Talk:The Great American Bash (2008)/Archive 1

Poster

Okay me and this other user are having a dispute on which poster should be used. Should we use Image:WWE The Great American Bash.jpg or Image:GAB 300x450.jpg. So instead of me and him reverting back and forth I just thought to put it up to a vote.--^--WillC-- 01:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Image:GAB 300x450.jpg because it has more superstars. 76.110.82.251 (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to put neither poster in the article until the OFFICIAL one is determined. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay I agree. After Night of Champions the official one should be released. We'll wait till then.--^--WillC-- 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd go with Image:GAB 300x450.jpg seeing as it's from WWE's official affiliates website (and WWE.com recognises the website). I'd say that's as official as you're going to get. -- Oakster  Talk  09:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I question WWE affiliates. Because when I looked on there I found the poster with HBK and HHH on the beach. The one where HBK does a elbow drop to him. I'm not sure if it is made by wwe or it is a website by someone from WWE. because I never saw any markings of WWE on the website besides just WWE affiliates. Also if that is the official one then why did WWE send the other one to in demand.--WillC 10:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, this has happened before (Survivor Series (2007), I believe). WWEAffiliates is as good as we are going to get, and it's the most trustworthy. I see no reason to believe it's fake. –LAX 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That HBK dropping the elbow on HHH was just promoting the event and didn't mean HHH vs. HBK. Also that happened with Unforgiven 07 InDemand put something else cheap with Undertaker doing a Leg Drop which was very cheap. The same thing happened with the Survivor Series 07 one too it had edge's face and Edge spearing people. And then WWE affiliates put the official one on the website. Image:GAB 300x450.jpg is professionally made and Image:WWE The Great American Bash.jpg is some poorly made non-professional poster and I don't think WWE sends them cause why would they forget to put the Date,Time,and sponsor? So I bet InDemand or someone else that is not in WWE made that. SuperSilver901 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. Why would someone from in-demand make a fake poster. Also how would they get the pictures to do it. The date and time thing has been done with many posters and not all of the posters on in-demand don't have the times. Image:Slammiversary.jpg, Image:Victory Road (2008).jpg, Image:TNA Sacrifice 2008.jpg all have their times on it and I got them from in-demand. Also WWE and In-demand have the partnership for airing the ppvs. Why not send their official poster over there instead of allowing them to make a fake one.--WillC 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your poster was a prototype. SuperSilver901 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Both posters have to do with GAB. 76.110.82.251 (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.... I don't think you understand the topic and the resources that these posters are coming from were trying to decide which one is official and there is only one the only time there's two posters is usually for one of the "Big Four" PPV's and don't say Unforgiven 07 that one ended up being a fake. SuperSilver901 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

hbk vsjericho

this match was annoucned lastnight on raw i think you should put it on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.137.3 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1) No it wasn't.

2) Not a forum.

D.M.N. (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

DMN, you didnt even explain. it was not announced, jericho issued a challenge, but hbk hasnt accepted so its not official. and i dont see how he was using this page as a forum.Qwerty36095 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Triple H vs Edge

Friday Night Smackdown has been taped, but wait for a source for wwe.com --Numyht (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Edge Versus Funaki

I keep adding Edge vs. Funaki but it keeps getting deleted! Just look at the poster! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.45.26 (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's on the poster doesn't mean anything. Look at One Night Stand (2008). Kane is on the poster, but didn't wrestle at the event, and was on-screen for a whole 5 seconds. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's confirmed by WWE.com, it does not go onto the article. D.M.N. (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Just because it is on the poster doesn't mean anything. Rey Mysterio was on last year's poster and he didn't show up until SummerSlam. The Undertaker was on Night of Champion 2008 poster and he lost at One Night Stand. Also RKO was on it to and he lost the title to HHH along with MVP to Hardy. It doesn't mean anything if someone is on a poster.--^--WillC-- 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

actually it was announced but hbk must stillaccept the challenge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.68.110 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It was announced on Tuesday, June 2nd, That Edge will Face Triple H in a one on one match at the Great American Bash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingFreak82 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Source it --Numyht (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

whos changing my edits

y do people always change my edit that the hhh vs edge 4 the wwe title its was on smackdown i jsut watched it --Jhauth11 (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Triple H vs Edge for WWE championship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.65.210 (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

yerh that 1 it was just added on smackdown and i just watched smackdown a couple of hours ago --Jhauth11 (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Friday Night Smackdown has been taped, but wait for a source for wwe.com --Numyht (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC) --Numyht (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship CM Punk V John Cena —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.202.31 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

CM Punk and John Cena is not notable. Actually, since SmackDown airs in Australia, its reliable to include in the article. See here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

World Heavy Weight title

Lords of Pain Announced it will be CM Punk vs JBL vs Cena for the heavyweight title, they are a pretty ligit group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.89.160 (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I has to announce first.--WillC 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, one, Lords of Pain is not a reliable source. Two, Wrestling Lover, you don't have to announce it first. Per WP:OWN.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was told that you need a reliable source to place it in the article or WWE.com announces it or it is announced on Raw.--WillC 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you understand me, I dont know if it was your intention or not, but you put "I has to announce it first", referring that you have to announce it first, but per WP:OWN you dont own an article or it information. And yes, a RS has to say it to be placed in the article.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 21:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That was a type-o. I meant to put "It has to be announced first,". I guess I hadn't notice it untl now.--WillC 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

JBL Vs Cena

can someone add that match it has just been announced on wwe.com.Deadman lastride666 (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It has been added. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia

Are australians allowed to post updates of what happens on sd! even tho we are ahead of the US' airing times (as edge vs. hhh was announced on aussie tv b4 the us). I think it has to been allowed. What if u attended the live performance, filmed it and posted it on YOutube. Is youtube reconized as a reliable source? Just because it didint happen in the US...this dosent mean we should dismiss this valuable information....Is wikipedia only the free encyclopedia if u r american? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.142.250 (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is okay for people in Australia to place stuff in the article since it has aired but I wouldn't since mostly stuff is placed in after it airs in the US. Live performance? No it has to air. Youtube is not a good source. Only if it is from the WWE, TNA, or ROH is it reliable.--WillC 10:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a another rumor I am hearing but it seems to be that there will be CM Punk vs JBL vs Cena for the World Heavyweight title

The ruling is that you don't add matches until they've been announced on TV in the States, or if they've been announced on WWE.com. Someone just tried adding another match announced on this week's SmackDown, but it should not go on here until it's been aired in the States. Steveweiser (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that's been changed to first televised airing, or WWE.com. WP:PW  Hazardous Matt  21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep Consensus is if it has aired in an english speaking country it can be added1362^talk 21:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The main feud

I've seen that the background says the main feud is from the Raw brand but are we sure of that. Usually the main feud is announced first. Triple H vs Edge was announced first. The main feud is usually around the WWE Championship. I know that Raw is the flagship show but wouldn't it be safer to either say the main feud is from SD since it was announced first and has the WWE Championship around it? Or we could just not say which is the main feud. Just say the main feud from the Raw is Batista vs CM Punk. And The main feud from the SD brand is Triple H vs Edge. Instead of "The main feud going into the Great American Bash on the Raw brand is between CM Punk and Dave Batista." and "The predominant feud on the SmackDown brand is between Triple H and Edge, with the two feuding over the WWE Championship.". I think that would be better.--WillC 05:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say just list "the main feud on ____ brand." I've always wondered how it was determined what the main feud for any PPV was in the first place... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah like with WrestleaMania. It was said to be the Raw brand because it was the WWE Title and it was the flagship but in the end it turned out to be the SD brand. I think it would better to not even say which is the main feud because Punk vs Batista doesn't sound like a main event to a WWE PPV.--WillC 20:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

ECW Championship

Hey they announced that the ECW Championship will be on the line Mark Henry vs Tommy Dreamer by SonsOfAnarchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonsOfAnarchy1982 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WWE has said nothing about that match. Best just to wait.--WillC 21:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Announced; added with ref. D.M.N. (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Match Format

Why are all the WWE page matches listed in this new format, it looks really bad, and it is very difficult to read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Per a new consensus at WT:PW due to featured article reviewers requesting that results section be tabulated. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rumors for the Bash- ECW

Miz and Morrison vs Hornswoggle and Finlay vs Jesse and Festus vs Hawkins and Ryder in a Fatal 4way match according to ringsidemayhem Thats the seventh match and rumor is they will make another one for the other tag belts currently held by Rhodes and Dibiase JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.89.160 (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

ringsidemayhem.com isn't a reliable source. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry but nothing seems reliable except WWE.com User:SuperSilver901

WWE.com, WrestleView.com, PWtorch.com, f4wrestling.com (WON), and 411mania.com, those are reliable sources.--S_RX 22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, 411mania was not proven reliable. -- iMatthew _T.C. 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It was proven reliable per their about section, I just cant remember where I saw it though.--S_RX 23:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can provide proof, it can't be considered reliable. -- iMatthew _T.C. 23:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I suggest you look at SummerSlam (2007)'s previous RfA. It can be used as long as it is backed up by another reliable source. –LAX 23:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Agreed with LAX. But I saw that Ealdgyth somewhere said it was reliable in a User talk page non wrestling related. Just dont' have the link to it. Arrgh.--S_RX 23:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Times....

Hey i have the times. being updated from www.gerweck.net i will be posting up the times after all matches

Klrobinson93 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Gerweck is not a reliable source per WP:PW. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Live Typo

Hey just found a typo: "faught" should be "fought"

I have no ability to edit but thought you guys would want to get to it now.

--Flyingcandyman (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Already fixed. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted, apologies for distraction. --Flyingcandyman (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

U.S Title

HA! You people have been to busy nerding people around "ohh you cant add this even though we know its happened" that you have NOT found a reliable source for the U.S title match! SUCK EGGS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.229.3 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no relaible source like the WWE website advertising it from Saturday onwards. Tony2Times (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

GAB Umaga beat Ken Kennedy after hitting a Samoan Spike in a dark match at the Great American Bash. Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder won the WWE Tag Team Belts (Hawkins knocked Jesse off the top rope, then rolled him up for the pinfall!!! ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.123.240 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dude the US Title match was in the article on Friday. So you're making no sense.--WillC 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Match Results

How bout we put HOW the match was won (pin, submission, what move etc). Otherwise whats the point of the whole chart thing? User:CTUnick —Preceding comment was added at 22:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not needed in the results section, that will be added in the event section once the event occurs.--S_RX 22:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I think all of this new crap is sloppy, witn the whole "Leadup, Event, Aftermath" stuff, very difficult to read and not worth the effort, I used to come here to get quick and easy to read results, now I won't anymore, because this is becoming ridiculous, THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! screw the rules, stop changing things that shoudn't be changed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, built to provide detailed and in-depth information. NOt a news site to provide quick results/facts. Go to a news site if you don't like Wikipedia's new policies and format. Also, remain civil.--S_RX 00:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SRX. This is a encyclopedia. The reason of the Background, Event, and Aftermath is to make these articles higher levels of importance. With the report is the only way we can do that. The table is just another addition because it was asked by reviewers to place it in a table. If you don't like it then don't come to wikipedia and just go straight to WWE.com.--WillC 01:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be the one nagging voice against this, but doesn't it seem like with that mentality, one could do away with results in general, and just link to WWE.com at the end? The policy seriously needs to be fixed. --BS01Swert (^Talk) 01:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On the match-result note, is it possible for someone to fix the matches section so that the Great American Bash infobox isn't covering up the last third of the chart? 72.171.0.149 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. The way the results are listed is pretty pointless. Why are why listing these as if this is a legitimate sporting event? At first glance I don't know if a title changed hands or how the match ended. This is pro wrestling, remember. It's more akin to a soap opera or any other TV show. The result of a match isn't so much as important as how the storylines progressed. Movies and TV shows offer complex plot descriptions, and these results pages should do the same. If this is Wikipedia policy to present these substandard results, the policy needs to change. Vader47000 (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That will be added in the "event" and "aftermath" sections, but first the "aftermath" has to happen. Give us a chance, the event only ended about 2 hours ago. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think the old way was better and quicker instead of reading an entire story to find out how a match ended. But I also think the table is much neater. WeLsHy (talk) 04:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The table was brought in due to numerous Featured article reviews where it was suggested over and over and over again, that it would be better in the table. A new consensus was formed at WP:PW, where we agreed, and the change was implemented. The basic results, i.e. who beat who is recorded in the table, along the the match number, stipulation and time. If the match ended by disqualification or countout then that it also recorded in the table. There is nothing wrong with this table, it's simply the fact that people aren't used to it. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If the "Aftermath" and "Event" are what will tell you how a match ended, then why is it that there is essentially NONE WHATSOEVER event information since the Judgment Day PPV back in may........ The only thing present in the Event is the dark match, and the aftermath is non-existent, you all just completely disproved your theory of better, it's completely worse, and everyone can see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you should have another consensus where you aren't the only person giving you consent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus comes from those on the project at WP:PW not the talk pages of the individual article. Anyone can join the project and voice their opinion.  Hazardous Matt  13:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I was kidding...Im just trying to make a point that all these changes are hindering the goal of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't think so. The information is being properly cataloged. It's presented for easier organization and readability, not necessarily for the ease or convenience of adding that information. Wikipedia, like any encycolpedia, shouldn't focus on providing every single detail (even in match descriptions) and should serve as a portal to other bits of information deemed reliable.  Hazardous Matt  15:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But there is no "Portal" to the other information...and honestly, there is no Encyclopedia containing any wrestling event results, meaning that there is no standard for these pages, As is very clear, no one likes this new format, it makes no sense to use it, and as I said, which you seem to be avoiding, There has been no event or aftermath information since Judgement Day in MAY! that means your argument is useless, because these pages ARENT being used as you say they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An Encyclopedia is not designed to be a source in itself. An encyclopedia cites excerpts from sources. The information that is gathered cites those sources, more often than not WWE.com or other reliable sources. Therefore, an encycolpedia is a portal. It is a starting point for gathering information, rather than a be-all-end-all resource. And the number of people against the new format has been small compared to those who have been in favor of it. Again, if you want to raise discussion about the table format, you need to discuss it at WT:PW, not on this talk page.  Hazardous Matt  16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God, you are completely ignoring my point. My point is that while you SAY this new format contains all the match results and the fashion they were won in the Event section, THERE IS NO RESULT AND FASHION OF VICTORY IN THE EVENT SECTION! oh wow, i just won, so everythign goes back to normal now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about it containing all of the necessary information. You're referring to a post by someone else. My point was the purpose of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia (which had been brought into question) and the consensu of the table format. If you have an issue with the development of the Event, Results and Aftermath section, you're free to contribute to them.  Hazardous Matt  16:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, no, the whole issue with the Event Results Aftermath is that there is no point in having it, esspecially since NO ONE keeps it updated, thats why it's easier to go back to the way it was, where there were never any issues to begin with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Never updated??? That's because sources haven't released the entire results and the aftermath hasn't occurred yet. Plus, look at December to Dismember (2006), SummerSlam (2003), and SummerSlam (2007) for great examples of expanded PPV pages.S_RX 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You think Im just talking about THIS page, you just named three, out of many PPV, proving once again, that this new format is not good enough and does not work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.192.145 (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

lenght

it doesnt tell you how long the matches are —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.137.3 (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because we don't have a reliable source to tell us the times. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you not just time it yourself?

Sorry guy, DIY Ethic doesn't work here, the few decide for the many unfortunantly. Killswitch Engage (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be considered original research. --LAX 18:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)