Talk:No Mercy (2008)

Jeff Hardy vs. HHH

As many know, Smackdown! episodes are taped on Tuesdays. In the Sept. 9 taping, Jeff Hardy defeated Shelton Benjamin, The Brian Kendrick, and MVP for a title shot against HHH for the WWE Championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torteziken (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We need a reliable source for it to be added to the page. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Undertaker vs. HHH

I heard a rumour that there will be a Undertaker vs. HHH last man standing match, shall I add it to the article? Craigtubby (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is a rumor. It hasn't been announced and there is no reliable source for it.--WillC 20:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Undertaker vs. The Big Show

It's been official, it should be put in. Ttang (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not until SmackDown airs and a reliable source is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.132.32 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OR an RS is avaiable. It can be put up before SD airs with an RS (WON, Wrestleview, PWTorch, etc.). Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Weird PPV Template

Who has put the comment:

"An unknown number of professional wrestling matches (performances with predetermined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real) will be featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that take place before, during, and after the event are planned by WWE's creative staff."

,on all the wwe ppv's? "fictional personalities that are portrayed as real"? It seems the author dislikes pro wrestling and this paragrph is obvious and is a waste of space. Just becaue there has been no info released on the ppv, its dosnet give us the right to crap on about rubbish

(at a public PC, unable to log in, i am User:dingyv03) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.251.135 (talk) 07:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Its a policy we have no choice SuperSilver901 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not true we can ask to have it remove since it doesn't help the topic at all and has no purpose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not true, it has a purpose. It explains what needs to be explained. We do not think everyone is a 8 year old kid who thinks it is real but there are 8 year old kids who do think it is real, if that makes sense. Plus the rules WP:IN-U, WP:Jargon, and WP:Fiction.--WillC 02:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, its getting to the point that SOMEONE always has to make the same remark with each passing WWE PPV, now its only a matter of time until someone mentions spoilers from SmackDown.--Lord Dagon (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of that holier than thou shit! If you look at a movie entry on Wikipedia it doesn't start with "All of this is fake, by the way". Plot summaries do not go "Lloyd Christmas (Jim Carey)". Wikipedia used to be an awesome wrestling source, now one fucker is trying to make us all feel dumb. Stop it. .--Lord Dagon (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.121.52.2 (talk)
This article is ridiculous. Why waste all that time and space on a page listing real names and pointing out that professional wrestling is scripted. Everyone over the age of 8 knows its scripted but still enjoys the spectacle. that Lord Dragon dude is right. Its comparable to writing an article about a musical or play and pointing out that it is fiction. Its condescending to wrestling smarks. The jabroni who wrote this needs to chill out. FEEL THE MADNESS OH YEAH!!! AGREED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.69.196 (talk) 04:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

8 year olds aren't allowed on these website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, they are. 72.171.0.145 (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No their not Your not allowed on the internet unless your with a parent until your 15 Its the law —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, it isn't. 67.142.130.42 (talk) 23:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The only thing stupider than this is how moves are explained (although the tables come close). See Unforgiven (2008) or any recent PPV. Why the hell do we have something stupid like slammed his head down to the mat? Moves are linked for a reason. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgot names in brackets. I think that is also a great choice for the stupidest and most pointless thing on PW articles. RandySavageFTW (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Randy, Wikipedia is not a little game site or for people to come to mess around with and to Have it Your Way, we must follow the policies of WP:IN-U (meaning In-Universe writing, such as writing in a style only wrestling fans know of) and WP:JARGON (meaning Jargon writing, such as Chokeslam or Pedigree). If you don't like the way the new standards are, I recommend the pro wrestling wikia for you then.S_RX 20:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If one doesn't know what a chokeslam or pedigree is, they click the link. There's absolutely no need for explaining the move if clicking a link will explain it. The name link thing with the reak name in brackets is also ridiculous. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, SRX, SRX, SRX RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew there was no proper way to explain this. Keep pretending it's not in your watchlist. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You need therapy or better yet, a life. All you do is want me to respond and you do it in uncivil ways, it's about time someone reports you to WP:ANI. Anyways, clicking the link will not suffice and do you know why? Because a reader wants to read the article without having to click a link and leave it to find out the definition. If you read a book, would you want to read the book entirely and have a clear understanding of every word or have to read the book and refer to the dictionary to find out a word? Per WP:IN-U, WP:FICTION, and WP:JARGON links will not suffice and are no substitution for explaining a term. This new way has gotten the project two Featured Articles: SummerSlam (2003) and The Great American Bash (2005).S_RX 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

FA reviewers suck. And so do FAs. As for WP:Fiction and WP:Jargon, see WP:Ignore All Rules. The new way is horrible, the only people who like it are the FA reviewers. No other projects are like ours, with the real name in brackets. Ridiculous. Everyone knows wrestling is fake, anyway. 90% of people who see these formats are disgusted. And 10% of people who see these formats are idiots. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice edit summary, by the way. RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the new format, go to WT:PW. This new format is the way it is, P.S. WP:IAR does not apply here as you are not improving Wikipedia with the old format but making it less encyclopedic. The new format is hitting its third month, why wait till now to complain? You should have engaged in like 5 huge discussions at WT:PW about it.S_RX 00:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

To help out here a little. You say no other project is like ours with the names in brackets. Have you looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films? Even the start class articles have the names in brackets. I'm not a big fan of it but if done right the articles are very well done. How does it bother you anyway? Does it effect your life in a major way if the article explains what a Batista Bomb? People complain about everything the project does. They probably had a fit when we started expanding the articles in the first place (I wasn't around so I don't know). I still hear a few having fits about it. In a few months you won't even notice it. Just please move on, this subject is dead.--WillC 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Most films have an article for the real person and the character, though. PW doesn't. I still think the tables, move explanations, and explanation of wrestling are stupid, but oh well. It won't change. However... the names in brackets - no logical explanation and no link to a rule that says why we do it. RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Poster

I have a question about it since its from WWE shop wouldn't it be a poster for your room and the one from WWEaffiliates is the promotional poster, just wondering SuperSilver901 (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, and it has been altered. Thanks for the notice :)--S_RX 23:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Theme Song

please add that the theme song for this event is "All Nightmare Long" by Metallica. source is at WWE.com. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.19.186 (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Already noted in the infobox.--S_RX 20:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Kane

They Just Announced it that Kane will be facing Rey Mysterio so you should add thatBig Eazy 01:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)by SonsOfAnarchy1982

Real Names

What's the point is putting in the real wrestler names next to their ring names? It seems pointless, especially when you make "Kane" direct to "Glem Jacobs" easily. It just seems pointless, especially for guys like 'Taker, who's real names redirect to their ring names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.136.3.10 (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The subsection has once again been reverted away from the cluttered format. The format's only purpose seems to be to reiterate over and over that professional wrestling is a staged event, likely in some sort of bias against the artform. It is only reasonable to believe that anyone viewing the No Mercy 2008 article is already aware of this fact, and if they are not it is plainly stated in the line "Matches are planned with predetermined outcomes by WWE's creative staff and will feature wrestlers playing characters for the entertainment of the audience." There is no reason to list the wrestlers' real names throughout the article, as they can be easily found by following the links into the wrestlers' articles. Further revisions to that state, which has now been revised away from three times, should be considered vandalism and treated as such.--Josh (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. It was a new style that was adopted after review of several Feature Article Candidates after several suggestions for improvement were made. Just because you do not agree with the method of style does not make it vandalism.  Hazardous Matt  14:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism. However, the original comment stands: It's a stupid, pointless practice, given that (1) the parentheticals are "accomplishing" exactly the purpose for which hyperlinking exists; and (2) in most cases, the "real names" are hyperlinked back to articles listed under the performers' stage names. Thus, it creates pointless clutter. Bag of Carrots (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Guy wrestling is always going to be vandalism by people who don't get it hell people still thinks its fake that show how stuipd they are —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does this thread have to come up in every talk page on a future WWE PPV? The reason for the explanation of professional wrestling terms and adding real names is because the project has to meet WP:IN-U (In-Universe policy), WP:FICTION (Fiction policy), WP:PLOT (Plot policy), WP:RS (Reliable Source policy), and WP:JARGON (Jargon policy). While meeting these formats, three articles have gone on to become Featured articles of Wikipedia and exemplify Wikipedia's best work and the project's best and other PPV's should follow that example.--S_RX 02:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said. (I couldn't put it better myself if I tried, well maybe, but I'll try latter.)--WillC 02:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a dumb argument. The "Wikipedians" who established those policies are the same people who choose Featured Articles. It's like saying that your boss's advice was good because after you took it, he promoted you. Bag of Carrots (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a need to link "The Undertaker" to "Mark Callaway?" Because it just redirects back to "The Undertaker." It's like having Triple H linked to Paul Levesque —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.136.3.10 (talk) 02:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That process is called WP:PIPELINK.--S_RX 20:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Match times

• Who put the match times down? The Batista-JBL match was definitely not more than 10 minutes long; I doubt it was more than 6 minutes. I don't know the actual times but can someone who knows go back and double check? ViRaKhVaR321 21:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virakhvar321 (talk • contribs)

Lock page

i suggest you lock this page from future edits for the next couple off days. someone keeps messing about.. --Ruthless-paki (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not enough activity to get protected.--WillC 00:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is working on this article?

Is anyone working on this article? Like to take it to GA or something or is it orphaned.--WillC 23:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on No Mercy (2008). 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 https://web.archive.org/20081008104418/http://www.wwe.com:80/shows/nomercy/matches/8101498/results/ to http://www.wwe.com/shows/nomercy/matches/8101498/results/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)