Talk:SummerSlam (2003)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured articleSummerSlam (2003) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 8, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 1, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 23, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject iconUnited States: Arizona Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Background

I would take the liberty to include Kane's feud with Rob Van Dam (highlighting their reign as World Tag Team Champions and Kane's unmasking), but most of this stuff would come from the archives of wwe.com, and the school has decided to block the website. If this article is to be expanded like many others, I'm suggesting this information should go in.--Lord Dagon (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly put together

Is it really necessary to have the wrestlers' real names in parenthesis? It seems a bit pointless to me. It seems doubly pointless to keep doing it throughout the entire article (for the likes of Triple H, Stone Cold etc).

And why is it necessary to explain every minute facet of professional wrestling as it comes up in the article, eg: the brand extension, Eric Bischoff's on-screen role etc?

Another thing I find ridiculous is the constant mentioning of "staged" rivalries. This is completely redundant - it is professional wrestling, the whole concept of which is staged. Whoever added this unnecessary dross may as well go to the Dark Knight movie page and add in that Christian Bale and Heath Ledger staged their rivalry for the purpose of the film.

O.K. I've just read the whole thing, this article is absolutely atrocious! Repetitive, long-winded, ridiculously patronising in tone and poorly put together. Whole sections are repeated and for some reason, out of the blue, the author feels it is necessary to describe exactly what a tombstone piledriver is. Your level of detail is inconsistent with itself! I've never seen the likes of it before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.212.130 (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because this the way you want it, violates
X 14:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

What is the likelihood of the "non-wrestling reader" picking SummerSlam 2003 of all articles to start finding out about professional wrestling on? There are perfectly good articles on the brand extension, Eric Bischoff, the Tombstone Piledriver (and all the other padding you have littered this article with) already available on Wikipedia. A simple hyperlink would be adequate in each case. If you were to apply your ridiculously superfluous standards to every article on professional wrestling they would all become unreadable, like this one is!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.212.130 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not intended to "teach" the non wrestling reader about pro wrestling. Do you know what
X 14:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

It's still completely unreadable and WHOLE SECTIONS are repeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.212.130 (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This whole layout is asinine. This article, and others like it, have sacrificed good information to make it "more formal." You're treating the non-wrestling fans like idiots by constantly having to explain everything like they don't already know it's fake, and explaining moves everytime you mention one. If you want someone to learn about wrestling, just use the old format. If someone doesn't know what one thing is, they can click the link and educate themselves, it'll get them interested. That's how I got most of my wrestling knowledge, back when it was simple.

And who chose Summerslam 2003? This wasn't a very important PPV. Why would anyone be interested in it, nothing noteworthy happened here, unlike December 2 Dismember, WM X-7, Summerslam 2002, or countless others. Donco (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA criteria is FA criteria, it's not going to change. We want FAs, and this is how we have to do it. Changing it back would constitute vandalism. For the record, I AGREE with you. I hate the way it reads, but tough, we want our articles to be good under the proper criteria. And again, the article is not meant to be a specific learning tool for education on pro wrestling. And the PPV's relevance overall means nothing. It's how the article is written that matters. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an awful article. It is in fact disgusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.53.228 (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPs! When will they learn.
X 21:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Version 0.7

This article does not appear to have broad enough appeal to be included in Version 0.7, which includes only the top 1% or so of articles. Walkerma Walkerma (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been nominated for Version 0.7 of the offline Wikipedia release but did not meet the standards for importance. It has been put on Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations for further review. Please see that page for details.

Attack on Goldberg

Evolution's attack on Goldberg after the elimination chamber match isn't mentioned - any reason why not? --Jameboy (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not notable and relevant to the match itself: the attack affected Goldberg or the match in no way.--Truco 503 18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think getting smashed with a sledgehammer would have affected him in some way... --Jameboy (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is all storyline.--WillC 20:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result of every match comes from the script-writer's pen, so I don't understand the distinction. --Jameboy (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What effect did Goldberg being attacked by Evolution have on the match itself?--Truco 503 21:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It had no effect on the match itself because the match was over. However, professional wrestling is just as much about the storylines as it is about the actual matches, and featured articles are supposed to provide comprehensive coverage of all aspects of the subject. The article as it stands is misleading, because it implies that Triple H gaining the victory was the end of the night's proceedings, but it clearly wasn't. --Jameboy (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not notable. This article is a summary about the important things that happened at the event. Goldberg getting the shit kicked out of him is not important. You never see some say "Hey, remember SummerSlam 2003? Yeah, there was some good matches. Don't forget Goldberg getting beat up". It is just not important.--WillC 23:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Jameboy (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFA appearance

This is scheduled to appear on 8th September 2013 on the basis that it will run *unless* Istanbul is selected to host the 2020 Olympics. The decision is due on 7th September. If Istanbul is selected, then that will be the TFA and this article will be shifted to a date later in the month.

BencherliteTalk 17:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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 no consensus. With usage mixed in sources and far-reaching consequences for similarly-named articles, this move would need stronger support. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

–

WP:COMMONNAME, and the other reasons outlined above, the brackets should be removed from the titles of all of the SummerSlam articles. Relisted. BDD (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Neelix (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not sure I agree that the parentheses suggest that these articles form part of another. I think it's fairly obvious what the title actually means. As each individual event is simply named "SummerSlam", not "SummerSlam 2005" for example, moving the article would mean it actually has the wrong title. Also, keep in mind that if you change this, then you'll have to then change every
BB 07:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Oppose. The event were called SummerSlam, never SummerSlam 2009, SummerSlam 2001 or SummerSlam 1997. The only case similar, WrestleMania 2000, because the official name was WrestleMania 2000. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SummerSlam is the usual name, but they year is included when needed. WWE.com uses "Catch all of the action from SummerSlam 2003, featuring..." and "...at SummerSlam 2003", indicating that the year is used without brackets as part of the name. I'd support the move, but further discussion may be needed if there's a naming convention (either formal or informal) to use brackets. Peter James (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HHH Pedigree's statement above is not correct; the events are referred to with the years added in many of the sources, including official sources, as Peter James indicates above. Neelix (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They're all named plain "SummerSlam". In cases like those, a qualifier in parentheses is the normal way to go. The most logical choice is to disambiguate by year (rather than venue or main event). Fine as is, without misleading anyone into thinking the year is part of the title. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in this case is that the articles are all related. Consider the Olympics articles (2012 Summer Olympics, 2008 Summer Olympics, etc.). The convention in this case is not to employ brackets, but to add the year per our naming conventions on events. Neelix (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympics are widely promoted, and referred to in the broadcasts themselves, with the year in their title. Or the number of the event. Not so with SummerSlam. Compare the official logos. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't go by official names on Wikipedia; whether or not the name is used in the broadcasts themselves, the name is used quite commonly in the literature. See, for example, this Google News search; "SummerSlam 2003" is a very common way of referring to that event. Neelix (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if these aren't renamed, then the redlink should become a bluelink redirect -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would make more sense, yes. Either way, the brackets are not appropriate as these articles are all related to each other and the sources, both official and official, do not employ the brackets. Neelix (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, no source calls the Hulk in comics
Hulk (comics). It's widely understood that parentheses in an article title is strictly for disambiguation, not implying the parentheses are in the subject's title. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
The parenthetical disambiguator in
Hulk (comics) distinguishes a fictional character from unlike things, such as a film (Hulk (film)) and a footballer (Hulk (footballer)). Parenthetical disambiguators are not for disambiguating between like things, as is currently the case with the SummerSlam articles. Neelix (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
1988 and 2008 seem rather different to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Both are different sport entertainment events. The official name is SummerSlam, no 2008 SummerSlam or SummerSlam 2008. Same name, but different events. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how the Wikipedia community has decided that articles are to be titled. All of the events called "SummerSlam" are referred to by that name for the same reason in the same sense; such is not the case for "Hulk", where one is a comics character, one is a film, and one is a footballer. The character, film, and footballer are not collectively referred to as "Hulk"; they are each individually referred to as "Hulk". "SummerSlam", however, collectively refers to all of the SummerSlam events. For this reason, it is not appropriate for the title of these articles to be the same as the main article title with the sole difference being a parenthetical disambiguator. Wikipedia's naming conventions for events are clear. Neelix (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's clear to me from that guideline is it applies to military conflicts, terrorist attacks, transportation accidents, natural disasters, and the like. While some might call pro wrestling violent, I don't think any reasonable person would consider it "like". The more relevant guideline is here, where, oddly enough, SummerSlam (1999) is used as an example for bracketed disambiguator style. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline you indicate appears to have been superceded. It is a section of our naming conventions for numbers and dates that is supposed to summarize the guideline I indicated: our naming conventions for events (see the hatnote or "main" link). Because the summary and the actual guideline contradict each other, I would argue that the guideline itself is correct and the summary should be reworded. You will notice that the example after the "SummerSlam" example has already been altered in accordance with the actual guideline;
Azadegan League (1999–2000) has been redirecting to 1999–2000 Azadegan League for years. Neelix (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not following how you came to see the guideline on spontaneous events like disasters and war as the "actual" guideline, or why it would supercede a guideline on live events recurring at regular intervals. They seem obviously distinct. There is a link, but it's a See Also, not a Main Article. Suggests the two are related, but not that either is the "parent" guideline. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Azadegan League (1999–2000) example became defunct suggests to me that this section has not kept up with standard editing practices. Neelix (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
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.

Recent Vandalism

Pretty new here so i just reverted it manually to the last clean version hopefully more experienced users can clean it up Beav4braves (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Beav4braves. For reference, the article is now identical to this version by Tbhotch dated at 08:40, 28 September 2013, which seems likely to be the last good version and any further cleanup should only be necessary if any of the intervening edits improved the article (which I suspect they don't). --RexxS (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 12:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 14:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SummerSlam (2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SummerSlam (2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SummerSlam_(2003)&oldid=1210583907"