This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Judgment Day (2009) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
I tried to change the pay per view chronology for the next event to TBD due to the ongoing dispute about whether the event will be called One Night Stand or Extreme Rules. The schedule on wwe.com says Extreme Rules is the next event. The calendar that was printed out that everyone keeps pointing to as their source says One Night Stand is next. Since there are two contradicting schedules and until it is decided which one is correct, the chronology on this article should be left as TBD.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 05:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The other calendar you are talking about has two strikes against it. 1. It was produced by WWE Magazine which is not a reliable source for up to date information as the information is written three months before it hits store shelves. 2. The calander was put on sale before the change was made. At that time, the schedule on WWE.com also listed the event as One Night Stand, but has since been changed. It is clear to everyone else except the few people on this site that have taken upon themselves to police the WWE articles that this is a name change for the event. As far as the Judgment Day article goes, I made an edit to the page (going by standards put forth by the people who guard these pages 24 hours a day no less) and changed the next event to TBD. THAT wasn't good enough for you either and it was changed back to One Night Stand. You can't have things both ways. You can't on one hand say that we don't know the name of the next event and should wait until something more official than WWE's own website is released and then on the other hand put One Night Stand on the events lists for the other articles. That is a direct contradiction to your own argument.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
When One Night Stand was taken off of the schedule and Extreme Rules was put on it, that clearly signified that One Night Stand was being replaced by Extreme Rules. They don't have to update the website for One Night Stand. The page for Vengeance still exists. Something else I forgot to point out is that the printed calendar everyone keeps using as their more-reliable-than-wwe.com source doesn't have a pay per view listed at all for December. I guess that means there won't be a pay per view in December doesn't it.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Please go to http://www.jrsbarbq.com/jrs-qa and read about three questions down. One Night Stand is no more. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
He does now. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
this hasnt been updated lately for 2 months so here it is we waited 2 months and wwe.com does list the next ppv just as extreme rules and no mention of one night stand (however not sure if extreme rules will inherit the ppv history of ONS just like night of champions i believe has vegence history still so that could still happen) however th name change is 95 percent offical cause print sources are out of date and wwe.com is a very realiable source and probaly tickets are on sale or soon for extreme rules it makes sense caling it extreme rules wow now more then one night stand at least as it happens every year (i know cause it was intended for only 1 night but was popular) however a night of extreme would be better title though Golefsgophan (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has added a poster yet! If you cant find an official one just make a fake one and put it on the article as soon as possible because it just looks stupid without one! Giga9908 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
wow there is now an offical poster so u happy i know i am thats a sweet poster Golefsgophan (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Where I live there was a advertisement prompting that CM PUNK will cash in money in the bank at Judgment Day so take it with a grin of slat Supermike (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
JR discussed it on his blog, but it might mean his match with jericho might not happen, but that's all a guess for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.158.111 (talk • contribs)
i'm sorry i missed that part, my fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.158.111 (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it be pertinent to mention Swagger's protest and assault on Christian last night as a part of the aftermath? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.45.249 (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I note the claim in an edit-summary that "all articles should start with X IS or X WAS", but I cannot find this prescription in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Can anyone please point me towards the appropriate "rule"? - 192.190.108.28 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Judgment Day (2009). 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)