This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Survivor Series (2009) 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 |
It's a little to soon for this, what's the rush? Danny Boy 420 ( talk) 03:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
What, the poster for WrestleMania XXVI? Danny Boy 420 ( talk) 02:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I say we leave it as is.-- Dcheagle ( talk) 01:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering, but the Survivor Series (2009) poster will be available after HiaC right? Danny Boy 420 ( talk) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Danny Boy 420 ( talk) 02:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Where did you hear that it will be called TLC this year? Danny Boy 420 ( talk) 02:06, 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)
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.-- Will C 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.-- Will C 22:54, 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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.-- Will C 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)
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.-- Will C 01:47, 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.-- Will C 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)
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)
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":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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Survivor Series (2009) 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 |
It's a little to soon for this, what's the rush? Danny Boy 420 ( talk) 03:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
What, the poster for WrestleMania XXVI? Danny Boy 420 ( talk) 02:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I say we leave it as is.-- Dcheagle ( talk) 01:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering, but the Survivor Series (2009) poster will be available after HiaC right? Danny Boy 420 ( talk) 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Danny Boy 420 ( talk) 02:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Where did you hear that it will be called TLC this year? Danny Boy 420 ( talk) 02:06, 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)
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.-- Will C 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.-- Will C 22:54, 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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.-- Will C 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)
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.-- Will C 01:47, 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.-- Will C 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)
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)
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":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)