Talk:Bound for Glory (2005)

message: I think that this is the right decision. I support that the WWE Big Four PPV's were without the WWE prefix, and the other WWE PPV's have the WWE/F prefix. Also, I support putting the initial of the promotions as a prefix before the name of a PPV or event. Not only TNA, or ROH, or any promotion in the world. The move made with the TNA Lockdown and TNA Bound for Glory were totally arbitrary. The best decision was made in this issue. Xbox6 00:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a reason WHY you support the big 4 not having a prefix? No one has given a reason for that yet. Mshake3 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no disambig for WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series, or Royal Rumble. That's why there's no prefix for it.As for the three mayor TNA pay-per-views, well... first of all, there's no disambig for Slammiversary, so you don't have to worry about that. For BFG, there are many terms "Bound for Glory" to disambiguate. For a new person looking at Wikipedia, they might be confused with the term "Bound for Glory (2007)" alone; they might take it as something related to the band, the book, or the film (possibly a film remake (released in 2007, not that there's going to be one), in which it would be redirected from "Bound for Glory (2007)" or something). "TNA" as the prefix will set set up the basis of the article (see WWE New Year's Revolution; there no disambig for it, but there's a WWE prefix in it anyways). Same reason for Lockdown (although there's not really a disambig for it, the status remains the same). Anyways, now that the issues done, can you stop beating the dead horse? MITB LS 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion. But I wasn't asking for it. Xbox6 appears to say that ALL PPV articles, save for WWEs major events, should have it. I want that opinion on those comments. Mshake3 02:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Might I add that film remakes generally use a "(year) film" text at the end of the article title. Mshake3 02:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but think about the redirects. See Dawn of the Dead (2004), which redirects to Dawn of the Dead (2004 film). Anyway, this issue is done. END OF STORY. MITB LS 03:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay. First of all, I do agree with you that Xbox shouldn't have moved it. That's a given, as there's no disambig for the term "Slammiversary". As for my nomination, I had to do so to try to reach a consensus (I was neutral). If you don't feel that it wasn't fair, you can put in another request to move the page (and reach a clear consensus). MITB LS 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...at least try to. MITB LS 02:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Mshake3 03:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to change it back to the old, file another request to move the pages (see WP:RM). You can set it up and try to each a clear consensus. MITB LS 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Then ALRIGHT! MITB LS 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Requested Moves issue 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bound for Glory (2005). 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6LDla2zy5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fentertainment.howstuffworks.com%2Fpro-wrestling.htm to http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/pro-wrestling.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified