Talk:TNA Impact!/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

History

Someone desparately needs to rewrite this section. It is essentially a copy of the Business model section of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Maybe include some of the historic matches, like the title changes that have taken place? --Kitch 17:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

In writing the history section, I aimed to discuss the events which led to TNA beginning to air impact. Admittedly, there is little mention of the actual content. I don't think a rewrite is necessarily essential, but some expansion would be ideal. McPhail 23:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


From article: - TNA began taping TNA iMPACT! on Tuesdays in Soundstage 21 at Universal Studios in Orlando, Florida, and aired the first episode on on June 4, 2004. iMPACT! was also syndicated throughout Canada (on TSN and RDS), Europe (on The Wrestling Channel and Eurosport) and Asia (on ESPN Star Sports), to a total of 118 countries.

- That isn't quite in correct. Eurosport only started transmitting TNA since September 2005 - over one year after this part in the paragraph. The Wrestling Channel and ESPN Star Sports is however corrected (ESPN Star Sports deal was signed May 2005, TWC since March 2004). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.211.97 (talk) 15:37, 12 November, 2005 (UTC)

Recaps

I have the next two-and-a-half weeks off from work and college, so I intend to spend much of that time writing up results pages for all episodes of TNA iMPACT! I am going to go in reverse time, from September 2005 backward. I have already written a template for 2004. --Kitch 16:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed

that at the end of the mid section, it claims that Spike and TNA are in negotioations for a two hour timeslot. I'd like a link to where this news came up, if at all possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntyking117 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 16 September, 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't there a ratings article for iMPACT?

This has been bugging me for a while. WWE has a section dedicated to this, why not TNA? Gruntyking117 23:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, started it: Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling television ratings --Aaru Bui DII 09:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Gruntyking117 23:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs a logo update

It's needed the iMPACT! logo since the two hour show, but hasn't been updated. Gruntyking117 06:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You mean the one on the game article? --Aaru Bui DII 14:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, like that one, but without the little IGN logo. I can't find any. Gruntyking117 05:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

TWC lose TNA

Recently announced that TWC have lost the rights to air TNA. A new deal has been reached with another UK broadcaster, thought to be Bravo. This article needs to be updated to reflect that.

"TWC regrets to inform it's viewers, that after almost 3 years of being the home to TNA Wrestling in the UK, TNA have now signed an exclusive deal with another UK network commencing on the 1st of January 2007. As disappointed as we are, we understand that this is a natural progression for a company that is growing as fast as TNA; we are happy to have been a part of their growth in the UK, and wish them all the best in the future! "

http://www.thewrestlingchannel.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=31979 83.67.138.19 10:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Speculative Future Competition

Someone posted the following:

In February 2007, iMPACT will go head to head with a delayed edition of WWE Raw. This will be the first time WWE has had direct televised competition from another wrestling company since WCW Nitro in March 2001. The ratings for iMPACT will be very interesting on this day as it will be an indicator for how close the company is to competing directly with WWE on television. AFI Clandestine 12/28.

While I understand that some people will say this is information, I consider it speculative, as neither WWE nor TNA have announced that they will compete. It is possible that WWE could choose to have Raw air on SciFi Channel live, on USA Network on same-day tape delay, or a combination of those options. As confirmation of these possibilities, see how Raw dealt with the U.S. Open of Tennis coverage on USA Network. (For the first week, Raw aired live on SciFi with tennis on USA Network. For the second week, Raw went live on USA while tennis went live on CNBC.) 70.111.66.33 02:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thre is no compinenation because RAw is either going to be taped delay or shoen on another channel . But it isn't going to be live but just a special Of The Greatest Bouts In TNA History, PROOf: [1]

TNA still TWC

TNA iMPACT! is still shown on TWC Fight on Saturday at 1:00am —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe80 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 1 January, 2007 (UTC)

GAC

Review time! I graded this article on the following criteria:

  1. Well-written: Fail
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Fail
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

Right, so it fails. Reasons- the content section? Practically nonexistent. I don't' watch this show, so i have no idea what it's about. After reading the content section, I still don't' know. I do know that they have "2 to 4 matches per show" and after getting rid of the time limit, still have "3 to 5 matches per show". Basically, the entire article is very inaccessible to non-wrestling watchers. The History section is a series of stubby paragraphs only moderately well written at best. You don't need to say exactly when the show is/was broadcast, and certainly not in bold. And what the heck is up with the Spike TV "1.0" rating? What does that even mean? Not as good as they hoped it would be, apparently, but on what scale? In conclusion, i have a problem even leaving this as B-class, but since I'm giving you a poorly flowing, rather harsh review, I'll leave it. --PresN 04:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and "TNA iMPACT! does not conform to style conventions at all. WP:MOS --PresN 04:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The images also need fair use rationales to pass at a later date. --Nehrams2020 04:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE NOT MOVED -- as there was no consensus for the move per discussion below. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

TNA iMPACT! → TNA Impact! — Per MOS:TM for trademarks to follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules. Aaru Bui DII 09:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support - WP:MOSTM clearly applies. Furthermore, TJ Spyke should be censured for this edit, which was clearly a blatant attempt at enforcing their naming of the article. Chris cheese whine 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support. While I don't think any of the examples given in WP:MOS-TM really apply to this particular case, iMPACT! still appears to be more akin to all-uppercase (REALTOR example) than first-letter-lowercase trademarks (iPod and eBay examples). - Cyrus XIII 12:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support. This one is a no-brainer. The use of "iMPACT!" in this article borders on unreadability, clearly violates the style consensus established in WP:MOSTM, and is in general an embarrassment to this project. —ptk✰fgs 19:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support as nominator. --Aaru Bui DII 15:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support per WP:MOSTM and Fox Broadcasting Company, Time (magazine), and too many other precedents to list. Most objections below, so far, should be raised on the WP:MOSTM Talk page to try and change the guideline. eBay and iPod are logical exceptions because they're basically contractions, ala electronic mail->e-mail->email. 76.22.4.86 01:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Neither of those are contractions. The examples you listed are diffent in that they are all capitals (FOX and TIME). TJ Spyke 01:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    Kindly pay attention, please. Brands like iPod and eBay are exceptions because their non-standard capitalization fulfills a purpose in terms of meaning and pronunciation, whereas the typesetting for FOX, TIME and iMPACT is purely based on aesthetics and a marketing agenda. I would also like to point out that contrary to popular belief, strong votes are not counted twice. - Cyrus XIII 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    OK, so I shouldn't have used the word "contractions". My point is that in both cases the first letter refers to a different word, EG eBay was presumably formed of a first word "electronic". I don't know if the "i" in iTunes, et al. comes from "Internet" or "I" (as in "me"), but it is still clearly a separate word, which capitalizing the second letter helps clarify. The "i" in "iMPACT" is part of the word "impact", and making it lowercase is simply a marketing affect that clarifies nothing. 76.22.4.86 03:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support. WP:SNOW. ju66l3r 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    You do snow that WP:SNOW wouldn't work here? That is for cases where the outcome is obvious (like if one side is up 15-0). Also, vote like yours (giving no reason) are usually not counted (just like IP votes are usually not counted). TJ Spyke 05:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    You do know that WP:SNOW simply says to use common sense and that the "opposition" to this move hasn't presented anything close to a reasonable rule to follow in keeping the current article name. It's a snowball's chance in hell that iMPACT fits the MoS in any way. WP:SNOW. It's not a vote, it's a reasoned opinion with a logical rule behind it. It's not about counting votes, it's about presenting opinions and mine just happens to be the one rolling downhill at full speed with no reasonable opposition. ju66l3r 07:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    Saying that votes without explanation aren't counted is a bit misleading. "Votes" aren't counted, period. Arguments are weighed. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support because of everything ever. Naming conventions. Voretus 20:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    Comment: It appears this move can proceed even with the opposition per ArbCom, due to the artificially-created bad-faith edit history. Chris cheese whine 05:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    I have removed the history of the article so that only the first redirect is present. This means that any user can move the page in the usual way. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Strong Oppose per mon comments at TNA iMPACT! (video game). TJ Spyke 10:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Strong Oppose "Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized." Capitals is plural, meaning more than one, so iMPACT! falls under that category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inuyasha73036 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    That is patently not what the MoS says on the matter. Chris cheese whine 16:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yes it does. TJ Spyke 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    No, that is not what it says. If it were, though, the correct location for the title in line with such a rule would then be "iMpact". Chris cheese whine 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    The point for me is that it doesn't look like standard English when written as "iMPACT". MOSTM says, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment," and then makes an exception for eBay and iPod and the like, because they don't look very weird that way. The spirit of the rule is certainly to avoid cute alternative capitalizations, and that's how I've seen it interpreted in a wide variety of precedents. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    IMO, eBay looks a lot weirder than iMPACT. TJ Spyke 22:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    There's certainly room for reasonable people to differ on that point. My understanding of WP:MOSTM, based on reading it and seeing it applied, is that "iMPACT" is precisely the sort of thing we try to avoid. The guideline doesn't address every possible permutation of initial lower-cases, all caps, etc. What it does it state a general rule, and then enumerate limited exceptions. I don't see that "iMPACT" has the same cultural cache as "eBay", which is part of the consideration in making exceptions. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    "Capital" and "capitals" is pointless wikilawyering, all the way down to a single letter in the sentence! It's entirely obvious in this case that the logotype used by WWE is a stylized rendering of the word "Impact". We have no need to abuse the reader with this stylized rendering, as it does not improve readability in the slightest. —ptk✰fgs 23:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    It's not about them looking weird. the e and the i are like prefixes, pronounced separately. --Aaru Bui DII 00:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    Even with deviantART and dBASE, the capitalized part is a separate word. --Aaru Bui DII 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose iMPACT! is the name, the same way WWE Smackdown! is not WWE Smackdown. Kris Classic 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think anybody's suggesting that we drop the exclamation point. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    It was previously discussed a few weeks ago. Kris Classic 23:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Yet still is irrelevant to this move. The WWE Raw move could be though. --Aaru Bui DII 00:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  4. Strong Oppose iMPACT! is the official way TNA spells the name of the show. Bmg916 Speak to Me 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    Maybe they should learn to spell? *shrug* Chris cheese whine 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    That's a red herring; nobody's trying to change any spelling. It's a question of not using stylized typography, just like we don't keep the band at KISS. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose I think it should be spelled like TNA spell it. After all it's been done previously with the Team Xtreme spelling. As long as TNA Impact! redirects there shouldn't be a problem. Sure, TNA (and the Hardy BoyZ) could go back to school, but that's not the issue. Suriel1981 23:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    We're not talking about spelling, we're talking about typography. Whether letters are upper-case or lower-case isn't a spelling question. Of course we're going to spell their name correctly, as they spell it, but we ought to capitalize it according to the usual rules of English, just like we do in so many other articles, per WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCL, and just like many other websites do. Note also that our Hardy Boyz article doesn't use the capital 'Z' - we spell the name the way they spell it, and capitalize it per our house style. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Note to closing admin - Because I've taken a definite side in this discussion, I'm not going to close this move request, but I would like to alert whoever does close it that this request and the one at Talk:TNA iMPACT! (video game) are essentially the same request, and should be closed together. (I'm leaving a duplicate message there.) -GTBacchus(talk) 00:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Another article that will need to have the final outcome applied: TNA iMPACT! Zone. ju66l3r 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Undecided I would refer to Lowercased trademarks with internal capitals do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized. However, the more I think about this the more concerned I am about a precedent being set that could lead to us being obliged to alter spellings of "Impact!" to "iMPACT!" on all pages just to stick within the rules we've adopted. I think the 'rulebook' would legitimately allow either version to be used. Which is going to be of MOST BENEFIT to readers to adopt?Suriel1981 00:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You might find this article helpful, it sums up the issue really well. - Cyrus XIII 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I like this quote: The companies and their trademark lawyers want you to duplicate their capitalization. They also want you to use the trademark symbol. They also want you to use the word "brand" and a generic identifier to guard against the loss of their trademarks (journalists eat Big Macs; McDonald's lawyers might want us to eat BIG MAC® brand sandwich products). Are you going to give in to all of those demands? Do you want your stories to look like press releases? Suriel1981 01:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Except TNA does not of those (aside from using the correct spelling). TJ Spyke 01:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"iMPACT!" is most certainly a trademarked symbol of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. And it has clearly been designed with the current typography with the intention of creating brand identification. They certainly haven't just reversed the standard conventions just out of whimsy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suriel1981 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC).


I object to the above close, as the closer has clearly only done a straight vote count. Chris cheese whine 17:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

For those of you who are intrested please see what I have written on User talk:Chriscf#Talk:TNA iMPACT!. But as Chris has raised this as a techincal issue over guidlines I will discuss it a little more. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) is one of the pages in MOS and covers the contents of a page. The MOS is a guidline it is not a Wikipedia policy page. The guidline for page names is Wikipedia:Naming conventions. That guidline says "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature". The reference in the naming conventions guidline to the "Manual of Style (trademarks)" is "see also", but does not say that it should be followed when considering the name of a page. If the two guidlines clash then there is no reason why redirects can not be used, from other pages so that the MOS guideline is followed on other pages for thoses who conside this to be an important issue.
As the people who opposed the move are also Wikipedia editors, they were free to alter their opinions if they had been convinced by the arguments put forward by the supportes of the move. As they did not, I think that their opinions are just as valid as those who supported the move. Please see Wikipedia:Consensus to see if you think a consensus exited to move the page, I did not. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you miss the part in the Naming Conventions about not replicating stylized typography? Chris cheese whine 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No, but it is in a section called "Album titles and band names" and this article is not about one of those. But as I said before my decision was based on: was there a consensus for the move? and I do not think that there was. You could have raised all these issues during the discussion and tried to persuade the other editors who contributed to the discussion to your POV (Which you succeeded in doing one case). But despite your best efforts in my opinion there was not a consensus for a move. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is simply not true. Everyone's opinion is not valid unless reinforced by something concrete like policy. In other words, the opinion that "this page should be named iMpAcT because I said so" is not just as valid as those supporting the move written above. Nothing provided in opposition (and it seems the only reason provided in opposition was "because TNA said so") was supported by any policy or guideline. The MoS applies to all user-contributed content and that includes the title. You've misinterpreted the manual if you think it starts only after the title. Do you suggest the article be titled iMPACT! but everywhere else within the article we should write Impact? That would be completely counter to having a manual of style in the first place. ju66l3r 20:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
ju66l3r You and I will have to disagree on this. More than once I have been involved in policy and guideline development were less people were involved in the development than expressed an opinion over this page name. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That is completely non sequiter and also does nothing to answer any of the concerns I raised above. ju66l3r 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
ju66l3r, if you look at the MOS section called "Article titles", it states that the main article on this issue is the Wikipedia:Naming conventions and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions states "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers...". As I said before I do not think there was a consensus to move the article. I also think that trying to use guidelines to force editors to one's POV, instead of using the guidelines to persuade other editors to your POV, is not how one builds a consensus and harmony on this project. ju66l3r we can play ring a' ring the roses, but it is not very constructive (I defiantly have better things to do) so can we move on please? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You mean the majority of English speakers who supported the move? It also has company specific restrictions which points to WP:MOSTM (of which this is an issue of trademark). Hey, I'm not keeping you here. You're free to edit wherever you like. ju66l3r 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a vote

Would it have made a difference if I had actually listed my name as a numbered support "vote"? I thought I showed my support in the discussion, but I didn't actually make myself #8, which would put the support up to 67%, if we're counting. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was no consensus

So why was the page moved? Mshake3 18:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been. One of the people who supported the move (the guy who ironically has "whine" in his name) went ahead and move them anyways. He then vandalized the pages by editing the redirect pages (so that non-admins can't move them back). TJ Spyke 00:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
However crummy you think it is to edit a redirect to prevent easy moves (you've done it too, TJ), it's absolutely not vandalism. Vandalism is defined as edits made to deliberately compromise the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm entirely confident that the person who moved this page felt he was improving the encyclopedia; let's leave accusations of vandalism out of this.
There's currently no consensus how to title the various TNA Impact! pages, and the path I'm seeing to a solution involves a content RFC. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

remove the twcfihght mention

TWC fight no longer air Impact so it might be right to remove the brief menntion of it, in the commentators section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.152.170.176 (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC).