Jump to content

Talk:WWE Cyber Sunday/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

2007 poster

what happened to it?

WWEAffiliates just put it up yesterday here: http://www.wweaffiliates.com/images/cyb300x450.jpg Sorry but I don't know how to put it up.

Hasbro

Did Hasbro's dispute over the copyright to "Taboo" have any impact on the switch from "Taboo Tuesday"? Tromboneguy0186 10:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You joking? It's a word. Using the something like "the McMahons created a monopoly out of wrestling, and now DX are there to bring it down" to advertise a PPV would not bring about game-makers suing them: because monopoly is just a word. As is taboo.andyroo316 00:36 GMT, 12 July 2006

No, it wasn't changed for that. Due to the fact that they tape Smackdown and hold ECW on Tuesday nights, but also due to low buy-rates.

Bingo, it's buy-rates. Most people aren't looking to watch PPV's on Tuesday. Both TT PPV's did very low buy-rates. TJ Spyke 20:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

--EXACTLY. This should be mentioned in the entry then! (Zackarcher 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Are all cyber sunday posters currently on the web fakes?

More than likely... yes. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I Just put up the confirmed real Cyber Sunday Poster yeh it changed because of that - Jonocarlito 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

y is there a cyber sunday 2007 thing on here already? y dont we wait until its announced where its gonna be at?

It has already been anounced. And, please sign your comments. 76.110.82.251 21:51, 16 October 2007 (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 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

But if it's on the website or in commercials, it should count. Why? - because trailer info counts for movie pages and they are glorified commercials. Also, website news is constantly cited as Wikipedia sources (not just in wrestling - all over the board) and is currently becoming the world's top source of information. I agree, if it's a rumor or local commercial, it shouldn't count. However, if it comes from the WWE website or nationalized/global commercials, 9/10 they are correct. And on the few occassions it isn't true, it isn't hard to click 'edit' and delete it once the match is not on the full, official card. --Andyroo316 21:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to move. — Mets501  (talk)  01:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

WWE Cyber Sunday → Cyber Sunday – No reason the page had to be moved since WWE just calls it "Cyber Sunday" and there is nothing else using that name TJ Spyke 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • Separate brand PPV articles are named as...
WWE New Year's Revolution, WWE Backlash, WWE Vengeance, WWE Unforgiven, WWE No Way Out, WWE Judgment Day, WWE No Mercy, WWE Armageddon... So, for the purpose of keeping things consistent, Cyber Sunday should be kept as WWE Cyber Sunday [8] [9]. -- bulletproof 3:16 22:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • All of those have WWE in front of them because the PPV names are already used for other articles (except for New Year's Revolution). That is not a problem for Cyber Sunday. TJ Spyke 22:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • True. however, other sources list the event with the initials [10] [11] -- bulletproof 3:16 23:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Note that just because the name is not used by another article is no valid reason for a move. Sources list the official name for the event as "WWE Cyber Sunday". Other than it being the official name, having the WWE initials makes certain that the article has something to do with Professional Wrestling. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Women's Championship

If I'm correct, their are eight woman competing in the tournament. If their is one match a week, the first round would take 4 weeks. This may mean that the tournament finals will not be set in time for Cyber Sunday. Lemme look in on it, could someone help verify this? Killswitch

People keep trying to add it in, but just like we don't add in the Royal Rumble match until we know at least 1 participant I don't think we should add that in until we know one of the finalists(plus we don't know if the match will happen at CS or not). TJ Spyke 22:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
There are 2 matches left to declare the 2 final diva's. On the next 2 episodes of RAW they will take place so Cyber Sunday will declare a new WWE Women's Champion! Belevsquad 13:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Most likely, but they probably won't announced it until the RAW before CS. TJ Spyke 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

the 3 world titles

Just so you guys know their a Rumore that all 3 world champions will put there world titles on the line at cyber sunday—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.120.89 (talk • contribs)

So? Nothing goes into the article unless WWE announces it. TJ Spyke 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oi, TJ, you didnt have to be rude about it. I don't care wether your the better editor, you could have stated that a lot nicer then you did.
I have to admit that sometimes I am a little rude to anon IP's. It's hard not to be putting uo with all the vandilism I deal with here and at GameFAQs. TJ Spyke 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Vince announced on RAW that there will be a poll to decide which title will be on the line Bencey 14:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

TJ, you can be has rude has you like. You were telling the truth. Who cares if all 3 titles are on the line. 76.110.82.251 21:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:CIVIL, he can't, but I didn't think that he was being rude, personally. The Hybrid T/C 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Champion of Champions Mach

K, screw this. Obviously, the criticism of wikipedia is correct. You don't give a shit about the facts presented to you. It's all admins. I'm done editing this page, presenting facts that are blown aside, so fuck you.

The people criticising are usually the same people who don't follow the rules. Check out WP:PW for the agreed formatting for shows. TJ Spyke 03:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
...*sigh*... ...trolls... -- bulletproof 3:16 03:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
3bulletproof, let TJSpyke discuss his own situations. I hate that everytime I see TJ arguing with somebody your always right there saying sigh...trol ls. Give it a rest. Kings bibby win 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

RepChristian07 7:12, 11 October 1006 Agree, but it's true the editing for everyone is a little overated its mostly admn.

Spike, why don't you drop off for a day or two. You seem a little too overbearing. Remember, Wikipedia is for everyone, you are not the boss. Jr W 02:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Refer to bullet's comment. Also, it's Spyke. TJ Spyke 03:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but i don't think he gives a shit about how you spell your name as long as the pronunciation is right. And I agree with Jr W, you have to stop acting as the boss all the time. And the people who criticise it are the people who have gone through the bullshit that takes place on this website. I've read the page, and i've found that most of the facts are dead on. So, this is over. I'm tired of being pushed aside by some fucker who has an ego the size of Russia. And a comment on the old Canadian SmackDown spoilers issue, you can't put movie spoilers if I can't put those results. Now, good day.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Killswitch Engage (talk • contribs)

I don't post movie spoilers, so no problem there. Also, there is no such thing as a "Champion of Champions" match, it's just a regular Triple Threat match. We don't add in every time they call a match a "Grudge match" and stuff like that. People can read the rules before they register, and no one is forcing you to stay if you don't want too. TJ Spyke 03:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
...Again... ...trolls... -- bulletproof 3:16 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the WWE CS Site is calling the match Champion Of Champions Match [12], can't we compermise and make it look like it read Champion of Champions Match but when you click it, it brings you to the Tripple Threat Match thing. I'm not trying to be a troll but you always go around and try to post what the WWE calls things, and thats what they are calling it. Overlordneo 06:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. While it isn't necessary to list every "grudge match" as such, the champions vs champions aspect of this match is the most significant aspect. Jeff Silvers 05:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like every time i read these talk pages TJ Spyke is always arguing with somebody. I mean I know he may be a tad bossy at times but he's really just trying to help. -- Kings bibby win 18:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not call it "Triple threat champion of champions match", with matching link to Triple threat? --Howard the Duck 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest that this match is re-referred to on the Results page by the title defended. That would specifically relate to changing the line "in a Champion of Champions Triple Threat match to retain the World Heavyweight Championship (21:06)" to "In a Triple Threat match for the World Heavyweight Championship (21:06)"...would this be possible? User:JoeyStyles

Deletion?

Why would anyone consider putting a deletion thing on the WWE Cyber Sunday article? *lol* It's an article for an annual WWE PPV that's still in the process of being updated as matches are announced. vDub 10:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

...Did you even check the article? There's already an AfD up (which is currently swingging heavily in favor of "keep"). Jeff Silvers 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

2007?

Has it been announced that there is a 2007 Cyber Sunday? And is that date definite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jr W (talk • contribs)

Yes, right on WWE's corporate website: http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2006/2006_04_10.jsp TJ Spyke 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding Unannounced matches

There have only been 3 matches added. Do not add any matched or speculation unless you can prove WWE has announced it. [1]

Not screened in the uk

There was a dark match with Super Crazy, I know because I was there. And I don't know if it's triva, but the steel chairs by the ring all had the Cyber Sunday logo, and the people who had the tickets got to take the chairs home with them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.134 (talk • contribs)

Why was the comment that i posted earlier about Cyber Sunday not being shown in the UK deleted from the article when British Sky Broadcasting confirmed earlier today that it would not be showing the event?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.73.209.81 (talk • contribs)

I wasn't the one who removed it, but it doesn't appear to be notable. Also, please sign you comments by typing TJ Spyke 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC). TJ Spyke 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

heh, just noticed this, but BSKYB did show this and it wasn't PPV either. Govvy 16:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WWE Women's Championship

Has WWE announced that the finals of the womens championship tournament will be at Cyber Sunday? I looked through WWE.com and there was no mention of it.Jayorz12 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see it either until another editor pointed it out, it's only mentioned on a page about the tournament: [13] TJ Spyke 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I know it was announced on wwe.com but lets just wait until after Raw..looks better.Kings bibby win 22:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Put the lock in this page. Some vandalism again. Xbox6

Article split into Taboo Tuesday and Cyber Sunday articles?

I realize that the premise is the same (fans vote for stipulations, opponents, something, etc.) and that it's interactive, but should we really have Taboo Tuesday and Cyber Sunday in one article? Since they were called different things and done on different days of the week, doesn't it make more sense to split them? Again, I realize the premise is the same, I'm just wondering here.-Anakinjmt 04:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They were seperate, but someone merged them. They are basically the same PPV, so it doesn't bother me too much. TJ Spyke 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
SPLIT THE ARTICLES! these are two different ppvs, with different names and even differen days in the week. but it doesn't matter anyway, because this ppv will not be in the 2008 schedule. Diivoo 18:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The articles wont be split. And no they are not different PPVs. Check out Cyber Sunday's history page at WWE.com [14] Taboo Tuesday is part of it's history. [15] So essentially, Cyber Sunday is the same PPV under a different name. Just though I'd clear that up. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why omit "Champion of Champions match"?

Further information: § Champion of Champions Mach

Really now, this is the most important aspect of the match yet it is omitted. Why? --Howard the Duck 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please guys, just stop this edit war. Edit wars are never a good thing on Wikipedia. So, take a vote on which way to use and stop this fighting. Clay4president 00:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The people who removed the "Champion of Champions match" thingy do so without edit summaries, FYI. And since this is the first "Champion of Champions match", we might as well add another type of match to the Professional wrestling match types. And oh, Polls are evil. --Howard the Duck 05:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
First off, if you bothered to check you would know I always leave an edit summary. Second, it's not a new type of match, it's just a Triple Threat match. It doesn't matter what WWE calls it, it's a triple threat match. TJ Spyke 05:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to Ryan554 (diff). (and I take offense that my contribution was labeled as vandalism). Yes it's a triple threat match, but the WWE bills it as a "Champion of Champions match," so the Money in the Bank match should be changed into a plain old ladder match? What harm would be done if the "Champion of Champions" snippet will be added? --Howard the Duck 05:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Money in the Bank is a special match in that it's for a title shot and has become an annual event. If this was a title unification match, then I would agree, but as of right now it's just a triple threat match with 1 title on the line. Also, my comment of vandalism was about the stuff that anon IP added. TJ Spyke 06:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
So it's a triple threat match among three major titleholders with only 1 title on the line; in other words, a triple threat match with a lot of stipulations, like a ladder match having a title shot as a stipulation. So, to make it simple, it's a "Champion of Champions match". Again, what's wrong on stating that the WWE billed it as a "champion of champions match"? --Howard the Duck 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Lots of stipulations? The fans vote for which title will be on the line, thats it. TJ Spyke 06:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention the competitors are all major titleholders. So, what's wrong on stating that the WWE billed it as a "champion of champions match"? --Howard the Duck 06:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is wrong with it, except some editors have become over-protective of WWE articles in my opinion. WWE refers it to Champion of Champions, so that's what it should be called. Even if it's a one time match, it still should be called the proper name. RobJ1981 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Just call it Champion of Champions Triple Threat Match. That way, it gets the point across it's a triple threat match while also calling it what WWE calls it. This sound like a fair compromise? Anakinjmt 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with this proposal. --Howard the Duck 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The match is called the Champion of Champions match. It is called that on the WWE site and also on raw,smackdown,ecw isn't
Didn't understand that last bit about RAW, Smackdown, and ECW "isn't", but the article currently says "Champion of Champions Triple Threat Match". This is an edit that will satisfy everyone, and it gives the reader the most info: it's billed as a Champion of Champions match but it is a Triple Threat match. Also, please sign your comments. Anakinjmt 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
One time match? There have been many triple threat matches in the past and there will be more in the future. Calling it something different doesn't make it so. Do what you want know, but it will not be there when we add in the results. Say Cena wins and it for the WWE title, the result will say "John Cena defeated King Booker (w/ Queen Sharmell) and The Bog Show in a Triple Threat match to retain the WWE Championship".? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs) 21:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
WWE clearly calls it Champion of Champions, there is absolutely NO reason to ignore that and not mention it. Not as a note, but as the match title. If you hate the name or whatever: so be it, but that simply doesn't justify ignoring it. When the PPV airs and is over, the match should be called Champion of Champions triple threat. There is no reason not to, period. Take a look at Cyber Sunday 2005: Fulfill your Fantasy is a special name for the match, and it's listed as Fulfill your Fantasy battle royal... if I remember right, there's only been 2 of those matches. Even if there is only one Champion of Champions match ever, it's STILL the official name. I don't see why it shouldn't be listed under the official name. RobJ1981 04:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not just an ordinary "triple threat" match, this a match between three major titleholders. I'm getting redundant already, so just answer the question (repeated for like the third time), TJ Spike, what's wrong on stating that the WWE billed it as a "champion of champions match"? --Howard the Duck 04:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be done where it says "Champions of Champions" then when you click on it, the page goes to "Triple Threat" Overlordneo 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it looks fine now. Freebird Jackson 23:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

I believe the Trivia section of the article should still be kept despite the fact it's riddled with "Taboo Tuesday" everywhere. It really shouldn't be a case since Taboo Tuesday redirects to Cyber Sunday. --Antoshi~! T | C 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead if you feel like rewording it. The trivia section stopped being updated and adjusting it so it doesn't sound like its just about TT. TJ Spyke 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Both of Randy Orton's CS/TT matches have ended with him RKOing and pinning a former Evolution teammate for a victory. Perhaps that should be added to the Trivia section. 64.12.116.199 08:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

2007

I deleted the 2007 section due to the fact that WWE is replacing Cyber Sunday with Armageddon next year. They've announced it themselves, so it should be fine. Redo it if necessary, but it will end up being deleted later in the year once people realise this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.29.1 (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

They haven't said there won't be a Cyber Sunday 2007. All we know is that Armageddon will be in November, they could just be flipping the two PPV's (like they did with Vengeance and The Great American Bash). TJ Spyke 22:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

October 28th?

How can 2007 cyber sunday be held on october 28th? Armageddon is going to take place early November. Cyber Sunday 2007 is not after No Mercy and before Survivor Series. Because Armageddon is. It should have the date of Cyber Sunday 2007 as TBA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Socks 01 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

According to WWE's official Affiliate website, CS will bw on 10/28 and Armageddon is not scheduled for early November anymore. TJ Spyke 05:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was oppose move -- bulletproof 3:16 16:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2

WWE Cyber Sunday → Cyber Sunday — Other sporting tournaments do not have the name of the promotion in the article's name. (NFL, PGA, NASCAR...) Consistency throughout wrestling pay-per-view articles as some do and some don't. (not including those with ambiguous names) Aaru Bui DII 09:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support The promotions initials should only be used when it's needed for disambig purposes (like with WWE Armageddon). There may be other PPV's that would apply here too (since it's almost 6am and I haven't gone to sleep yet, I can't be bothered to check right now). TJ Spyke 10:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I agree with most of these, and it makes sense to me. At the very least, the WWE should be taken out of the Saturday Night's Main Event page, since the show is mainly known for it's 1980s run, where it was never called "WWF's Saturday Night Main Event" and it's just a little messy, the WWE/F is not necessary in that case or the others. Booshakla 09:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
It is promoted, advertised, and called WWE Saturday Night's Main Event though.-- bulletproof 3:16 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Oppose all Its the way they are written in press releases, and other entries... Please see sites such as Amazon.com IMdb.com IGN.com. All of these sites list whatever page they have on a WWE event with the WWE initials in their title. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Then what do you say to adding the promotion to pages that do not? The WCW ones, some WWE including the Big Four, etc.? --Aaru Bui DII 08:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    WWE isn't always consistent in press releases, and on-screen they almost always just say the name of the PPV (No Way Out, Backlash, etc.). My opinion is that the promotions name should only be included when needed for disambig reasons. TJ Spyke 08:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
    Is that why at the beginning of every single WWE PPV ...Oh, such as this past month's No Way Out... during the opening graphics, the announcer always says... "And now... [Brand/s] ...present WWE [PPV name]"? No Way Out 07. New Year's Revolution 07 Armageddon 06 -- bulletproof 3:16 01:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Oppose all. Keeping the promotions' initials as a prefix enables continuity between article titles, looks more professional and makes it easier to sort pay-per-views in a list. The benefits of not having prefixes are not clear, particularly since only a small number of articles can be directly linked to at this time. McPhail 19:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose all Having WWE in front of it is the least confusing way to sort pay-per-views. It also is the most encyclopedic way to list the PPV's, and as noted already, the benefits of not having WWE in front of it are unclear, and can lead to more confusion, not to mention being consistent with PPV's: if some articles require WWE in front of them for disambig reasons, ALL of them should. Anakinjmt 20:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    WP discouraged disambig titles when they aren't needed. TJ Spyke 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

HBK v HHH - Taboo Tuesday 2004

Should there be a reference that Michaels was legitimately injured going into this match?--HDC7777 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PPV ?

Did people in America actually have to pay to view this? Because in the UK this event isn't a PPV event. Govvy 16:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, people in the US had to pay to see it. Anakinjmt 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

lolz that makes me feel better for when we do have to pay for it Dark spikey 13:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Poster

What is the Diva's name on the 2007 poster? I can't seem to figure it out.

TheGuitarHero 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Candice Michelle -ChristoCracker 10:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I can't believe I couldn't figure that out.

....Good picture.

TheGuitarHero 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Seperate page for Taboo Tuesday

Does anyone think that Taboo Tuesday should be on a seperate page to Cyber Sunday. They have the same formula but technically they ARE different PPVs. What you reckon? Mark handscombe 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Figuring that this is likely to be the last one, I think there is no need. Leave them together. --Zii_XFS 21:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is the same PPV with a different name, even WWE says this. Zii, what makes you think this years will be the last one? WWE hasn't announced any PPV's from the second half of 2008 yet. TJ Spyke 01:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
a news byte from 411mania saying WWE has let the trade mark for Cyber Sunday expire.[16]Lynx Raven Raide 11:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Not true. Trademarks last for 10 years, so WWE couldn't have "let it expire" (they would have to give it up early, which is unlikely since it wouldn't save them any money by not keeping it the full 10 years). Also, 2 days after WWE abandoned 1 of their Cyber Sunday trademarks (they have 6 "Cyber Sunday" trademarks), they filed the exact same one. On September 4, they abandoned the "Entertainment services, namely, the production and exhibition of professional wrestling events rendered live and through the media of television" trademark for Cyber Sunday, on September 6 they filed a new application for the exact same type of trademark (maybe they thought about dropping it but quickly changed their minds). TJ Spyke 00:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember that when WWE announced it (on TV), JR said, "we've had Taboo Tuesday, but now it's time for something different...Cyber Sunday"..or something along those lines, but it doesn't matter because I can't cite this. If you think it's better as one page then that's your call, you're the boss Mark handscombe 18:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the proof from WWE: [17], where they say "In 2004, Cyber Sunday was known as Taboo Tuesday". So WWE considers it the same PPV and all they did was change the name. TJ Spyke 23:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That source proves that they are the same thing, but even without it my opinion would be that they should stay together. There is no reason o separate them at this point. The Hybrid 00:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TabooTuesday05.jpg

Image:TabooTuesday05.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TabooTuesday04.jpg

Image:TabooTuesday04.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fathead stickers

It's stupid, but they're at least as notable as an "official theme song" or tagline, especially since they're going to be tied into the rest of the PPV voting«»bd(talk stalk) 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Mshake3 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not going to fight on this issue, but I don't think they need to be noted. Wall graphics don't mean anything and they don't have anything to do with the PPV. The official theme song is played when they are talking about the PPV and the announcers promote the song on all three brands for weeks leading up the PPV (and the week after). For most events, the tagline is also hyped (look at SummerSlam, I lost track of how many times they said "The Biggest Party of the Summer"). TJ Spyke 23:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, where is this supposed press release? The "source" is not an actual source. Other people are supposed to be able to check it, but they can't here. If there was a press release, a website would have it. TJ Spyke 23:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It was there, must have gotten lost in a revert/cut/copy/paste/whatever. It's back. Either way, I'd be willing to bet you're going to be losing track of how often they mention Fathead in the next few weeks.«»bd(talk stalk) 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

orton's match

several sites are reporting he will face HHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.74.254 (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound rude, but so? We don't list rumors, WWE will announce Orton's opponent tomorrow at noon. TJ Spyke 02:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

HBK, Kennedy and Jeff. Welshy1791 07:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kinda slow there, the page was updated about 14 hours ago when wwe.com announced that. TJ Spyke 08:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Flair and Piper tagteam match

Dusty Rhodes and Sgt. Slaughter were in the corner of Flair and Piper. They should be mentioned that they were there. I think it should read Ric Flair and Roddy Piper (w/Dusty Rhodes and Sgt. Slaughter) defeated...Soopafred 03:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I just went back and watched some of it, and you are right. Rhodes and Slaughter came out right after the Spirit Squad. TJ Spyke 03:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 Theme

Confirmed as "Fast Fuse" by Kasabian. [18] Steveweiser 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:PW conesnsus is to wait for SmackDown to air in the US, so wait about 5 hours. TJ Spyke 21:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael's Percent?

What was the vote numbers for the HBK Hardy Kennedy vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AD Double J (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Try checking the article. It's clearly listed right there. And this isn't a forum. Gavyn Sykes 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The number wasn't in the article when I posted Jackass. AD Double J 01:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. No personal attacks please. Gavyn Sykes 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Divas costumes

We need to add what the divas were wearing. AD Double J 02:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be legit to add WWE pictures of what each diva was wearing? I think the pictures are important, to know what lead to the outcome of the win Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't think what costumes they were are really notable in any way. That's just my opinion though. Gavyn Sykes 02:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I have an exam tomorrow, so I won't work on it today, but maybe tomorrow, I can work on a Cyber Sunday 2007 article on my sandbox. Like that, there could be some tables and in-depth explanations of the JBL/FOley/SCSA confrontations, and play-by-play on match results, plus a wikitable for the Divas and their costumes. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any of that is needed, at least yet. Just put what they were wearing (something like "Torrie in a Washington Redskins uniform"). Maybe if/when someone decideds to do a Cyber Sunday 2007 article (similer to the WWE One Night Stand articles), more detail could be added. TJ Spyke 20:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Voting Results

Triple H vs Umaga: Street Fight 57%, Steel Cage 26%, First Blood 17%[19]. Batista vs Undertaker (Special Ref): Stone Cold 79%, Mick Foley 11%, JBL 10%[20]. Mickie James also got 21% of the votes in the Diva Costume Contest[21]. The page is locked at the moment, so when it is unlocked can someone add these? Thanks Infinity! 04:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

troubling rumors

there are rumors oging around that the voting is rigged could sum1 please put that it is not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Halloween Contest

Does anyone know what the voting results were for that? I'm just curious Kirby17 13:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Votes

Would it matter to include the number of votes casted by people worldwide? If we did, we could simply put it in a small sentence in the paragraph where it includes the theme song and all. --Lord Dagon 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO, only if it's a record amount. The 2006 event had more votes IIRC (about 15 million). TJ Spyke 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

References

I sourced every match and bullet in the 2007 section. Why were they removed? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 20:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I did, but I intend to replace them. You referenced both the match and the match result, and you didn't use reference templates. I am not sure that each match needs to be referenced when one reference can be used (linking to the Cyber Sunday 2007 results page). TJ Spyke 20:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

MVP

The match against Kane wasn't for the U.S. Championship —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.64.98 (talk • contribs)

Yes it was: [22] TJ Spyke 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Batista Bomb

Since I can't risk reverting it a second time, can somebody revert it back to say "a Batista Bomb" rather than two? Batista did do 2 Batista Bombs, but then went for a pinfall attempt (thus breaking it up). After Undertaker kicked out, he did another Batista Bomb and got the pinfall. So that technically means he used just 1 for the win. TJ Spyke 05:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it back. But I've never heard of a proper, consensus-supported procedure for listing finishes in PPV articles. Do you have a link? Otherwise, I think this should be brought up on the talk page of WP:PW. Gavyn Sykes 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
No formal discussion, but this is just how it's always been done (making it a de facto consensus). TJ Spyke 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That's good enough for me. Gavyn Sykes 22:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http:www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Cyber_Sunday/Archive_1&oldid=1147991793"