Talk:WWE SmackDown/Archive 1

message: Am I the only one who things this article needs to be called WWE SmackDown! to make it like its counterpart, WWE RAW? Chad1m July 1, 2005 15:59 (UTC)
:I don't think it's as integral to the show's name as Raw's, but I wouldn't be opposed to it.  --Chrysaor July 6, 2005 22:18 (UTC)
:WWE isn't part of the name of the show. It isn't even in the logo. Tim Long 23:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SD! --) WWE SmackDown! ? 

message: I could be wrong, but most of those wrestlers listed in the wrestlers who appear sporadically for WWE section have ever appeared on SmackDown! in years--they all have mostly appeared just for RAW.
Should the wrestlers who appear sporadically for WWE section be moved to the WWE section or the RAW section?
:RAW already has that section, that list is for both brands not just SmackDown!. — Moe ε 22:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestlers who appear sporadically? 

message: I'm not sure if we should have a "Current events" section. I don't think Wikipedia is intended for this purpose. You don't see many articles on TV series recounting ongoing events from the series. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current events 

message: I didn't have much of a problem with the section when it was first added, but the SmackDown! vs. RAW section is mainly rambling about "dominant brand" and which title is more important and rather than citing specific sources it makes general statements like "some fans" etc. – it's bordering on being original thought, which is not something Wikipedia is about. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SmackDown! vs. RAW section 

message: I made a minor edit to make the article say the change would happen on Friday, September 2nd. Although the WWE has been hyping it up and saying "September 9th" (also the date on the article), my local cable provider (Comcast) broadcasted Smackdown on Friday, September 2nd. On Thursday, September 1st, the programming was overtaken by CBS and broadcasted an episode of Big Brother 6. At the bottom of the screen was a ticker-tape announcing that Smackdown would be on the following night (Friday). Did this happen to anyone else? Did the change come a week earlier than expected? If so, the date should be reverted back to September 2nd to avoid conflict. --Antoshi 10:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Friday Night Conflict 

message: The list of champions was reverted back to a table. The list is really simple - it just consists of the Championship name and the wrestler(s) holding that championship. While it may look better as a table, it's simple enough for a list. See Wikipedia:How to use tables#When tables are inappropriate for more information. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of champions 

message: "In December 2005, WWE announced that the WWE Women's Championship will now be defended by the Champion to Divas on both shows." 
Not that I am disputing this, becuase I can't of the reason that I missed a few PPVs and a Friday Night Episode but where was this stated? Or orginated from? Please add information on this we appericate it. J. C.
- As far as I can remember, this was never actually openly announced. It came about because SD's Melina challenged Trish to a match, obviously, but I also seem to remember Melina promising to bring the title "to Smackdown", which would imply that the title was and is still brand specific, and that this was purely a one-off event. Might be wrong though. Wee bull 18:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Womens Championship

message: In this article something is mentioned about not using the traditional role of acting as though smackdown! is not pre-recorded. If that were really the case, then how would they get people to show up for the smackdown event on tuesday? I realize, I am being a little nitpicky and that is the reason why I didn't delete it, because its not a big deal, but still think about it. Jman5 08:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's supposed to air Friday night at 8:00 PM, but there have been so many preemptions for baseball games (particularly in the Boston and New York markets) that it has all too often been pushed back to a late Saturday airing. Tromboneguy0186 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pre-empted in certain markets, SD has never been pre-empted where I live. TJ Spyke 19:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here in Canada, I get to see it twice (On Thursday on The Score, 9:00 PM PST), and the next day, on Friday, the time when SD is on depends (Re-airs on The Score @ Noon PST), and then on 8:00 PM PST on UPN (I'm guessing this is the airtime it's supposed to be on). Sandtrooper 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here in New Zealnd, I get to see it three times (Sunday on SKY 1 at 6:45. Then Monday at 1:30 and 6:00!)
s0cks01
23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional role of acting as though smackdown! is not pre-recorded 

message: Can someone till me what time SmackDown airs in the US? I'm in the UK so I think it comes on over here first. --sonicKAI 09:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's supposed to air Friday night at 8:00 PM, but there have been so many preemptions for baseball games (particularly in the Boston and New York markets) that it has all too often been pushed back to a late Saturday airing. Tromboneguy0186 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pre-empted in certain markets, SD has never been pre-empted where I live. TJ Spyke 19:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here in Canada, I get to see it twice (On Thursday on The Score, 9:00 PM PST), and the next day, on Friday, the time when SD is on depends (Re-airs on The Score @ Noon PST), and then on 8:00 PM PST on UPN (I'm guessing this is the airtime it's supposed to be on). Sandtrooper 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here in New Zealnd, I get to see it three times (Sunday on SKY 1 at 6:45. Then Monday at 1:30 and 6:00!)
s0cks01
23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA SmackDown Airing 

message: "Rumored to be fed up with WWE and possibly leave". The hell? First of all, where did this come from? And second, does this even warrant mention in the current announcers section? 71.201.59.253 00:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Cole 

message: Hi im a nood here, but I would like to point out something. While it is believed that Smackdown! is now the "B" show of the WWE, its intention was such since the beginning. 
However, one ought to point out at some the results in late 2002. While RAW was meant to be a stronger show with the more over (popular/well known) talents on that show. Smackdown! did create a "GEM" on its own. 
As mentioned, the intention of RAW is to have the more "entertaining"(hence better) program with bigger names and controversal storylines (necrophillia and HLA). 
However, this was not always the case. Smackdown!, not having bigger stars, created their own stars. This is true especially with the Smackdown 6. Kurt Angle, Eddie Guerrero, Brock Lesnar, Rey Mysterio, Chris Benoit, and Edge (all Smackdown! at the time), at the time, were not in the leauge of their RAW counterparts but still gave a superior show. This is a lot because of the quality of matches, the fact that, at this time, the show was under Paul Heyman managment, and because RAW was focused more on entertainment/controversal(attitude era style) storylines than anything else. 
Of course ratings cant speak for it because Smackdown! always had lower ratings than RAW. Some sort of evidence could be formulated by this like the necropillia storyline (added in wrestlecrap) on RAW,  as well as most WWE PPV's at the time a Smackdown! match would be the show stealer(Unforgiven, No Mercy, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble etc.), as well as Edge, Benoit, Guerrero, and Angle all became increasingly popular around their tenure of Smackdown! in 2002. 
While "Smackdown! 6" isnt really a commonly accepted term. Another way to describle this that Smackdown!, at the time, was the "Wrestling Show" and RAW was the "Entertainment Show".
Hope I get some replies soon to hear some feedback. Thanks guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shooter mcgavin (talk • contribs) 
:Unfortunately, everything you just mentioned is, at best, a matter of opinion.  I fear the best you're going to find as far as a reliable source to back up your claims is opinion pieces, and those just don't pass here.  However, welcome in as a new editor.  --EazieCheeze 05:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Smackdown 6" 

message: *Does it deserve mentioning in this article that My Network TV stations may or will (in the case of Fox Television Stations Group MNT stations) drop UPN programming, perhaps leaving SmackDown! in limbo in several television markets in the United States?  To my knowledge, the WWE has yet to acknowledge whether SmackDown! would consider going on hiatus for the two weeks prior to the launch of the CW, choose to stream their show through WWE.com, or offer a best of SmackDown! (or similar package of previously shown SmackDown! shows) run for the final weeks. D2001dstanley 19:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UPN/My Network TV Stations and the Possibility of SmackDown! Being Off the Air in Those Markets

message: *I removed this information, as it is not validated by WWE.  My belief is that ECW is a third brand, separate from the two current WWE brands.  WWE cancelled Velocity, and used its open spot to leverage ECW onto international markets.  Therefore, ECW has its own wrestlers, although it is open to wrestlers switching brands.  Currently, HEAT seems to be a sister show to the Raw brand, although that may be open to debate. D2001dstanley 01:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ECW as a Sister Program to the SmackDown! Brand?

message: I hate to say it, but Smackdown is no longer the B Brand. Nope. It's the C Brand. Since pulling ratings that are lower that one hour of ECW, I think it is justified. Some people will say that ECW isn't a brand but an entirely different promotion. Well, ECW is owned by WWE, Vince has all say on everything, and it appears on the WWE homepage. It doesn't even have it's own PPV's. Calling ECW a true promotion is like saying that people were interested by the Junior Division. I'll call ECW a promotion just because it had done so much for wrestling, but it's no different from Raw or Smackdown. 
RAW= A Brand
ECW= B Brand
Smackdown= C Brand(FOR NOW)
:Okay, I can dig it, but what are you asking us to do, if anything?  Remember, this isn't for casual discussion about the article's subject.  Hybrid 10:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: B Brand

message: Any objections to adding the "current event" box for the next 2 weeks w/ the UPN closure/Smackdown on Tribune stuff going on? --David Bixenspan 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Event? 

message: Burlington does have a CW affiliate (secondary on WFFF, plus they recieve WPIX from New York on cable), so I removed that statement and revised it to just show Hawaii as lacking a CW affiliate.  It might be speculative and current event material in the section at that moment.  It is probably unimportant to provide a preview of the season premiere and to include that Tribune stations aired SmackDown! in the absence of a UPN affiliate.  The Hawaii and Salt Lake City information may also be irrelevant.  Also, Hawaii may get SmackDown! through an arrangement with another affiliate of a major network, much as the WWE did when the show aired on UPN in markets lacking a UPN affiliate. 70.111.50.30 01:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CW Network section edit 

message: On WWE.com, all references to the show are listed as "SmackDown" without the exclamation point.  Recently, the exclamation point was removed from the show's official logo and the WWE logo was added above it.  This was most likely done around the time the show moved from UPN to The CW.  Also, the upcoming video game "WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007" is spelled without the exclamation point, even though last year's game included it.  This should prove that the official show title is now "WWE Friday Night SmackDown" WITHOUT the exclamation point, and that 3bulletproof16 should not have changed the title back. -- mCy919
::...*sigh*... WATCH -- bulletproof 3:16 00:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that video means nothing, since that was back in SEPTEMBER!  It was AFTER that when WWE began dropping the exclamation point.  James Duggan 05:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The exclamation point is decorative, which is a no-no per MoS:TM.  The fact that WWE does not find a need to use it when they write about the show themselves should be enough evidence to convince the "official name" crowd that it is possible to use something besides what is "official" when you write about a TV show.  The exclamation point should be dropped.  Croctotheface 11:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I have to say I was confused about the ending of this RM discussion.  I can't see why divided support for moving and "official name" rationales, which have generally not been accepted as reasons to ignore the MoS, translates to a consensus for "do not move".  Croctotheface 19:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Do not move.  —Wknight94 (talk) 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "WWE Friday Night SmackDown!" or "WWE Friday Night SmackDown"? 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
* Support as nominator. Also note precedent of WWE Raw.  As MoS:TM states, It is not beneficial to the mission of Wikipedia to copy the usage of corporate logos if they interfere with the prose.  It seems that WWE agrees with this, as they don't use the exclamation point when writing about the show.  It should also be noted that "official name" rationales have consistently been rejected in similar cases. Croctotheface 08:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Support as nominator. Also note precedent of WWE Raw.  As MoS:TM states, It is not beneficial to the mission of Wikipedia to copy the usage of corporate logos if they interfere with the prose.  It seems that WWE agrees with this, as they don't use the exclamation point when writing about the show.  It should also be noted that "official name" rationales have consistently been rejected in similar cases. Croctotheface 08:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Support votes

message: *Oppose If you watch SmackDown, you will see they still used the exclamation point. TJ Spyke 07:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: :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====
#Support. WWE.com does not use the exclamation point when they write about the show.  Many respected wrestling publications such as Pro Wrestling Torch do not use the decorative punctuation.  "Official name" rationales have consistently been rejected as valid reasons to ignore the Manual of Style, such as in WWE Raw and Thirtysomething.  Besides, if WWE does not use the exclamation point when they write about the show, that seems to poke holes in the idea that it is somehow more "official". Croctotheface 10:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support. WWE.com does not use the exclamation point when they write about the show.  Many respected wrestling publications such as Pro Wrestling Torch do not use the decorative punctuation.  "Official name" rationales have consistently been rejected as valid reasons to ignore the Manual of Style, such as in WWE Raw and Thirtysomething.  Besides, if WWE does not use the exclamation point when they write about the show, that seems to poke holes in the idea that it is somehow more "official". Croctotheface 10:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # Oppose - The exclaimation has been a part of the name and signmark since the show's inception.  It should be viewed much in the same way that the exclaimation in Yahoo! is viewed.  --EazieCheeze 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: It has been said many times that Smackdown is the "B" show of the WWE. Whatever, if Smackdown is the "b" show then someone tell me why in the world in 2004 and 2005, in the Smackdown vs. RAW matches, Smackdown pulled out both wins.?? Please, someone tell me why Smackdown has shown an increase in ratings in the past few weeks as RAW tends to have inconsistent viewers. To say that Smackdown is the B show because it has lower ratings and less well known superstars and storylines, well to me thats bull!!!! If the WWE wanted to increase Smackdown ratings then why not run promos during RAW or advertise on the CW more times that its usual one or two. Take some of the big superstars from RAW and place them on Smackdown and increase the writing staff for Smackdown or use some of RAW writers. RAW and the WWE are scared that Smackdown can and is better than RAW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William147204 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page for this article, used to discuss changes to the article, NOT a forum! If you want to talk about if Smackdown is better than RAW, go to a forum. Anakinjmt 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smackdown the "B" show? 

message: Recently, I've noticed Smackdown International being aired on tv. It's shows the same events as normal Smackdown but is only one hour long, can anyone elaborate? and should it be put in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay316 (talk • contribs) 
:Huh? I've never heard of that. What country do you live in? TJ Spyke 23:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smackdown International 

message: I know Chris Beniot retain the title at Wrestlemania 23 & Backlash because he's staying on Smackdown Brand but not moving to RAW Brand or ECW Brand just yet. But he has been champion for 6 months, 29 weeks & 206 days (as of 5/4/07), now and his 5th & current reign is longer than his other 4 previous reigns (2 in WWE & 2 in WCW).134.124.143.149 15:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beniot's United States Championship Reign 

message: I remember back in 2003 when Stone Cold & Eric Bischoff were co-general managers of RAW from 4/28 to 11/16, then Mick Foley shared the same duties as Bischoff from 12/1 to 12/15. But is it true if Vickie Guerrero & Theodore Long will co-gms of Smackdown or not.134.124.143.149 16:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-GMs of Smackdown 

message: does anybody think that it should be added that since the brad extension, Smackdown is the first show [excluding ECW] to not have 4 but 5 [Matt Hardy being half tag team champion] champions on there show. I think this and that there the first show to have someone on there brand to win a title from another show and stay [unlike Gregory Helms who switched from Raw to Smackdown] on there show.
YES user:sub619 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Champions

message: What ever happened to the ratings page that showed the ratings for SMACKDOWN (The A Show), RAW (The B Show), and ECW (The No Show)?????????? CAN I PUT IT BACK UP OR IS THERE A REASON WHY IT WAS TAKEN OFF THE FIRST PLACE?
No idea what happened to it, but I wouldn't have though it particularly valuable, since presumably it relates only to the USA.  Not sure where you get the "A show" "B show" and "No show" tags from, but I would be inclined to call RAW the "A show" in any case. --Dave. 21:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RATINGS PAGE 

message: King Leonidas is a new Smackdown superstar who has yet to debut on the show but his profile has been added to the Smackdown superstar page on WWE.com, shouldn't he be added to the superstar page on wikipedia under smackdown roster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by William147204 (talk • contribs) 
:It's just a joke. It's like how WWE listed "Nacho Libre" in their superstars section last year. TJ Spyke 01:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Leonidas 

message: During the show's run, Lillian Garcia, Justin Roberts & Howard Finkel are the 3 who occasionally fill-in if Tony Chimel is not present.12.127.178.158 22:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  interim ring announcers on Smackdown! 

message: :Add any additional comments:
:I don't think the "Friday Night" part should be omitted, as they still use that, but the ! indeed is no longer used. --David7581 05:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The program is still called Friday Night Smackdown and it says that on the new logo, so the ! can go. But it needs to keep the Friday Night part.Darrenhusted 00:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I'm not sure where to get it, but SD!'s current logo is different than the one listed on the page. The new one is more of a comic book-style to complement the show's opening. Edit: Not sure why this is appearing in the Requested Move box. It's unintentional. --David7581 05:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted a change because the logo was a redlink, although now it is displaying correctly I have no problem with it. Darrenhusted 00:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The logo is the current logo used for the show. It is used in the current graphics, ring apron, and other videos promoting the show (Friday Night SmackDown!) and the brand (SmackDown!). See the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rGMUrcwnT4 -- bulletproof 3:16 19:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found an image of the new one on wwe.com. This is the one they're using on the site. http://www.wwe.com/content/media/images/3883682/5054046 --David7581 05:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We know that. It has been discussed before. WWE.com uses different logos than they do in their actual programs. Just take a look at AM Raw. the logo used on their site is different than the one that is currently used. Bottom line is that WP:PW uses the logos from the actual programs, not those show on WWE.com. Just check out the video link from my comment above. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo change 

message: Hey just putting this out there but doesn't it seem like Smackdown was built on the remains of WCW. seth103
See WP:NOR. Cheers, The Hybrid 19:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WCW

message: Can someone add MVP's new segment "VIP Lounge" or whatever it's called? SmackDown!RULES 22:28, 17 August 2007
:It has been added.-- bulletproof 3:16 03:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MVP's New Segment

message: Anyone know the last time SmackDown! was live? and if there is Don't you think it should be mentioned.  --Monnitewars (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know when the last live SD! was, but I do believe that would warrant a mention in the special episodes section. The Hybrid T/C 13:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the only time SmackDown ever aired live was the one that aired right after 9/11 (since 9/11 was on a Tuesday, they cancelled the taping and decided to do it live on Thursday night). TJ Spyke 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there was a streak in 2000 and 2001 in which SmackDown! was live on the East Coast. I'll see if I can find a source for this. --Raderick 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live 

message: is it on?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.200.207 (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is what on? There is no "alliance", just an agreement to let superstars appear on the other brand. TJ Spyke 22:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ecw smackdown allience