Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Lockdown (2008)
(moved from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lockdown (2008)
- May I ask you a question SRX?--WillC 15:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read this response here? Also to explain in greater detail why I believe more than three or four matches should belong in the background and to forget about length read the following. I once only wanted more because I felt it was needed. They got promotion and people would like to read about them because they are on the card. My new found reasons is: It makes for consistency. Victory Road (2004) has a segment in the event section about Roddy Piper hosting Piper's Pit. This seems irrelevant and useless. When reading about it you think it was just a segment they thought of last minute. I've read the Impact reports prior to the event. They built this segment for four to five weeks. More than the main event match was built between Jeff Hardy and Jeff Jarrett in a Ladder match for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. Now it probably didn't get many buys for the segement, but usually only the main event or second main match gets buyrates on most occasions. What is the point of having an aftermath, event, or results section when the article is not about the event and the events that lead to and happened afterwards. If it is about one or two main matches then why mention the other ones? It makes little sense to me to have the background dedicated to three or four matches when all the matches including the Cuffed in the Cage match got people to buy the event. Armageddon 08 was not bought for the Triple Threat main event for Hardy possibly winning the title, because no one thought he would. It was for all the matches, including Finlay vs Henry. I hear people say that we should think of non-wrestling fans when it comes to out of universe. Well has anyone considered what they think of not knowing about more than the top three matches. Maybe they wanted to know the background to Henry vs Finlay. I'm just giving my reasons for everyone to know. Maybe it will convince some to see my point, maybe not. I'm willing to remove the Kim/ODB vs Kong/Saeed match, though I don't want to, but I'll do it for the betterment of the article. There are my reasons for having a long background.--WillC 17:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I did read that. But I disagree, in TV ads, magazine ads, etc. the promotion advertises the main matches, right? They want to sell their product and they do this by advertising the matches that have the most tension/promotion. If they just advertised the womens cage match, I don't think they would sell as much as they would by advertising the main events, would they? Its like selling a product, they tell you the most important features (the main events) but they dont tell you the downsides or the minor features (the less promoted matches) because they know if they tell you it, it wont sell. In addition, the aftermath is literally for what the events at Lockdown led to, if nothing came about because "of the events at Lockdown" then it shouldn't be in the aftermath, that's the purpose of these sections. See Over the Edge (1999), I didn't explain the minor feuds, I just listed that matches were made for them, and thats still representative of the whole event.SRX 17:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- You say "they" promote. Considering you haven't watched TNA, what do you know what they promoted. TNA is unlike WWE. They try not to have fillers. When they promoted Lockdown, they promoted every match on the card. Not just Lethal Lockdown and the main event. Built each match for more than the normal amount of time. Joe/Angle was actually began in February with announcing Joe got a shot at Angle at Lockdown, but I only mentioned after Destination X events. Now I'll remove the extra match, but I don't see the problem here. The promotion part seems messed up. Why are we going by promotion and about what was promoted more instead of telling about each match because they might not have got the most promotion but at least they got build in multiple number of weeks. If they were on the card they are notable. The article about the event, with three matches we aren't telling about the entire event. I feel it should be more on build than what got people to buy the event.--WillC 18:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for insulting my TNA knowledge :) You're right, I don't know much about TNA, but you're speaking as if you work for TNA yourself. I never mentioned a problem with the Angle/Joe feud. I disagree with if they are on the card they are notable, just because they are scheduled does not make the match WP:NOTABLE. So a match that that TNA/WWE announces a day before the event is notable? I refuse to argue over this any further.--SRX 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I offend you. That was not my intention. I'm simply trying to discuss this civilly and rationally. You yourself said you've never watched TNA once. I was merely going on that information. My point is: matches that have significant build should be presented in the background. I'm not talking about the Queen of the Cage and Cuffed in the Cage matches because those were announced on the Impact before Lockdown. I'm referring to matches that got at least three weeks on build. That includes all six of the other matches. The James match build began in December or early February. The second women's match began in January. The rest were older than those besides the Xscape match which has been an annual match since 2005 when the Lockdown events began. Now I'll respect your decision to quit the discussion and not bother you again.--WillC 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Though TNA tends to announce matches that were built for weeks, about a week or two before the event. I don't know why.--WillC 19:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. If there wasn't much. Then they shouldn't be noted. All the ones I have mentioned got very good amount of promotion.--WillC 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)