Talk:Hell in a Cell

HIAC Dark Match?

The Post-Taping Dark match for last night's Raw was a five-way hell in a cell featuring Cena, CM Punk, Del Rio, Swagger, and Ziggler for the WWE Championship, I've added it to the table if that's okay with you guys, considering House Shows featuring Ladder matches are recorded in it's wiki pages as well despite WWE barely(if ever) acknowledging it.

Anyway, here are my references:

http://www.wrestlingnewsworld.com/wwe-news/what-you-didn-t-see-on-tonight-s-raw-supershow.php http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_53698.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.73 (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Kennel from Hell?

Could this match be classified as a variant of some sort? It doesn't necessarily mean that it should be included in the list of HIAC matches, but should the fact that it had the Hell in a Cell as one of it's two cages be mentioned in this article, in it's history section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.71 (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Chokeslam on the roof.

Please stop reverting to the edit that says it was a 'botch'. It wasn't. The idea that Mankind wasn't supposed to fall through the roof arose from a misinterpreted line from his autobiography where he explained that the chair knocked him out on the way down, which was obviously not supposed to happen. That does not mean the entire bump was unscripted. Terry Funk attests that it was, and every single logical argument (most of which I provided in a link that keeps getting removed for no justifiable reason) all but proves that it couldn't possibly have been accidental. Even if you don't want to include the link as a reference, at the very least you have to stop saying that it was a botch because it quite simply wasn't. Just take the line out entirely and let people make their own minds up because when you let urban legends and uneducated errors get listed as facts on here it makes Wikipedia look very weak as a result. 161.76.98.239 (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Update - it is clear that a user called Nascarking is the one reverting, without any attempt at sourcing or justifying his decision to remove my edits other than that I should stop so that we don't get banned. Well I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. You can't tell me that a source I used to contradict your point is not credible when you don't have ANY source for your statement. It's unbelievable. But if I have to get banned doing what is quite clearly the right thing, then I will do it (or at least I would have done if the page hadn't been protected - I really, really hope that doesn't mean that Nascarking is going to be able to revert it and I don't get a say, because if that's the case then that's clearly just elitism towards people with usernames).

Anyway, hopefully now the page is protected we won't have to worry about this and it can remain impartial as it is right now. I thank Barts1a for being an impartial judge on this and for apparently realising that my edit was the more balanced and less likely to cause argument or controversy in the longrun. I've also requested a third opinion in case Nascarking does manage to change it again.

Ps. No hard feelings Nascarking, but you honestly are/were wrong on this one.00:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.76.98.239 (talk)

Buddy I went through this very same thing with another user not to long ago had the same reasoning that you did but his mistake was writing threat messages on my talk page which you did to and I've got it on my talk page to prove it. Doing something like that is bannable. Look I'm not gonna deal with you anymore because the more we fight the more trouble we're BOTH gonna be in and no one is at fault here you aren't and I ain't either. Oh and BTW 411Mania.com is not the most reliable site to get information from about wrestling, I can give you a list of them from my project's wiki site.--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 00:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's going a bit far! The message left by the IP is clearly NOT a threat! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 00:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've only gotten into an edit war once before this if you see a user called TheCleanupKid he can tell you how we both got banned from editing for a time. He got banned for leaving threatening messages on my talk page and something about him not giving me any warning instead he said he would turn me in although I can't remember in full detail what happened but you can look at the SummerSlam (2010) history to find out more but don't let that influence your decision because that was 2 months ago I think.--Voices in My Head Say RKO!!! 00:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

IP please provide a reliable source that meets WP:PW Sources that say it wasn't a botch before this even moves any further--SteamIron 00:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion: Actually, Steamiron, the burden of proof is for inclusion, not exclusion. In other words, you would need a source to prove that it was a botch job, not that it wasn't. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So I WAS right, in other words. Nascarking, you owe Wikipedia a huge apology for your behaviour, and you owe me personally an apology for trying to assert that what I said was a 'threat' when it clearly wasn't. I also find it laughable that you think I was 'dealing' with you when you have little to no authority over anything on Wikipedia, let alone what I choose to do on it. Thank you Annyong for your intervention, and hopefully Nascarking won't feel the need to continue this because I assure you, if he does then I will be here ready and waiting to remove it again.161.76.98.239 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't added fuel to the fire.--SteamIron 01:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(to the IP): Settle down - I didn't mean for this to be a chance for you to gloat. My intention was not to slight anyone here, but just to give my interpretation of Wikipedia policy. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding Structure section?

The Elimination Chamber article has a section called Structure. I think this article should get a similar section, regarding the construction, storage and logistics of using the Cell. I do not have any of the information or I would add it myself. Nutster (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverted content about Shittymorph

This is regarding the recent revert of the info I added about the popular Reddit Shittymorph meme. [[1]] The current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shittymorph Afd suggests that a merge might be a way to preserve the info. Adding it to a "in popular culture" section is a good compromise, but my edit was rejected as irrelevant by Mr. Hell in a Cell. I disagree - it was covered in the media and is one of the few ways this performance remains relevant in popular culture. Thoughts? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like useless WP:TRIVIA to me - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 12:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to preserve the info. It's WP:TRIVIA, and does meet notability. One article on CNET about a reddit troll amusing a few people and confusing far more of them does not notability make, as noted on the deletion page. It is not a way the performance remains relevant - it's relevant because it was a major event in wrestling history. The "meme" did not go beyond reddit (you could hardly call it a meme, as it was only really used by one person) but if you feel it must be immortalized on wikipedia, try your luck on the Internet meme article. Though I imagine it will just get deleted there as well. UniNoUta (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

It's WP:TRIVIA. One users makes a joke, not big deal. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Participation list mixed

Why are male and female wrestlers mixed in the participation list? In the other WWE match type lists the men and women wrestlers are separated. (Fran Bosh (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC))