Talk:Grand Slam Championship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part 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, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 21/02/2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
[edit] Archives
[edit] Commentary
Why is April 2006 listed as the day that the WWE Tag Titles were considered equal to World tag titles? Michael Cole had mentioned Kurt Angle as a grand slam champion at No Mercy 2002 when he first won the belts. Is it because saying things on commentary doesn't count such as JBL alling himself a Grand Slam champion but somehow doesn't count. What's the deal.--24.184.169.37 08:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The deal is that WWE.com also called Kurt Angle a former grand slam champion when he quit WWE, that's the deal. Now sign in and get a user name, 24.184.169.37, and then we can discuss this properly. What's the deal with unsigned IP users? Darrenhusted 11:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- People are allowed to comment under their IP address if they choose to, they aren't forced to create an account. — Moe 02:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all Darrenhusted don't get nasty theres no reason to. I have a right to ask the question as Moe politely pointed out. However, how does that ansewr my question. I was asking why people aren't pointing out the first time that WWE considered the Smackdown! tag belts a viable part of the grand slam. I've seen the match at No Mercy 2002 where Michael Cole states that Kurt would become a Grand Slam champ by winning the match, which he did. Michael Cole also reffered to Kurt as a Grand Slam Champ at Royal Rumble 03 during Kurt's unbelivable match with Benoit. The point I was bringing up was, why aren't statements made on commentary during a match count as a source?.--24.184.173.132 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please provide a source as to when Michael Cole stated this. Although he may have said it and you may be correct, Wikipedia requires a reliable source to add information (and this has been a sensative issue for the past few months). Currently, the earlist information we have is the one already listed, but if you could provide an external link that dates back earlier to than the ones we have, we will consider it for making changes. Sometimes commentary isn't included because commentators have a habit of making mistakes refering to wrong title belts lineage, times of weeks events happened and other easy mistakes. Most commentary has to be accounted for as kayfabe, meaning 'not literaly' in professional wrestling terms. Besides for it to be on Wikipedia, you must follow guidelines and policies when making claims like these (see No original research, External links, Citing sources and Reliable sources. Commentary usually doesn't give us grounds to add this kind of material. Thanks! — Moe 18:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Here [1]. Michael Cole calls Kurt Angle a grand slam champ sometime during this match. It's Kurt Angle & Benoit vs. Edge & Mysterio at No Mercy 2002.--24.184.169.37 06:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- MySpace, unless it's the offical website of a person(s) is not considered reliable.
- This video, or portion, is copyrighted. If you could provide a website, written in text, which is usually more of a permanent link than video, than that would be acceptable. — Moe 03:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
So the upshot "24.184.169.37" is you want to change a stated reliable source in a wikipedia articel to an unreliable source. For what reason? The article already establishes that the Smackdown tag team belts are part of the triple crown and the grand slam, what reason is there to introduce an unreliable source when we have a reliable one? Darrenhusted 11:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
If you look back through the past edits of this article, the source of calling Kurt Angle a Slam winner was actually WWE.com on their auction page.
Ohgltxg 08:33 20 February, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] JBL
JBL should be a Grand Slam Champion. Due Raw having The IC Championship and Tag Team Championships, Stephanie McMahon (when she was general manager) made the SmackDown Tag Team Championships (sorry cant remember if thier the WWE tag championships or World Tag Championships) she then also brought back the U.S. Title. Though the IC title is obviously more of an honour to hold the US title is Smackdowns second belt and so should be accepted that he is a Grand Slam champion (however if the brand extension gets taken away then he should not be.) Black6989 12:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Black6989
The whole point of the U.S. Title debate is that the U.S. Title is equal to the I-C Belt. By saying it's more of an honor to win the I-C Belt, you are defeating your own arguement.
And if the brand extension is taken away, then should Kurt Angle and Eddie Guerrero be stripped of their Slam, as they won the newer Tag Belts and not the originals?
Not the best arguement there. Ohgltxg 20:14 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, again, as long as it's not included in the TC, it's can't be included in the Grand Slam. Anakinjmt 14:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- The US Title counts towards both the TC and the GS. TJ Spyke 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- The US title counts towards neither, hence the pages of discussion. Darrenhusted 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- The US Title counts towards both the TC and the GS. TJ Spyke 04:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OH. yeah i see your point. fair enough. but then does that mean that for someone today to become a grand slam champion they must win the ic, us respective world championship and tag team championship. Or can only people who held the european before it was disbanded be grand slam champions? Black6989 13:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Black6989
- They must have won the European title in addition to the IC title, WWE/World Tag Team title, and WWE/World Heavyweight title. As of now, the US title and the ECW title do not count. Anakinjmt 14:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
To end this, yes the IC and US Titles are equal, but the WWE never “made it official”. Logically yes, officially no. We’re all SMARKS here. We know the deal.--Prince Patrick 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
