Talk:Survivor Series (2009)

Too early?

It's a little to soon for this, what's the rush? Danny Boy 420 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% and have tried several times to make it a redirect to Survivor Series for now, but I kept getting reverted. My opinion is that we should wait until after Hell in a Cell. TJ Spyke 03:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just let the article be. It has been announced. We know the date, and the arena. We got reliable sources for it. Just leave it alone.--WillC 04:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Under that logic we should create an article for ever PPV up through WrestleMania, the same info is known about all of them. TJ Spyke 04:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. They are notable.--WillC 08:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

While I can't say I agree with creating articles for every show up to WM26 immediately (kinda goes against WP:MERGE), considering that In Demand will releasing the poster for the event next week, I can't see any reason why we can't have the article up this week. --  Θakster   12:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What, the poster for WrestleMania XXVI? Danny Boy 420 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No Survivor Series.--WillC 03:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I say we leave it as is.--Dcheagle (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

After Hell in a Cell

Just wondering, but the Survivor Series (2009) poster will be available after HiaC right? Danny Boy 420 (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Judging from past history, hopefully before. --  Θakster   07:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Danny Boy 420 (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WWE Armageddon 2009

Where did you hear that it will be called TLC this year? Danny Boy 420 (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WWE.com and multiple other websites.--WillC 02:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it too early to start an article for TLC: Tables, Ladders, and Chairs? Danny Boy 420 (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In a few weeks it will be fine though. TJ Spyke 18:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just go ahead and create the freaking article. There is no difference between now and then.--WillC 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Will, this has been discussed before. I know you support creating a article as soon as the event is confirmed to happen (even if the event is 6 or 7 months away). What would honestly be the point in creating a article for it right now? TJ Spyke 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, we have just as much info for TLC as we do for Survivor Series. I see no reason not to allow it. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do have more info on SS. TJ Spyke 01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

To have it. Notable. No reason to not create it. You seem to be the only one against it.--WillC 01:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"To have it" is not good enough. Notable? The article would fail notability and be deleted as a non-notable event. TJ Spyke 01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Then what stops an article that has just as much information (ie. THIS ONE) from getting deleted for the same reason? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Tj you couldn't be more wrong. An article is established on reliable third party sources. We have reliable third party sources to create the article. So it is notable and would not be deleted by an admin because they would see the reliable sources.--WillC 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What? The only confirmed info we even have for the event is that it will happen. This happens with movie articles, we don't create an article as soon as it is confirmed, we wait until they start filming. For PPVs, we wait until it is 2 away (so for example, the TLC article would be created after Bragging Rights is over); the exceptions being WrestleMania and Bound for Glory. TJ Spyke 03:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Content Question

Has Big Show vs The Undertaker been announced for Survivor Series? It has not been added to WWE.com as of this morning. Has —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdaylight844 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it has not. There are just a few editors ASSUMING it will be at Survivor Series, WWE has not said when The Big Show will get his title shot. There are several episodes of SmackDown before Survivor Series and the title shot can happen there. There are many example of wrestlers being named #1 contender and getting their shot before the next PPV. The only match announced for Survivor Series is the WWE Championship match. TJ Spyke 14:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

They actually have announced it on WWE.com. Wrestling sites are even reporting the link.--WillC 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no they haven't. There is no such announcement on wwe.com (not on the front page, not on the news section, not on the Survivor Series section, etc.) Neither are 2 of the most reliable sites, PW Torch and WON, are reporting. The only thing mentioned is that Big Show has CHALLENGED the Undertaker, the match has not been confirmed though (and challenges happen all the time, last night The Miz challenged Cena for a match at SS, for example). So right now there is just a challenge, no match. TJ Spyke 20:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that it was announced during the Smackdown tapings, it is official, but it has been added prematurely in the sense that Jericho has not been officialy anounced yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdaylight844 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

we cant put the match in till it airs i have removed it from the page wait till Friday when it becomes official--Dcheagle (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually we can add it at anytime as long as we have a source. Waiting till it airs was always an excuse from some editors.--WillC 22:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to add the match using this [1] as a source you have WP:Spoiler and WP:PW on your side. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Except the consensus of WP:PW is to NOT add in what happens at the tapings until they air on TV, so anyone that adds that would be violating consensus. The above user knows they can't add it back in without breaking the rules and are trying to get others to do their dirty work for them. Spoiler reports are not considered reliable as their is no way to verify them. It's like a website posting what someone sends to them and claims is from the script of a unreleased movie. A reliable site may be publishing it, but that doesn't mean it's true or should be reported as fact. TJ Spyke 23:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is this so-called consensus? The guidelines on WP:PW do not say this and you have yet to point me to where this consensus was made. Spoiler reports generally ARE reliable as the information can be collaborated from MULTIPLE sources. How can you have a site listed as PROVEN RELIABLE if there is any doubt in the reliability of what they report? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We all now the policy is to wait till it airs whats with the need to not wait two days like we always do and put the match in on friday--Dcheagle (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently we don't. The policy as it is written is the opposite. I've asked to be shown where this consensus was made and it STILL hasn't been shown to me. I can only go by the rules that are written and the written rules say the match can be added. If you would like to have the rules changed, you can go about it the right way instead of just saying it is and expecting it to be. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Some one added that big show was undertaker's next opponent. i am deleting this as it has not been announced for survivor series.--JereMerr 02:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)--JereMerr 02:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremerr (talk • contribs)

go for it it dosnt need to be there as no such match as be announced --Dcheagle (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I live in Australia and Smackdown aired 9 hours ago here, it is currently midnight Friday night. On the episode it was confirmed that at Survivor Series The big show will challenge The Undertaker for the World Title and a match between Chris Jericho and Kane was made for later that night to determine the third man in the match. Jericho won making the match a Triple-Threat Match between Taker, Show and Jericho. Obviously I can't source this but it airs on the Foxtel channel Fox8 on Friday afternoon's at 3PM which was nine hours ago in Adelaide South Australia, which I watched. As Americans will see when it airs there, I speak the truth, thus I will edit the page accordingly.Benatfleshofthestars —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC).

Undertaker triple threat

can an admin please delete the triple threat asits purely rumours and from a bad source that appears to be broken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.63.143 (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

the link has been fixed the source is relabel.--Dcheagle (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you Dcheagle for taking the time to sort the problem out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.63.143 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the rules should be changed to keep wiki from being a spoiler site.

Instead of putting information up After the first television viewing It could wait until it's put up on the wwe website. I'm watching smackdown right now and Kane vs Jericho hasn't happened yet and yet I know the victor. You won't allow the info to be put up by a person who was at the taping earlier this week even with verifiable sources so with all do respect and to say the least Perhaps there is a rule besides using the first video source as a time to post the information available up on here.70.15.191.119 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC) If there is already a consensus perhaps under the circumstances we could look into making a new consensus.70.15.191.119 (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read: WP:Spoiler. You are welcome to bring this issue up on the talk page for that article. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought, while I fully understand the annoyance of spoilers but are you saying that results should not be posted until the last airing? If so, who is to determine when the last airing is? It could be several days delay in other nations. Australians just have the luck of the draw in knowing the results earlier than other nations. So what are you saying, should results not be posted until Americans have seen it? I get that spoilers are annoying but the American airing will surely not be the last. I think once the event has aired in any nation then the results should be allowed to be posted, otherwise, no results should be posted until the very last nation has aired it. Benatfleshofthestars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.140.136 (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong my friends but to my knowledge there was a consensus formed that no one would post anything about a future show until it aired at least somewhere in the world once. If this is infact true and such a consensus was formed I think further discussion is needed to decide if this same consensus also decided that spoilers shouldn't be used and if it's found that the consensus didn't do that I think there should be a discussion on that. If I am wrong about the first consensus then disregard this.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this going on here: WP:PW. Basically, per WP:Spoiler, if someone has a reliable source, they are allowed to post spoilers. Per WP:Consensus, an individual project is not allowed to make "rules" that override Wikipedia's policies as a whole. No matter what consensus may be here, if someone adds spoilers with a reliable source, they can not be removed. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

C`mon, you can`t put a phrase like this: a guy who can`t wrestle and act, it`s a lack of respect, please be not partial, thanks.talk 01:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Move Description

Just to let people know I have edited the show description where maneuvers have been described specifically as to what they do. For example: the description of a double-arm DDT was: 'hooked both arms and drove his head into the mat'. We don't need to describe like this, we only need to say the name of the move. If people don't know what the move is they can click on the link and find out. We are basically explaining it twice which not needed. Thanks. Benatfleshofthestars —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

I agree with you 100%. TJ Spyke 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the out of universe format, we must explain the main point of said move. Relying on a link in an encyclopedia is actually unencyclopedic, because links don't exist in those. They are there just for more information.--WillC 02:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I get what you mean, but people who don't understand a move name can click on the link. People who can't be bothered to do that or do not know what the move is probably doesn't care too much about it. As for encyclopedia's not having links, this IS an electronic encyclopedia and as such links are available. For the people that view these pages on a regular basis and have a strong knowledge of the topics at hand already know what the moves mean. Those that don't can find the answer by merely clicking the link. There really is no need to add the description as it breaks the flow of the sentences. Benatfleshofthestars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.242.119 (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is, per the multiple discussions that have resulted they are needed for several reasons. It is to keep a reader informed while staying on subject and not having to result in a reader clicking a different link every two seconds. An encyclopedia is not just for wrestling fans, it is for all readers, including ones that know nothing about wrestling. It is here so if they want to learn, they can. This is an online encyclopedia, but we are to treat it as if it was a written one, which is also a goal of the Wikipedia Foundation. If done correctly, the article's flow is never broken. Like with a DDT, simply stating "Wrestler A then performed a move known as a DDT by grabbing Wrestler B and driving his head into the mat." Alot better than the format use to be. We may want to worry about actually getting the article finished, before worrying that it explains the point of a move.--WillC 08:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Will is not right, not every move needs to be described (that is just something said by those who don't understand guidelines and policies). Will, the whole concept of the Internet is that hyperlinks exist that can take you to another page with more info on a particular subject. That is also one of the appeals of Wikipedia. Same thing with JARGON, there are some people who incorrectly think that every piece of jargon needs to be explained, they seem to ignore that WP:JARGON says that not every piece of jargon needs to be explained (saying this makes a page looks cluttered) and that Wikilinks exist to point readers to articles that explain terms they may not understand. This means it is allowed to say "Big Show [[chokeslam]]med Cena" rather than "Big Show picked Cena up by his throat and slammed him to the ground". If a reader doesn't know what a chokeslam is and are curious, they can click the link. While some stuff needs to be explained, most does not. TJ Spyke 22:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it becomes opinion on what does and what does not need to be explained, and as such everything unknown should be explained. Yes jargon says that not everything needs to be explained, and guess what? Not everything is explained in a fully expanded PPV article. Yes this is an online encyclopedia, but also the Wikipedia Foundation would like to release articles on DVD and in written form, where links don't exist. We've discussed this time and time again. The consensus as it is, is to explain the point of the move. Want to change it, take it up at WT:PW. Not every move needs to be explained, just the ones a reader can't get for themselves. A chokeslam has become pretty commonplace in mainstream media. While a GTS has not.--WillC 01:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is NOT to explain every move, and you know it. Everything is subjective. The reason I mentioned the chokeslam specifically is because i've seen that listed in multiple PPV articles (the long explanation). You mention traditional print encyclopedias, they contain jargon in their entries too. They assume a reader will have at least some knowledge of the subject. It's safe to assume that someone looking up a wrestling PPV article will at least know what basic moves like the DDT or piledrive is, explaining what they are is like a baseball article explaining what a home run or RBI is. If I were to look up a article on a cricket championship game (a sport I don't have a clue about how to play or the rules), I would not expect any terms to be explained. I could pick random FA's and would bet that most have little to no explanation of the jargon. I don't think it's out of the line briefly explain some of the more complicated or unique moves though. TJ Spyke 03:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said the consensus was to explain every move, I said the consensus was to explain the moves in PPV articles. Assuming is just assuming, there is no proof they will. Someone looking up an ancient religion to learn, doesn't mean she/he knows alot about it. They want to learn, that is what we are for. Not to decide what someone knows, but to give good articles so someone can learn. Homerun is a mainsteam term, while piledriver isn't. That is what the article does. Moves should not go in depth explaining. That was determined earlier this year around WrestleMania. They should tell the main point. To see how it is done move by move you can click on the link. Saying he lifted him up and slammed him down to perform a powerbomb is what should be used. Not, "He grabbed him, put his opponent's head between his legs, lifted him up onto his shoulders, then in a shift motion slammed him down to the mat." If editors were to fix the problems so they were more in line instead of just having to bitch about them, then there wouldn't be a problem honestly.--WillC 06:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I get what you mean, and I suppose a certain amount of description would help newcomers, but thats what the links are for. If they don't know what a move is they have the opportunity to find out and research thats why there a massive article on wrestling moves. As for your religion metaphor it falls down with the assumption that the researcher already has a basic knowledge of what religion is. Then the person would search through the varying religions, or are you saying that a basic religion page should provide in-depth detail on every single religion? All we need is the name of the move, for example DDTT or GTS then the newcomers can click the link and in no time they will know what the move is. I get what your are trying to say, but see it from our point of view also. We don't need to describe a particular move on multiple pages, one is enough. Benatfleshofthestars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.242.119 (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So you want to have an article just for wrestling fans? That is what you are saying. Not making it easier for all. More encyclopedic, by explaining the point and giving the reader an idea of what is going on. No, we want him/she to have to click a link every two seconds and read a bad description of the move, turn by turn. We don't want to have a flow of uninterrupted reading. Saying the main point of the move is simple, but I guess a compromise can never happen because we have a link. Well we have a link to the wrestler's article. We have the main PPV article. Why do we need this one? The information is/can be featured on those pages, plus numerous others. Just because we have another page, does not change a fact that a non-fan reading GTS (when maybe the link is broken, or there isn't one) may not know what happened. While saying (rough draft) "Punk lifted up Hardy and dropped him into his knee face first to perform a GTS" can give an overall effect of what happened; shorter version may be "Punk kneed Hardy in the face, completing a move named the GTS". It is not just the fans, it is for everyone. We can't assume what someone knows and doesn't know. We can only give the information. An encyclopedia is for learning. Giving comprehensive, accurate, detailed, etc articles on various subjects. And the more I see, people use it as a news site.--WillC 03:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Reads Poorly

I noticed reading through this that the description of some of the matches reads like someone re-telling what happened at the event to their friends, or giving play-by-play commentary, with phrases like 'who by the way was in a feud with Punk' and the tense jumps from past to present to future... I can have a look at this since it's mostly style and not content (I've not seen the PPV itself) and I won't be able to for a couple of days, so if anyone can get there first please do! BulbaThor (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Survivor Series (2009)

Orphaned references

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Survivor Series (2009)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WON":

• From WWE The Bash: Meltzer, Dave (2009-06-28). "WWE Bash live coverage from Sacramento - 3 title changes so far". Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Retrieved 2009-06-29.
• From CM Punk: Meltzer, Dave (2010-01-27). "Feb. 1 2010 Observer Newsletter: 2009 Awards Issue, Possible biggest wrestling news story of 2010". Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Retrieved 2010-01-30.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No longer an issue. NiciVampireHeart 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)