# Talk:Armageddon (2008)

WrestleView, has been considered merely reliable, it should not be used to source spoilers because of this. See the FAC's of LockDown (2008) and Armageddon (2006). Also, these matches are just used by WWE to promote the event to gain more ticket sales, the subject can change, We are not a crystal ball, WV should not be used to source spoilers or rumors.--SRX 22:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
i am going to agree on this..spoilers are just a way to sell tickets..and may not even be true, all i know, wikipedia isn't the place for spoilers, its just for the event.Ruthless-paki (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, per WP:SPOILER it can be added with a reliable source, but WrestleView.com cannot be used to source this type of information per the FAC of Lockdown (2008).--SRX 23:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The only problem with WrestleView in Lockdown was ONE user was not sure of it being a reliable source. Though I believe 3 FAs were passed with that source. Sourcing a small thing like promotion isn't going to kill the article now. We aren't trying to get it to FA or GA now. This can be let go.--WillC 23:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you not understand that WrestleView.com is reliable for results only not other information per Ealdgyth, spoilers are an example.--SRX 23:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The source is a relay from PWinsider. Surely a very well known publication as PWqinsider is fine source.--WillC 00:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
PWInsider is one of the most distrusted websites today.--SRX 00:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Is that you're opinion? D.M.N. (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you guys were talking about spoilers, but the HSBC Arena in Buffalo, NY is advertising the following matches for the December WWE Armageddon PPV:
Chris Jericho vs. Batista vs. John Cena for the World Title
Triple H vs. Vladimir Kozlov for the WWE Title --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent   (Muhaha!!) 12:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well considering Edge is now the WWE champion i think we can rule out the Kozlov-Triple H world title match, while those matches were advertised, plans always change so don't add any new matches until they are announced on television. The Jay Experience 09:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


### Edge vs Triple H vs Hardy
The match has been announced so it's safe to be added.72.50.61.43 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually this match has not been annouced, it may end up that way but there was actual contender named on Smackdown (Loosie (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC))
It has now been announced on wwe.com 27 mins ago.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.209.106 (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 

Yup, and now it on the page and sourced (Loosie (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC))

Today on wwe.com, it was announced that Edge would defend against Jeff and HHH.

Yes. It was added to the article already.--TruCo 19:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In the background section of this article, and other recent ppvs, it says "see also: proffessional wrestling". I think that this is a bit ridiculous to be honest as it implies that all of professional wrestling is a background to this event. Literally everybody who goes on this page will be aware how pro wrestling works whether they're a fan or not. You wouldn't have "see also: American Football" on the superbowl page, or "see also: rock music" on the page of an album, so why is it here?

Why do you believe only someone who already knows about pro-wrestling would view this article? Secondly, no, not everyone is aware of how pro-wrestling works. Some of the "smartest" fans will tell you it's legitimate, and many will tell you it's fake with no true understanding of how an event is put together. The link is there because it's important to the background of the article.  Hazardous  Matt  14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Who believes it is legitimate?King garthur (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Non-wrestling fans, see SummerSlam (2003), The Great American Bash (2005), December to Dismember (2006), and No Way Out (2004), which are Identified as Wikipedia's best work (Featured Articles).--SRX 00:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
But that simply isn't true. I apprecate that those are good articles, and I believe that pro wrestling PPV articles are generally very good, I think that this is a rather bizarre practice. Everyone knows the scripted nature of pro wrestling, and just by reading the article you could establish that even if somehow that had escaped you. It's peculiar, there are scores of people unfamiliar with the rules of american football, but I wouldn't find an article on the superbowl saying "See american football" in the description of the play off brackets, which is essentially the same thing.King garthur (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Its there because of the intro paragraph saying "This event will featured pro...etc."--SRX 01:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but why is that there? Again, it seems to be dumbing down the article significantly. The December to Dismember article does not have this section, and as far as I can remember this is the only one that has actually been the main page featured article. If the level of traffic it would have got from that could read it and understand it, surely it proves putting absolute base knowledge such as this is unecessary.King garthur (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Because it passed before the OOU policy was enforced. See WP:PW/PPVG.--SRX 11:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but it has since been kept as a FA after a review. Perhaps my problem is with the actual guidlines. I reluctantly accept that it may be of some value to have the wrestlers real nmes on there, but I think it looks like a bit of a mess. However, the pro wrestling matches are scripted... paragraph is unecessary. Consider something like a soap opera or TV show where events happen in universe. You might see the actors names on these pages, but you wouldn't have a sentence such as "the plot panned out in the manner that had been written earlier by the writers of the show". I hope I'm not coming across as being pedantic or difficult, because I don't mean to, but I am having difficulty understanding why pro wrestling articles are the only ones were something as specific as a PPV would suggest that you read the most general article on the topic.King garthur (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
All I have to say is that if you had a problem you should have came to WT:PW to discuss it like everyone else did, now the consensus is final because it was recently formed. You can still go to WT:PW to discuss it but it will most likely be of no use.--SRX 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"The consensus is final"... It isn't a consensus if everyone's opinion isn't heard, but to be honest, I haven't been editing wikipedia very heavily recently, and so even if I was aware of this discussion, I probably wouldn't have been involved. I appreciate that this consensus has been reached, and I appreciate that it shouldn't be changed based upon my opinion, but I think you've misunderstood. I'm not asking for it to be changed, I'd simply like to know why this consensus was reached.King garthur (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It was decided as a result of the project trying to get more Featuredd Articles and to comply with WP:IN-U and WP:PLOT.--WillC 02:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand, I just think it seems a bit dumbed down, but I get the logic.King garthur (talk) 09:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I did not like it at first, but you learn to get use to it after a while. I've got to the point that I can't imagine the articles not being Out of Universe.--WillC 10:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Does all pay per view pages have to have the wrestlers real name after it parentheses?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.0.249 (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 

WP:PW/PPVG--SRX 11:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Should have a little bit of continuity to it though, i.e. Either David Bautista or Dave Bautista, Christopher Irvine or Chris Irvine, Phillip Brooks or Phil Brooks, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.153 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

was confirmed in the ECW Spoilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.187.18 (talk • contribs) 

No reliable source, doesn't go in article. Period. TJ Spyke 00:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

needed!SimonKSK 01:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Avoid caps, its considered shouting. I will request it if these IP's continue to vandalize.--SRX 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Then again, it was protected already.--SRX 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Juliancolton did it for me (per IRC request). ayematthew ✡ 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Caps lock sorry. SimonKSK 01:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armageddon (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Disclaimer: I am indeed a big wrestling fan and a frequent editor of professional wrestling articles but the only edits I've ever made to this article is upgrading three "questionable" sources to three reliable ones, nothing else. I am not a member of the Pro Wrestling project either and will review this without bias towards the subject. If you think this is a problem say so and I will withdraw stop reviewing this article. In the next day or so I will be reviewing the article and provide feedback. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright I'm posting comments as I read along.

I see that a whole lot of this is actually rewritten and much better than before. I don't think there is anything outstanding from my previous comments, but as it's had a major rewrite I will have to review it again. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay.--WillC 16:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright mostly new-ish article, mostly new-ish review

Lead
It's worded to indicate that Hardy/HHH/Edge was the only main event, wasn't the Cena/Jericho the co-main event?
Fixed.--WillC 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
"Several matches were featured on the undercard.", a very short sentence, almost a fragment could it not be merged with the mention of the Punk/Mysterio & Orton/Batista match. That would also eliminate the odd "were two featured" end to the next sentence. 2 birds, 1 stone.
Fixed.--WillC 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Factual error, Armageddon did not in itself gross 15.9 million in ticket sales, it didn't even gross 15.9 million at all - later on it's state that the WWE grossed 15.9 million in PPV revenue in 2008, Armageddon may have contributed to that (or it may have lost money) but it did not gross the entire amount.
Okay, I've never delt with the gross stuff in PPVs, so this may take me a while to figure out.--WillC 19:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Should be fixed.--WillC 05:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Background
In the second paragraph you forgot to mention that it was the main rivalry of smackdown, not of the entire WWE.
Fixed.--WillC 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
a match involving three competitors known as a Triple Threat match in WWE for the" => "a match involving three competitors, known as a Triple Threat match in WWE, for the" - commas.
Fixed.--WillC 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I do believe that the term "General Manager" is not exclusive to wrestling and will be understood by everyone if you just put that instead of "Primary authority figure"
It has been agreed that General Manager is still jargon. The term may be used here and there outside of wrestling, but most people may not understand what a GM is.--WillC 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, no need to remind me why I'm not a member of WP:PW, alright fair enough it's the "standard", I'll leave it be. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd recommend it be listed as a "Beat the Clock" challenge with quotation marks.
Fixed.--WillC 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Write time the same way through out, one place you have "12 minutes and 13 seconds (12:13)" and the rest it's just "12:13", is there really a point to writing it out the first time?
I did that as an introduction. It may be common sense to understand that "12:13" is the time, but it is better to be safe than sorry.--WillC 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Good point, I've been preaching clarity so extra points for having it :) MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
"As a result, neither" => "As a result of the tie, neither" just to make it crystal clear why no one was announced as the contender.
Fixed.--WillC 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
you don't have to say "won their respective singles matches" when you've already stated it was "four standard matches"
Fixed.--WillC 19:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Event.
Do you know if the dark match was on the DVD? If so it may be worth noting so that the very small sectiong gets slightly more content to it.
Noted.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
"and slammed him down to perform a chokeslam" => "and slammed him down with a chokeslam". You described the move and linked it, no need to over-complicate it.
Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Intercontinental CHampionship contender tournament, not "Championship tournament".
Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
"performing a knee strike to the face to complete a move called the Go To Sleep." => "performing a knee strike to the face , a move called the Go To Sleep." Again no need to over-complicate it, it just makes it harder to read
Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC).
"Batista followed by pinning Orton and becoming the victor of the encounter" - Again over-complicating it
Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's misleading to place Batista/Orton and especially the divas match under the heading "Main event matches", this show had 2 main event matches, the other two need to go under "preliminary"
Fixed. Mainly was give room to the Hardt picture and since Orton/Batista was one of the main matches.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that now, but still it's more correct this way. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we writing the description of the finisher to give people an idea of what they are? because then I'm not sure "Holding the person upside down and slamming them face first" does justice to the Styles Clash.
It is supposed to be giving the keys points to the move so people who don't know what the moves are can understand without going to the link. Plus the move names are considered jargon so they have to be explained out. It was agreed to cut down the descriptions to better fit the articles. The Styles Clash is a hard move to describe. So the hold upside down and slam face first is the shortest easiest way to describe it I believe.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright WP:PW policy and all. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Link to the aforementioned move isn't right, there is no subheader of that name.
Fixed. Didn't know it was wrong.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey that's why I'm here :) I checked it out cause I was confused about what it was supposed to be. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Inflicting pain to Jerico's Face and back - forget the "areas" it's clear enough without it.
Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Other finishing moves are explained but not the STFU? just where it hurts, not what it is.
It is hard to explain the move without going in depth. Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Last match: Did HHH just let Hardy pin him? explanation needed for why HHH didn't just pin Edge after "forcing his head into the mat"
I didn't know, but now I do. Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It's an encylopedia, it's here to educate people on subjects - as such I think it would be nice to tell people that the "front flip" is the Swanton - heck even wrestling fans may not think it was the same move.
Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Reception
The source states that the 2007 Armageddon got 237.000 buys, you state 350.000
That's what I've found, a much smaller "laundry list" than the previous article. Good work so far. MPJ-DK (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--WillC 20:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Alright it looks much better, one last read through and if I don't find anything major (doubtful) I'll promote to GA later today, good work Will. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read it, nothing jumped out so I'm promoting it to GA, congratulations. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a pure joke, it is NOT a Good Article and should not have been promoted. First, there is the name issues. Wrestlinglover is obsessed with going against guidelines and policies by listing every wrestler by their real name regardless of how well known they are (and ignoring me pointing out how wrong he is, we do not do this for actors and musicians who don't use their real name. My prime example is Tom Cruise, when talking about him we write "Tom Cruise" and not "Thomas Mapother IV". Same thing applies here with Triple H, he uses that name even outside of wrestling and is never called under his real name. He is even credited in the movie "Blade: Trinity" as Triple H). This article should be de-listed immediately (this is the problem with letting anybody review GA nominees, you can end up having articles promoted when they clearly should not be promoted). TJ Spyke 14:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
And a good day to you as well, if you read the comments I insisted that this article was consistent, either all names nor no names - I'd prefer no "real names" at all as I find it nothing but trivial but there seems to be a consensus from the project you're a member off TJ that putting the real names makes it more accessible to non-fans, take it up with your project that they insist on the "ring name (real name)" construction at all, I'm just saying that if it's a rule it has to be consistent and you guys never did anything but create a vague definition of when it's there and when it's not. Oh and have a pleasant day sunshine. In conclusion - your problem is with policy, not this article and frankly I can't be bothered to do anything else about it, get the policy changed and I'm sure Will will be happy to change it. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh and I think you need to be clearer, you mean "this is the problem with letting people who disagree with TJ Spyke" review GA's. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The semi-consensus (a lot of members disagree with it and think we don't need to list real names) at WP:PW is to use the most common name the wrestler is known as (and to only use real names if the wrestler is relatively new or has been well known by multiple names, like how Dustin Runnels has been well known both as Dustin Rhodes and as Goldust), Wrestlinglover just disagrees with that. I would switch the article to just ringnames, but then Wrestlinglover would just revert and claim some BS about that not being OOU. When I tried switching the article back to the standards set by WP:PW, Will just reverted it. As for your second comment, that just shows your immaturity and another reason to restrict who can review GA-nominees.
You may have noticed that it was me that said either all have real names or none, as long as it's consistent - so don't blame Will for it being "all names". I'd rather see no real names, I think that listing their real names is just trivia, but that does not seem to be the semi-quasi-sorta policy so it's nothing I can do to change it. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Armageddon (2008). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126080717/http://www.fye.com/WWE--Armageddon-2008-Front-Page_stcVVproductId53699819VVcatId455366VVviewprod.htm to http://www.fye.com/WWE--Armageddon-2008-Front-Page_stcVVproductId53699819VVcatId455366VVviewprod.htm
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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)