Talk:TNA Impact!/Archive 1

message: Someone desparately needs to rewrite this section.  It is essentially a copy of the Business model section of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.  Maybe include some of the historic matches, like the title changes that have taken place? --Kitch 17:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In writing the history section, I aimed to discuss the events which led to TNA beginning to air impact. Admittedly, there is little mention of the actual content. I don't think a rewrite is necessarily essential, but some expansion would be ideal. McPhail 23:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I have the next two-and-a-half weeks off from work and college, so I intend to spend much of that time writing up results pages for all episodes of TNA iMPACT!  I am going to go in reverse time, from September 2005 backward.  I have already written a template for 2004. --Kitch 16:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recaps 

message: This has been bugging me for a while.  WWE has a section dedicated to this, why not TNA? Gruntyking117 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, started it: :Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling television ratings --Aaru Bui DII 09:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why isn't there a ratings article for iMPACT? 

message: It's needed the iMPACT! logo since the two hour show, but hasn't been updated. Gruntyking117 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a logo update 

message: Recently announced that TWC have lost the rights to air TNA. A new deal has been reached with another UK broadcaster, thought to be Bravo. This article needs to be updated to reflect that.
"TWC regrets to inform it's viewers, that after almost 3 years of being the home to TNA Wrestling in the UK, TNA have now signed an exclusive deal with another UK network commencing on the 1st of January 2007. 
As disappointed as we are, we understand that this is a natural progression for a company that is growing as fast as TNA; we are happy to have been a part of their growth in the UK, and wish them all the best in the future! "
http://www.thewrestlingchannel.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=31979 83.67.138.19 10:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TWC lose TNA 

message: Someone posted the following:
In February 2007, iMPACT will go head to head with a delayed edition of WWE Raw. This will be the first time WWE has had direct televised competition from another wrestling company since WCW Nitro in March 2001. The ratings for iMPACT will be very interesting on this day as it will be an indicator for how close the company is to competing directly with WWE on television. AFI Clandestine 12/28.
While I understand that some people will say this is information, I consider it speculative, as neither WWE nor TNA have announced that they will compete.  It is possible that WWE could choose to have Raw air on SciFi Channel live, on USA Network on same-day tape delay, or a combination of those options.  As confirmation of these possibilities, see how Raw dealt with the U.S. Open of Tennis coverage on USA Network.  (For the first week, Raw aired live on SciFi with tennis on USA Network.  For the second week, Raw went live on USA while tennis went live on CNBC.) 70.111.66.33 02:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Speculative Future Competition 

message: Review time!  I graded this article on the following criteria:
#Well-written: Fail
#Factually accurate: Pass 
#Broad: Fail 
#Neutrally written: Pass
#Stable: Pass 
#Well-referenced: Pass
#Images: Pass
Right, so it fails.  Reasons- the content section?  Practically nonexistent.  I don't' watch this show, so i have no idea what it's about.  After reading the content section, I still don't' know. I do know that they have "2 to 4 matches per show" and after getting rid of the time limit, still have "3 to 5 matches per show".  Basically, the entire article is very inaccessible to non-wrestling watchers.  The History section is a series of stubby paragraphs only moderately well written at best.  You don't need to say exactly when the show is/was broadcast, and certainly not in bold.  And what the heck is up with the Spike TV "1.0" rating?  What does that even mean?  Not as good as they hoped it would be, apparently, but on what scale?  In conclusion, i have a problem even leaving this as B-class, but since I'm giving you a poorly flowing, rather harsh review, I'll leave it.  --PresN 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, and "TNA iMPACT! does not conform to style conventions at all.  WP:MOS  --PresN 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The images also need fair use rationales to pass at a later date. --Nehrams2020 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GAC

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 - WP:MOSTM clearly applies.  Furthermore, TJ Spyke should be censured for this edit, which was clearly a blatant attempt at enforcing their naming of the article.  Chris cheese whine 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support - WP:MOSTM clearly applies.  Furthermore, TJ Spyke should be censured for this edit, which was clearly a blatant attempt at enforcing their naming of the article.  Chris cheese whine 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #Strong Oppose per mon comments at TNA iMPACT! (video game). TJ Spyke 10:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: Would it have made a difference if I had actually listed my name as a numbered support "vote"?  I thought I showed my support in the discussion, but I didn't actually make myself #8, which would put the support up to 67%, if we're counting. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a vote

message: TWC fight no longer air Impact so it might be right to remove the brief menntion of it, in the commentators section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.152.170.176 (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove the twcfihght mention