- In the lede, I don't think remembered for the start of a storyline between veteran wrestlers and younger wrestlers in TNA is worth a mention. Do you have a source explicitly saying that? The MEM formed in October and this PPV was in August.
- Torch reviews should cover the info. All the impact reviews discussed the storyline. The storyline started way before the Main Event Mafia formed. It was in full force heading into BFG. This event was basically the start of the feud but I could removed it. Just a way to show the significance of the event. Alot of stuff happened that led to be important in the storyline.
- The problem is that it seems like it is you, and not the reviewers, who is claiming the significance of the event. That seems to be OR. I hope that you can point to which references can support the info.
- I'm explaining why the event is notable outside of being just a PPV, which goes by the MoS. I am not saying it is entirely significant or saying this is a fact. I'm saying the storyline did have a starting point at the event. Which it did because Hard Justice and Victory Road directly led to Styles vs Sting, Joe vs. Sting, and the creation of the Main Event Mafia. It set up for Jarrett's return. You've taken the statement too literal to say I am making a claim of significance when all I'm doing is summarizing the storyline at the time and afterwards. To source this statement, all I have to do is cite the Impact episodes. Reviewer's opinions nor my opinion play a role. What was occurring around the event is what matters.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading your reply, I request a simple change. Just swap "is remembered for" to "featured", and this issue will be settled. That is the problematic phrase IMO. starship.paint ~ KO 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with changing things but in previous FAs I just went along with what ever someone wanted. I plan to be more stubborn this time around. Find reasons for the change that are credible. I can agree to what you are asking now.--WillC 12:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The title and the quote in reference [1] seems to be wrong.
- Old reference, they must have changed the title.
- It seems like AyAyAya was also sung by Ice-T in the music video.
- It featured Ice-T. Information on this is covered in the event. Written sources don't discuss the theme much.
- I don't see Melle Mel appearing in the source provided.
- Each match has a match timing written but not all references have match timings.
- Covered in the results table. Sourcing it every time to me is oversourcing.
- I know it is in the results table ... but new readers might not know.
- I reject that logic because new readers don't even look at the sourcing let alone will research to make sure every little detail is correct. The information is sourced in the article.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For the 1st match, can you explain Sheik Abdul Bashir's sudden interference? Like saying he walked out...?
- For the 2nd match, why is Six Woman Tag Team match capitalized?
- Cause it is a proper match type. Just used so often that people don't capitalize it. At one point it was just like Hell in a Cell.
- Also for the 2nd match, SLAM, Torch (Keller) and Wrestleview say it was a roll up, not a straddle pin?
- Case where the sources aren't detailed enough. They call every pin a roll up pin. It was actually a straddle pin. Borderline OR, but accuracy is better than no accuracy.
- It's totally OR, IMO. Caldwell says it's a "roll-through pin" though. You can follow that "Wilde rolled through into a pin". It can't be a regular straddle anyway, she's facing the wrong way. Need a source saying "straddle".
- For the 3rd match, Torch doesn't say exactly who raps, only "the rappers"
- Referring to the ones at the beginning of the show, somewhat obvious.
- Is there any point in writing that turnbuckles are padded?
- Old habits die hard, removed.
- How was it determined that the 5th and 6th matches were also main event matches?
- Heavily promoted matches. Covered in background section.
- Just because a match is heavily promoted doesn't make them main event matches. There should be some announcement of co-main event or dual or triple main events.
- TNA doesn't announce what are the main event or dual or anything. The last three matches were all connected. The Main event matches section was never just for main event matches, it was for heavily promoted matches always. It was called main event just cause it sounded better than other choices. The Cage/Rhino vs Team 3D match was connected to the Angle/Styles match. The Angle/Styles match connected to Booker T/Joe. The last two are main event, defacto the first would be main event as well. Each headlined the show. The Cage/Rhino vs Team 3D feud actually started in May so it led up to this event. Heavily promoted.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the naming of 'main event matches' is a misnomer, honestly. It's quite WP:OR IMO to judge 'heavily promoted matches' unless you have a source explicitly saying that these matches are heavily promoted. It's all rather subjective, left to the interpretation of editors. starship.paint ~ KO 12:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd challenge that it is OR. OR is research that can't be verified. These can be verified. Being a heavily promoted match would be verified by material that verifies its notability. Having a large amount of information that focuses on that one subject matches it as a heavily promoted match. The Impact episodes, the content on Hard Justice, and the follow up by TNA can verify that they are heavily promoted matches. The matches I cover in the background section tend to be the heavily promoted matches. The only issue with the section header is when a match is at the end that does not fit the case that gets placed in between ones that do. Take Owens vs. Cesaro at SummerSlam. Not even announced and just popped up. We can't really change the match order then when another main event was Cena vs. Rollins. I could retitle the section header but to what is the issue? Heavily Promoted? Uppercard? What?--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer the section header be 'Heavily promoted matches' then - because 'heavily promoted' is simply not equal to 'main event'. Reading a section header called 'Main event matches' leads me to believe that every main in there is a co-main event. If you do this, Owens v Cesaro can't become a 'main event' match. starship.paint ~ KO 07:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For the 5th match, Brother Ray couldn't have gone through a table if the table didn't break, as the per source.
- Technically the table broke, just not in the middle. Bottom part broke and it fell over. Changed to against.
- For the 5th match, SLAM alone does not support all the information written.
- Slam is only meant to cover the finish. All info is from PWTorch removes. Aggregate sourcing verifies everything.
- I get that the info is from Torch. Then the Torch should appear as a reference at the end of the source. Readers shouldn't have to search other places for verifiability. This goes for the match timings as well.
- Again, I use the logic from above. What reader takes the time to not just read an article they have limited knowledge of but also check every single source to make sure the information is completely verifiable. The other sources cover the information as well. I can move another source to the section but really Slam is covering the finish which is the main issue at hand.
- For the 6th match, how about mentioning that the first fall came at around 18:00 as per the source?
- Rounding error, wasn't sure if it was accurate. Chose to not put timing of falls down.
- Also the 6th match, it's worth mentioning the last move of the match was a DDT, and the post-match attack on Angle was a brainbuster. The source provided said so.
- It wasn't really a brainbuster, just looked like a brainbuster. Styles literally just lifted him up and dropped him on his head like a brainbuster. Seemed reaching to me to claim it was a brainbuster when that is more the opinion of the reviewer.
- The reference you cited, Torch's Keller, said "DDT off the top rope" and "brainbuster suplex".
- Meanwhile the other sources conflict with saying just suplex or he landed on his head from the top rope. Citing the event, which cites the match, shows that it was a botched attempt at some sort of move. Can't be verified that it is either one.
- I can give the benefit of the doubt on the brainbuster, but on the other hand the four sources agree that it's a DDT from the top that ended the match. By neglecting to mention this ... you will confuse wrestling fans. starship.paint ~ KO 12:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Like with the Wilde/Love stuff above I think it is best to be in the grey area. I could link to move from the top as a DDT but just describing what occurred is better than making a judgment call and saying it was a certain move.--WillC 20:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Reception section, are the "Boring", "Fire Russo" and "You screwed Bret" crowd chants worth a mention?
- What chants are you discussing? Don't see either of those mentioned.
- SLAM source mentioned all these chants.
- "Canadian Online Explorer writer John Pollock reviewed the show and felt it featured the "usual assortment of wacky finishes and outside interference" but that "all in all it was a solid show." Pollock commented on the musical performance shown at the beginning of the telecast, stating the "crowd is silent in appreciation." "Crowd is very hot for this opener and the atmosphere should hopefully add to this show," stated Pollock when covering the TNA X Division Championship match. Pollock discussed the Street Fight in his review, commenting that the "crowd was really hot for this match." As for the Last Man Standing match, Pollock said it "was an outstanding match." Pollock also felt that the main event got "zero time." - Still don't see the chants in the body of the article. If you are asking if they are notable. Not really, they occurred at every TNA PPV in 2008. The fans just chant random stuff constantly.--WillC 08:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. There was a misunderstanding. I was arguing for the inclusion of such chants for Wikipedia's write-up of Pollock's review. As a wrestling fan reading about this article in 2015, I would still find chants like "Fire Russo" to be extremely interesting. It doesn't matter if they occurred in every other TNA PPV in 2008, that is just reflecting the state of the product. starship.paint ~ KO 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be able to include it. Idk. I don't really discuss the Black Tie Brawl and Chain match in the reception or background. It is about a line or so. I'll give it a shot.--WillC 12:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied to all @Starship.paint:--WillC 17:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wrestlinglover: Two problems with the storylines for Joe-Booker. First, you write that Victory Road was a no contest, yet Booker won by pinfall. Please rewrite, don't state Booker won, just write Sharmell counted an unofficial pinfall. Second problem, you missed out saying that Booker stole the belt during Victory Road after the main event.
- Fixed the pinfall thing. I do mention that Joe does not have the belt. It is stated in the lines after VR. He did not maintain possession of the belt, chose to take it back at Hard Justice.
- Yeah. You mentioned Joe didn't retrieve physical possession of the title belt on July 17, but you never mentioned that he lost physical possession on July 13, so there is room for confusion here. Still, there is an offending phrase a no contest after interference from Sting allowed Booker T to win - the word win is still not suitable.
- Fixed both issues
- Try Joe was still the TNA World Heavyweight Champion, despite Booker T having taken the physical title belt
- As for the storyline between Angle-Styles, from reading the Torch source, it seems that Styles and Karen already had something going on before February 14 (from Styles' POV, at least). Also, whatever came out of the marriage of Styles and Karen though? Was it cancelled?
- Nothing happened, just hints at the storyline. They dropped it almost entirely. It was just there to add tension in the storyline.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it should be clarified that nothing further came of that on-air 'marriage'.
- Propose a rewrite of a convoluted (LOLTNA) sentence: On the February 14 episode of Impact!, at a scripted wedding vow renewal ceremony meant for real-life spouses Kurt Angle and Karen Angle, the priest mistakenly married Styles and Karen instead in the storyline.
- Don't see how that is any better than what is already in the article.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems to imply that the wedding between Styles and Karen was planned (in kayfabe), in spite of Karen's real and scripted marriage to Kurt. The article also misses out that Karen and Kurt were renewing their vows.
- The main point is the marriage between Styles and Karen. The Kurt/Karen thing just makes the whole plot convoluted and hard for someone to understand what is going on when it didn't become a large deal afterwards. It just led to this match. It was seeds for a future angle. In fact, TNA actually did have it set where Karen and the Styles wedding was legitimate. What it seems like they are doing is exactly what they were doing.--WillC 06:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this whole Styles-Angle storyline involved Karen, I think the real-life divorce of Karen from Kurt in October 2008 is worth a one-line mention.
- Feud was over by then. This storyline didn't play a role in the real life divorce. That probably had more to do with Jarrett vs Angle than Angle vs Styles.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Word replacement: on the August 21 episode of Impact! in a ladder match for the medal, with Styles winning the medal starship.paint ~ KO 07:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Starship.paint: See concerns.--WillC 20:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Starship.paint: See concerns.--WillC 06:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
