# Talk:SummerSlam (1992)

In regards to the match between Shawn Michaels and Rick Martel, the article should state that Sherri was pretending to have fainted to stop the two men hitting each other. The way the article is written, it comes across that she really fainted. Watching the match, you can clearly see Sherri opening one eye to check if they've stopped. HDC7777 17:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Summerslam attendance number is actually the biggest number for WWE according to Dave Meltzer.  As the 80,000 at Wembly beats the 78,000 approx at Wrestlemania 3.  But this is accorrding to Dave Meltzer.

Well, according to Meltzer the official attendance of SummerSlam 1992 is 79,127, not 80,335 which is announced by WWE. This beats out WrestleMania III's number of 78,000. However, we've already got the attendance wars going on in the WrestleMania III article, so the bringing up the attendance disputes here is probably futile.(24.211.252.101 02:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC))

The Intercontinental Championship was one the line in the WWF Backlash 2001 main event, it was also the final match.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.28.233 (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC) 

It's the only Main event to feature only the Intercontinental title.71.60.42.210 (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the Savage vs Warrior World title match was promoted as the main event for the pay-per-view (although there were T-shirts commemorating the I-C match onsale at the venue).  The fact that Hart vs Bulldog was the last bout of the night is immaterial - if the last match on a show was always ipso facto the main event, then logically it would follow that, for example, the main event of the WCW Great American Bash 1991 was not Lex Luger's world title win over Barry Windham but instead Rick Steiner and Missy Hyatt vs Arn Anderson and Paul E. Dangerously! 86.161.54.172 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
And it was, because the original main event never went ahead because Flair was fired. It happens like that sometimes. The main for Summerslam 1992 was the IC title match, and so it should have been because of where it was and more importantly who was in it. Ultra X987 (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No it wasn't.  Just because a match is on last DOESN'T automatically make it the main event.  Luger versus Windham was the main event of GAB '91 in the end, Missy and Rick versus Paul E and Arn was just meant to be a bit of light relief to finish on and send the fans home happy after they'd just seen Luger turn heel.  Savage versus Warrior was always promoted as the main event, it was just on the night that the Bulldog's IC title win was run last to give the UK fans a happy patriotic finish to their evening. 95.148.201.13 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Have a good look at the poster on the article. Savage vs Warrior is clearly shown as the main event while the Intercontinental title match is relegated to being one of three second-line matches.62.190.148.115 (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SummerSlam (1992)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. I hope I have not taken on more than I can handle, as I have never reviewed a professional wrestling article before. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Background is a very confusing section. In comparing that section to the one in Lockdown (2008), I notice that in Lockdown the reader is oriented more as to the sequence of events by "The main event", "The other main rivalry heading", "One of the featured matches on the undercard", "The other main match on the undercard" etc. Would it be possible for you to organizing that section along these lines rather than repeating "The following match"?
The same issue applies to Event where in Lockdown there "Preliminary matches" and "Main event matches" plus more orientation within the sections. (I realize I have mixed up the Background and the Event sections. Sorry! But do you get my point?)
Is the number of stars given by visitors to Amazon.com considered a valid reference?
Perhaps not. It is included in many of the newly-expanded pay-per-view articles, but it doesn't really add a lot (especially to this article, which has a lot of commentary from more reliable sources). I removed it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"The Road Warriors held the championship belts until Michael Hegstrand, who portrayed the character of Hawk..." - Although you mention Hawk previously, and wikilink him, you don't say he was a member of The Road Warriors. This is confusing to someone not familiar with these characters. (Please feel free to enlighten me on wrestling subjects, as I may be missing the issue.)
You're absolutely right. They were the Road Warriors in the NWA, but they were called the Legion of Doom in the WWF. I wasn't thinking, so I called the team the Legion of Doom the first time and then accidentally called them the Road Warriors after that. This is fixed now. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
"the matches that took place at the event had pre-determined outcomes that had been decided by the promotion." Who is the promotion?
I changed it to "the WWF". GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps information like this could just be left out, since it adds more detail without significantly contributing information relevant to the article subject. "There was no significant buildup to the match between Crush and Repo Man. The two had teamed together, however, as part of the Demolition tag team, in which Barry Darsow, the man who portrayed Repo Man, had used the ring name Smash. The WWF's writers did not include this fact in the storyline, however."
I agree that this is more trivia than useful information, so I removed it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the article. I will have limited access to the internet for part of the upcoming week, but I will definitely work to address all of your concerns. One thing that you may be able to offer a suggestion about: In the "Event" section, I'm not sure that "Preliminary matches" and "Main event matches" sections would work well, as WP:PW decided to add subsections on the assumption that all main event matches would come at the end of the event. The two main events at SummerSlam, however, were the sixth and eighth televised matches. I prefer the chronological flow, which would be disrupted by discussing matches 1 to 5, then match 7, then matches 6 and 8. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You should do whatever works best for your article. I could not follow it and I could follow Lockdown, so I was using it just as an example. I also know that the Lockdown article had a lot of work done on it when it was in GA review so it is the result of much effort.—Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll give it a shot. I'm still having some internet problems, but I should be able to finish this up pretty soon. If you could extend the hold a couple of days, I can address your concerns fully. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I'm glad to do it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I rearranged the background section to focus on the main events first. I'm not really sure what else to do with the event section, as I believe that chronological order makes for a more logical flow and eliminates the point of view decisions about what truly qualifies as a main event (as an illustration, I recently read a thread on a message board that discussed Wikipedia wrestling pay-per-views, in which several of the comments criticized the Taboo Tuesday (2004) article for including the Christy Hemme-Carmella DeCesare match as a "main event"). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever you did, it is much better and easier to follow. A great improvement. I have no problem following the story now.  —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. Is there anything else left to be fixed, then? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I've run through it and it seems fine. Passes GA.
 Final GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite several people's attempts to remove it, the statement 

"The buildup to the pay-per-view consisted of feuds scripted by the WWF's writers, and the matches that took place at the event had pre-determined outcomes that had been decided by the WWF."
is immediately restored to the opening paragraph by GaryColemanFan with no explanation besides one flippant comment, otherwise saying he's removing vandalism. 

This has nothing to do with this particular article as it is true of every other pro-wrestling event for decades. It's not clear to anyone why this event is unique among WWF PPVs to warrant this. (The user obviously takes an interest in wrestling wikis, but this is the first time I've ever seen this mentioned on a PPV's page, at least for any throughout the '80s up to this one).
This is equivalent to choosing a random football event and opening the article with "Football is a game of two halves; strategy is decided by a team's manager and kick-off is determined by tossing a coin".

Consensus seems to be to remove it Harshmustard (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Consensus at WP:PW was to include it in all articles. It also passed due to WP:IN-U, WP:JARGON, WP:FICTION, etc. Pro wrestling is not a full sport, it is scripted and as such it must be explained that the events are not legitimate in order to fully cover the subject at hand.--WillC 06:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but do you have a link where this was actually discussed and agreed? All I can see in the PW style guide is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Style_guide which states "Generally, the lead can be written in an in-universe perspective since many of the statements in the lead are explain in an out of universe perspective in the main body prose", and it's true most everything you read in PW articles is carefully noted as being kayfabe or not, with a link to the term and so on. I can see the need for such a rule but surely if you're looking up a specific event, you've already familiarised yourself with the sport it is an event of (ie its theatrical nature is explained in the first line of the Pro-Wrestling page).
The first paragraph in the event background kind of gives it away "Although the writers' plans originally called for Shawn Michaels to win the Intercontinental Championship from Bret Hart, the storyline was adjusted due to the change of venue. As a result, England native "The British Bulldog" Davey Boy Smith was chosen to win the belt." (Actually maybe my exact objection with mentioning scripting was not made clear) Harshmustard (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with your statement that the article will be read only by people who are familiar with professional wrestling. Obviously, there are no prerequisites to being allowed to read a Wikipedia article (remember, there's also that nifty little "Random article" link). As for consensus at WP:PW, it was established during discussions that began in the second half of July 2008. Article reviewers wanted it made clear that professional wrestling was not a sport in the same sense that baseball, football, etc., are sports. In response, a concerted effort was made to over-explain everything. It backfired, since it made the articles difficult to read. As a result, a consensus was attained to include a statement at the beginning of the article that would serve to take the entire article out-of-universe without the need for constant reminders throughout the article. As it stands now, the statement is factual and serves a valuable purpose. There is no reason to remove it. Rather than edit warring (man, I hate the way that sounds as a verb, but I'm too tired to think of a better way to phrase it), you are free, as I mentioned earlier, to discuss this at WT:PW and try to achieve a new consensus. Until you have done so, the statement should remain, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it's on you to prove it's needed, because consensus and your own style guide are clearly against it. Until someone can provide a link to where this has been subsequently decided I (and everyone else that has been disagreeing with you) am going to have to keep removing it. If it is policy I have not seen it followed anywhere... I take your point about random articles but to me it's unnecessarily awkward; the lead should be a short summary of the event with a few facts and figures; if anyone cares to read a little more scripting is almost immediately revealed to them. But if everyone has agreed on this I'll go along with it... Harshmustard (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm must link again I see: WP:IN-U,WP:JARGON, WP:FICTION, etc. Is it needed in the lead? No it can be placed in the background like most other articles, say like the ones I've wrote: Destination X (2005), Lockdown (2005), etc. However, it is still needed within the article. The style guide says we are to explain, it just says its not needed in the lead. Plus, the style guide has not been updated in 3 years. Since then many discussions have taken place. It is shown this format is needed in the article due to policies.--WillC 13:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Background clearly states the agreed format for an article. "When expanding this section, avoid using wrestling jargon. Generally, the first paragraph contains a brief overview of the way professional wrestling functions. This paragraph should explain that professional wrestling involves scripted plots and storylines. In addition, it should be stated that rivalries cast the wrestlers as a hero or a villain. Optionally, it can be stated that the scripted events took place on certain television programs of the promotion."--WillC 13:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I did see those links but was after a more specific reference for it needing to be so prominent in the lead. I think you misunderstood, my objection is not with mentioning scripting as it is mentioned in the article more naturally. I probably should have made it clearer as I was expecting GCF to respond first. I don't think the reference to the background addresses the problem with the lead. It is unnecessary and just reads awkwardly there. Harshmustard (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
The examples you gave read much better than this; in them the leads talk extensively about the actual article matter, and the "fake" nature of wrestling is not broached until much later, and in a way that does not stick out like a sore thumb. Thinking about this particular event more, the article would be improved immensely by referring to how it is in fact an exception to the usual heroes and villains storylines of the time, as both title matches featured characters traditionally both the faces/"good guys" (at least in the recent history) against each other (along with a some heel on heels come to think of it). I think this would make for a more interesting article, while being sufficiently "real world". If it really has to be spelled out as fake so explicitly, someone should update the dozens of other PPVs :( Harshmustard (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Well numerous people have been trying to remove it for a few years now. If there's no objection how about moving it to the background after a while as a compromise... Harshmustard (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

-if anyone edits it they could remove the need for citation needed from the broadcast date - it's shown in the image above it (not gonna tempt fate editing this) Harshmustard (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. While I am certain that the consensus-building discussions are readily available in the WT:PW archive, I am more interested in pursuing your suggestion. If it can be phrased more naturally (and perhaps later in the article), the flow of the article would be improved. Because SummerSlam 1992, as you mentioned, was unique in the fact that the two main events were both face vs. face matches, using that fact to throw in a short disclaimer-style note about professional wrestling would make for a greatly improved article. I'm pretty busy right now, but I'm willing to give the phrasing a shot--and post it here for discussion--in a few days if nobody else has a chance to do it first. With that said, I can agree that the current phrasing isn't ideal, so I'm not going to argue if you feel it should be removed until an improved version is written. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad I could contribute something other than annoyance :) To be honest I had no idea where to look for the agreed policy on this, I scanned around the PW pages but "readily available" might be pushing it ;) Going back a few pages in the archives afterwards I did see a few discussions covering much the same ground I just did that also referred to even older debates but I couldn't check back further to find them still. I recognise wiki is a labour of love and none of us have unlimited time to spend on this, but if possible I think the project would benefit if someone could collect together big important discussions like that when something's been decided, so they can be easily linked to for reference and to shut guys like me up with one click (it's always interesting reading over debates and it keeps me quiet for a while). Also it might benefit the reviewal of policy so it doesn't become something of habit set in stone beyond question, if it's something easily accessible that can be looked over freshly with all the factors to hand. Don't mean to be complaining or telling any of you you've been doing a bad job though, blah. Likewise I didn't mean to be kicking up a stink I'm just a stickler for seeing proofs with my own eyes and seeing for myself their interpretations, as is probably obvious now. This isn't a bad article by any means.
ANYWAY yeah no rush I'm sure you'll do a great job on the article, I trust you on that so don't feel like I'm looking over your shoulder on this. Harshmustard (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SummerSlam (2003) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In the article it claims that the Tatanka vs Berzerker match actually took place following the Undertaker vs Kamala match. On the home video release in the UK it takes place after the Savage vs Warrior match. Is there any proof that the match actually took place following Taker vs Kamala? Are there any links or articles that suggest this? During the Undertaker vs Kamala match you hear Vince McMahon specifically say that the Bret vs Bulldog match was coming up next which would mean Tatanka vs Berzerker already happened. Unless someone can provide a notable link or any kind of proof showing that Tatanka vs Berzerker took place after Taker vs Kamala then I think the match order should reflect the order of the original UK release in 1992.OldSkool01 (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I was there on the night.  That was the running order.  The final four matches were Warrior versus Savage, Undertaker Versus Kamala, Tatanka versus Bezerker, Hart versus Smith.  A good supporting source would be the event review in Power Slam's predecesor Superstars of Wrestling.  Also a couple of the Aptermags would have provided coverage listing the bouts in the correct order.  The positioning of the Tatanka-Berzerker match in between Warrior-Savage and Undertaker-Kamala on the videotape was a screw-up, plain and simple. 2.26.165.36 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It still doesn't explain why Vince on commentary during the Taker vs Kamala match said the IC Title match was up next. The commentary was done live in the UK and they didn't have time to fly back to Stamford and re-dub the commentary before the show aired on PPV. If it was just a screw up with the videotape editing the matches out of order, then that means Vince already knew the Tatanka vs Berzerker match was going to be cut before it even happened? Something doesn't add up. OldSkool01 (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Vince already knew it was going to be cut (probably his decision in fact!)  It was meant as an untelevised dark match like the two opening matches.  It's possible that the person editing the video release also picked up on Vince's comment and got confused by it.95.148.201.13 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Except that it wasn't meant to be an untelevised dark match. It was advertised for weeks on TV leading up to the PPV. The only 2 matches that weren't advertised on TV were the first two matches, the 6 man tag and Tito vs Shango. The reason Tatanka vs Berzerker was cut from the PPV was when they edited it afterwards, they realized the show ran too long to fit in the 3 hour PPV window. Remember, this show didnt air live on ppv in the US or the UK. It aired two nights later on ppv. OldSkool01 (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting - perhaps the Vince comment was dubbed on at some point between the 29th and 31st once it became apparent that the Tatanka match was being given the chop (not the tomahawk chop!)  There's plenty of precedent for commentary being redubbed eg Royal Rumble '92 or edits to make Colosseum video bonuses mesh into the flow more easily or to remove controversial material like Jesse Ventura's comment about Richard Belzer during the WM6 main event.  95.148.201.13 (talk) 09:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I highly doubt they dubbed in Vince's comment. There'd be no reason to. Plus they really wouldn't have time to redo voiceovers between flying back to the US and going right to Hershey, PA for the next set of TV tapings on September 1. Also, what purpose would adding that Vince comment serve? If anything, when they released the UK vhs, they would've just cut out the Vince comment altogether and then place the Tatanka vs Berzerker match in the supposed proper spot on the card. Which brings me back to my original question of why would they change the Tatanka-Berzerker match position on the UK release? If it was to make Vince's comment fit and make sense then that's an awful lot of unnecessary work when they could easily just cut out Vince's comment. All of this let's me believe that Tatanka-Berzerker really did take place right after Warrior-Savage and before Taker-Kamala. Again, if someone can provide some kind of proof showing otherwise then great. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It could have been dubbed in to make the broadcast flow more easily.  Sky TV had plenty of studios in London and Vince and the crew could have gone in on the morning (UK time) of Sun 30th Aug 1992 to do the editing to produce the transmitted version, leave a copy for Sky Sports to broadcast on Mon 31st Evening UK time and fly back to the US on Concorde while Sky TV could have transmitted it on from Astra to a satellite over the US and then down by a private relay to a ground station in the US ready for the PPV on Mon evening US time (early hours of Tues 1st Sept UK time).
Oh and that match wasn't the only bit of the show that got transmitted out of sequence to real life.  Remember that bit at the start with those guys doing the trumpet fanfare?  That was actually filmed just before Legion Of Doom vs Money Inc (and after the six man and Shango vs Tito).  Before they did the trumpet bit, Howard Finkel told the crowd "When they (the trumpeteers) finish, we want you to show the American fans watching on TV that you can shout and cheer JUST AS LOUDLY as they can!"  62.190.148.115 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. How's this for a source? 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
It helps, but it's only 1 site. On the other hand, I found something a little more tangible. This: youtu.be/dmJZynYavVIow Now granted it's not the whole show, but this link shows a video that was taped by a fan live in the stadium. It cuts off just as Harvey Wippleman is introduced, but the key is Harvey is introduced right after the Savage vs Warrior match, which would indicate Taker vs Kamala was next. This isn't necessarilly the smoking gun that we're looking for, but it's the closest piece of evidence we've got so far. As for the Vince comment, I still don't believe that comment would be dubbed in afterwards because there would be no reason for it. It could simply just be that Vince screwed up. Plain and simple. With that said, we should get a consensus on this. With all the evidence that's been provided so far, and if anyone can provide further evidence, do you think the Tatanka-Berzerker match should be listed as taking place after the Savage-Warrior match or after the Taker-Kamala match? My vote, pending any further evidence, is that it's after Taker-Kamala. What does everyone else think? OldSkool01 (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Finkel's delivery of the line "I'd like to introduce Doctor Harvey Wippleman" with heavy sarcastic emphasis on the word "Doctor" perfectly matches official WWE footage of the handover to Wippleman for him to introduce Kamala.  I've already stated my reasons for voting Undertaker vs Kamal first before Tatanka vs Berxerker, but like I said, wrestling magazine reports from the time would be a pretty good smoking gun. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


### Wrestling Bios video on swapped match order
(FAO OldSkool01 - btw I am the same person as the IP poster 62.190.148.115 above.) 
I know Youtube documentaries aren't really ideal Wikipedia sources, but check out 20:44 of this video on SummerSlam '92 as the segment deals with the Undertaker/Kamala and Tatanka/Bezerker matches.  It confirms that in real life Tatanaka/Bezerker went on "actually in the semi main event spot" and that "in reality, the Hitman and the Bulldog followed Tatanka and the Beserker."  It also suggests that the reason the match order was swapped for the video was because "the Undertaker's match is definitely more fitting of the semi-main spot." The guy doing the commentary is Irish, so there's a good chance he was there for the live event, like I was.Romomusicfan (talk) 11:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)