Jump to content

Talk:WWE Cyber Sunday

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 205.188.116.134 (talk) at 09:53, 6 November 2006 (→Not screened in the uk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14/10/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
WikiProject iconProfessional wrestling Unassessed
WikiProject iconWWE Cyber Sunday is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hasbro

Did Hasbro's dispute over the copyright to "Taboo" have any impact on the switch from "Taboo Tuesday"? Tromboneguy0186 10:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You joking? It's a word. Using the something like "the McMahons created a monopoly out of wrestling, and now DX are there to bring it down" to advertise a PPV would not bring about game-makers suing them: because monopoly is just a word. As is taboo.andyroo316 00:36 GMT, 12 July 2006

No, it wasn't changed for that. Due to the fact that they tape Smackdown and hold ECW on Tuesday nights, but also due to low buy-rates.

Bingo, it's buy-rates. Most people aren't looking to watch PPV's on Tuesday. Both TT PPV's did very low buy-rates. TJ Spyke 20:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Are all cyber sunday posters currently on the web fakes?

More than likely... yes. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Just put up the confirmed real Cyber Sunday Poster yeh it changed because of that - Jonocarlito 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

y is there a cyber sunday 2007 thing on here already? y dont we wait until its announced where its gonna be at?

Regarding local commercials revealing Spoilers

This is a big issue that seems to attract a lot of vandalism to upcoming wrestling event articles. The problem being that random people deliberately add matches to the upcoming event's card that have supposedly been announced on commercials aired during RAW, Smackdown!, or ECW. Once these people are confronted about their additions of these spoilers, they tend to use the commercials as their source. The problem is that they do not seem to realize that these promos shown when a WWE broadcast goes off the air during commercials are actually only airing on specific local areas and are NOT in fact being shown nation wide. WWE (at times) unintentionally releases commercials and promos on future events, spoiling matches and sometimes even their outcomes, to the specific local media outlet. This is stupidly done to attract interest from fans in that local area and increase possible attendance and buyrate figures for the upcoming event. The most recent case being the Vengeance DX promo notable for being released in some areas roughly two months before the actual event took place. Only when matches are announced on-screen by talent or during the actual WWE broadcast and NOT during commercials can this sort of information NOT be considered a spoiler. Some may argue, "So what if they aren't shown nation wide, they were still released by World Wrestling Entertainment which means they are legit and therefore all matches spoiled have a right to be added to articles!" Now the problem with that simply is this... It is unencyclopedic. You see, what these people fail to realize is that Wikipedia is NOT, I repeat, NOT a Wrestling News site. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore cannot provide spoilers on future history or events that have yet to be. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, in other words, it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you honestly feel the need to be an Internet Troll and add content spoiling what has yet to occur (in this case about wrestling), then please do so elsewhere such as... oh wow! ...a Wrestling News site! As best stated on Wikipedia Policy... "Before adding any sort of content, ask yourself what would a reader expect to find in an encyclopedia." ...and I highly doubt that you would be expecting to find out who will be in the main event at WrestleMania 100, even if you do happen to find a promo somewhere right now announcing it to be Hulk Hogan vs. Vince McMahon's grandson. Content such as spoilers, rumors, and other nonsense will be removed on the spot for the reasons just explained. This content simply does not comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines and the addition of it is considered vandalism. Once again, please do NOT add any sort of content that even you would know is a spoiler (spoiling future history and events that have yet to be} and unencyclopedic. If you do in fact feel the need to be an Internet Troll, please do so elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. Thank you for reading and I honestly do hope that this clears up any confusion over spoilers and why they are being removed. Thank you. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's on the website or in commercials, it should count. Why? - because trailer info counts for movie pages and they are glorified commercials. Also, website news is constantly cited as Wikipedia sources (not just in wrestling - all over the board) and is currently becoming the world's top source of information. I agree, if it's a rumor or local commercial, it shouldn't count. However, if it comes from the WWE website or nationalized/global commercials, 9/10 they are correct. And on the few occassions it isn't true, it isn't hard to click 'edit' and delete it once the match is not on the full, official card. --Andyroo316 21:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 no consensus to move. — Mets501  (talk)  01:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

WWE Cyber Sunday → Cyber Sunday – No reason the page had to be moved since WWE just calls it "Cyber Sunday" and there is nothing else using that name TJ Spyke 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • Separate brand PPV articles are named as...
WWE New Year's Revolution, WWE Backlash, WWE Vengeance, WWE Unforgiven, WWE No Way Out, WWE Judgment Day, WWE No Mercy, WWE Armageddon... So, for the purpose of keeping things consistent, Cyber Sunday should be kept as WWE Cyber Sunday [8] [9]. -- bulletproof 3:16 22:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Women's Championship

If I'm correct, their are eight woman competing in the tournament. If their is one match a week, the first round would take 4 weeks. This may mean that the tournament finals will not be set in time for Cyber Sunday. Lemme look in on it, could someone help verify this? Killswitch

People keep trying to add it in, but just like we don't add in the Royal Rumble match until we know at least 1 participant I don't think we should add that in until we know one of the finalists(plus we don't know if the match will happen at CS or not). TJ Spyke 22:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 matches left to declare the 2 final diva's. On the next 2 episodes of RAW they will take place so Cyber Sunday will declare a new WWE Women's Champion! Belevsquad 13:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely, but they probably won't announced it until the RAW before CS. TJ Spyke 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the 3 world titles

Just so you guys know their a Rumore that all 3 world champions will put there world titles on the line at cyber sunday— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.120.89 (talk • contribs)

So? Nothing goes into the article unless WWE announces it. TJ Spyke 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oi, TJ, you didnt have to be rude about it. I don't care wether your the better editor, you could have stated that a lot nicer then you did.
I have to admit that sometimes I am a little rude to anon IP's. It's hard not to be putting uo with all the vandilism I deal with here and at GameFAQs. TJ Spyke 02:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vince announced on RAW that there will be a poll to decide which title will be on the line Bencey 14:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Champion of Champions Mach

K, screw this. Obviously, the criticism of wikipedia is correct. You don't give a shit about the facts presented to you. It's all admins. I'm done editing this page, presenting facts that are blown aside, so fuck you.

The people criticising are usually the same people who don't follow the rules. Check out WP:PW for the agreed formatting for shows. TJ Spyke 03:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...*sigh*... ...trolls... -- bulletproof 3:16 03:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3bulletproof, let TJSpyke discuss his own situations. I hate that everytime I see TJ arguing with somebody your always right there saying sigh...trol ls. Give it a rest. Kings bibby win 19:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RepChristian07 7:12, 11 October 1006 Agree, but it's true the editing for everyone is a little overated its mostly admn.

Spike, why don't you drop off for a day or two. You seem a little too overbearing. Remember, Wikipedia is for everyone, you are not the boss. Jr W 02:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to bullet's comment. Also, it's Spyke. TJ Spyke 03:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but i don't think he gives a shit about how you spell your name as long as the pronunciation is right. And I agree with Jr W, you have to stop acting as the boss all the time. And the people who criticise it are the people who have gone through the bullshit that takes place on this website. I've read the page, and i've found that most of the facts are dead on. So, this is over. I'm tired of being pushed aside by some fucker who has an ego the size of Russia. And a comment on the old Canadian SmackDown spoilers issue, you can't put movie spoilers if I can't put those results. Now, good day.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killswitch Engage (talk • contribs)

I don't post movie spoilers, so no problem there. Also, there is no such thing as a "Champion of Champions" match, it's just a regular Triple Threat match. We don't add in every time they call a match a "Grudge match" and stuff like that. People can read the rules before they register, and no one is forcing you to stay if you don't want too. TJ Spyke 03:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Again... ...trolls... -- bulletproof 3:16 05:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the WWE CS Site is calling the match Champion Of Champions Match [12], can't we compermise and make it look like it read Champion of Champions Match but when you click it, it brings you to the Tripple Threat Match thing. I'm not trying to be a troll but you always go around and try to post what the WWE calls things, and thats what they are calling it. Overlordneo 06:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. While it isn't necessary to list every "grudge match" as such, the champions vs champions aspect of this match is the most significant aspect. Jeff Silvers 05:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like every time i read these talk pages TJ Spyke is always arguing with somebody. I mean I know he may be a tad bossy at times but he's really just trying to help. -- Kings bibby win 18:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not call it "Triple threat champion of champions match", with matching link to Triple threat? --Howard the Duck 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

Why would anyone consider putting a deletion thing on the WWE Cyber Sunday article? *lol* It's an article for an annual WWE PPV that's still in the process of being updated as matches are announced. vDub 10:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Did you even check the article? There's already an AfD up (which is currently swingging heavily in favor of "keep"). Jeff Silvers 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Does anyone know if WWE has someone reading these pages.

2007?

Has it been announced that there is a 2007 Cyber Sunday? And is that date definite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jr W (talk • contribs)

Yes, right on WWE's corporate website: http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2006/2006_04_10.jsp TJ Spyke 17:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umaga's Opponent

Hey see how Umaga has an Open Challenge for a SmackDown Superstar or ECW Extremist. Well why not a RAW Superstar? That's the question. But Kane is now on SmackDown and he might like to face Umaga one more time so who knows? Belevsquad 00:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

because hes faced lods of wrestlers on raw it will probly have one ecw and one smackdown opponent and we vote Sailor cuteness 21:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid

I would have to say that the logo resembles the Metroid logo too much to not be noted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.167.200.173 (talk • contribs)

Adding Unannounced matches

There have only been 3 matches added. Do not add any matched or speculation unless you can prove WWE has announced it. [1]

Not screened in the uk

There was a dark match with Super Crazy, I know because I was there. And I don't know if it's triva, but the steel chairs by the ring all had the Cyber Sunday logo, and the people who had the tickets got to take the chairs home with them.

Why was the comment that i posted earlier about Cyber Sunday not being shown in the UK deleted from the article when British Sky Broadcasting confirmed earlier today that it would not be showing the event?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.73.209.81 (talk • contribs)

I wasn't the one who removed it, but it doesn't appear to be notable. Also, please sign you comments by typing TJ Spyke 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC). TJ Spyke 23:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Women's Championship

Has WWE announced that the finals of the womens championship tournament will be at Cyber Sunday? I looked through WWE.com and there was no mention of it.Jayorz12 23:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it either until another editor pointed it out, it's only mentioned on a page about the tournament: [13] TJ Spyke 23:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was announced on wwe.com but lets just wait until after Raw..looks better.Kings bibby win 22:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Put the lock in this page. Some vandalism again. Xbox6

Article split into Taboo Tuesday and Cyber Sunday articles?

I realize that the premise is the same (fans vote for stipulations, opponents, something, etc.) and that it's interactive, but should we really have Taboo Tuesday and Cyber Sunday in one article? Since they were called different things and done on different days of the week, doesn't it make more sense to split them? Again, I realize the premise is the same, I'm just wondering here.-Anakinjmt 04:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were seperate, but someone merged them. They are basically the same PPV, so it doesn't bother me too much. TJ Spyke 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short Pay-per-view?

There are only 5 matches for a what 3 hour PPV. Will they add more matches later on this week?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.149.16.45 (talk • contribs)

Actually, there are 6 matches. The triple threat match will also likely go at least half an hour. TJ Spyke 20:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They'll also take up time by announcing the results of each vote and have a in ring segment like they did with the Miz at No Mercy. Jayorz12 22:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the area to discuss the contents of the article. KE

Why omit "Champion of Champions match"?

Further information: § Champion of Champions Mach

Really now, this is the most important aspect of the match yet it is omitted. Why? --Howard the Duck 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please guys, just stop this edit war. Edit wars are never a good thing on Wikipedia. So, take a vote on which way to use and stop this fighting. Clay4president 00:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The people who removed the "Champion of Champions match" thingy do so without edit summaries, FYI. And since this is the first "Champion of Champions match", we might as well add another type of match to the Professional wrestling match types. And oh, Polls are evil. --Howard the Duck 05:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, if you bothered to check you would know I always leave an edit summary. Second, it's not a new type of match, it's just a Triple Threat match. It doesn't matter what WWE calls it, it's a triple threat match. TJ Spyke 05:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to Ryan554 (diff). (and I take offense that my contribution was labeled as vandalism). Yes it's a triple threat match, but the WWE bills it as a "Champion of Champions match," so the Money in the Bank match should be changed into a plain old ladder match? What harm would be done if the "Champion of Champions" snippet will be added? --Howard the Duck 05:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Money in the Bank is a special match in that it's for a title shot and has become an annual event. If this was a title unification match, then I would agree, but as of right now it's just a triple threat match with 1 title on the line. Also, my comment of vandalism was about the stuff that anon IP added. TJ Spyke 06:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it's a triple threat match among three major titleholders with only 1 title on the line; in other words, a triple threat match with a lot of stipulations, like a ladder match having a title shot as a stipulation. So, to make it simple, it's a "Champion of Champions match". Again, what's wrong on stating that the WWE billed it as a "champion of champions match"? --Howard the Duck 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of stipulations? The fans vote for which title will be on the line, thats it. TJ Spyke 06:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the competitors are all major titleholders. So, what's wrong on stating that the WWE billed it as a "champion of champions match"? --Howard the Duck 06:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is wrong with it, except some editors have become over-protective of WWE articles in my opinion. WWE refers it to Champion of Champions, so that's what it should be called. Even if it's a one time match, it still should be called the proper name. RobJ1981 15:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just call it Champion of Champions Triple Threat Match. That way, it gets the point across it's a triple threat match while also calling it what WWE calls it. This sound like a fair compromise? Anakinjmt 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly fine with this proposal. --Howard the Duck 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The match is called the Champion of Champions match. It is called that on the WWE site and also on raw,smackdown,ecw isn't
Didn't understand that last bit about RAW, Smackdown, and ECW "isn't", but the article currently says "Champion of Champions Triple Threat Match". This is an edit that will satisfy everyone, and it gives the reader the most info: it's billed as a Champion of Champions match but it is a Triple Threat match. Also, please sign your comments. Anakinjmt 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One time match? There have been many triple threat matches in the past and there will be more in the future. Calling it something different doesn't make it so. Do what you want know, but it will not be there when we add in the results. Say Cena wins and it for the WWE title, the result will say "John Cena defeated King Booker (w/ Queen Sharmell) and The Bog Show in a Triple Threat match to retain the WWE Championship".? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs) 21:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WWE clearly calls it Champion of Champions, there is absolutely NO reason to ignore that and not mention it. Not as a note, but as the match title. If you hate the name or whatever: so be it, but that simply doesn't justify ignoring it. When the PPV airs and is over, the match should be called Champion of Champions triple threat. There is no reason not to, period. Take a look at Cyber Sunday 2005: Fulfill your Fantasy is a special name for the match, and it's listed as Fulfill your Fantasy battle royal... if I remember right, there's only been 2 of those matches. Even if there is only one Champion of Champions match ever, it's STILL the official name. I don't see why it shouldn't be listed under the official name. RobJ1981 04:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just an ordinary "triple threat" match, this a match between three major titleholders. I'm getting redundant already, so just answer the question (repeated for like the third time), TJ Spike, what's wrong on stating that the WWE billed it as a "champion of champions match"? --Howard the Duck 04:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be done where it says "Champions of Champions" then when you click on it, the page goes to "Triple Threat" Overlordneo 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it looks fine now. Freebird Jackson 23:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

I believe the Trivia section of the article should still be kept despite the fact it's riddled with "Taboo Tuesday" everywhere. It really shouldn't be a case since Taboo Tuesday redirects to Cyber Sunday. --Antoshi~! T | C 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead if you feel like rewording it. The trivia section stopped being updated and adjusting it so it doesn't sound like its just about TT. TJ Spyke 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http:www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Cyber_Sunday&oldid=86022101"