Talk:WWE SmackDown: Difference between revisions

Professional wrestling Unassessed

WWE SmackDown 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 ??? 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.

"In early to mid-2001 (NOT 2002), World Wrestling Federation (NOT Entertainment at that time) underwent something they called the “Brand Extension”. Basically, this meant that the two WWE television shows (RAW and SmackDown!) would become competition for each other. This came about a year BEFORE WWE purchased their two biggest competitors, WCW and ECW."

Actually, the Brand Extension took place after the WCW/ECW Invasion, but before the name change. According to 411, the brand split took place on March 26, 2002. This is consistent with my personal memories of the split (as the Invasion was over befgore the split happened; in fact, the entire reason for the split was the extremely large roster they had acquired as part of the WCW purchase!)

I'm going to revert the page to reflect this. If you have any reputable sources that the split actually took place in 2001, please inform me (and I will have my head examined, as I obviously have false memories). --HBK 17:38, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

That's correct, it did happen after the Invasion angle but before the name change. The name was changed about a few weeks to a month later (from my memory). CMC 06:05, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm calling into question the fan opinion section - it seems pov, particularly since it doesn't have anything to back it up. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? --Jtalledo (talk) 17:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that it's POV, since it doesn't assert the opinions, it merely reports them. As for something to back it up, one need only visit any wrestling fan forum, for example The Inside Pulse Fan Forms. --HBK 18:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a second look, and you're right. The following statement does need a credible reference though: "The creative team of SmackDown! have also voiced their disapproval of the WWE's attitude towards SmackDown!, at WrestleMania 21, the WWE Championship match pitting John Cena against John "Bradshaw" Layfield was cut short and made to feel less important so as not to overshadow the Raw main-event." --Jtalledo (talk) 18:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I renamed it to a name that seems to fit the topics discussed in it - "SmackDown! vs. RAW". --Jtalledo (talk) 18:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renaming the section doesn't mask its major POV issues. Nearly every statement in that section is speculatory and unproven. Whether or not few, some, most, or all fans believe SD! is the "poor cousin" of Raw, and I understand why it was put in there, that kind of statement isn't objective. Not only that, but it's not balanced, because it doesn't represent the opinions of those who may believe otherwise, or site names or sources for these supposed opinions. I believe that SmackDown! isn't getting the same star power or creative attention that Raw is getting also, but without credible sources or polls, there's just no way to prove it. I've completely rewritten the section, and hopefully that should clear up the problems while preserving what I think was the original writer's intent. --Chrysaor July 8, 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Whoever keeps adding people who ARE NOT confirmed to be on the SmackDown! roster is an idiot! i.e. Essa Rios, Super Crazy, Juventud, Garrison Cade etc.

If WWE does not list whomever as a SmackDown! worker then he or she is not part of SmackDown!

Just because WWE signed wrestlers to their company or because the wrestler(s) performed on Velocity DOES NOT make whomever an immediate SmackDown! wrestler.

So to sum it up, DO NOT add wrestlers who are not on the SmackDown! roster or I will keep referring to you as an idiot in the history page or in this discussion page if you ever reply. :) - Scorpion 6/19/05

Juventud, Psychosis, and Super Crazy all appeared on the latest Velocity, during which the commentators commented that all three had joined the Smackdown brand and talked about how they looked forward to what the three could contribute to the Cruiserweight division. I think it's safe to say they're all an official part of the roster now. --HBK 06:23, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is true. Also, calling other well-meaning editors liars and idiots is counter-productive. --Chrysaor 19:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

- It does not matter. If WWE does not list whomever on their roster then they are not officially part of SmackDown! until they are listed. - Scorpion 6/20/05

Being identified as Smackdown wrestlers by the commentators and wrestling as such on national TV produced by the WWE seems an awful lot like confirmation. WWE.com is not the sole arbiter of truth. Also, Velocity, while a minor show, is part of the Smackdown brand.

Finally, please do not resort to personal attacks. Stay civil. — Gwalla | Talk 21:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we cannot trust WWE's own commentators as an authority on WWE, who can we trust? The notoriously out-of-date (for anybody who isn't a main eventer) bios on WWE.com? The fact remains that Josh Matthews confirmed on national television that Psychosis, Super Crazy, and Juventud are members of the Smackdown roster. If anybody adds Essa Rios again, feel free to delete him again, but those three are in like Flynn.--HBK 04:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Flynn is not a member of the Smackdown roster. He was last seen in The Block, taking all comers.

I am the original person who typed in that Psicosis, Juventud, and Super Crazy were part of the Smackdown! roster an everyone kept on deleting it. Now it is not posted on WWE.com, but was confirmed on Velocity and Smackdown!. None of you should ever try to insult me or anyone elses intelligence by calling us an idiot, namely you Scorpion.

SWD316 23:47, June 25, 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one who things this article needs to be called WWE SmackDown! to make it like its counterpart, WWE RAW? Chad1m July 1, 2005 15:59 (UTC)

I don't think it's as integral to the show's name as Raw's, but I wouldn't be opposed to it. --Chrysaor July 6, 2005 22:18 (UTC)

What's the difference between "fired" and "released"? I was reading the Past Wrestlers section, and for the first half of the list, the wrestlers were "fired". I think what "fired" means is to be released from the company due to some kind of wrongdoing. Lately people have been released either because their contracts ended and the wrestler and/or WWE agreed not to renew, or they've just been laid off. Should we change the wording? --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} July 6, 2005 22:48 (UTC)

In this case, fired and released mean the same thing, let go of the company. Fired doesn't always mean some kind of wrongdoing. If it will make you happy, I will change the wording under the List of previous SmackDown! wrestlers section for you. SWD316 1:55, July 8, 2005 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but most of those wrestlers listed in the wrestlers who appear sporadically for WWE section have ever appeared on SmackDown! in years--they all have mostly appeared just for RAW.

Should the wrestlers who appear sporadically for WWE section be moved to the WWE section or the RAW section?

RAW already has that section, that list is for both brands not just SmackDown!. -- SWD316 22:23, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if we should have a "Current events" section. I don't think Wikipedia is intended for this purpose. You don't see many articles on TV series recounting ongoing events from the series. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have much of a problem with the section when it was first added, but the SmackDown! vs. RAW section is mainly rambling about "dominant brand" and which title is more important and rather than citing specific sources it makes general statements like "some fans" etc. – it's bordering on being original thought, which is not something Wikipedia is about. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made a minor edit to make the article say the change would happen on Friday, September 2nd. Although the WWE has been hyping it up and saying "September 9th" (also the date on the article), my local cable provider (Comcast) broadcasted Smackdown on Friday, September 2nd. On Thursday, September 1st, the programming was overtaken by CBS and broadcasted an episode of Big Brother 6. At the bottom of the screen was a ticker-tape announcing that Smackdown would be on the following night (Friday). Did this happen to anyone else? Did the change come a week earlier than expected? If so, the date should be reverted back to September 2nd to avoid conflict. --Antoshi 10:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although that's technically the name of the show now, it's also to be noted that Friday Night SmackDown! remains on Thursday nights elsewhere... How I can include this without disrupting the delicate balance this is quite the problem... kelvSYC 05:36:41, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

The article already mentions how countries like Canada and the UK get SmackDown! earlier than the US in the Friday Night SmackDown! section. --Oakster 19:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but seeing that the article title is Friday Night SmackDown!, it deserves a mention at the head of the article and not at the foot. kelvSYC 23:58:10, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Even when it airs outside of the US on Thursdays, "Friday Night SmackDown!" is what the show is called by the announcers, and "Friday Night SmackDown!" is what appears on every logo and chyron. Point being, "Friday Night" is now part of the name of the program, and not merely a descriptive adjunct. e.g. "Saturday Night Live" airs on tape-delay in some markets, and technically the bulk of the show airs on Sunday -- yet this does not warrant a mention at the head of that article.

The list of champions was reverted back to a table. The list is really simple - it just consists of the Championship name and the wrestler(s) holding that championship. While it may look better as a table, it's simple enough for a list. See Wikipedia:How to use tables#When tables are inappropriate for more information. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]