Talk:Slammiversary Seven
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Slammiversary Seven article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
KotM match
editUmm, it's going to be Seven men, not five 98.109.135.106 (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Not by the sources and the already taped Impacts say.--WillC 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It was confirmed on TNA on june 11 that kurt angle got the 5th and final spot in the KOTM match —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.122.137.43 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Main Event
editWould it be safe to say that the main event will (likely) be a traditional king of the mountain match? Markgavin19 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
KOTM Rules
editShould we explain the rules of King if the Mountain in the background? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.45.249 (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- That is what King of the Mountain match is for. TJ Spyke 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- We are supposed to explain the rules. Check Slammiversary (2008) for the proper explanation. We shouldn't rely on links.--WillC 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, we are NOT supposed to. That is just something a couple of anal-retentive people at the WP:PW project agreed to. It's like saying the every Super Bowl article has to explain the rules of football. The KOTM article exists for this very reason. TJ Spyke 23:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Football is different. The KOTM is an unknown gimmick that no one really understands how to do. If you were reading this article and was an unknown fan to TNA, wouldn't you wish to understand how the match works without having to go look it up? And don't say you wouldn't. You would. The first time you hear of a match, you wonder how it is done. The explaining the rules to a match is not a big deal anyway. The article is just going to become crap anyway, since all the ips don't understand how to write well anyway. The Sacrifice event section is terriable and this one will probably end up the same way.--WillC 02:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- If I don't know about something I will look up the article on it, not expect another article to have the info on it. It's not a big deal the way you wrote it, I just don't think it's needed and I know for a fact that it's not required to be it. TJ Spyke 03:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- It may not be required but it helps the flow. There isn't any gabs. The way things are evolving with the format is ridding us from some of the previous problems. The move discriptions have been cut down. The match ones as well. It is about making the best articles possible. And with the recent FAs and now the first FA on the main page in years, the format is improving the project. Now I'm not a big fan of the format, but I believe it helps.--WillC 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Why not say in the background what the premise is (reverse ladder match), then talk about pinfalls, submissions, and penalty boxes in the event section while summarizing the action? Crippler4
- Because the background section is about explaining the build to the event. What the storylines were to the matches and what the matches are. The Event section is meant to summarize each match, not the rules to the match.--WillC 02:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Why not say in the background what the premise is (reverse ladder match), then talk about pinfalls, submissions, and penalty boxes in the event section while summarizing the action? Crippler4
- It may not be required but it helps the flow. There isn't any gabs. The way things are evolving with the format is ridding us from some of the previous problems. The move discriptions have been cut down. The match ones as well. It is about making the best articles possible. And with the recent FAs and now the first FA on the main page in years, the format is improving the project. Now I'm not a big fan of the format, but I believe it helps.--WillC 03:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- If I don't know about something I will look up the article on it, not expect another article to have the info on it. It's not a big deal the way you wrote it, I just don't think it's needed and I know for a fact that it's not required to be it. TJ Spyke 03:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Football is different. The KOTM is an unknown gimmick that no one really understands how to do. If you were reading this article and was an unknown fan to TNA, wouldn't you wish to understand how the match works without having to go look it up? And don't say you wouldn't. You would. The first time you hear of a match, you wonder how it is done. The explaining the rules to a match is not a big deal anyway. The article is just going to become crap anyway, since all the ips don't understand how to write well anyway. The Sacrifice event section is terriable and this one will probably end up the same way.--WillC 02:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, we are NOT supposed to. That is just something a couple of anal-retentive people at the WP:PW project agreed to. It's like saying the every Super Bowl article has to explain the rules of football. The KOTM article exists for this very reason. TJ Spyke 23:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- We are supposed to explain the rules. Check Slammiversary (2008) for the proper explanation. We shouldn't rely on links.--WillC 23:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Tara vs Angelina Love for the TNA Women's Knockout Championship
edithttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgLNKVDMbbs&feature=channel_page - at the end the Mick Tenay says "Tara gets her Knockout Title Shot at Slammiversary" so put it under matches :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.87.212 (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Daniels VS. Shane Douglas?
editOn the June 11 Episode of impact Daniels challenged Douglas to a Match at Slammiversary, for Daniels Place on the Roster.
Should This be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.122.137.43 (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, not until either Douglas accepts the challenge or TNA confirms the match. TJ Spyke 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)