Talk:WWE SmackDown/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Headline text

"In early to mid-2001 (NOT 2002), World Wrestling Federation (NOT Entertainment at that time) underwent something they called the “Brand Extension”. Basically, this meant that the two WWE television shows (RAW and SmackDown!) would become competition for each other. This came about a year BEFORE WWE purchased their two biggest competitors, WCW and ECW."

Actually, the Brand Extension took place after the WCW/ECW Invasion, but before the name change. According to 411, the brand split took place on March 26, 2002. This is consistent with my personal memories of the split (as the Invasion was over befgore the split happened; in fact, the entire reason for the split was the extremely large roster they had acquired as part of the WCW purchase!)

I'm going to revert the page to reflect this. If you have any reputable sources that the split actually took place in 2001, please inform me (and I will have my head examined, as I obviously have false memories). --HBK 17:38, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

That's correct, it did happen after the Invasion angle but before the name change. The name was changed about a few weeks to a month later (from my memory). CMC 06:05, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Fan opinions

I'm calling into question the fan opinion section - it seems pov, particularly since it doesn't have anything to back it up. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? --Jtalledo (talk) 17:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that it's POV, since it doesn't assert the opinions, it merely reports them. As for something to back it up, one need only visit any wrestling fan forum, for example The Inside Pulse Fan Forms. --HBK 18:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a second look, and you're right. The following statement does need a credible reference though: "The creative team of SmackDown! have also voiced their disapproval of the WWE's attitude towards SmackDown!, at WrestleMania 21, the WWE Championship match pitting John Cena against John "Bradshaw" Layfield was cut short and made to feel less important so as not to overshadow the Raw main-event." --Jtalledo (talk) 18:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I renamed it to a name that seems to fit the topics discussed in it - "SmackDown! vs. RAW". --Jtalledo (talk) 18:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renaming the section doesn't mask its major POV issues. Nearly every statement in that section is speculatory and unproven. Whether or not few, some, most, or all fans believe SD! is the "poor cousin" of Raw, and I understand why it was put in there, that kind of statement isn't objective. Not only that, but it's not balanced, because it doesn't represent the opinions of those who may believe otherwise, or site names or sources for these supposed opinions. I believe that SmackDown! isn't getting the same star power or creative attention that Raw is getting also, but without credible sources or polls, there's just no way to prove it. I've completely rewritten the section, and hopefully that should clear up the problems while preserving what I think was the original writer's intent. --Chrysaor July 8, 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Liars on the Roster

Whoever keeps adding people who ARE NOT confirmed to be on the SmackDown! roster is an idiot! i.e. Essa Rios, Super Crazy, Juventud, Garrison Cade etc.

If WWE does not list whomever as a SmackDown! worker then he or she is not part of SmackDown!

Just because WWE signed wrestlers to their company or because the wrestler(s) performed on Velocity DOES NOT make whomever an immediate SmackDown! wrestler.

So to sum it up, DO NOT add wrestlers who are not on the SmackDown! roster or I will keep referring to you as an idiot in the history page or in this discussion page if you ever reply. :) - Scorpion 6/19/05

Juventud, Psychosis, and Super Crazy all appeared on the latest Velocity, during which the commentators commented that all three had joined the Smackdown brand and talked about how they looked forward to what the three could contribute to the Cruiserweight division. I think it's safe to say they're all an official part of the roster now. --HBK 06:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is true. Also, calling other well-meaning editors liars and idiots is counter-productive. --Chrysaor 19:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

- It does not matter. If WWE does not list whomever on their roster then they are not officially part of SmackDown! until they are listed. - Scorpion 6/20/05

Being identified as Smackdown wrestlers by the commentators and wrestling as such on national TV produced by the WWE seems an awful lot like confirmation. WWE.com is not the sole arbiter of truth. Also, Velocity, while a minor show, is part of the Smackdown brand.

Finally, please do not resort to personal attacks. Stay civil. — Gwalla | Talk 21:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we cannot trust WWE's own commentators as an authority on WWE, who can we trust? The notoriously out-of-date (for anybody who isn't a main eventer) bios on WWE.com? The fact remains that Josh Matthews confirmed on national television that Psychosis, Super Crazy, and Juventud are members of the Smackdown roster. If anybody adds Essa Rios again, feel free to delete him again, but those three are in like Flynn.--HBK 04:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Flynn is not a member of the Smackdown roster. He was last seen in The Block, taking all comers.

I am the original person who typed in that Psicosis, Juventud, and Super Crazy were part of the Smackdown! roster an everyone kept on deleting it. Now it is not posted on WWE.com, but was confirmed on Velocity and Smackdown!. None of you should ever try to insult me or anyone elses intelligence by calling us an idiot, namely you Scorpion.

— Moe ε 23:47, June 25, 2005 (UTC)

SD! --) WWE SmackDown! ?

Am I the only one who things this article needs to be called WWE SmackDown! to make it like its counterpart, WWE RAW? Chad1m July 1, 2005 15:59 (UTC)

I don't think it's as integral to the show's name as Raw's, but I wouldn't be opposed to it. --Chrysaor July 6, 2005 22:18 (UTC)

WWE isn't part of the name of the show. It isn't even in the logo. Tim Long 23:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Past Wrestlers

What's the difference between "fired" and "released"? I was reading the Past Wrestlers section, and for the first half of the list, the wrestlers were "fired". I think what "fired" means is to be released from the company due to some kind of wrongdoing. Lately people have been released either because their contracts ended and the wrestler and/or WWE agreed not to renew, or they've just been laid off. Should we change the wording? --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} July 6, 2005 22:48 (UTC)

In this case, fired and released mean the same thing, let go of the company. Fired doesn't always mean some kind of wrongdoing. If it will make you happy, I will change the wording under the List of previous SmackDown! wrestlers section for you. — Moe ε 1:55, July 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wrestlers who appear sporadically?

I could be wrong, but most of those wrestlers listed in the wrestlers who appear sporadically for WWE section have ever appeared on SmackDown! in years--they all have mostly appeared just for RAW.

Should the wrestlers who appear sporadically for WWE section be moved to the WWE section or the RAW section?

RAW already has that section, that list is for both brands not just SmackDown!. — Moe ε 22:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Current events

I'm not sure if we should have a "Current events" section. I don't think Wikipedia is intended for this purpose. You don't see many articles on TV series recounting ongoing events from the series. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

SmackDown! vs. RAW section

I didn't have much of a problem with the section when it was first added, but the SmackDown! vs. RAW section is mainly rambling about "dominant brand" and which title is more important and rather than citing specific sources it makes general statements like "some fans" etc. – it's bordering on being original thought, which is not something Wikipedia is about. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Friday Night Conflict

I made a minor edit to make the article say the change would happen on Friday, September 2nd. Although the WWE has been hyping it up and saying "September 9th" (also the date on the article), my local cable provider (Comcast) broadcasted Smackdown on Friday, September 2nd. On Thursday, September 1st, the programming was overtaken by CBS and broadcasted an episode of Big Brother 6. At the bottom of the screen was a ticker-tape announcing that Smackdown would be on the following night (Friday). Did this happen to anyone else? Did the change come a week earlier than expected? If so, the date should be reverted back to September 2nd to avoid conflict. --Antoshi 10:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Friday Night SmackDown! is taped on Tuesdays and played on Fridays.

"Friday Night" POV?

Although that's technically the name of the show now, it's also to be noted that Friday Night SmackDown! remains on Thursday nights elsewhere... How I can include this without disrupting the delicate balance this is quite the problem... kelvSYC 05:36:41, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

The article already mentions how countries like Canada and the UK get SmackDown! earlier than the US in the Friday Night SmackDown! section. --Oakster 19:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but seeing that the article title is Friday Night SmackDown!, it deserves a mention at the head of the article and not at the foot. kelvSYC 23:58:10, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Even when it airs outside of the US on Thursdays, "Friday Night SmackDown!" is what the show is called by the announcers, and "Friday Night SmackDown!" is what appears on every logo and chyron. Point being, "Friday Night" is now part of the name of the program, and not merely a descriptive adjunct. e.g. "Saturday Night Live" airs on tape-delay in some markets, and technically the bulk of the show airs on Sunday -- yet this does not warrant a mention at the head of that article.

List of champions

The list of champions was reverted back to a table. The list is really simple - it just consists of the Championship name and the wrestler(s) holding that championship. While it may look better as a table, it's simple enough for a list. See Wikipedia:How to use tables#When tables are inappropriate for more information. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Womens Championship

"In December 2005, WWE announced that the WWE Women's Championship will now be defended by the Champion to Divas on both shows." Not that I am disputing this, becuase I can't of the reason that I missed a few PPVs and a Friday Night Episode but where was this stated? Or orginated from? Please add information on this we appericate it. J. C.

- As far as I can remember, this was never actually openly announced. It came about because SD's Melina challenged Trish to a match, obviously, but I also seem to remember Melina promising to bring the title "to Smackdown", which would imply that the title was and is still brand specific, and that this was purely a one-off event. Might be wrong though. Wee bull 18:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Traditional role of acting as though smackdown! is not pre-recorded

In this article something is mentioned about not using the traditional role of acting as though smackdown! is not pre-recorded. If that were really the case, then how would they get people to show up for the smackdown event on tuesday? I realize, I am being a little nitpicky and that is the reason why I didn't delete it, because its not a big deal, but still think about it. Jman5 08:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

USA SmackDown Airing

Can someone till me what time SmackDown airs in the US? I'm in the UK so I think it comes on over here first. --sonicKAI 09:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's supposed to air Friday night at 8:00 PM, but there have been so many preemptions for baseball games (particularly in the Boston and New York markets) that it has all too often been pushed back to a late Saturday airing. Tromboneguy0186 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pre-empted in certain markets, SD has never been pre-empted where I live. TJ Spyke 19:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here in Canada, I get to see it twice (On Thursday on The Score, 9:00 PM PST), and the next day, on Friday, the time when SD is on depends (Re-airs on The Score @ Noon PST), and then on 8:00 PM PST on UPN (I'm guessing this is the airtime it's supposed to be on). Sandtrooper 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here in New Zealnd, I get to see it three times (Sunday on SKY 1 at 6:45. Then Monday at 1:30 and 6:00!)

s0cks01 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael Cole

"Rumored to be fed up with WWE and possibly leave". The hell? First of all, where did this come from? And second, does this even warrant mention in the current announcers section? 71.201.59.253 00:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Smackdown 6"

Hi im a nood here, but I would like to point out something. While it is believed that Smackdown! is now the "B" show of the WWE, its intention was such since the beginning.

However, one ought to point out at some the results in late 2002. While RAW was meant to be a stronger show with the more over (popular/well known) talents on that show. Smackdown! did create a "GEM" on its own.

As mentioned, the intention of RAW is to have the more "entertaining"(hence better) program with bigger names and controversal storylines (necrophillia and HLA).

However, this was not always the case. Smackdown!, not having bigger stars, created their own stars. This is true especially with the Smackdown 6. Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, Brock Lesnar, Rey Mysterio, Chris Benoit, and Edge (all Smackdown! at the time), at the time, were not in the leauge of their RAW counterparts but still gave a superior show. This is a lot because of the quality of matches, the fact that, at this time, the show was under Paul Heyman managment, and because RAW was focused more on entertainment/controversal(attitude era style) storylines than anything else.

Of course ratings cant speak for it because Smackdown! always had lower ratings than RAW. Some sort of evidence could be formulated by this like the necropillia storyline (added in wrestlecrap) on RAW, as well as most WWE PPV's at the time a Smackdown! match would be the show stealer(Unforgiven, No Mercy, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble etc.), as well as Edge, Benoit, Guerrero, and Angle all became increasingly popular around their tenure of Smackdown! in 2002.

While "Smackdown! 6" isnt really a commonly accepted term. Another way to describle this that Smackdown!, at the time, was the "Wrestling Show" and RAW was the "Entertainment Show".

Hope I get some replies soon to hear some feedback. Thanks guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooter mcgavin (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, everything you just mentioned is, at best, a matter of opinion. I fear the best you're going to find as far as a reliable source to back up your claims is opinion pieces, and those just don't pass here. However, welcome in as a new editor. --EazieCheeze 05:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

UPN/My Network TV Stations and the Possibility of SmackDown! Being Off the Air in Those Markets

• Does it deserve mentioning in this article that My Network TV stations may or will (in the case of Fox Television Stations Group MNT stations) drop UPN programming, perhaps leaving SmackDown! in limbo in several television markets in the United States? To my knowledge, the WWE has yet to acknowledge whether SmackDown! would consider going on hiatus for the two weeks prior to the launch of the CW, choose to stream their show through WWE.com, or offer a best of SmackDown! (or similar package of previously shown SmackDown! shows) run for the final weeks. D2001dstanley 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

ECW as a Sister Program to the SmackDown! Brand?

• I removed this information, as it is not validated by WWE. My belief is that ECW is a third brand, separate from the two current WWE brands. WWE cancelled Velocity, and used its open spot to leverage ECW onto international markets. Therefore, ECW has its own wrestlers, although it is open to wrestlers switching brands. Currently, HEAT seems to be a sister show to the Raw brand, although that may be open to debate. D2001dstanley 01:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

B Brand

I hate to say it, but Smackdown is no longer the B Brand. Nope. It's the C Brand. Since pulling ratings that are lower that one hour of ECW, I think it is justified. Some people will say that ECW isn't a brand but an entirely different promotion. Well, ECW is owned by WWE, Vince has all say on everything, and it appears on the WWE homepage. It doesn't even have it's own PPV's. Calling ECW a true promotion is like saying that people were interested by the Junior Division. I'll call ECW a promotion just because it had done so much for wrestling, but it's no different from Raw or Smackdown. RAW= A Brand ECW= B Brand Smackdown= C Brand(FOR NOW)

Okay, I can dig it, but what are you asking us to do, if anything? Remember, this isn't for casual discussion about the article's subject. Hybrid 10:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Current Event?

Any objections to adding the "current event" box for the next 2 weeks w/ the UPN closure/Smackdown on Tribune stuff going on? --David Bixenspan 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone is messing with the page

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

CW Network section edit

Burlington does have a CW affiliate (secondary on WFFF, plus they recieve WPIX from New York on cable), so I removed that statement and revised it to just show Hawaii as lacking a CW affiliate. It might be speculative and current event material in the section at that moment. It is probably unimportant to provide a preview of the season premiere and to include that Tribune stations aired SmackDown! in the absence of a UPN affiliate. The Hawaii and Salt Lake City information may also be irrelevant. Also, Hawaii may get SmackDown! through an arrangement with another affiliate of a major network, much as the WWE did when the show aired on UPN in markets lacking a UPN affiliate. 70.111.50.30 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"WWE Friday Night SmackDown!" or "WWE Friday Night SmackDown"?

On WWE.com, all references to the show are listed as "SmackDown" without the exclamation point. Recently, the exclamation point was removed from the show's official logo and the WWE logo was added above it. This was most likely done around the time the show moved from UPN to The CW. Also, the upcoming video game "WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007" is spelled without the exclamation point, even though last year's game included it. This should prove that the official show title is now "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" WITHOUT the exclamation point, and that 3bulletproof16 should not have changed the title back. -- mCy919

...*sigh*... WATCH -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That video is enough proof for me. I hadn't seen the new intro video since I never watch SmackDown! anymore. I also didn't know that the previous logo is now being used again in certain situations. I just wonder why WWE.com has stopped using the exclamation point even though it is still featured on the show itself! -- mCy919

Wow, that video means nothing, since that was back in SEPTEMBER! It was AFTER that when WWE began dropping the exclamation point. James Duggan 05:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, SD vs Raw 2007 shows the SD logo without the exclamation point. WWE's website has dropped the exclamation point, including from the official logo. However, the TV show itself still shows the exclamation point in it's graphics, making me confused on the official status of the exclamation point. I'm inclined to say they will drop it from TV as well shortly, but I think we should keep the status quo until the change is made on TV as well. Otherwise, WWE's just sending mixed messages on the status of the exclamation point. James Duggan 05:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The exclamation point is decorative, which is a no-no per MoS:TM. The fact that WWE does not find a need to use it when they write about the show themselves should be enough evidence to convince the "official name" crowd that it is possible to use something besides what is "official" when you write about a TV show. The exclamation point should be dropped. Croctotheface 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WWE.com and SVR07 are listing the name without the ! and if u look at the OvalTron in the arena of SmackDown u will see the old logo without the !. It's only used on TV so viewers still know its the same show. Belevsquad 03:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to say I was confused about the ending of this RM discussion. I can't see why divided support for moving and "official name" rationales, which have generally not been accepted as reasons to ignore the MoS, translates to a consensus for "do not move". Croctotheface 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Do not move. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

WWE Friday Night SmackDown! → WWE Friday Night SmackDown — WWE no longer uses the exclamation point when writing about the program. It is also purely decorative, which does not comply with MoS:TM. Croctotheface 07:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

• Support as nominator. Also note precedent of WWE Raw. As MoS:TM states, It is not beneficial to the mission of Wikipedia to copy the usage of corporate logos if they interfere with the prose. It seems that WWE agrees with this, as they don't use the exclamation point when writing about the show. It should also be noted that "official name" rationales have consistently been rejected in similar cases. Croctotheface 08:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support WWE.com and SVR07 are listing the name without the ! and if u look at the OvalTron in the arena of SmackDown u will see the old logo without the !. It's only used on TV so viewers still know its the same show. It should be moved from SmackDown! to SmackDown. Belevsquad 03:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose If you watch SmackDown, you will see they still used the exclamation point. TJ Spyke 07:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The official name still has the !. DS9 Voyager 01:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. Patstuart^talk|edits 00:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) WWE Friday Night SmackDown! → WWE Friday Night SmackDown — The exclamation mark is decorative. The name should comply with MoS:TM regardless of the official name. Aaru Bui ^DII 09:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support. WWE.com does not use the exclamation point when they write about the show. Many respected wrestling publications such as Pro Wrestling Torch do not use the decorative punctuation. "Official name" rationales have consistently been rejected as valid reasons to ignore the Manual of Style, such as in WWE Raw and Thirtysomething. Besides, if WWE does not use the exclamation point when they write about the show, that seems to poke holes in the idea that it is somehow more "official". Croctotheface 10:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose - The exclaimation has been a part of the name and signmark since the show's inception. It should be viewed much in the same way that the exclaimation in Yahoo! is viewed. --EazieCheeze 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose - EazieCheeze got it right on the mark. Milchama 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong Oppose per EC. Also, this just got shot down less than a month ago. TJ Spyke 21:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong Oppose per above. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose. If we're going to rename it, it should be simply to WWE Smackdown. --Dave. 22:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
6. OpposeAs Milchama said, EC hit the nail on the head for this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs) 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

For the record, I would be fine with moving the article to WWE SmackDown or something similar if that makes a difference to anyone. Would those in opposition change their minds if the exclamation point disappeared from the TV broadcast the way it has disappeared from the website? Croctotheface 11:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just don't think it's worth moving for the sake of deleting the exclamation mark. If we're going to simplify it considerably then I'd support removing the punctuation at that point on the grounds that it's redundant, whether or not the WWE continue its use. --Dave. 17:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused about your notion of "worth moving" and what exactly you mean by it. It's not as if moving a page is a Herculean effort. That said, I don't think the point of this move request is to "simplify" so much as to bring the page in line with the usage that the Manual of Style calls for and the usage that publications such as WWE.com and PW Torch have already adopted. Again, though, for the editors using the "it's still on TV" rationale--would you change your mind if the exclamation point were no longer used on TV the way it's no longer used on the website? Croctotheface 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If we're changing it to meet the criteria in the Manual of Style, shouldn't the second capital also be removed then? --Dave. 13:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

MoS:TM says that camelcase is a judgment call. I personally don't object to it, but I'd have supported the move if it also sought to change the second capital as well. Croctotheface 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Smackdown the "B" show?

It has been said many times that Smackdown is the "B" show of the WWE. Whatever, if Smackdown is the "b" show then someone tell me why in the world in 2004 and 2005, in the Smackdown vs. RAW matches, Smackdown pulled out both wins.?? Please, someone tell me why Smackdown has shown an increase in ratings in the past few weeks as RAW tends to have inconsistent viewers. To say that Smackdown is the B show because it has lower ratings and less well known superstars and storylines, well to me thats bull!!!! If the WWE wanted to increase Smackdown ratings then why not run promos during RAW or advertise on the CW more times that its usual one or two. Take some of the big superstars from RAW and place them on Smackdown and increase the writing staff for Smackdown or use some of RAW writers. RAW and the WWE are scared that Smackdown can and is better than RAW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William147204 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Smackdown has been the B show since it began. Raw is live whilst Smackdown is taped then edited. Whenever a wrestler comes back (Hogan, Foley, Austin) they go on RAW because it has the most viewers and is on the better network. I'm sure that WWE want all three brands to do well but for the foreseeable future RAW will be seen as the better show. Some would say that Smackdown is better in terms of wrestling whilst RAW is better for storylines. Bencey 10:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for this article, used to discuss changes to the article, NOT a forum! If you want to talk about if Smackdown is better than RAW, go to a forum. Anakinjmt 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Smackdown International

Recently, I've noticed Smackdown International being aired on tv. It's shows the same events as normal Smackdown but is only one hour long, can anyone elaborate? and should it be put in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay316 (talk • contribs)

Huh? I've never heard of that. What country do you live in? TJ Spyke 23:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

England Jay316 22:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Beniot's United States Championship Reign

I know Chris Beniot retain the title at Wrestlemania 23 & Backlash because he's staying on Smackdown Brand but not moving to RAW Brand or ECW Brand just yet. But he has been champion for 6 months, 29 weeks & 206 days (as of 5/4/07), now and his 5th & current reign is longer than his other 4 previous reigns (2 in WWE & 2 in WCW).134.124.143.149 15:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Time Slot

Can someone tell me why Smackdown is taped on Tuesdays? It just seems stupid to me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.145.131 (talk • contribs)

Smackdown is taped on Tuesdays because Raw is taped Mondays. It makes sense from a logistical and financial standpoint to tape on 2 consecutive days, (actually 3 consecutive days when there is a Sunday pay-per-view), in cities relatively close to each other. For example, if Raw is in Cleveland on a Monday, Smackdown will be in, say Pittsburgh the next night. Makes it easy for the production crews, all the equipment that needs moved, etc. The crews can work two consecutive days then be done and back home, instead of having the tapings spaced out several days apart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.128.79 (talk • contribs)

Co-GMs of Smackdown

I remember back in 2003 when Stone Cold & Eric Bischoff were co-general managers of RAW from 4/28 to 11/16, then Mick Foley shared the same duties as Bischoff from 12/1 to 12/15. But is it true if Vickie Guerrero & Theodore Long will co-gms of Smackdown or not.134.124.143.149 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

ENTRANCE STAGE

I know that the smackdown entrance stage , with the fist going threw the glass is up , but where is the version with the mini trons at the side , and the ovaltron? i really would like it if someone could put some more photos of them up please.

Champions

does anybody think that it should be added that since the brad extension, Smackdown is the first show [excluding ECW] to not have 4 but 5 [Matt Hardy being half tag team champion] champions on there show. I think this and that there the first show to have someone on there brand to win a title from another show and stay [unlike Gregory Helms who switched from Raw to Smackdown] on there show.

YES user:sub619 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No.--Dave. 22:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The Hybrid 23:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RATINGS PAGE

What ever happened to the ratings page that showed the ratings for SMACKDOWN (The A Show), RAW (The B Show), and ECW (The No Show)?????????? CAN I PUT IT BACK UP OR IS THERE A REASON WHY IT WAS TAKEN OFF THE FIRST PLACE?

No idea what happened to it, but I wouldn't have though it particularly valuable, since presumably it relates only to the USA. Not sure where you get the "A show" "B show" and "No show" tags from, but I would be inclined to call RAW the "A show" in any case. --Dave. 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

King Leonidas

King Leonidas is a new Smackdown superstar who has yet to debut on the show but his profile has been added to the Smackdown superstar page on WWE.com, shouldn't he be added to the superstar page on wikipedia under smackdown roster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by William147204 (talk • contribs)

It's just a joke. It's like how WWE listed "Nacho Libre" in their superstars section last year. TJ Spyke 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

interim ring announcers on Smackdown!

During the show's run, Lillian Garcia, Justin Roberts & Howard Finkel are the 3 who occasionally fill-in if Tony Chimel is not present.12.127.178.158 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

WWE Friday Night SmackDown! → WWE SmackDown — WWE no longer uses the exclamation point when writing about the program. It is also purely decorative, which does not comply with MoS:TM. We should also change the Friday Night part to make it shorter because there is no need to call it Friday Night Smackdown! Socks 01 04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

I don't think the "Friday Night" part should be omitted, as they still use that, but the ! indeed is no longer used. --David7581 05:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The program is still called Friday Night Smackdown and it says that on the new logo, so the ! can go. But it needs to keep the Friday Night part.Darrenhusted 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with him the ! can go but Friday Night needs to stay.Bizub4 18:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Friday Night" is as has never changed since it became that, thats not going to change. The most recent intro on SmackDown! listed it with the exclamation point, so I'm siding with keeping the title as is. — Moe ε 01:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Logo change

I'm not sure where to get it, but SD!'s current logo is different than the one listed on the page. The new one is more of a comic book-style to complement the show's opening. Edit: Not sure why this is appearing in the Requested Move box. It's unintentional. --David7581 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

i tried changing it but somebody changed it back to the old one!  Sub!  00:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted a change because the logo was a redlink, although now it is displaying correctly I have no problem with it. Darrenhusted 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

i changed it back

The logo is the current logo used for the show. It is used in the current graphics, ring apron, and other videos promoting the show (Friday Night SmackDown!) and the brand (SmackDown!). See the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rGMUrcwnT4 -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I found an image of the new one on wwe.com. This is the one they're using on the site. http://www.wwe.com/content/media/images/3883682/5054046 --David7581 05:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We know that. It has been discussed before. WWE.com uses different logos than they do in their actual programs. Just take a look at AM Raw. the logo used on their site is different than the one that is currently used. Bottom line is that WP:PW uses the logos from the actual programs, not those show on WWE.com. Just check out the video link from my comment above. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WCW

Hey just putting this out there but doesn't it seem like Smackdown was built on the remains of WCW. seth103

See WP:NOR. Cheers, The Hybrid 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

SmackDown! was created before WCW was over so NO. SmackDown! was created to compete with WCW Thunder. After the brand extension in 2002, most of SmackDown!'s wrestlers were a combination of WWE, WCW, and ECW.

I believe he's referring to the US and CW belts orignally being WCW's as well as the WHC sharing the design of the old WCW Championship. Either way, not notable, OR. Gavyn Sykes 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

MVP's New Segment

Can someone add MVP's new segment "VIP Lounge" or whatever it's called? SmackDown!RULES 22:28, 17 August 2007

It has been added.-- bulletproof ^3:16 03:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Live

Anyone know the last time SmackDown! was live? and if there is Don't you think it should be mentioned. --Monnitewars ^(talk) 13:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when the last live SD! was, but I do believe that would warrant a mention in the special episodes section. The Hybrid T/C 13:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the only time SmackDown ever aired live was the one that aired right after 9/11 (since 9/11 was on a Tuesday, they cancelled the taping and decided to do it live on Thursday night). TJ Spyke 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was a streak in 2000 and 2001 in which SmackDown! was live on the East Coast. I'll see if I can find a source for this. --Raderick 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ecw smackdown allience

is it on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.200.207 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Is what on? There is no "alliance", just an agreement to let superstars appear on the other brand. TJ Spyke 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

that should be mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.114.205 (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3