Talk:WWE Armageddon/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Tim White
The "suicide" by Tim White is the sickest thing the WWE have done to date. I was disgusted and I can't believe they have used something as appalling as that to garner more interest and feeling toward Hell in a Cell. (Ste)
I have to agree with that statement. WWE may have crossed the line on this one. Although WWE has up and down year with business decisions. I think the year ending 2005 has been very poor. J. C.
We need to agree on how to tell about the Tim White event on the main page. Saying "gun def. Tim White" is tasteless. I thought I made a pretty good assessment of it.--Bedford 21:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I hope there is protest to this because I felt terrible after seeing it, and also found the way they almost comically portrayed some parts of it beyond belief. What are they going to do next? A memorial tribute show for him? (Ste)
Theme Songs
I think someone should put the title of the theme songs of the PPV beside the name of the venue as what I've seen in other PPV pages
I'm not sure, but I think that WWE has used the same song for every Armageddon ("The End") and it was produced and recorded by WWE.--Andresg770 18:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
They also used a rockier version of Sweet Home Alabama in 2000. Not sure who it was by though. 195.92.168.169 20:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding local commercials revealing Spoilers
This is a big issue that seems to attract a lot of vandalism to upcoming wrestling event articles. The problem being that random people deliberately add matches to the upcoming event's card that have supposedly been announced on commercials aired during RAW, Smackdown!, or ECW. Once these people are confronted about their additions of these spoilers, they tend to use the commercials as their source. The problem is that they do not seem to realize that these promos shown when a WWE broadcast goes off the air during commercials are actually only airing on specific local areas and are NOT in fact being shown nation wide. WWE (at times) unintentionally releases commercials and promos on future events, spoiling matches and sometimes even their outcomes, to the specific local media outlet. This is stupidly done to attract interest from fans in that local area and increase possible attendance and buyrate figures for the upcoming event. The most recent case being the Vengeance DX promo notable for being released in some areas roughly two months before the actual event took place. Only when matches are announced on-screen by talent or during the actual WWE broadcast and NOT during commercials can this sort of information NOT be considered a spoiler. Some may argue, "So what if they aren't shown nation wide, they were still released by World Wrestling Entertainment which means they are legit and therefore all matches spoiled have a right to be added to articles!" Now the problem with that simply is this... It is unencyclopedic. You see, what these people fail to realize is that Wikipedia is NOT, I repeat, NOT a Wrestling News site. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore cannot provide spoilers on future history or events that have yet to be. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, in other words, it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you honestly feel the need to be an Internet Troll and add content spoiling what has yet to occur (in this case about wrestling), then please do so elsewhere such as... oh wow! ...a Wrestling News site! As best stated on Wikipedia Policy... "Before adding any sort of content, ask yourself what would a reader expect to find in an encyclopedia." ...and I highly doubt that you would be expecting to find out who will be in the main event at WrestleMania 100, even if you do happen to find a promo somewhere right now announcing it to be Hulk Hogan vs. Vince McMahon's grandson. Content such as spoilers, rumors, and other nonsense will be removed on the spot for the reasons just explained. This content simply does not comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines and the addition of it is considered vandalism. Once again, please do NOT add any sort of content that even you would know is a spoiler (spoiling future history and events that have yet to be} and unencyclopedic. If you do in fact feel the need to be an Internet Troll, please do so elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. Thank you for reading and I honestly do hope that this clears up any confusion over spoilers and why they are being removed. Thank you. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The origins behind the PPV name stem from May 1999, when WWE announced the retirement of the 'In Your House' name and the creation of twelve stable PPV names. Armageddon was on that list long before August of 1999.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.84.32.212 (talk • contribs)
- Do you have a source? TJ Spyke 03:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Poster
Do NOT add in any poster unless WWE shows it. If you don't have an official source (being WWE), then your edit will be reverted and you will get a vandalism warning. TJ Spyke 20:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Was it confirmed by WWE yet? Because I haven't seen the poster on wwe.com yet. Jayorz12 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
Should we block this page? There has benn alot of vandalism eg. Inferno Match: Kane vs. Montel Vontavious Porter Last Ride Match: Ken Kennedy vs. the Undertaker Finlay & King Booker vs. Batista & John Cena—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.210.99.4 (talk • contribs)
- It already is, anon IP's and accounts less than 3 days old can't edit it. TJ Spyke 22:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- i added it because we in Australia gets it a day before it airs in the US and i watched just then and i listened to teddy long say it (and i diddnt know how put it on the pages—Preceding unsigned comment added by Franky6071 (talk • contribs)
- WP:PW policy is to wait for the US/Canada airing or wwe.com (whichever announces it first). TJ Spyke 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- i added it because we in Australia gets it a day before it airs in the US and i watched just then and i listened to teddy long say it (and i diddnt know how put it on the pages—Preceding unsigned comment added by Franky6071 (talk • contribs)
- Thats a little unfair after all we saw it on T.V here—Preceding unsigned comment added by Franky6071 (talk • contribs)
- WWE doesn't seem to agree since they don't update their site until it airs in North America. TJ Spyke 04:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
good point but i think i can take them—Preceding unsigned comment added by Franky6071 (talk • contribs)
Armageddon 2007 Venue?
Ive noticed recently that WWE Armageddon 2007 is listed as being held at the Mellon Arena in Pittsburgh. Despite this being on Wikipedia however, Neither the arena operators nor World Wrestling Entertainment have confirmed this as being the correct venue.
Is it therefore possible that this venue be deleted from the Armageddon 2007 entry? It should say TBD under the Venue until WWE state otherwise
User:JoeyStyles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoeyStyles (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
A note about match order
It doesn't matter if it matches with WWE.com or not. The order changes when the event actually takes place. Making a big deal about match order isn't needed in this case. The main event should be listed at the top, but the rest of the card's order isn't a big deal. The majority of people reading the article won't care if the order isn't the same as WWE.com. No one is going to hate the article for a so-called "wrong" order compared to WWE.com. Same goes for: which superstar is listed first (except in the case of title matches). RobJ1981 22:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, this is the order they were added to the article and there is no real reason to change them. TJ Spyke 22:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong, just because they were added a certain way doesn't mean they should have to remain that way. Editing articles is for everyone, not just one person controlling the article and reverting every change he hates. The order doesn't matter, and doesn't have to be a copy of WWE.com. RobJ1981 19:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I know the order doesn't matter. This is just the order the matches were added to the article as well, so there isn't really a reason to switch them either. I am getting really sick of you Rob, it is obvious you have some vendetta against me and I don't understand why you weren't blocked for reverting the NYR article over and over and over. TJ Spyke 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats Rob. First NYR, and now Armageddon. Are you gonna try and get the RR article locked as well because you want things your way? Here is a simple solution: when a match is added, leave it alone. There is no need to move a match just because you think one match is more important than another. If you folks can agree, this page can be unprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)
- Now that the page is completely protected, things can get settled. This article (used to be at least..) is for everyone to edit, not just a select few controlling it. The original match order is NOT set in stone, dispite what a few editors think. Also, why must the match order be the same as WWE's official preview? Look at articles for other upcoming things: that information isn't in the exact order. WWE (and TNA PPV's for that matter) shouldn't be a copy of the official preview. If that was the case, you might as well have the article be just a link to the official site, until the event airs and there is match results to post. This same thing applies to which wrestler is listed first or second. As stated before: champions are listed first, and main events are at the top. Those things are givens, but the rest isn't. Opinions of a few shouldn't dominate this upcoming event (along with all other upcoming/future events for WWE, TNA, etc). You say the order doesn't matter, yet you revert any change to "your opinion" on what the order is. That's hypocritical and needs to end. Also: I have every right to edit this article, just as much as you do. Don't tell me not to edit. RobJ1981 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like you continue to read parts of what I write. The order the matches are currently listed is how they were added in to this article. It was that other editor who started this match by re-ordering the matches based on HIS opinion of the importance for each match. That is a useless edit IMO and no reason to do that. I also didn't say you couldn't edit, i'm just saying that you wanting things your way has now resulted in 2 PPV articles being locked. TJ Spyke 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is for everyone to edit. The article does NOT have to stay in it's original form until the event takes place. There is no reason for the article to be a copy of WWE's preview, period. I'm absolutely fed up with revert wars, and a few editors shouldn't dominate every wrestling event article. RobJ1981 01:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like you continue to read parts of what I write. The order the matches are currently listed is how they were added in to this article. It was that other editor who started this match by re-ordering the matches based on HIS opinion of the importance for each match. That is a useless edit IMO and no reason to do that. I also didn't say you couldn't edit, i'm just saying that you wanting things your way has now resulted in 2 PPV articles being locked. TJ Spyke 01:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Now that the page is completely protected, things can get settled. This article (used to be at least..) is for everyone to edit, not just a select few controlling it. The original match order is NOT set in stone, dispite what a few editors think. Also, why must the match order be the same as WWE's official preview? Look at articles for other upcoming things: that information isn't in the exact order. WWE (and TNA PPV's for that matter) shouldn't be a copy of the official preview. If that was the case, you might as well have the article be just a link to the official site, until the event airs and there is match results to post. This same thing applies to which wrestler is listed first or second. As stated before: champions are listed first, and main events are at the top. Those things are givens, but the rest isn't. Opinions of a few shouldn't dominate this upcoming event (along with all other upcoming/future events for WWE, TNA, etc). You say the order doesn't matter, yet you revert any change to "your opinion" on what the order is. That's hypocritical and needs to end. Also: I have every right to edit this article, just as much as you do. Don't tell me not to edit. RobJ1981 01:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats Rob. First NYR, and now Armageddon. Are you gonna try and get the RR article locked as well because you want things your way? Here is a simple solution: when a match is added, leave it alone. There is no need to move a match just because you think one match is more important than another. If you folks can agree, this page can be unprotected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs)
- If Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, then why do you keep reverting the article? There is no reason it can't be a copy anyways, just because that one editor doesn't think so. You have a tendency to start/contine lame edit wars, I have said why there was no reason to keep reverting the page. TJ Spyke 01:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I know the order doesn't matter. This is just the order the matches were added to the article as well, so there isn't really a reason to switch them either. I am getting really sick of you Rob, it is obvious you have some vendetta against me and I don't understand why you weren't blocked for reverting the NYR article over and over and over. TJ Spyke 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong, just because they were added a certain way doesn't mean they should have to remain that way. Editing articles is for everyone, not just one person controlling the article and reverting every change he hates. The order doesn't matter, and doesn't have to be a copy of WWE.com. RobJ1981 19:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- TJ, you want to talk about starting edit wars? Why the hell do you revert the changes back to your own version? Your such a hypocrite. The changes made by other editors are perfectly fine. If this continues, I'm going to have to bring in an administrator to settle this article controlling. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not article controlling, the editor who started all this moved the matches based on what he thought was the importance of them. If he can put them in the order he thinks they should be, then I have just as much right to put them in the order I think they should be. I have done nothing wrong and you know it. TJ Spyke 02:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- TJ, you want to talk about starting edit wars? Why the hell do you revert the changes back to your own version? Your such a hypocrite. The changes made by other editors are perfectly fine. If this continues, I'm going to have to bring in an administrator to settle this article controlling. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) 02:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The only way to settle the dispute is to come up with a uniform policy. What makes more sense, listing the matches by how important random people think the match is, or by how the official site lists them? If we just list the matches as WWE.com lists them, then there would be no arguments. ThatsHowIRoll 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's how I think it should be. TJ Spyke 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- If we list them how WWE.com does, then it's going by your opinion and TJ's (and some others as well). An actual policy should be decided here, because the same issue applies to: Turning Point, New Year's Revolution, Royal Rumble and all other upcoming wrestling PPVs. RobJ1981 05:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It makes the most sense. It's the most neutral idea and insures no POV regarding the importance of matches. This has also been the de facto policy regarding PPV listings and was never a problem until now. TJ Spyke 05:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- WWE.com isn't neutral though. They clearly list match order by importance for the most part: main event and top matches at the top of the page, and lesser at the bottom. Not always I don't think, but almost always. Same applies for TNA. By copying their official previews, it's still violating NPOV. There is no point to a match order, if it's just a copy of the official site (which is listed on the page). People don't need to read the article just to see an exact copy of some other site. Also as a side note to address the whole matter of "it was just one user changing the order before", that's not true. Many people have done it, granted..it's many anons, it still happens (and has happened). I've watched it happen for long enough, so I decided to get involved finally. Just because they aren't registered, doesn't mean their edits don't count. They shouldn't be reverted just for moving around the match order. Temporary match order to be exact. The event will take place, and then the matches are listed in the order they take place. RobJ1981 02:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If one person is allowed to change it based on how important they think a match is, why can I not put the Inferno match above because I think that is more important? No one will ever agree on the match order so why not copy the official website and leave the matches that way? ThatsHowIRoll 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Match WWE.com. Tag Match, Inferno Match, Last Ride Match, Cruiserweight Match. This is becoming really overblown. ABricker 03:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I've stated before: what's the point of a match order when it's a copy of WWE.com? The link to the official site is on the article already. If people want to read that preview, they can easily click the link. There is no reason for it to be a copy of that preview. RobJ1981 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- What is the point of having everyone re-edit the page to how they want the order to be. If that was the rule it would be changed constantly. Make it the same as WWE.com and there would be no arguments. ThatsHowIRoll 20:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- As I've stated before: what's the point of a match order when it's a copy of WWE.com? The link to the official site is on the article already. If people want to read that preview, they can easily click the link. There is no reason for it to be a copy of that preview. RobJ1981 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. Match WWE.com. Tag Match, Inferno Match, Last Ride Match, Cruiserweight Match. This is becoming really overblown. ABricker 03:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- If one person is allowed to change it based on how important they think a match is, why can I not put the Inferno match above because I think that is more important? No one will ever agree on the match order so why not copy the official website and leave the matches that way? ThatsHowIRoll 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- WWE.com isn't neutral though. They clearly list match order by importance for the most part: main event and top matches at the top of the page, and lesser at the bottom. Not always I don't think, but almost always. Same applies for TNA. By copying their official previews, it's still violating NPOV. There is no point to a match order, if it's just a copy of the official site (which is listed on the page). People don't need to read the article just to see an exact copy of some other site. Also as a side note to address the whole matter of "it was just one user changing the order before", that's not true. Many people have done it, granted..it's many anons, it still happens (and has happened). I've watched it happen for long enough, so I decided to get involved finally. Just because they aren't registered, doesn't mean their edits don't count. They shouldn't be reverted just for moving around the match order. Temporary match order to be exact. The event will take place, and then the matches are listed in the order they take place. RobJ1981 02:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Rpb, going by the order that WWE and TNA lists them are the most neutral order there is. Anything else will be the opinion of the editors here who change it. By going bu the order listed by the companies, we avoid that. TJ Spyke 21:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Repeating what I said before: WWE isn't NPOV either, period. The match order still shouldn't be a copy of WWE.com. People can easily go to WWE.com, Wikipedia isn't the only site on the internet. An actual match order should be determined: not a copy of WWE.com. Something like... Main event, then other title matches, followed by the rest. Even if that's not NPOV, it's still better than a copy of WWE.com's POV which isn't neutral.RobJ1981 21:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- It makes the most sense. It's the most neutral idea and insures no POV regarding the importance of matches. This has also been the de facto policy regarding PPV listings and was never a problem until now. TJ Spyke 05:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's actually no better than the current situation since you will still have people editing and putting the matches in the order they think it should be. Going by the official websites is the best idea because then it avoids having editors constantly changing based on the order they think it should be. How about this, just list them in the order they are announced (i.e. the first match announced for the PPV is listed, then the 2nd, etc.). Since WWE and TNA usually list the world title matches first even if they aren't announced first, we wouldn't be following the their order either. Is that a good compromise for you? TJ Spyke 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see that as much of a compromise: seeing as how when matches are announced, that's how they are listed on WWE and TNA websites (with the main event being the only exception to that alot of the time). But I will agree to it, as long as it works for all PPV pages. It's a start at least, but I still think something new should be figured out for PPV pages as a Wrestling Project policy of some sort. RobJ1981 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- If we list them how WWE.com does, then it's going by your opinion and TJ's (and some others as well). An actual policy should be decided here, because the same issue applies to: Turning Point, New Year's Revolution, Royal Rumble and all other upcoming wrestling PPVs. RobJ1981 05:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wang VS. Helms
I can't add this match, so can someone add it, it was announced that Wang was the #1 contender for Helms title at Armageddon on Smackdown!(December 08)after he beat Noble.Spongemaster0 21:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
And Chavo Guerrero is facing Chris Benoit for the united states championship.
Just added on wwe.com
Paul London & Brian Kendrik vs. William Regal & Dave Taylor- WWE Tag Team Titles.
The Miz vs. The Bogeyman
Protected????
EditProtected
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.KingOfDX 03:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Why is this page protected? Other than the fact that Austraians see SmackDown! before the US, there shound't be any reason for protection. In the edit box, just simply put the following <!---Please do not post matches if the match has not yet aired on US TV or listed on wwe.com.---> . --Tv145033 18:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Read the section above about match order. That's what cause the protection. People can't decide on the order, so it got protected until the problems are resolved. As of now, the problems still aren't resolved. The match order in my opinion: shouldn't be a copy of WWE.com (which is what people kept reverting it to, without discussion here first). If people want to read a WWE.com preview, they can go to that site, not here. RobJ1981 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Who cares about the match order? What's most important is that all the matches are listed and because of an unimportant dispute like this, wikipedia cannot be accurate and up-to-date. Your opinion lacks merit in this situation and there is no reason it shouldn't be listed in the order WWE.com lists it. Besides, once the PPV occurs, there will be a re-ordering according to when the matches occur. DaHumorist 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Pages get protected all the time. The excuse of "Wikipedia cannot be accurate and up to date" doesn't apply here. We can't just say "let's ignore disputes because of accuracy". Wikipedia isn't the only site on the internet, people can easily see the external link of the official WWE.com preview still: which is updated. There is other wrestling sites that have updated matches as well. RobJ1981 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it does apply. And we can just say "let's ignore this dispute b/c of accuracy" because this argument is absolutely unimportant and pointless! The number one most important thing is that the page is accurate and up-to-date. That is the goal of wikipedia not to let people argue over unimportant semantics. DaHumorist 1:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Pages get protected all the time. The excuse of "Wikipedia cannot be accurate and up to date" doesn't apply here. We can't just say "let's ignore disputes because of accuracy". Wikipedia isn't the only site on the internet, people can easily see the external link of the official WWE.com preview still: which is updated. There is other wrestling sites that have updated matches as well. RobJ1981 21:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Who cares about the match order? What's most important is that all the matches are listed and because of an unimportant dispute like this, wikipedia cannot be accurate and up-to-date. Your opinion lacks merit in this situation and there is no reason it shouldn't be listed in the order WWE.com lists it. Besides, once the PPV occurs, there will be a re-ordering according to when the matches occur. DaHumorist 16:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I just came here to add the matches that are on WWE.com, only to find the page is locked... and then I read why it was locked. I was then going to add it to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, but someone had beaten me to it. Don't you Wikipedians have something better to do, like fighting ACTUAL vandals who write infantile things on pages, instead of arguing over what the match order is going to be for a PPV that's going to be changed in a few weeks when the event actually happens anyway? Seriously I wonder sometimes... Anthony Hit me up... 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Lame or not, the page was controlled by a few editors personal opinions. Pages get protected all the time for various reasons, some dumb... some decent. The world goes on, if the page isn't edited 24/7. I think overreacting about the matter isn't helping at all. The number one thing that is important is: people agreeing on things, not just a few editors controlling pages and revert other's edits. RobJ1981 17:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we unprotect it to add a match and keep it up to date?Freebird Jackson 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
{{Editprotected}} was added to this page, but I see no real edit to be made (unless it was that comment). If you want the article unprotected, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Article has been added to the list for un-protection. Article awaiting un-protection... Tv145033 06:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- The match order section (above) explains the compromise: so people need to go by that from now on. RobJ1981 06:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The Miz
WWE.com states his name as Mike "The Miz" Mizanin [1] and the PPV preview lists the match as The Miz vs The Boogeyman [2] He should be listed as atleast Mike "The Miz" Mizanin. ThatsHowIRoll 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- TNA lists their wrestlers with their nicknames as well, but it was decided awhile ago justto use their actual ring name on PPV articles. Nicknames are fine in their articles though. TJ Spyke 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- His ring name is Mike "The Miz" Mizanin. Also don't edit pages with your IP to avoid the 3RR [3] [4] We know that it is you. ThatsHowIRoll 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- His ring name is Mike Mizanin, The Miz is just his nickname. TJ Spyke 23:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- No it is not, all the examples I have shown state that his ring name includes The Miz. [5] [6] ThatsHowIRoll 00:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- His ring name is Mike Mizanin, The Miz is just his nickname. TJ Spyke 23:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- His ring name is Mike "The Miz" Mizanin. Also don't edit pages with your IP to avoid the 3RR [3] [4] We know that it is you. ThatsHowIRoll 23:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
is this really the 1st time 2 world champs tag team? what about smackdown's match (batista & wwe champion john cena vs smackdown champion king booker & ecw champion big show)? which took place first?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.39.21 (talk • contribs)
2007
Armageddon 2007 will be in early November. It is not even in the article. Socks 01 04:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is NOT happening in early November. It's been removed since WWE's affiliate website removed it, so now we have no info on the event. TJ Spyke 05:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
1999
someone deleted it off the article will someone revert it? User:Wrestlinglover420
2000
I've seen the 4 way Tag match dozens of times. Christian hit the Unprettier, or the Impaler as it was called back then, and EDGE got the pin. It's 100% true. Please don't revert it back again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.247.5.23 (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
No 2007 ARMAGEDDON !!
Apparently WWE isnt holding a 2007 event of Armageddon, if you go to WWE's scheduled Live events, which include PPV's, Armageddon isnt on there, so the 12/16 date on the article isnt true, or the venue. proof>>[[7]] TrUcO9308 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's a shame, if they're cancelling one of their PPVS (2 I guess, seeing as NYR isn't on the schedule either) why not get rid of Cyber Sunday? It's a total joke and fixed. Mark handscombe 12:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I know, now WWE doesnt have a PPV for December. They have cancelled, NYR, December To Dismember, and now Armageddon. Shame.TrUcO9308 13:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think they will have a PPV, maybe it will be Armageddon, or maybe it will be a new ppv. I just can't see them ending a year without a PPV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark handscombe (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Sources, sources, sources The Hybrid 22:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Unless something happened, both Armageddon 2007 and New Year's Revolution 2007 will happen. In the program guide WWE sent out for WrestleMania 23, they had the info for both, plus when WWE did announce the Armageddon info awhile ago. So both should stay unless there is proof that WWE won't hold them. TJ Spyke 02:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- It has already been cited, in the first post for this topic. Mark handscombe 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's the program guide for WWE.com. I was talking about the one for WM 23. The Hybrid 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- At current, no Armageddon even has been announced or is scheduled for 2007. The schedule on WWE.com doesn't list Armageddon for this year, nor does the official Mellon Arena website (where the event was going to be held). Also, a wrestling news site yesterday reported that Armageddon is currently not set to be held in 2007, see here. Unless we get official confirmation by either the Mellon Arena website or WWE.com, the event is not yet confirmed, and at the moment not scheduled to take place. TJ if you do have a source, is there any way it could be uploaded to Wikipedia just for the time being until we get an official announcement? Or, is that against Wikipedia guidlines? BUT, I've just seen this. I've done the offer on a side note, but this should mean it should be getting held. I can only see this as a source for the moment. Davnel03 14:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, that's the program guide for WWE.com. I was talking about the one for WM 23. The Hybrid 14:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
WWE.com's Live Events page doesn't mean anything. PPV events are some of the last events listed. For example, a lot of the events in October were listed long before No Mercy in October was listed. Also note that the Survivr Series isn't listed, despite there being events all the way through January. Arena sites are also slow in getting their information up, again with No Mercy and the Allstate Arena. Therefore, the only source we can use are the recent program guides and press releases. Mshake3 14:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's just the problem; you aren't using those. You're just sticking the info into the article without citing anything. Once there's been an edit war, to avoid said war from starting up again sources have to be cited in the article. The Hybrid 05:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2006/2006_04_10.jsp. Date scheduled. Now that we have that, the opposition needs to cite an accurate source on it being unscheduled. And a lack of an appearence on WWE.com or the arena's website doesn't count for the reasons I listed. Mshake3 06:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am not, nor have I ever been the opposition. I responded to a request to end the edit war, so I did by demanding sources. Now that you have provided one, feel free to insert your information into the article, but make sure that you put that source into the article, be it as a reference or an external link. Cheers, The Hybrid 06:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that source says Richmond Coliseum, not the Mellon Arena. The Hybrid 06:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- People, I am the one that began with this, we all have different opinions as I can see, but listen, people keep putting the corporate website as a reliable source, that schedule was released in late 2006, way before the Pay-Per-Views became Tri-Branded, so that source means nothing. WWE.Com's schedule is the only thing we can work with right now because the supposed Arenas that will hold Armageddon have nothing scheduled for December under the WWE name. WWE affiliates dont also have anything on Armageddon. So it should remain with no 2007 edit, until WWE/Corporate Website/WWE affiliates/Arenas, relase any info on Armageddon. TrUcO9308 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2006/2006_04_10.jsp. Date scheduled. Now that we have that, the opposition needs to cite an accurate source on it being unscheduled. And a lack of an appearence on WWE.com or the arena's website doesn't count for the reasons I listed. Mshake3 06:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No venue should be added for any pay-per-view after Survivor Series 07 unless announced by WWE or One of the venue's themselves. The Only exception is WM 24 which has already been announced. And all dates are subject to change. --Zii_XFS 21:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok thats it, the next person to add any information to the 2007 edit will be given a warning. We will leave Armageddon 2007 up but we will not add the venue or date until released by WWE/corporate/affiliates. If WWE hasnt released any information on Armageddon after Survivor Series 2007, Armageddon will be considered unscheduled for 2007.TrUcO9308 22:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
FWIW - there's a note on the Wrestleattitude website that says that someone actually rang the Mellon Arena, and was told that WWE WILL be there in December for a pay per view. However the event wasn't named. It was also noted that Sky Sports in the UK is still advertising Armageddon for December 16. Justa Punk 10:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Look people nothing else will be added to the 2007 section without a source from WWE. You can keep arguing about it but it will make no difference becasue the section will be left like that until the end of November, if WWE hasnt announced anything by then Armageddon 2007 will be scheduled as "unscheduled" And if you do add something to the 2007 section without a source from WWE or a venue, it will be CONSIDERED VANDILISM!!!, and You will be WARNED. End Of Discussion!TrUcO9308 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're just about getting obnoxious. Stop with the string of exclamation points and all-caps, seriously; it's annoying. While I agree with you that nothing else should be added without a source, you could show some respect to your fellow editors. Take it from someone who failed an RfA because I got too upset about things, Wikipedia isn't worth getting upset over. It is a lot easier and a lot more fun if you just get up and walk away when you get upset, pour yourself a drink, watch some TV, and then come back calm and collectively. It also helps you make friends. Cheers, The Hybrid 00:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)~
- Look people nothing else will be added to the 2007 section without a source from WWE. You can keep arguing about it but it will make no difference becasue the section will be left like that until the end of November, if WWE hasnt announced anything by then Armageddon 2007 will be scheduled as "unscheduled" And if you do add something to the 2007 section without a source from WWE or a venue, it will be CONSIDERED VANDILISM!!!, and You will be WARNED. End Of Discussion!TrUcO9308 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hybrid, I don't know about you, but it looks to me like Truko is behaving like an admin when he's not. But I agree with what you have said. I think WWE will announce it before Survivor Series on their website - whether it's Armageddon or something else. We'll just have to wait and see. Justa Punk 12:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Look im not an admin., i dont want to act like one, but im trying to help all of us out by not vandilizing the article. TrUcO9311 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- To the people saying not to include it. Armageddon was confirmed earlier this year to be in the Mellon Arena. WWE may have changed their minds since then, but thero is no proof that they cancelled it (and no, just not being listed in the events calender is not proof). As for the WM23 program guide, I could take a picture of it. Truko, it would not be considered vandalism by any admin, it is just a content dispute. This means that your warnings would mean nothing and you reverting anything would be the same thing (so you would have to follow the 3RR rule as well). TJ Spyke 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but is Dec. 16th listed on the WM 23 program guide as the official date?--TrUcO9311 13:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. It also has the dates for the first 4 2008 PPV's (1/6 for NYR, 1/27 for RR, 2/17 for NWO, 3/30 for WM). TJ Spyke 23:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Look im not an admin., i dont want to act like one, but im trying to help all of us out by not vandilizing the article. TrUcO9311 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that unlike the NYR PPV date which is listed on the schedule as being a Raw House show, there are no events listed on the WWE Events schedule from the 3/12 - 26/2. Armageddon is scheduled to be held in this time, but it and any events (Raw, SmackDown!, ECW, live) are not listed. Normally they take a week off around Christmas, but not 3 weeks, so they might still be working out that part of their schedule.Lynx Raven Raide 12:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Jr said on his blog that the event will be held in Pittsburgh at the mellon arena MATT 13:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Just got this from wwe.com on thier live events page [[8]] MATT 18:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well that settles that. Let this be a lesson to people. Never assume anything without proof. There never was any proof that Armageddon had been cancelled for this year, and there WAS proof that it was scheduled. Once we have a reliable source for something, don't counter it with a less reliable source - of which there are plenty in pro wrestling. !! Justa Punk !! 03:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Kane vs. Jericho - 2000
I remember this was my first PPV ever, and I loved that match, I just cant remember if it was a 10 or 20 count. It seemed like it was a 20, because I vaguely remember the referee counting for a LONG time after the barrell wall was pushed onto Kane....can anyone find out?--Lord Dagon 17:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
2007 poster
I remember batista holding the W.H.T. in the poster but now its a mask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterman4 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's from WWE's official affiliated website: [10]/ TJ Spyke 22:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I remember the version holding the belt too, so the poster must have changed. Probably because it's a huge spoiler letting him hold the title two months ahead of programming, either that or the booking for Survivor Series has changed.Tony2Times 18:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Or it could just be that a gask mask fits the poster and the general theme of Armageddon more than the title belt. TJ Spyke 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's to show that the WWE had originally intended [[Batista to keep th WHT up to Armaggeddon but changed their descision after it was announced that the Undertaker and Batista are going to have a Hell in a Cell WHT match at Survivour Series 2007. It is obviously a spoiler saying that Undertaker will win thw WHT at Survivour Series. User:Kushlar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushlar (talk • contribs) 01:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Or it could just be that a gask mask fits the poster and the general theme of Armageddon more than the title belt. TJ Spyke 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I remember the version holding the belt too, so the poster must have changed. Probably because it's a huge spoiler letting him hold the title two months ahead of programming, either that or the booking for Survivor Series has changed.Tony2Times 18:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please take your speculation to a messageboard. This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not to talk about Armageddon. TJ Spyke 01:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
2007 Tagline
I've added the tagline for the event. Just go to the official Armageddon website and look at the desktop wallpaper. Mark handscombe (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
someone needs to add Undertaker v. Batista v. Edge for the world heavyweight title. it was announced on smackdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesland77 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not until SmackDown airs. Dirtsheets are not reliable sources when it comes to SmackDown spoilers since there is no way to check if they are accurate. So nothing from the tapings get added until it airs. TJ Spyke 10:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
2006: Miz vs. Boogeyman
Didn't Boogeyman pin Miz with a falling chokebomb? Sit-out and falling are different, and it may not be much important, but I wonder, because I have the DVD (along with around 60 more DVDs)...and I remember it being a falling, not a sit-out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Dagon (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's possible since he's used both moves. If you can provide proof it might be changed (I think the source I used listes sit-out). TJ Spyke 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
What's the theme?
What is this year's theme song? I heard it playing in the background on RAW when J.R. and King were going over the card. It is not "The End" by Jim Johnston this year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.140.21 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
2007 No. 1 Contenders match
Rather than a bullet point underneath saying the winner of the match gets a title shot at the Rumble could we not just title the match a #1 Contender Match? Tony2Times (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody would know what title it's for. And plus, what they have now fits better.209.209.140.21 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, we do know what title it is for (they specifically said WWE Championship, plus the only other RAW title would be the Tag Team Championship). WWE is not calling it a #1 contenders match since the winner might not be the #1 contender (they will get a title shot at the RR, but other people could get title shots before that). TJ Spyke 02:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Weather Delays
I would just like to say that being from Pittsburgh that the weather is bad and getting worse. So din't be surprised if there are some last minute replacements for the matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbillv (talk • contribs) 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- WWE wrestlers usually get to PPV's early (several hours), and WWE might have told the wrestlers to show up even earlier because of the weather to avoid having to change matches (since that is a crisis for them, especially if it happened to someone like Batista or Randy Orton since they are defending their world titles). TJ Spyke 23:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
2007 Results.
I changed the way the triple threat main event ending was written so as to explain why Edge managed to get the pinfall after Undertaker hit his finisher, wasn't clear. Madslocodemente (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's not notable. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)