Talk:WWE Night of Champions/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2006 WWE Championship Match

The title match was NOT the main event, it started at 9:15 EDT, and RVD defeated Edge, so please don't revert it.


Please stop the vandalism, as hilarious as it is, steph won't be giving birth, as far as I know. And there will certainly not be a "full vaginal" shot.

DX vs Spirit Squad

will the tag titles be on the line?

As or right now, no. TJ Spyke 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

K M8 Thank you 4 pointing it out

Orton vs. Angle

Angle has not accepted the match so i am removing it.

Why? Just have it say that Angle hasn't accepted, it's the same thing we did when Tazz challenged Lawler to a match. TJ Spyke 21:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


If RVD is going to defend the title against Edge then why the hell is Cena on the poster holding the WWE Championship??? [[Slapslapslap 04:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)]]

Things could change. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but the way things are going right now the poster makes little to no sense for me... Do you think we should note that details are hazy about the Van Dam vs Edge match? Slapslapslap 04:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably not - it's just speculation at this point. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The poster doesn't always mean anything. The WrestleMania 22 poster featured John Cena and Booker T together. TJ Spyke 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Proof of this is in the first Vengance poster. It features Triple H who wasn't even on the show (he returned on Raw a few weeks later after recovering from his first quad tear)Lynx Raven Raide 12:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oic. Can u send me a link to the poster? I wanna see how it looks. Slapslapslap 01:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 Pre show match

I added that there was a dark match between Val Venus and Rob Conway, but someone deleted it. Some other PPV articles list them, for example The_Great_American_Bash#2006 and WrestleMania VIII. There seems to be no consistancy.

I'll add it back in later today when I get a chance. Pre-show matches count as part of the PPV and should indeed be listed. TJ Spyke 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

2007 poster

theer is the official poster on check it it seems 100% real and i belive it should be added —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but we only add posters when they're posted at, so that we know they're legit. Anakinjmt 09:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be added. All of the other PPV articles have there posters posted WAY before they make it onto WWE's or TNA's site. Why can't Vengeance? What has Vengeance ever done? Chris2038win 07:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Only official posters are added. TNA's posters have been found on cable/satellite providers sites (like DirecTV's site). WWE's are usually posted on their Affiliates website. This poster has not been on any official website, so there is no proof that it is real. TJ Spyke 08:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Its inside the WWE PPV section on —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Provide a link. TJ Spyke 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What are there affiliated sites? Do they have the Judgement Day and One Night Stand poster up? Chris2038win 03:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC), it's the official website WWE provides for TV/PPV providers of WWE. TJ Spyke 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)



LOL SOZ ABOUT MY GRAMMAR AND MY LETTERS MY KEY BOARD STUFFED —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

1)Turn off the capslock next time. 2)It's not official unless it's from WWE (MAYBE a cable/satellite provider). Do you have a source other than a rumor/"news" site? TJ Spyke 21:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

it was i saw it on tv. on the channel main event —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

WWE has to announce it, during the actual program itself (not during the commercials). BTW, please use proper capitalization. TJ Spyke 04:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


i think the 2007 vengeance poster should be deleted because the undertaker isnt champion and neithe ris Bobby Lashley, and Cena is the only 1. ANY RESPONSESNosaints4life 17:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter, it's the official poster used on the WWE Affiliates page. TJ Spyke 19:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Um,TJ Spyke thats the cover for the WWE magazine. There is no way in hell that that could be the poster 1) Undertaker is severly injured and won't be returning until Summerslam/Unforgiven 2) Lashley will odviously win the title back at One Night Stand, But the chances of WWE ruining a PPV like that are slim 3) Because I was lucky enough to get me hads on an advanced script, Cena MAY lose tho Khali (either at Judgement Day or One Night Stand, The script has for both scenarios) gravediggerfuneral

Uh-hu, you mean you read rumors on the internet. That is the official poster, unless you are saying WWE is wrong. Here, eat crow: TJ Spyke 21:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

kk sorry about my mistake TJ Spyke,I'll expect the WWE to release a new poster soon, but I still don't think that this will end up being the real poster when the event rolls around gravediggerfuneral

You read a copy of the WWE script? You're funnier than Mitch Hedberg. Koberulz 14:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Buffon hey, well i'll chat with the admin users about the insult (in other words remove your comment), + script is from a family friend who knows a booker. gravediggerfuneral

We know you are full of BS. Take your "script" to a messageboard, where some gullible people might believe you. To settle this once and for all, this is the poster and will not be removed. Look at Judgment Day, Kane was the only one on the poster but he only appeared in a dark match. TJ Spyke 02:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

im not saying that's not the real poster you told me that, im just saying that my "script" (whitch is more like potential possiblilities that mayb occure that the bookers talked about) alright, im not disrespecting you in in any way spyke but i do have a "script" of sorts and am not "Full of Bull shit" =for both of you (Spyke and Wikiwikiboi) please read this page gravediggerfuneral

Since when did WWE have scripts anyway? Please read [[ Koberulz 07:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For the last time it's not a script, I used the wrong word am I am sorry. The correct description would be a piece of paper with the highlites of the booker's ideas on the future PPV gravediggerfuneral

Hey, I saw a poster on which was the same as the current one but has Edge photoshopped in instead of Taker. I think someone should try to post this one instead. Maxwagner7 22:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Found the pic [1]. I have updated the poster. TJ Spyke 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


will someone please put this page under protection?TheClownPrinceofCrime 21:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's been protected, but only until June 18. If past PPV's are any indication, we will need to get it protected again after that. TJ Spyke 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's better than nothing.TheClownPrinceofCrime 23:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Poster Talk

I am reading the discussions about the promotional poster and it seems that it is like this on every upcoming ppv page. Does it get exhausting to have to revert the page almost 50 times a day. Anyway I noticed that WWE has changed the poster but the old one is still on the page. Why is that? Jayorz12 04:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Taker lost the title to Edge so they had to change it to fit the current championship status. Any1 else see that Taker's hands are holding the belt?Spongemaster0 21:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, the new poster has been on this page for about a week. Lrrr IV 00:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Try 2 days tops.TheManWhoLaughs 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it was long before Jayorx made his comment. Lrrr IV 00:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

actually i dont think it was.TheManWhoLaughs 13:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't changed or else I wouldn't have made the comment Jayorz12 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

When I made the comment the other day I guess I wasn't specific enough. I know why they changed the poster. I just didn't know why anyone had changed it on the wikipedia page. Jayorz12 17:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Checking the history of the picture, apparently a vandal had reverted it back to the old version. It was fixed yesterday though. Lrrr IV 20:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the poster might possibly change again due to the fact that bobby lashleys no longer champion. (jw)

Just Annouced

All of the championships will be defened at the 2007 event. it was annouced on a commercial and on tv on a edition of Raw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dro Boy (talkcontribs)

It wasn't "just announced". WWE announced it last week. It doesn't need to be noted though. Lrrr IV 00:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not? It's a significant aspect of the show, as it's the first show that has been promoted as such. Jeff Silvers 20:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

i thought

this thing was protected but yet someone has vandalised it. It is impossible for every title to be on the line as that is like 12 matches. please delete that crap.TheManWhoLaughs 02:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Check your math. It's nine titles (or eleven belts). It's possible to fit 9 matches into a 3 hour PPV. They'll just cut backstage segments or make some of the matches short. I believe an actual source was provided that stated all titles would be on the line, IIRC. Gavyn Sykes 05:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way until its announced its not happening.TheManWhoLaughs 14:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read on several pro wrestling sites (pwmania, Wrestleview and a couple of others) that all titles WILL bon on the line and yes Gavyn Sykes there are on only 9 titles and yess they could have all of them on the line i.e doubble title matches/ title unifications —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

WWE themelves have confirmed that all titles will be on the line. The reason we aren't listing anything (other than the Edge/Batista match) is because we only list confirmed matches. There has only been 1 confirmed match so far. Time isn't an issue, last years Venegance PPV also had 9 matches. I doubt some matches (like the Women's Title match) will be very long. Lrrr IV 05:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you go on Vengeance on (in the batista/edge match) you will find it says "all titles will be on the line", hence "night of champions" Ydna21 11:16, 9 June 2007

Yes, but as the matches have not all been announced yet, we will not add them. Oh and by the way, I'm gonna remove the Bionicle porn stuff that's been added to the article >> Hello2112 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New poster

A new poster was released with Lashely, Edge and Cena with night of champions.

It's oviously photoshopped because it still has Undertakers gloves on Edge's hands Gamehead 01:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

All posters are photoshopped. Regardless, it's irrelevant, as that's the official poster. Koberulz 15:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


As the page is now, there is no picture of this year's poster. Could someone please upload it?--Salex1093 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh yeah there is.-- bulletproof 3:16 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If there wasn't a pic when tou made the topic, then someone might have vandalized the page. There was a pic because I uploaded the pic to WP and added it to the article myself. TJ Spyke 21:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

2007 matches

Since we know that every champion will be defending, couldn't we list the matches as champion versus TBD? 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No. We only add matches that are confirmed, and only 2 matches have been announced. Lrrr IV 04:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC) has confirmed that Chavo Guerrero will be defending his Cruiserweight Championship against Jimmy Wang Yang. Also, there will be a Fatal 4-Way match for the ECW World Championship between Chris Benoit, CM Punk, Elijah Burke and Marcus Cor Von. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Only WWE can confirm matches. It doesn't matter though, matches are only added when they are announced on US TV or Every month we go through this: we do NOT add spoilers or rumors to the PPV article. TJ Spyke 01:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay we can't do what the guy mentioned above but I think it's worth mentioning that ALL title will be on the line. Hense, the tagline, "Night of Champions"!-- Hornetman16 05:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering, when was that Fatal Four Way match announced? I watched Raw, ECW and SmackDown this week and there was absolutely no mention of it. BBoy

Fatal Four-Way? There is no FF match. There is the WWE Championship match, that will involve 5 men (although we don't know what type of match it will be). That was announced on RAW. Early in the show they announced that every world champion left on RAW at the end of the night would be eligible to challenge Cena for the title, and near the end of the show they officially announced the match. TJ Spyke 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about the Benoit-Punk-Burke-Cor Von match and why people keep adding it even though it wasn't announced on any of the shows. BBoy
Oh, I didn't see that. Yeah, no such match has been announced. The 4 matches currently listed are the only ones official, and I would think that only title matches will take place since they will already be pressed for time trying to fit 9 matches into 2:45 (about how long the average PPV lasts). TJ Spyke 03:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not confirmed, but I see William Regal taking the IC belt from Santino Marella at the PPV. :)

2007 intro

The 2007 intro has an editor note about adding information about every title being on the line and seeking consensus. So...who has a problem with it?«»bd(talk stalk) 02:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Include. It's an important and unique aspect of the show and one that WWE is pushing pretty hard. The WWE One Night Stand article mentions that the 2007 event featured all Extreme Rules matches, so I don't see why this event should be different. Jeff Silvers 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I just want to clarify that I'm suggesting we include the "all WWE titles will be defended" note, not that we list every unannounced title match as "Champion vs TBA." Jeff Silvers 03:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Include.same reasonFreebird Jackson 02:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Include per above. Koberulz 10:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Include Come on folks. A consensus was reached on WP:PW. Mshake3 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I put it in only as a compromise so that people stop adding 5 "Champion vs. TBA"'s to the article. TJ Spyke 20:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Well it's a terrible compromise as it goes completely against what was reached in the project. Mshake3 20:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. There is no consensus to list a bunch of unannounced matches. I am actually being the nice guy here by putting this note in, WP is not a democracy (in that votes don't overide policies/guidelines). Besides, I thought you would be happy that the note is included. TJ Spyke 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
It's no different than the "articles for deletion" votes, and nearly everyone is in favor of listing all nine matches. Having just two opposing votes doesn't change the vote to "no consecous", no matter how many edits one of them has. Mshake3 20:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
1)AFD's are not votes (try reading it), and admins are encouraged to actually read the arguments of each person (which is why people who just say "Keep" or "Delete" get ignored). 1 or 2 people wanting unannounced matches in doesn't make consensus either. There is no consensus to add them in, and the little note in the header was put in as a compromise since we are not adding a bunch of "Champions vs. TBA" to the article. TJ Spyke 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a compromise. The discussion is to include the matches, or to not include the matches. If anything, your "little note" should be there no matter what. Mshake3 23:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to tell that to the people who have said something above, it seems like they are saying to include the note about the titles being on the line, not listing matches. My opinion is that we should follow Wikipedia policy and only included matches that can be verified, which the article currently does. Lrrr IV 23:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Besides, while it can be assumed that the Intercontinental Championship will be on the line, we don't know under what circumstances. In other words, we can't verify "Intercontinental Champion Santino Marella vs TBA" because we can't be sure that he's only facing one person since no match has been announced, and listing him as being scheduled to face a single unannounced opponent would be crystal balling. Jeff Silvers 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
As for the intro: a note about all titles being on the line should be included, as the event is billed as Night of Champions. WWE has mentioned many times: all titles will be on the line. The "vs TBA" is just fine in my opinion. WWE has announced all titles will be on the line, so that verifies it. The match types, number of opponents, opponent name: haven't been announced, so the TBA (or TBD) is there until more announcements are made. Consensus doesn't have to be everyone: just the majority. From the looks of it: the majority is for listing the matches with TBA/TBD. Just because you and a few others don't: doesn't break that consensus. Read the discussion more closely at the wrestling project page, and it's pretty clear there is a consensus there. RobJ1981 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Where is there a majority? There are about the same amount of people supporting both sides. If I wanted to be like you, I could say that the consensus is to NOT include them and there are only a few who want it it (which is equally true since neither side has a majority). Don't try to claim a consenus when there is none. TJ Spyke 04:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Include The matches are already announced. It seems that you TJ, is the only one to oppose. Jeff Silvers, Freebird Jackson, KobeRulz, Mshake 3 and myself all are for putting "TBA" in the article seeing is how the matches are already announced and we took a consensus.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Read my comment below my vote; I was voting to include the "all titles will be defended" note, not the "TBA" match listings. Listing "Champion vs TBA" for every title is technically crystal balling since those matches haven't been announced. Yes, we know the Women's Championship will be defended and that it will probably be Melina defending against somebody who has yet to be announced, but until that match is officially declared by WWE, assuming is still assuming. Jeff Silvers 13:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, TJ is the only one to oppose on this talk page, I'm against it too, and Mr Unsigned I wouldn't bother tallying your vote if you can't even sign. So that would make Freebird, Kobe and Mshake for, me Jeff and TJ against, I see no consensus.Darrenhusted 12:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'm for listing them as well (I would think you should know this, as I've posted both here and at the wrestling project talk page). Because someone doesn't sign they shouldn't be included? That's a bit rude. Not every editor knows about signatures, so give them a break. So the current count is 5-3, not a major consensus as of yet. More people need to voice their opinions on this. RobJ1981 20:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The unsigned poster was an IP, and they are usually not counted (one reason being that they could just be an editor signing out to try and get more votes). We don't even know if Kobe and Freebird think the matches should be included, although I would say not since they agree with Jeff and Jeff was only talking about the note in the intro (regarding mentioning all titles being on the line). So the vote could possibly be 4-3 for (IP's don't count), or more likely 5-2 against since Kobe and Freebird were agreeing with Jeff. TJ Spyke 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Non-notable. No reason to mention. The card says it all. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not notable, as per bulletproof. No need whatsoever. Gavyn Sykes 20:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So would that make it 7-2 against listing the TBD matches? As for the IP guy, he's asked the same question two different ways on the main talk page [2], [3] and on the Five Pillars page [4], and has yet to make a notable contribution to Wikipedia [5]. With the amount of Talkpage contribs in the last couple of days [6], the least he could do is sign his name. Darrenhusted 21:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't include. It isn't notable - although it's not necessarily a regular occurence, there have been occasions in the past where WWE/F Pay per views have featured defences of all avaiable titles (example: WrestleMania XIV (5 titles: WWF, Intercontinental, European, Tag, Light-heavyweight). --Dave. 22:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not 7-2, I believe it's 7-4. The 2 people that just agreed: do count. Don't try to discount what they post, just because they didn't post alot. RobJ1981 23:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait, are you counting IP guy or not? Bats has gone with don't include, so I assume the 7 is for not listing the titles. Darrenhusted 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is 7-2, in favor of not including them. Gavyn Sykes 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Explain the rule of not adding matches to me. It says not to add any matches that are not announced, but on it states that all titles will be on the line. The rule says add matches that are announced and WWE have announced that all the titles are on the line but, here on wikipedia we are not allowed to add them or it is considered vandalism. That makes no freakin' since. Who made that rule, Vince Russo? AD Double J 08:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Some matches have been announced (the four currently on the page), we are aware that the other five titles may be on the line, but specific matches have not been announced, and as ECW is vacant any names listed are speculation. And the consensus at the moment is overwhelmingly to not add matches, no doubt RAW tonight will bring IC, Tag and Women's title matches and ECW will solve the ECW title match tomorrow and on Friday the SD Tag match will be announced. But for now, the matches that have been announced are enough, and even those keep being vandalised [7]. I hope that makes some "freakin' since" to you. Darrenhusted 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There you go again. says all titles WILL be on the line, while you say that MAY be on the line. In addition, outside of the champions, NO names are being listed. Once again, your reasoning makes no sense. Mshake3 14:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I was answering a question, but Mshake at the moment the consensus is against listing un-announced matches, also says Vince McMahon is dead. Mshake3 you called for a consensus and you got one, this issue will be dead by Friday. Darrenhusted 14:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe he worded his argument wrong. We know all 9 titles shall be on the line. The point is t add "Champion vs. TBD" to the article is like Crystal balling as Jeff Silvers stated several times. We don't know if the matches will in fact be "Champion vs. TBD." Some could be "Champion vs. TBD vs. TBD (w/manager/valet). So they should not be added yet. Gavyn Sykes 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, a TBD could indicate that there's more than one opponent. Nonetheless, getting back to D, you didn't do a good job of answering the question. He asked why the matches can't be listed, as the company has announced that every title will be defended. Your response was that "maybe they will, but we don't know." It's like you have some doubt that every title will indeed be defended. Why? Mshake3 15:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Dont be a dumass, Mshake3. Look at TNA, the NWA Championship was stripped and there was a new TNA Championship. TNA announced that the NWA Championship was going to be defended, and it was not. The TNA Championship was the one defended. If Shane appears on Raw tonight and decides that Santino disrespected his father when he beat Umaga for the IC, and he defuncts the title and brings the European Championship back with himseld, cuz he retired as champ, or anything like that. I know it possibly wont happen that any title will be defunct before Vengeance, but it can happen.
  • Another point is that ECW by kayfabe is not WWE. Its seperated, which means that the ECW Championship wouldnt have to be defended. A similar event using this reason was stripping Lashley of the title when he was drafted to Raw. When Cena was drafted they didnt strip him from the title, because he was WWE Champion on a WWE Show. Lashley was ECW Champion in a WWE show. I know its the same in real life, but on TV, kayfabe says its not.
  • Another point is that if a champion is minorly injured tomorrow, at Vengeance they can't participate, and also can't be stripped of the title, because its minor. And the champion wont be able to defend at Vengeance.

- If any of these happen, it wont stop Vengeance from being NIGHT OF CHAMPIONS. Lex94 16:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since this debate began no fewer than nine different users (user:Irgoat4life [8], user:Thadon01 [9], user:A-Thousand-Lies [10], user:Ryheeles [11], user:Kakashi dude [12], user:Sacherman [13], user:Zachman96 [14], user:Lilredge06 [15], user:RatedRsupestar [16]) have tried to add in the matches, and at least eight editors have stopped them (3bulletproof16, Batsnumbereleven, Gavyn Sykes, TJ Spyke, Lrrr IV, PandoraX, Bmg916, myself). Now I have to hand it to Mshake3 and RobJ1981 because since they started looking for consensus they haven't edited the page, but by putting the info in to start with I can't help feeling thay have encouraged those nine others to edit. And Lex, I have no idea what you are rambling on about. Darrenhusted 18:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not like we're in the wrong here. Both sides have valid reasons, and we're within the rules to change the article to the way we see best. Mshake3 19:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That is true, except that in this case the consensus is to leave matches out rather than add speculation. And when the two SD! matches were announced on Friday I didn't add them in or try to add them on until after the US SD! had aired (in the UK we knew for 5 hours), so it isn't like I'm not sticking to consensus myself. And of course edits by user:Bable13 and user:Thadon01 have just been reverted. Darrenhusted 19:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The only speculation is on your end buddy, due to your strange believe that WWE won't do what they've said and not have every title on the line. Your seed of doubt is crystal balling you know. But for some reason, you allow it. Interesting. Mshake3 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I really think you've missed the point, because of earlier TBD edits we now have eleven editors adding unsourced speculation, I'm not saying WWE won't put every title on the line, I said they may not put every title on the line and as the whole Kennedy-Undertaker-Edge debacle showed events can change plans. I'm saying wait until they announce the matches, as I would do with every PPV. Rey is on the GAB poster should I put Edge ve Rey as the headline match? No, because it hasn't been announced. And that is the rule with PPV matches, add them when they are announced. Darrenhusted 20:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
When the event is billed as "Night of Champions" (plus the official announcement: ALL titles will be on the line), it's pretty clear all titles will be on the line. Also to note about a comment of multiple opponents, as stated before by Mshake: Actually, a TBD could indicate that there's more than one opponent. So not listing TBD because we don't know the number of opponents, doesn't it covers one, two or any number of oppponents. This same arguement applies to Royal Rumble: several editors control the article and even put the note of "don't list the RR match until one person is announced". Let's see here: they clearly announce the RR match way before the event (Late December/early January usually), so the Rumble match itself should be in the article the day it's announced on a WWE television show. But of course it can't be that simple, because people make up excuses of why not to list it. The next Rumble is a while away: so we obviously don't need to list the RR match just yet. I was just using that as a similar example of people controlling PPV articles. RobJ1981 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the poster: that's a different story. Many PPV posters are made ahead of time, so they've been wrong in the past (on who wrestles and so on). This situation is a very clear announcement that people choose to disregard. Plus it was said live on the show, not in a taped interview or anything like that. RobJ1981 21:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Daren, you're a hoot. First you bring up Kennedy/Taker/Edge for some reason. Apparently, you don't want these matches listed because they might change. Last year for WrestleMania 22, the World Title match was officially changed several times. When it was first going to be Angle/Mysterio, were you saying "don't list it" because it might change? As for GAB, while Rey is on the poster, does it say he will be wrestling for the World Title? Nope. On WWE TV, did the Coach say every title will be defended? Yes. If you're that worried about matches changing, then you should suggest that all PPV articles be locked and left without matches until the show ends. Mshake3 22:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

New matches

I'm adding these confirmed matches

- The ECW Title will be decided in a Fatal Four Way match at WWE Vengeance. Chris Benoit vs. Elijah Burke vs. Marcus Cor Von vs. CM Punk will see the winner walk away as the ECW Champion.

Also announced at the SmackDown tapings, Chavo Guerrero will defend his Cruiserweight title against Jimmy Wang Yang. Chris2038win 20:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, WP policy is to NOT add spoilers. Until a match is announced on US TV or, it doesn't go it. TJ Spyke 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the ECW title match was announced on ECW. DaHumorist 12:23, 14 June 2007

no they havent but they were announced at the smack down taping this past week cuz i was there

Be that as it may, policy needs to be followed. If can't be added until Smackdown airs, period. This happens every PPV...Gavyn Sykes 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Why can't we put WWE Tag Team Championship: Deuce N' Domino (c) (w/ Cherry) vs. TBA, because every title will be on the line, and that is one of the 9 championships in the WWE. So, come Friday, we can write in whoever they are facing at the PPV. I think that would be good for now. Thank you. Perkowitz1 23:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

- It's been confirmed on Raw and that 2 qualifying matches have been announced for the ECW Championship on ECW this Tuesday. Burke will take on Benoit and Punk will take on Cor Von. so it could be either Punk v. Burke, Punk v. Benoit, Cor Von v. Burke, or Cor Von v. Benoit—Preceding unsigned comment added by Harville (talkcontribs)

That's why it says "TBD vs. TBD". We don't list both men in qualifying matches. Tradition has been to list "TBD" when there is a qualifying match to determine a participant. After the first match, it will be changed to "Wrestler A vs. TBD". TJ Spyke 03:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


You guys have been discussing so much as to put some stupid TBA things. Why not just leave the article alone, its not like if you are in mortal danger. Damn, this is stupid. So many constructive things that can be discussed and instead you guys are rambling the word "consensus" thousands of times in a pointless discussion. I have an idea, take this off your watch page and wait till after the PPV to see if you would like to correct something on this page. Lex94 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia law, the matches have been announced so we are forced to add them in. Not putting them in is vandalism. AD Double J 03:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Vandalism is if you erase the matches, if you leave an article alone, its just carelessness. I wrote that message 1 day before you, June 18. On June 18, only 3 matches were announced. The Open Challenge for the WWE Championship, Edge vs. Batista and Flair vs. MVP. I gave advice to not fight about putting TBD vs. TBD, because its the same as putting nothing. I said to leave the article alone until the matches were announced. If you dont know what you're commenting on, dont say anything at all. Lex94 15:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
8 matches have been announced and can be added (although the 8th match can only be "TBD vs. TBD" for now). The 9th match will probably be announced on SmackDown. Lex, here is an idea, why don't you take it off your watch list if you don't like how things are done? TJ Spyke 03:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This isn't "how things are done". You guys have been blabbing about something pointless. Do you gain anything by writing "TBD vs. TBD". If you could just leave things how they are, there will be no discussions. The only reason I could find that you will fight about idiotic things, is for the sake of an argument. Which then you have a problem. Lex94 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TJ on this one, we put announced matches when they are announced, not one day before or later (with the exception of the ECW title match). So, Lex, how about you just lay off with ridiculing everybody and just keep your rude comments to yourself. Gamer928 16:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE Tag team Match

The match is announced at an open challenge. I think it should be said in this article.[17] -- 21:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source. I have added the match. TJ Spyke 21:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

some idiot put dx against the champions i will erase that —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

wwe championship match at Vengeance 2007

What is this match going to be i.e 5 man battle royal or a match were one person is eliminated and the next person comes in etc.

Its called an Invutational Match. Thats like a mini-royal rumble, like you said "were one person is eliminated and the next person comes in etc." Lex94 08:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not decided. Invitational simply means that a select group of people have been invited to participate (in this case "former world champions on the Raw roster". --Dave. 08:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC) (edited for spelling)

benoit vs cm punk,

y does it say nitro?

Benoit had to go home due to some personal problems. The Joey Styles and the match ringside announcer made mention of Benoit not being in the match and his replacement. --Raderick 00:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

will he be back, and is it kayfabe, because wrestlers have been fired for not showing up to there matches without an excuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Why would we know? Also, this is not a messageboard, talkpages are ONLY for discussing ways to improve the article. TJ Spyke 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
it was due to personal reasons.

protection from IP edits

Can we protect this page from IP edits?

I realise they're a valued source for info, but for the most part our vandalism comes from anonymous editors. --BS01Swert (Talk) 01:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC) yea there is 2 much vandilizm

Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - done - Alison 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

semi protection?

i know ip cant edit anymore but some users might be vandals too! what should we do? user:sub619 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep reverting and add the article to your watchlist! - Alison 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand that everyone's doing their best to prevent vandalism during the show... but I've attempted to make an addition only to have it remove and reposted moments later. Please check before deleted "vandalism," some of us are trying to help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtcupps (talkcontribs)

I don't think it has anything to do with removing what you contributed. Remember that we're dealing with vandals. I've noticed that some of my edits were removed and then put back in because a vandal went in and made edits after I did. --Raderick 02:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

tag match

Cade performed a modified sitout powerbomb to Jeff to win the match, not a sidewalk slam or any other slam. Can someone please correct this?? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I was just going by Dave Meltzer's live coverage of the PPV, and he called it a "sidewalk slam looking move". TJ Spyke 02:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit


Chris Benoit was found dead in his home on June 26 The Day After Vengence 2007 alonge with his wife and one of his sons. later that day on RAW the superstars that gathered from there from all 3 brands to mourn Mr. McMahons staged Death insted gave a tribute to Chris Benoit.

I just think that this is important and should be but on the page.

You will be missed Chris The Crippler Benoit. Your legacy will live on in every aspiring wrestler and in one very very emotional ECW superstar CM Punk who looked up to you as one of his heros. Rest in Piece Rabid Wolverine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

No. WP is not a memorial and his death has nothing to do with this PPV, it would be worth noting if he died before the PPV (like we not Brian Pillman's death in the Bad Blood article since he died the morning of the PPV and had a match scheduled). Also, talkpages are ONLY for discussing improvments to the article. TJ Spyke 06:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship Match

Edge actually DEFEATED Batista as Batista rolled him back in the ring right before the ten count, with Batista being counted out as he failed to get his full body back on the apron. I'm new, can't edit it yet, so can someone please do so. Yankeekid23 19:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Yankeekid23 19:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. The Hybrid 15:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance 2007

Now, if what I read is correct, Jimmy Snuka is Deuce's adoptive father. Is this worthy of mentioning anywhere in relation to Deuce 'N' Domino v. Jimmy Snuka and Sgt. Slaughter, or is it the sort of thing that's irrelevant trivia? Calgary 15:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO it's simply trivia. Cheers, The Hybrid 15:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Benoit

i think we should put on vengeance 07 the reason why benoit didn't make the show was cause his family was dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XbrianXcarrX (talkcontribs)

We can't. According to virtually all reports, Benoit's family wasn't found until the next day. We do not know the exact reason that Benoit was not present, and we do not know whether it was related to his death or not. As we have know way of knowing, we'd best just keep it out of thearticle in the first place.
The reports also state that his wife had been dead for around a day, and his son died on the day of Vengance. I linked "personal reasons" to the death section of his article. Peace, The Hybrid 15:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but if that is true, we still can't know for a fact that this is why Chris Benoit was unavailable at Vengeance. It's a pretty logical conclusion, but it still seems like logicized speculation. I can't say I support it's inclusion in the article. Calgary 15:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I'll remove it seeing as the autopsy reports should be coming out within 24 hours. If the reports do confirm the double murder-suicide I will add it, however, since killing his son (0_0) would clearly be the reason he wasn’t there. Cheers, The Hybrid 15:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it should just stay "personal reasons" with no link IMO. TJ Spyke 00:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not just simply say "Nitro was a replacement for Chris Benoit." And just leave it at that? Billythekid16 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things

The big gold belt WAS NOT WAS NOT WAS NOT WAS NOT called the "WCW championship" or the "WCW World championship" or WCW anything when Chris Jericho won it at the first Vengeance. After Team WWF won at Survivor Series, the Rock continued to hold what had been the WCW world title, and it became a WWF-sanctioned title known simply as the "world championship." Ric Flair's promo to set up the unification match (before Vince suggested that the titles be defended and then unified) went like this:

"In this company we have two great champions...Stone Cold Steve Austin, the WWF champion....the Rock, the world Vengeance, these two great champions will meet......."

Other than Vince's victory party the next night on Raw and scattered references to the "surviving" Alliance members, nothing of WCW's, including the world, cruiserweight, and tag team titles, was ever a part of WWF storyline again.

Also, is it known why the 2002 event is so extremely difficult to find on DVD? I had to pay $40 through eBay for one, and I've seen them go MUCH higher than that. Judgment Day '02, too, which makes a little more sense since that was the first WWE (not WWF) PPV, but this one has no such reason for being pressed in such few numbers (for region 1 anyway - there's tons of copies of Vegeance '02 for region 2) Nosleep1234 10:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

While, apparently WWE wants to call it the WCW Title now (check the history page of Vengeance at, they call it the WCW World Championship), but that may just be revisionist history. TJ Spyke 21:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll get a screengrab off the Vengeance '01 DVD (if that's worth anything). I am a hundred billion percent certain the acronym "WCW" was never said during the show. Nosleep1234 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, it was referred to as the WCW title at that point, Team WWF didn't win at Survivor Series until November of 2001, 6 months after the unification of these titles occurred, so at that time, since The Alliance was still around, why wouldn't it be referred to as the WCW title? But I could be wrong. Check out the Vengeance 2001 results from here, and the WCW title history here. Also, if you look at the World Heavyweight Championship History here, you'll see that Triple H was declared the first World Heavyweight Champion, when Eric Bischoff handed him the title to be exclusive to RAW, when Brock Lesnar (WWE champion at the time) decided to stay exclusive to SmackDown! Bmg916Speak 03:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Vengeance 2001 took place in December 2001 (it wasn't until 2002 that they moved it). I do recall that they started calling it the "World Championship" since The Alliance was dissolved the night after the Survivor Series. WWE has gone back though and changed references back to WCW World Championship. Either way is fine with me though. TJ Spyke 03:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It did take place in December, didn't it? Wow, excuse me while I remove my foot from my mouth... Bmg916Speak 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Source Removal Discussion

BlueShrek, can be please discuss this here before it turns into an edit war? Clearly state your reasoning for removing the sources please. Others can comment. Gavyn Sykes 23:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sit-out spinebuster slam?

What in the blue hell is this? It's listed as the finish for the Cade and Murdoch vs. Hardys match in 2007. Should it redirect to Powerbomb, Powerslam, Side Slam or Spinebuster? I'm confused about this one. Gavyn Sykes 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cade has used it several times (including on TV) as his finisher. He spins his opponent like he would for a Anderson Spinebuster, but then turns it into the same position a wrestler does for a sit-out powerbomb. Actually, it's already linked to the correct move (it's basically a Rydeen Bomb, but he doesn't call it that). TJ Spyke 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright then, thanks for the explanation. I recall his finisher being called such, but I couldn't picture it. Gavyn Sykes 22:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance 2007

What happened to Vengeance 2007? Its been completely deleted. Has it been moved (if it has, I can't find it) or has some complete mug thought this was a funny joke?

I'll try and restore it but still, it'll take some time and effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burngun (talkcontribs) 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is regarding the separate article thing really. I don't have much of a problem with them, I just think for continuity purposes the match results should still be listed on the Vengeance page (same with all the others that are the same format) and still have the link to the main article. I just think the article has a better flow to it that way. Thoughts? (talk) 09:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WrestleMania or WWE One Night Stand. Those are the eventual goals for these articles. TJ Spyke 21:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that we're aiming for seperate articles for each years addition of a PPV? (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It is a slow process though since each one requires a lot of effort to make into a good article. TJ Spyke 13:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)