancelled, the most it means is that NYR might be on a different night or the house show changed (the latter being more likely). Until we have proof that NYR is cancelled, it should still be listed. TJ Spyke 00:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there ANY source that NYR will take place on January 6, 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niksi (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The promo material that WWE sent out for WrestleMania 23. It featured the dates for NYR 08, RR 08, and NWO 08. It was on WWE's Affiliates website, which I no longer have access too (I had been using someone else's account). WWE also mailed it out to PPV providers who gave it to customers (I could take a picture of the one I got). TJ Spyke 00:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take a picture to stop this utter nonsense. I'm going to send them an e-mail about this right now. Davnel03 15:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EVIDENCE JUST RECIEVED :

File:NoNYR2008.jpg

REPLY

PHONY!! This kind of generated stuff appears on MySpace all the time...how do we know you didn't make this on Photoshop or something? I don't buy it.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 23:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I acutally believe the email, as the WikiUser's name is Dave and I have sent emails to WWE, and I always got that email URL (fanservices @wwecorp.com). Although Dave may you show us more of the email, such as what you wrote and show any images that hotmail blocked. Just to verify please.--TrUcO9311 23:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'll accept proof that only he can double check? I won't.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 23:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that way we can see if its true or not, and I see it almost impossible to photoshop an email like that, if you have proof that you can photoshop an email just as you think he just did, show me! monnitewars, and Dave you need more evidence to prove that email is real.--TrUcO9311 00:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some photoshoped fake emails. [6]--Monnitewars ^(talk) 03:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monnitewars, if you don't believe me, fine. But this e-mail is real, why would I be a idiot and make a fake one? I've got better things to do than make fake e-mails. I'll forward it to you, Monnitewars. Davnel03 16:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it'll take.--Monnitewars ^(talk) 16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm going to end this. Monnitewars, that is the OFFICIAL email for WWE. Quit reverting his edits or I'll be placing some warnings on your page. About that "Fake" poster listed above, that is actually real. Triple H and Shawn Michaels dressed up like that and even did some promos dressed as Ben Franklin and the other guy. But I do believe it was for a different PPV, I can't quite remember. New Years Revolution has been CANCELLED. I will add this back in and if it gets reverted, warnings will be given. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 20:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has WWE officially announced on it's website that this is the case? Until then I agree with Monnitewars - that reproduction above is not genuine. GetDumb 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that WWE has a RAW house show scheduled for that night helps. TJ Spyke 00:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That email above, the one posted by Davne, is real. -.- Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 03:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ TJ - There are no shows scheduled around it so it could still be moved.

@ Tyler - I've seen stuff like this before. 99 percent of them are fake, and it is therefore impossible to prove that this is part of that 1 percent. GetDumb 06:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to try to send an e-mail to them? We allcould send an e-mail to them, and we'd get the same results. The Chronic 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed Cancelled

WWE has dropped New Year's Revolution from their pay-per-view schedule for 2008 and beyond. The 2008 edition was scheduled to take place on January 6. This comes after they dropped December to Dismember from the pay-per-view schedule earlier in the year. The company noticed that they did better than expected buys for SummerSlam this year, with five weeks in between pay-per-view, and that the pay-per-views that weren't doing well were the ones that were sandwiched in between several other shows. There will now be six weeks in between Armageddon on December 16 and the Royal Rumble on January 27. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source please. GetDumb 06:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Website, various other websites, my own knowledge because I happen to know a certain WWE wrestler to a personal extent. Also, every time I email the WWE website, that is the email I get back. That is a real WWE email. NYR has been cancelled, but seeing as GetDumb and MonNiteWars don't believe me, let's just wait til it's supposed to happen to see that it has. -sigh- Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 12:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing on the WWE website that says it's cancelled. And what other websites? And the rest of that sounds like original research to me if anything. GetDumb 22:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research. Pfft. This news is EVERYWHERE. It's friggin cancelled, but like I said earlier, quit whining about it and wait til it's supposed to happen. Jesus. It's just a PPV, big whoop. Oh and don't come talkin' to me about original research...Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is it canceled, it wasn't canceled for "unknown reasons." It was canceled because there's no need for 18 PPV's a year when all PPV's are tri-branded. I know we can't put that in the article, but it's silly to have "unknown reasons" there like it's some big shock or mystery why the show went away. Nosleep1234 04:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no source for why it was cancelled (only speculation, even Meltzer said why he thinks it was cancelled), so it is accurate to say that it is unknown and that's what it should say (not just that it was cancelled). TJ Spyke 04:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "for unknown reasons" to December to Dismember, then. There's no source about any of this. Nosleep1234 04:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the company why these shows were canceled. Like I said, I know we can't put that in the article (and now that I think of it, since when is Meltzer an RS anyway?) but there's no source on it, there never will be, and it looks stupid to be indicating that there is some sort of mystery as to their cancellations. Nosleep1234 04:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions and speculation mean nothing. Anyways, it doesn't look stupid and it's not indicating a mystery to state the fact that the reason for the cancellation is unknown. IMO, it's more likely that someone reading the opening paragraph will be wondering why it was cancelled, and we should state that it's unknown. TJ Spyke 04:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just the thing, it's not unknown. It's not unknown why December to Dismember was axed, either, or why Cyber Sunday is going by the wayside for 2008 as well. A cursory examination of the product and their current business plan tells you all you need to know. And I know that's OR, which is why I haven't and won't put it into the article. But this is one of those things that if we "wait" for some "official" word, we will be waiting until the end of time. And that's not necessary. Nosleep1234 05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-iterate.

WWE has dropped New Year's Revolution from their pay-per-view schedule for 2008 and beyond. The 2008 edition was scheduled to take place on January 6. This comes after they dropped December to Dismember from the pay-per-view schedule earlier in the year. The company noticed that they did better than expected buys for SummerSlam this year, with five weeks in between pay-per-view, and that the pay-per-views that weren't doing well were the ones that were sandwiched in between several other shows. There will now be six weeks in between Armageddon on December 16 and the Royal Rumble on January 27 Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's a big mystery as to why it was canceled. Purely unknown reasons. Nosleep1234 05:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So riddle me this, Batman (that being TJ :P ) - how come it's for "unknown reasons" here, but on December to Dismember (2006), we cite WrestleView of all the things with the reason for that one, even though dirt sheets are pretty generally not considered RS's by Wikipedia, and there was no "official" word on that either. Nosleep1234 05:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They cancelled it due to a lacking number of PPV buys. Plus the fact that the schedule was squished, and people didn't seem to be buying the lesser known PPVs like DtD and NYR. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. But unless someone else said it, it's apparently not true. It's certainly not admissible in the article. Nosleep1234 05:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler you aren't going to convince me it's been cancelled by being rude. The news is "everywhere" you say? Where? I asked for sources and I'm still waiting for an answer. Why do you think I made the comment about original research? GetDumb 11:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nosleep, it IS unknown. While your theory seems plausible, it's still just speculation. The real reason IS unknown. As for DTD, I did not add that source. The source I added (earlier this year) was from WWE's corporate website where WWE announced that they were cancelling the event (it was during a conference call with investors and posted on their corporate website). TJ Spyke 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and in case you haven't noticed, I've even aceded to it. Could you answer my question above about December to Dismember though? Nosleep1234 01:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the note says that is the reason it was cancelled, jost pointing out that there would have been a WWE PPV 2 weeks in a row. If you want to reword it, feel free to. It was User:Davnel03 who did most of the article, so talk to him if you want to know why he used it. TJ Spyke 01:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I actually quit Wikipedia due to harassment from an anonymous user who registered "tylerwarrenchugscock@yahoo.com", I'd like to make a final statement. The PPV is cancelled, no matter what anyone else says. My inside source, who works in WWE, he's on the creative team, told me himself it's cancelled due to a lacking number of PPV buys. However, many of you dont seem to take my sources as valid, so whatever. Tyler Warren ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put the nail in the coffin, [7], it's not on the schedule. TonyFreakinAlmeida 16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not being listed in the events section doesn't mean anything, the December 18th SmackDown/ECW taping (in my hometown of Rochester, New York) isn't listed yet. Unless you mean the new upcoming PPV table WWE now has on their site (which confirmed the date and existance of Backlash 2008 and officially announced One Night Stand 2008), which does not list NYR. TJ Spyke 21:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Yeah. TonyFreakinAlmeida 02:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler you really expect us sceptics to believe you? You know someone who works for WWE creative? Yeah? PROVE IT!! I agree with TJ that the lack of listing on the Live Events page proves nothing. But where is this pay per view table, TJ? No nails in any coffins as far as I'm concerned. I got my 08 diary today and I'm putting NYR in there. GetDumb 07:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When WWE redesigned their website, they added a table that is on just about every section of the site. It has all PPVs up until One Night Stand 2008. Just go to wwe.com and look on the right side and you will see a table called "Upcoming Pay-Per-Views". TJ Spyke 08:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell should we give a damn if it says why it was canceled or not? All that matters is that we address the fact it was canceled. Anything more is unnecessary. The Hybrid T/C 08:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate websites that go off the right hand side of my browser screen! Thanks, TJ - I need the Liquid Paper now for my diary! GetDumb 00:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]