Talk:Starrcade/Archive 1

WWE

Why doesnt the WWE use the Starrcade name? It was one of WCW's biggest ppv's and they own all the rights to WCW. I think they should use the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.124.171 (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

Since the "dispute" was little more than a failed trolling attempt from a user who has registered multiple accounts to do nothing but disrupt articles I've contributed to, and no reputable editor has presented any justification for including information about a backyard wrestling promotion in an article regarding an event made famous by Jim Crockett Promotions and World Championship Wrestling, it has been removed. Chadbryant 01:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Only Wiki Admins are permitted, or are supposed to, remove neutrality disputes. Please follow the rules.

TruthCrusader

The above statement is completely false; the NPOV warning may be removed by any editor when there is consensus that the dispute is resolved. Kelly Martin 21:29, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

What a load of horseshit, Kelly. First you ban Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious for removing the vandalisms of Chadbryant on the user pages of at least TEN seperate users, and now you make comments by this. Okay, let's see. What is your definition of "consensus?" Without making a personal attack on you, does YOUR opinion, the opinion of ONE person, mean that it's "resolved?" Or will it take a consensus of other adminstrators? What about TruthCrusader who is making obvious attempts here to maintain the integrity of the article while the dispute is occurring, yet he is being attacked by Chadbryant and is having his words -- as well as the words of others -- removed by that individual? You have not given him the opportunity to argue his own point of view; all you have done is waved his opinion as being non important to the case. This is not resolved by a long shot. --DPD 21:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

If it's not resolved, then you should be able to identify what the areas of contention are. Please feel free to do so. Kelly Martin 21:42, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The point of contention is that the person who keeps removing the neutrality dispute, is the person who CAUSED the dispute to be put up in the first place. It would be appropriate if someone other than the person who caused the dispute remove it.

TruthCrusader

Neutrality

The user "Chadbryant" (Chadbryant) has a previous history of engaging articles on Wikipedia to reflect his own personal biased views, as well as an attack upon other Wikipedia users. Most of this has occurred as a result of the article rec.sport.pro-wrestling (or RSPW, as it's also called) wherein posters from the newsgroup have posted factual sources or engaged in remarks on the article and talk page that were not to Chadbryant's liking.

More to the point, now that he has been editing this entry for "Starrcade" and made it known in his edits that he has "removed all references to backyard wrestling" I am requesting a review by the Wikipedia staff on this, as who is to say what is and is not defined as "backyard wrestling" as it involves the information that Mr. Chadbryant edited? I understand, and agree with, the fact that there is already a Wikipedia entry for "backyard wrestling" within the Wikipedia archives and foundation. But since when does Chadbryant have the authority or the knowledge to claim that the information he edited out of the entry for Starrcade has anything to do with that particular section?

Can some of the admins please help clear this up, and if possible speak with Mr. Chadbryant in regards to WHY he has edited out such information? His previous history with rec.sport.pro-wrestling on Wikipedia could lead one to suspect that his motivations in doing so may be more than just professional per regards to the Wikipedia website...

Sorry...should have been logged in for that one. My apologies. --Concerned Citizen 9 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

I think the independent events should be in a separate article. McPhail 12:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"Starrcade" as a wrestling event ceased with the closure of WCW in 2001. A self-admitted "backyard wrestling promotion" choosing to name their events with the same name does not justify inclusion in the article. Most likely, the person who inserted that material into this article was promoting their own interest. Chadbryant 15:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Does it matter that it "ceased" as a wrestling event? Do you stop updating the article on Elvis Presley just because he's dead? Do you stop updating the article on Westminster Abbey just because Paris Hilton wants to be wed within its grounds? No, you do not.

As for the "self-admitted backyard wrestling promotion", I would like to see you provide documented proof of this claim before you go trying to smear the reputation of anyone or anyone's hard-built organization around. In all honesty, given your behavior from rec.sport.pro-wrestling I am not sure you are capable of doing so. However, if you wish to provide a website that would verify your claims, I am not above viewing it on my own and agreeing with your assessment. Until then, please do not make such remarks as it would appear they are more of your own personal opinion -- which Wikipedia frowns upon -- than factual. I also question your claims of the person inserting them in their "own interest". You have no proof of this as well, and I request that you please do not make such claims in the future. Things like this are the very reason why I questioned the neutrality of this article in the first place. --Concerned Citizen 21:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Trolling from a user noted for multiple socks (ask Mel Ettis about the "DickWitham" debacle) aside, there is no problem with the current article. The whole point of the challenge is simply to cause trouble, and it should be disregarded as the mutterings of a very small person. Chadbryant 00:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

There are no "multiple socks" in use regarding this issue; Chadbryant is seeing dragons where there are windmills. As for there being a "challenge", what the hell is he talking about? I invite anyone interested in this matter to peruse the rec.sport.pro-wrestling article; more specifically, its discussion page. Mr. Chadbryant has a history of attempting to place his own personal opinions where they do not belong, and this is why I have challenged the neutrality of the article. Until a Wikipedia administrator -- preferably NOT Mel Etitis -- looks into this situation, the article will continue to stay disputed. Also the "disregarded as the mutterings of a very small person" is a personal attack, and should not be allowed to remain in this discussion page. --Concerned Citizen 03:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Starrcade 1997

Bret Hart was NOT the referree for the main event. Nick Patrick was, as he made an alleged fast count for Hogan after the latter dropped the leg on Sting. Trau

Bret Hart came out and finished the match saying "Its never gonna happen again" refering to the Srewjob in WWE.

Starrcade

I did some digging. The "Starrcade" name is indeed in use. There is something called "NCW" which, apparently, is a very large organization of small wrestling feds (and yes, some of them are 'backyard' feds). Their website is found here: http://www.freewebs.com/ncwwrestling1/

Now, after some digging it turns out that yes, this MSW group does in fact use the Starrcade name. I couldnt find any legal statements saying they own it, but if you read up on them they apparently have been around awhile and no one has stepped forth with a cease and desist order. I am sure some Netkkkop however, will probably try and find someway to inititae it, but the fact is they seem to have been using the name for some time with no problems.

Now...whether or not that are a 'backyard' fed is open for debate. NCW calls itself a "the future of backyard wrestling" however, after going around their site I believe this is just some sort of gimmick as several of their members are FAR bigger than any backyard fed. It just seems to me that a backyard federation would NOT have an apparent nationwide organization that holds festivals, broadcasts their matches on the Internet, and has a board of governors.

I agree with the neutrality dispute for this page. I have seen too much personal bias and animosity ruin several articles until they were finally cleaned up. Anyway, I won't be editing this article unless it turns into another flamewar.

TruthCrusader

I gotta agree with you, if only because Chad has a history of manipulating the truth for his own personal perspective. As for how one defines "backyard" fed, well, there IS an entry on Wikipedia for it, but unless one of the members of the federation(s) in question posted directly to Wikipedia (barring the fact that you'd have to prove it was them), I don't know how this should go. I *do* think Chad should leave well enough alone with this, and in fact it seems as if the information should be re-inserted back into the article. --Archived Chad 00:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

I see nothing in this talk page that explains why this article is tagged for a POV dispute. Would the editors who assert that there is a dispute please identify the nature of the dispute? If this is not done within a reasonable time, the tag will be removed. Thank you. Kelly Martin 21:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is a blatant troll by the "DinkSock" user to disrupt an article I edited, and it has been supported/abusively (and ignorantly) enforced by another Wikitroll posing as a "white hat" editor.

Before my initial edit, the entry for "StarrCade" (an annual wrestling event originally run by Jim Crockett Promotions under the National Wrestling Alliance banner, which later became the marquee event for JCP's successor World Championship Wrestling) contained references to a "backyard wrestling promotion" that had co-opted the StarrCade name following the demise of WCW in 2001. "Starrcade" is a trademark now held by World Wrestling Entertainment (who purchased the assets and trademarks of WCW in March 2001), and has not been legally used to promote a wrestling event since 2000. Backyard wrestling shows being included in the StarrCade entry is equivalent to having the results of a neighbourhood baseball game included in the entry for "World Series", because the children involved called it that.

There was no reason to include any references to any "promotion" using a trademarked name without permission, and as such, I removed it. There is no valid "neutrality" dispute, as the material I removed had no relevant value to the article. Chadbryant 17:19, 25 July 2005(UTC)

Starrcade trademark

Chadbryant's assertion that the Starrcade name is trademarked by WWE is incorrect. The trademark on the "Starrcade" name lapsed in 2004 and has not been renewed. Therefore, the "Starrcade" name is in the public domain. The information on "backyard wrestling" was included not as an advertisement for MSW but to inform readers that the Starrcade name is still in use, albeit in another form. Slickster 11:06, 28 July 2005(UTC)

According to a search of the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS), the "Starrcade" trademark was cancelled on 1 May 2005. There is still no justification for including results from a backyard wrestling promotion in an article about an NWA/WCW event. Chadbryant 20:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that is the case. Different words, phrases, and names get different meanings over time. "Art" used to refer to crafts; "nice" used to mean a person had loose morals. If an organization chooses to use a non-trademarked name for their own purposes, I'm not sure why it should be suppressed. If nothing else, it's an interesting story that shows the reader that the "Starrcade" name is not dead and buried. Slickster 01:50, 02 August 2005(UTC)

Spelling

Is the 'c' in Starrcade really capitalized? I always see it as "Starrcade", including on WWE's website. Maestro25 02:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Content, or lack of

This seems to be a very poor entry. Apart from a couple of token paragraphs about the more recent events, there is little apart from match results copied and pasted from a mark site. There is no mention of the significance of the date of Starrcade in the wrestling calendar, no mention of the marketing methods used to promote the second Starrcade, no mention of the problems faced by Starrcade 1987, no mention of attendances or PPV buyrates etc etc. I do not feel it is the responsiblity of other users to do this considering the user Chadbryant proudly proclaims the article to be his on his own page. Other than a simple copy and paste very little work has actually been put into this entry, perhaps Chadbryant would like to do some research and try again? --Sasaki 17:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Granddaddy of Them All

Is it Starrcade or Wrestlemania. The nickname is mentioned in both articles. --MartinSL 06:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's both. Two companies.-- bd (talk to me) (watch me) 20:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Starrcade 1995

Was Kensuke Sasaki vs One Man Gang for the US title really the main event of Starrcade 1995? I find that slightly hard to believe... -Conniption 14:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason was WCW wanted a good relationship with New Japan Pro Wrestling, so they offered to put one of their stars in the main event. TJ Spyke 21:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done some digging and have found various reports of this match which contradict both the version on this page and each other. This link says "After the PPV broadcast had ended, One Man Gang wrestled Kensuke Sasaki. In the version that later aired on WCW television...", while this link says "This was an untelevised bout which took place before Starrcade ’95 went to air - shown weeks later...". Can anyone else find a more authoritative source to pin down a) was the match shown at the PPV or only played on TV sometime later, and b) did the match take place at the start or the end of the show? - Conniption 16:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it was taped at Starrcade or not, and if so if before or after the rest of the card, but I know that it wasn't part of the PPV broadcast. I remember it being fairly obvious when it aired that something had been edited out (which turned out to be Kensuke actually winning the match). Being part of a live PPV airing would preclude such shenanigans.76.226.114.165 (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Commentary Information

I think we should add information on the commentators for these events as well as other events. I know right now there is only information for the commentators for the WWE events with seperate pages, but I think we could add them for the events such as Starrcade in the event details box right above the pay per view chronology section. --Swerdcire 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like something you should bring up at WP:PW since it would affect a lot of articles. TJ Spyke 00:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Split

Shouldn't be better to split in individual articles every year's Starrcade, like WrestleMania or Bound for Glory? I think the only thing to do is to have more information, not only for the general article, but for the annual articles. Xbox6 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Davnel has done a good job with the One Night Stand and December to Dismember articles, maybe we could suggest these next. It seems that most people (besides myself) ignore the WCW PPV articles. TJ Spyke 23:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

These articles definitely need splitting up, certainly the WCW ones. Once they're split up, I think people will be more inclined to add to them, as it is adding to them would make the page seem too huge and unbalanced in certain years. Split them into individual years as per WWF's Big Four and then hopefully build up sufficient information on them all and promo posters etc.Tony2Times 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that would get more people involved. None of the WCW PPV articles get very much editing (besides The Great American Bash, but that stopped once the WWE ones got seperated). Maybe I will propose this be the next project for WP:PW. I don't think splitting them into individual articles should be done all at once (they can be done one at a time like the WWE One Night Stand articles were, tis way we can concentrate on each one). TJ Spyke 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

1994 Poster

The image is that of the same year's Bash at the Beach poster...WTF? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. If you click on the image (which will take you to the image page), it's correct. I have no idea why it displays wrong here, maybe try contacting an admin who deals with images a lot. TJ Spyke 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I just noticed. Flair is just on there, and he's not even on the card. Comedy.

142.162.160.215 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)