Talk:Backlash (2008)

Are you serious?

"The official tsheme song for the Pay Per View is Crushcrushcrush by Paramore"

Come on. Is this a joke?

Also, there are spoilers on here. SmackDown! hasn't even aired yet and it already says that two matches were announced on the show when the show hasn't aired. They were announced on the tapings, sure. But I thought they weren't supposed to be announced on here until the show aired. 209.42.179.35 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Smackdown has aired in Austrailia! Sprent (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe in Australia. But here in the U.S., it doesn't air until tonight at 8:00 Eastern, 7:00 Central. It's only 4:38 here. Wait until it has aired in the U.S. tonight, and then you can add your info.209.42.179.35 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? It has aired... If you are worried about spoiling it - there are probably places it airs later than in the U.S Sprent (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Like New Zealand!!!! Samrulz123 (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, it's a guideline on Wikipedia. No spoilers are allowed until you can confirm (with a RELIABLE source, ex. WWE.com) that the events you posted will happen. OrtonRKO15 (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, guess you're right. I'll remember for next time! Wasn't my intention to spoil anything though. Sprent (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A consensus was made to add the matches. Yes, SmackDown does air in Australia and it has a right to be added to the card. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So is the new consensus then that we add stuff when it first airs in Australia/NZ or was it specifically for these matches? Tony2Times (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You can add matches once SD! airs anyway. The broadcast itself can be considered a source. If you want to add matches before SD airs, you need a reliable source such as WWE.com or WON. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The consenus found was that you can add matches, as long as you have a reliable source. an eye witness is not a reliable source. So someone just saying "i have seen it in australia" just is not enough. find a website and you are clear to add it. btw - we had this discussion on every single ppv over the last... year? i'm just sick of it. why can't you guys from australia just wait until it is announced on wwe.com? is it such an honor to add matches? do you need the glory? is it so important for your ego to be the one that can say "I added this match!"? i just dont get it... Diivoo (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, it has also aired in the UK. Rfcucl1972 (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Can somebody put semi-protection on the page please? The unregs are messing it up.

Yeah, it airs in the UK 5 hours before it hits the East Coast and I don't feel the need to put results up because I don't like spoilers. In any other page on Wikipedia, if there are spoilers in the article it comes with a warning, it doesn't on here because people assume that the people reading will have seen the weekly show. If it hasn't aired there, they can't have so it's just cruel. Raw airs live, Smackdown doesn't thus Raw announcements can be added but Smackdown ones shouldn't be. Like Diivoo says, why are people so intent on putting up match information and spoiling it for everyone else? I think maybe we should come up with a new rule that it can't be added until a day after it has aired, just to end spoilers. Tony2Times (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh my god. We have this discussion every single PPV. The consensus was made that if it airs (in any nation) then that airing is a reliable source. Hopefully at Judgment Day this won't be brought up again. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 08:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

if i may add - the airing is a reliable source, if you can provide it. again, eye witness is no reliable source, due to wikipedia policys (especially WP:V).Diivoo (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you want me to record it and then post the tape to your house? Will that count as a reliable source? What a stupid comment. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

i think you just dont understand it, do you? i'm not the master of wikipedia, sending a tape to me is ridiculous. i'm just pointing out that original research is against wikipedia policys. you cant just add something based on what you'vs seen. what proof do you have? you need something that ratifies your claim. Diivoo (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

GuffasBorgz is right: If a show airs from anywhere, it is reliable. You're saying if Edge defeats The Undertaker while the event is airing live on PPV, we can't add it until a printed source says he won. That is just ridiculous. –LAX 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection

Like Wrestlemania 24 we should protect the article for an alotted time so the unregistered users don't mess it up.

I agree. Just prior to writing this, I had to delete "The Great Khali vs. Big Show" from the Matches section.....again, as someone (possibly an unregistered user) had added it. Michaelclarkc (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This is becoming a joke! Who keeps adding Big Show vs. Great Khali? Michaelclarkc (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed another instance of that edit.  Hazardous Matt  16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed more false information regarding Khali/Show, which claimed the match had been announced. This has got to stop. Michaelclarkc (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Like I said we got to put a stop to this. Try notify the Admins on the professional wrestling projects or whatever.DeadmanUndertaker (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Good, we should probably do the same for Judgement Day when that PPV's hype start so we can avoid this. DeadmanUndertaker (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm...who keeps removing Big Show vs. Khali. I just added it and now it's gone. It's been conformed by WWE.com Michaelclarkc (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Quality

Please rename the page WWE Backlash (2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.160.40 (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the article has been put together pretty well. It may not be important, that's a matter of opinion, but I think it is better written than stub class. That's pretty rough. DeadmanUndertaker (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Again a matter of a opinion but this article is very usefull to readers who need maybe more info then what WWE provides, or somebody who needs or wants the info WWE is holding back. I view it as at least a GA. What is your opinion? DeadmanUndertaker (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not going to be a GA nominee for a while, certainly not until the event has passed. If it follows along like some of the recent PPV articles, there's a good chance for it to reach that status. I don't know if it really qualifies as a stub anymore, but that's something to be discussed further, isn't it?  Hazardous Matt  21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. B class is the highest rating this article could possibly acheive at this point in time. However Start class is more what this is since we do not have the complete card of matches. I would edit it so myself but I feel I do not have the right to do so. DeadmanUndertaker (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Future Class is the rating, the event has not yet occured. D.M.N. (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Chris Jericho going to be a Special Referee in the match between Shawn Michaels and Batista? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was announced on the RAW taping in London, but has yet to air as RAW is on right now. I guess there is no point in removing it now. Michaelclarkc (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Future Class doesn't even exist. DeadmanUndertaker 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So two months later, when are we going to possibly see a new certification granted to this article? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 01:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Backlash Report

Just a reminder, but when adding matches please cite source and add background info. DeadmanUndertaker (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's time to feel the backlash. Sorry.SimonKSK (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

why

why are there no results ?????? I'mOnBase 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? –LAX 01:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Why dont you scroll down, and it will be under the matches section =)--~SRS~ 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Finished

HHH pins Randy Orton with the Pedigree. I dont want to ruin the format because I don't know how to edit this in properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicana (talk • contribs) 02:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Event Section

I was not in the arena at the time the Twelve Diva Match-up occurred (honestly it didn't interest me. I went to get food). If anyone was in the arena at the time, please do a write-up on this match. Thank you. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

There are WAY too many pictures of the event and it's really just distracting. I am going to delete the Dark match, and maybe Orton and Triple H's entrances. There should be 3-4 pictures max of the entire event. Virakhvar321 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it hampers readability.  Hazardous Matt  18:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to keep images that are relevant to the article. Zenlax ^{T C S} 18:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it helps the article to have them, but I think the current quantity is just overkill. Maybe one per match, at most.  Hazardous Matt  18:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then I'll point out that you removed the Kane photo and the Hardy / MVP photo was moved to the wrong position. I'll correct these. All other images will remain removed. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I haven't removed any. I've just been voicing my opinion on it to open up the idea of trimming it down. I think there's a happy medium, one properly organized, that we can find.  Hazardous Matt  19:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to remove the Hardy/MVP image, as it barely can be seen. Also, the image of Orton "taunting" Triple H is not necessarily needed. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit there were previously quite a few pictures. Sorry about that. I picked the ones I felt were necessary to provide maximum quality to the article. I believe however, at this point, the article is fine as is. However, now what we need to do is focus on an Aftermath section... starting in about 6 hours when WWE Monday Night RAW is underway. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is definitely not fine as is. The event is way too long, and I feel there are still too many pics. –LAX 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If such is your opinion, I ask you under Wikipedia policy to call a vote for consensus, decide such, watch the event, and then correct it in accordance with the reached consensus. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 19:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What consensus? The event is, without a doubt, terribly written and way too long. –LAX 19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is a common agreement between multiple parties. It's also a Wikipedia Policy. See Here For More Information. Of course the article is terribly written, it's a rough write up. That's why I asked other editors to assist, not to break it down and derail it or to point out every single flaw without offering any ideas on how to assist in actually correcting possible problems. Why not follow [IMatthew's Example]?ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I'm fixing up the event, I'll trim it down and make it less "play-by-play" iMatthew 2008 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Evilgohan2, I know what consensus is and I know it's policy; I am an admin, so you know for future references. Anyway, there was no consensus formed, so that's why I asked "What Consensus?". –LAX 19:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was proposing a polling for the purpose of creating a consensus. Sorry for the mis-understanding. Anyway, I've noticed the end result of the mass editing especially by iMatthew and the clean-up by all including myself. After the reduction in amount of play-by-play and the reduction in amount of pictures, I see now that it was too long and there were too many, though I admit, at the time, considering the sheer amount of text, and that I was trying to add images relative to each match, I thought it reasonable at the time. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 13:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Links

I'm guessing there are too many, should some of them be removed, I don't want to until it's decided, but when there are 4 links to the JBL article, it seems a little wrong. Of course, I do only mean ones that are duplicated throughout. ---Вlazzeee 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe its a reference to redundant wikilinks. For instance, there is a link to JBL in the background section, as well in the main event match. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the link should only be attached to the first instance, right?  Hazardous Matt  21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant, sorry if I didn't make it clear, but that's completely right, it should only be in the first instance was what I was thinking, is that right? ---Вlazzeee 22:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything should be wiki-linked the first time it appears in a section. The background and event are two separate sections, so it's correct being linked in both sections. iMatthew 2008 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's what you were talking about. Had no idea. But, like Matt said and per here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, again, apologies for that, glad I didn't start deleting them, thanks for clearing that up for me -Вlazzeee 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Table

Does anybody agree that it would be a good idea to "hide" the table in the Event section? Since, its way too big. (Ex: see Survivor Series '04). --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done iMatthew 2008 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on it being hidden, it changes the entire shape of the article when you open it which is a bit odd. I think it'd look better at the bottom perhaps where it wouldn't move text and images around. Tony2Times (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe it is fine hidden. Although it changes the shape of the event section of the article, one must acknowledge that a user has the option whether to open it or not, and likewise, whether to leave it open or not. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dark Match

Was it for the championship? 3pointswish (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Dark Matches never decide championships in WWE, save for specially announced matches which are usually aired in some capacity.ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 13:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WWE has used Dark Matches to decide championships before. Only minor championships though, like the Cruiserweight title when it was around and I remember once the World Tag Team Championship. iMatthew 2008 19:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Those aired on WWE Heat though, or WWF Heat as it was known at the time and when it was a more prominent show. It usually aired live on MTV (till switching to what was previously known as TNN and now known as SpikeTV) prior to a Pay-Per-View event and was primarily used to, as you say, decide smaller championships, or promote matches for the pay-per-view event as well as entice persons to order to show. The last championship I can remember being decided on WWE Heat prior to a pay-per-view was the RAW tag titles prior to WWE Wrestlemania XIX. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath Section

Considering RAW has aired and ECW is airing tonight (while Smackdown is airing on Friday), should we begin the construction of an Aftermath section? Most of my effort was burned out on doing the Event section (which has been considerably shortened since :P ). Therefore, I'd like to ask others to write the aftermath section. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The aftermath doesn't need to be written right away, plus you don't have to ask other people to write it as you do not own the article, but if you don't want to write it, feel free not to. Otherwise, nobody was counting on you writing it, as it can be written by anybody. Cheers! iMatthew 2008 19:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps I worded that wrong. Seem to be doing that a lot lately.... What I meant to say is what you essentially suggested: "If you don't want to write it, feel free not to". ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 23:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Should the Mike Adamle / Tazz walkout be a part of the Aftermath section? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 13:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be a build off of the legitimate criticism that Adamle is receiving for his commentary, not necessarily related to the events at Backlash. I'd say no.  Hazardous Matt  14:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious to know because when I was at Backlash and Tazz was introduced by Lilian Garcia, he received an ovation, however, when Mike Adamle was introduced behind him, he received resounding boos. Perhaps you are correct though. There is a legitimate criticism of Adamle's commentary, though some seem to believe the event was a work rather than a shoot. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Non notable, unless the feud escalates further into something at Judgment Day.~SRS~ 14:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not even Truco, because nothing happened at Backlash, except for their entrances which is not notable. iMatthew 2008 19:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Scott Armstrong

Are you sure he wasn't there? I'm sure Mike Adamle said referee scott armstrong? Or was it one of Mike adamle's numerous mistakes Adster95 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It was one of Adamle's mistakes. If you listen, Tazz corrects him and says the referee is actually Mike Posey. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

O Kk Adster95 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

times

why are there no match times up? its on every other ppv the edge/undertaker match was 18m25s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.247.173 (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Because no source has been found for the times. A source is needed for times to be added per WP:V Gavyn Sykes (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is 411mania a good enough source? [1] Mark handscombe (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

go for it, it needs match times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.195 (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

Along with the stripping of Undertaker's belt, is the blocking of the gogoplata worth mentioning too? 3pointswish (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That was the reason Undertaker was stripped of the World title. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels v Batista

Does anyone else agree that the quick synopsis of this match should include HBK faking a knee injury before hitting the superkick to pin Batista? HDC7777 (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:15, 7 August 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 23:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Backlash (2008)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Backlash (2008)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Slam":

• From Montel Vontavious Porter: "SLAM! Sports - Wrestling - Montel Vontavious Porter". CANOE. Retrieved 2007-10-15.
• From Backlash (2003): Powell, John. "Goldberg suffers Backlash". Canoe: SLAM Sports-Wrestling. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
• From Matt Hardy: "Matt Hardy". Slam Wrestling. Retrieved 2007-09-01.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

These will all be cleared up in the next day or so by myself, so have no worries about it. Cheers, DoomsDay 03:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)