Talk:WWE Unforgiven

message: I dont think this information should be added.
We had the same discussion in the Summerslam discussion and the info was removed.
This event is more than a month away, anything can happen in this month.
Yeah, the infamous "Triple H Vengeance poster" incident comes to mind here. They even acknowledged how much of a goof THAT was on the Triple H DVD. User: Dr. R.K.Z
No, it's confirmed that the Undertaker is returning at Unforgiven. It's not like "He's on the poster, so he is returning". On the Undertaker promo on Smackdown!, it said "Unfrogiven", along with other things.
So what? it still isn'T important... Diivoo 16:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We understand and acknowledge that Undertaker is scheduled to return at the Unforgiven pay-per-view.  What you do not seem to understand is that, because his return has not already happened, stating his return is an "annoucement" which is considered by Wikipedia to be "news" and Wikipedia is not a news site or crystal ball.  Again, while his return is planned or scheduled, many things could happen in the next 3 weeks delaying or canceling his return - these include, but are not limited to re-injuring himself or death.  For these reasons, the information should not be added to the article until he actually returns. Thank you, --Naha|(talk) 04:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also go under NO RUMORS or SPECULATION. -- KBW1 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected. It is on WWE.com -- KBW1 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and I have added it becasue it is under wwe.com's section of unforgiven, under matches. Check for yourselves, www.wwe.com/shows/unforgiven  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truko9308 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The return of Triple H also was on wwe's summerslam page and was neither added on wikipedias summerslam page, nor on triple Hs page. So I removed it. Diivoo 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well becasue no one checked the SS page, and on the damn article it says "no to add things that have not been announced on WWE TV or WWE.COM. So IT SHOULD BE ADDEDTrUcO9308 23:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return of the Undertaker 

message: Not putting this on the article, but thats the main event for Smackdown at Unforgiven according to the spoilers. Expect a lot of RV tooling. User: Dr. R.K.Z  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. R.K.Z (talk • contribs) 13:24, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
:Yes, but whats your point. Remember, talk pages are for improving articles. Also, that can get you hated around here. Reveiling spoilers, not good.  -- KBW1 05:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seen, as it was mentioned about 5 times above, I think people got the point about reveiling spoilers. WP:CRYSTAL. The maint point is don't reveil spoilers. No need to go into detail. I applaud you, for trying to help, but it's just as bad to reveil them here, as to the article. Also, to sign your comments use the four tidles  -- KBW1 00:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: OMG, QUIT putting spoilers on the talk pages. THIS IS NOT WHAT THEY ARE FOR! Virakhvar321 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, user: MC RIDE this IS considered vandalism. Next time you WILL be blocked. -- KBW1 20:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In about an hour, that addition will be added on TV, it can then be added on here. --Zii_XFS 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Khali vs Mysterio

message: May it please finally be added as it was offically annoucned on Raw when they were going through the matches confirmed for unforgiven and one of them was Undertaker vs Mark Henry so may it finally be addedDeadman lastride666 14:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: agree, saw it too. but since this is a direct copy of wwe's unforgiven page, it will most likely not be added.Diivoo 16:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's not really the "source". Its more of the fact that it was announced on T.V. Even the source about The Undertaker returning which was announed on WWE.com, we still didn't add because some of us believed it violated WP:CRYSTAL. -- KBW1 03:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undertaker Vs Mark Henry 

message: Guys, Paul London and Brian Kendrick are the new World Tag Team Champions  so as of right now, they are considered the title holders coming into their match at Unforgiven, not Cade and Murdoch. This will probably be confirmed at the next Raw, so I think we should just leave it as London and Kendrick as champions for now, unless the title changes hands in South Africa again. Just thought I'd clear that up.  Journo:In:Making 08:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No rumors or speculations. -- KBW1 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WWE never said anything about the house show. So I would let Cade & Murdoch as the tag champs until the WWE states otherwise. Maybe London & Kendrick are the champs according to a match but hey we couldn't say Jeff Hardy beat Umaga before Monday (even though it happened on a Sunday). If WWE mentions that at the house show, London & Kendrick won, than I'll be happy to put them as champs, but IT redas on WWE.com that Cade & Murdoch will defend the titles. Therfore, they should be listed as the tag champs. Soopafred 04:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can someone who can now PLEASE change that back, as even in the link next to it, it says that cade and murdoch are the champs. thank you. 80.108.74.217 14:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, they were WRONG when they changed it because WWE never mentioned the title changes until RAW aired this week. Changing the match was the same as adding SmackDown/ECW spoilers (which is not accepted here). TJ Spyke 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, actually, WWE had it on WWE.com yesterday morning, hours before RAW went live. --Naha|(talk) 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is still valid though. It never should have been changed since Cade/Murdoch won the titles back before WWE had announced the title changes, meaning nobody should have changed the match. TJ Spyke 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are preaching to the choir with me, I just didn't want you aruging using information that wasn't completely accurate :) --Naha|(talk) 00:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I didn't check wwe.com on Monday, so I wasn't aware they updated it (I just knew that they didn't mention it on Sunday). TJ Spyke 00:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 Tag Title Match 

message: I added the match between (*Spoiler Removed*). It was announced on Smackdown that (*Spoiler Removed*), so no one please delete this. Welshy1791 08:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE Tag Titles 

message: Please keep this out of the article. That pro-wrestling news site is not a valid source. It is considered vandalism if you keep adding that. Thank You. -- KBW1 06:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lance Cade and Trevor Murdach are again the Tag Champs

message: Wouldn't it be better to have the HHH/carlito match as:
Triple H vs. Carlito
*Carlito can not be disqualified
Spongemaster0 00:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I am not not 100% sure. I know there have been matches like this but I don't remember what I did (I say "I" because I did most of these PPV results myself, they used to be a complete mess before summer 2006). When the match is over, the No DQ part will be a subpoint, like this:
**Triple H pinned Carlito after a Pedigree.
**This was a No Disuqalification match for Carlito. How we do it before then, I supposed doing it your way would be good. TJ Spyke 00:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree with both of you guys, I believe for WWE Survivor Series 2006, we put it like this:
**Not one member on Team DX was eliminated.
It was something like that, noneoftheless I believe we should go TJ and Sponge's way. -- KBW1 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HHH vs Carlito 

message: I removed the ECW title match because it hasn't aired in Australia yet. Someone can add it once it has been aired, but until then no one put it back because it's a spoiler. Welshy1791 08:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it doesn't have to air in Austrailia. As long as it airs in the US we can post it. Reason being that, WWE, in the States is where it's mainly based, but is hasn't aired either in the U.S,so its considered a spoiler. (WP:CRYSTAL). -- KBW1 21:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: KBW1 is correct, the agreed standard at WP:PW is to go by US airing since that is what WWE does too. Also, the match was officially announced yesterday when ECW aired. TJ Spyke 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, over the course of the last couple of months, more and more users start to bring that issue up. You can read the discussions at WP:PW. BTW, ECW, hadn't aired where I am at when I posted that comment. Thanks. -- KBW1 06:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, I just looked at the time of your post and noticed it was about 40 minutes prior to it airing first in the US. TJ Spyke 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECW Title 

message: Do you want to add that Cena applied the STF-U to Orton following the match on the outside while Cena's father kicked Orton in the head? SuperSonicTH 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not something we normally note. I would not mentione it. TJ Spyke 02:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That's fine. I just wanted to know if you wanted to move in that direction since someone was trying to add it and I wasn't sure of the stance on that. SuperSonicTH 03:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  After Cena/Orton... 

message: Should it be mention that this PPV mark cena as a one year champion Supermike 12:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, no. We don't mentione when Randy Savage lost the title after his 1 year reign (winning it at WrestleMania IV and losing it at WrestleMania V). TJ Spyke 23:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Cena didnt reach the 1 year mark until the night after. Lynx Raven Raide 00:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One Year mark

message: Is it true that this PPV will be called "Breaking Point?" in 2009? When are they gonna stop changing stuff?! Danny Boy 420 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a PPV in September called Breaking Point, it's unknown though if WWE considered it a new event or just a new name for Unforgiven (and if it is a new name whether it is just this year or a permanent change). TJ Spyke 00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The current issue of WWE Magazine seems to indicate that Breaking Point will be an entirely new event with it's own lineage and not a continuation of Unforgiven.  It says "This September, WWE will debut its all-submission pay-per-view, Breaking Point..." 
Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking Point?