Talk:Bound for Glory IV

Sting VS Joe

This was just announced at the end of the No Surrender PPV.

Bring me a source that it was announced.--WillC 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tnawrestling.com/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,149/ I think this is a good source.71.188.5.136 (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)linknumbers

Okay that is link for some reason isn't working on my end but I finally got to TNA's web site and it is official. It is alright to add it.--WillC 03:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bound For Glory In Chicago

TNAWrestling.com reported that Bound For Glory IV is gonna be held at the Sears Centre Arena in suburban Hoffman Estates, Ill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewitner (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that is already in the article. Someone placed it in there and I made it a reference.--WillC 21:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Name

Bound for Glory IV isn't the official name. On the promotional video it does have the signature but that doesn't mean it is the name. The video name was Bound for Glory 2008. Why should it be changed? TNA hasn't called it Bound for Glory 4.--WillC 06:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does mean it's the current name of the event. This is just like every year when a new WrestleMania logo is released. Take this year for example. Even though the event in the promotional video wasn't verbally referred to as WrestleMania XXV, we use the logo as reference. The same format is applied here. And as for TNA not calling it Bound for Glory IV, I suggest you take a look at the press release that officially refers to the event as Bound for Glory IV, [1].

"TNA Wrestling is announcing that “Bound For Glory IV” will be held live at the Sears Centre Arena in suburban Hoffman Estates, Ill., on Sunday, Oct. 12, starting at 8pm ET / 5pm PT, and will air worldwide exclusively on Pay-Per-View.... Tickets for “Bound For Glory IV” will go on sale August 1 at all Ticketmaster outlets, online at Ticketmaster.com and at the Sears Centre Arena box office. Full details will be available in the coming weeks.... The “Bound For Glory IV” weekend kicks off Oct. 11 with TNA’s popular Fan Interaction, where fans will get to meet the in-ring stars of TNA, get their autograph and have a photo taken alongside the stars of TNA."

Quite honestly, this should have been moved a long time ago. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Just in case that isn't enough... [2] ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand that now but they still haven't said something like "This year Bound for Glory four will be in Chicago Illinois at the Sears Centre" on Impact or TNA today. I just feel it is moving a little fast at changing the article. They could start saying Bound for Glory 4 or could keep calling it Bound for Glory 2008. I just feel with 2 very good sources it still isn't enough. You need actual footage that is the official name. I just want to make sure. On the promotional video on youtube it says Bound for Glory 2008. So I'm still a little skeptical.--WillC 07:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Where in this video is this event referred to as Bound for Glory 2008 other than the title of the video? [3] It is ridiculous to think the name of the video on youtube is a higher authority over the video itself. The Logo is there (your actual footage), the official press release is there, and even the venue's website lists the event as "BfG IV". ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is! Why would TNA have the title of the video Bound for Glory 2008, instead of Bound for Glory IV? Maybe I'm being stubborn. Like you said in summary when you moved the article Guess who went all WrestleMania on us. I guess I'm in denial and trying to find a excuse for it to not be true. I watch TNA because it is different than WWE and now they've went WWEish. But anyway, The press releases are months before the event. The name could be changed and their only using the Roman Numerals to promote the event. I believe I remember last year seeing a promo for BFG 07 that had Roman Numerals and it was still BFG 07. Anyway why would the title be 08 instead of IV.--WillC 07:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Because as of now it is the current name of the event. If they decide to change the name of the event again before the event then this article will also recognize that change. Take WMXXIV for example. It was called WrestleMania 24 when it was first announced and it ended up being called WrestleMania XXIV in the end. Things can change. However for now the name of the event is Bound for Glory IV, and believe me, I know how you feel about the WWEish thing. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I agree. We'll leave it like it is. I just wish TNA would announce these things in advance like WWE. Announce BFG 09 right after BFG 08 TNA. Thanks. Hopefully they'll quit this crap and go back to their ways in 05. Oh yeah, I got Genesis (2008) for you on the IV.--WillC 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh thank you. My apologies for missing that and for the late responses. I was reading some comments on youtube... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(I so wish I could cuss right now). Also thanks for getting that 12th on the Sears Centre article. I know this should go on the BFG talk page instead of this one but do you think we should change the other BFG articles to have Roman Numerals?--WillC 08:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that would be possible since this is the first event to use roman numerals. The others have only been known as BfG only. Maybe if TNA went back and retconned all of those events to have roman numerals, we might be able to recognize that change ala Super Bowl I. Even so, why would you want to change them to have roman numerals? I thought you were against it. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if that is the way TNA wants to go with it and I've heard something about TNA owning websites like Bound for Glory II and Bound for Glory III. Just was thinking about it. I'm starting to come out of denial. Come on TNA has Russo. I should have expected this to happen. Also just for you to know it is BFG not BoG.--WillC 08:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Typo... or it could mean something else not appropriate for the Wiki... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah it was a typo XD^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Well I guess we reached a conclusion that it is left as is until said otherwise by TNA.--WillC 08:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 08:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Hey we made the article bigger. Like anyone gives a crap.--WillC 08:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"This will be TNA's first PPV to be referred to in Roman Numerals instead of by year." Is that an accurate statement? Wasn't TNA Slammiversary 2007 the first to have the use have Roman Numerals. Take a look back at its promotional poster, you will see the V stands out from Slammiversary. It may not have been the fifth Slammiversary pay-per-view, but it was TNA 5 year anniversary so a V was emphasize that. So what do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.212.100 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That can be changed later but it is meant to be referring to Bound for Glory.--WillC 02:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Yeah, I know the quote I mention above was referring to Bound for Glory. I'm just saying since the quote above said BFG-IV is the first to be refer in Roman Numerals, it isn't accurate as Slammiversary 2007 was the first to use Roman Numerals. Also it should be noted that back in the days when TNA ran weekly pay-per-views, Roman Numberals were use for each week. Like week 30 of the pay per view was call Total Nonstop Action Week XXX. Well this was how it was on DirectTV, not sure about other providers. So then two points that can be concise to one point, I guess, TNA Slammiversary 2007 would be the first monthly pay-per-view to have the use of Roman Numerals.

Maybe, though Slammiversary has the V up high, it is noticeable but it doesn't mean they are referring to V. They have 5th anniversary down below. I'll figure it out later.--WillC 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Styles-Cage-Booker

What is the deal with some guy constantly removing the Cage-Booker-Styles 3-way match, noly to reinstate it himself 5 minutes later? Odd eh.41.245.143.65 (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You need a source. I never said it wasn't happening. Now next time bring a reliable source and you can add it. Impact! has not aired and TNA has no acknowledged it then it can not be added with a reliable source. Impact! aired and said it was going to happen, that is why I placed it in because it was announced.--WillC 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

3 Way Dance

Doesn't a three way dance refer to an elimination style match? If this is just TNA calling it a 3 way dance do we have to as well otherwise it's a bit misleading. Tony2Times (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA titles their's 3 Way Dance's. We can not call it a Triple Threat since that is a WWE match name. It would be better to go by what TNA has titled the match.--WillC 18:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA has used the Triple Threat Match term in the past before. 70.68.62.37 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA have started calling it 3-way dance. WCW used the exact same name for their triple threat matches. And it's not elimanation.Ruthless-paki (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

3 Way Dance is what they called it when they announced the matches. It is accurate if it stays this way. Elimination or not. They called AJ vs Angle at Hard Justice a Last Man Standing match when it was really a Texas Death match. It is just simpler to leave it like it is.--WillC 00:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

TNA doesn't have the right to call their matches Triple Threat or Fatal Four Way because it is copyrighted for WWE ,thus that is the reason why WCW and TNA call their matches 3-way dance and Four Way Dance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroa12004 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dark match result before Bound For Glory PPV

that Eric Young and an unidentified woman from Second City Wrestling defeated Lance Rock and Christy Hemme From Wrestleview.com & PWInsider

it wont let me edit it APWFAN69 09:36AM, 13 October 2008 (PST)

Fixed.--WillC 16:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Event

Is there anyone currently editing this event. Talking about the matches??Ruthless-paki (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am working on it in a sandbox. I did not expand the article in the open since I did not want ips screwing with the background and making it sound terrible and having the out of universe debate on here. I'll have the article finished around Turning Point (2008).--WillC 20:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could put in how they were defeated (ie the last move done) for now, to stop people moaning that the table doesn't tell you how they lost the match. Tony2Times (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe when I get done watching the event. There is no background so I'm pretty sure they think there isn't going to be an event. But I do know Sting won with the death drop, JJ won with a guitar shot, Beer Money pinned Hernandez after he went through a table with thumb tacks, Taylor Wilde pinned Roxxi with a bridged German Suplex, Booker T won with an ax kick on Cage, Jay Lethal climb out of the cage, Rhino gored Kip, I believe that is all of them.--WillC 19:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Attendance

The wrestling observer newsletter is reporting that the attendance was 5500 with 4500 paid for tickets,change the info please,Omar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.241.151.161 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bound for Glory IV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 16:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Take your time. I'm expecting some issues. It is a pretty long article. I plan to take it to FA after this.--WillC 18:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Very good fair use rationale!

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. "Bound for Glory IV is remembered for Sting winning the TNA World Heavyweight Championship, Kevin Nash betraying Samoa Joe, and Team 3D forcing Abyss through a flaming table." Something about this sentence feels off, particularly in the use of "remembered", but I can't really put my finger on it. I suggest a rewording, but if you'd rather not it wouldn't be a big deal.

   I changed it to memorialized. Removed the Nash bit.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

   Looking at it again, I actually think it was better before. I've changed it back. Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

   Reverted back to Remembered then--WillC 09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

2. Actually, the entire third paragraph should be reworded to avoid using the passive so much. Things like "35,000 was the reported sales" just feel way too clunky.

   I'm bad with passive tense. It is not my strong suit. I worked on it a bit to remove some of it. Reworded a sentence of two.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

3. "Early returns for ticket sales revealed that the first two tiers had been sold out with the least expensive seats remaining at the Sears Centre, which had a maximum capacity of 11,000." This sentence isn't very clear, and I'm not exactly sure why it's included. The article talks about early sales but then doesn't talk about final sales later on. Further, I'm not entirely sure why we're talking about the capacity of the Sears Centre, it feels like it's just because we don't have solid numbers. But if we don't have exact numbers, then just leave it vague rather than trying to infer or imply some information.

   I just removed the second half. Sentence is to show the most expensive seats were sold out.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

4. "the fanfast" what is that? It should be clear in the prose.

   It is like a comic-con event. That is what they call it. The proper-name for it. Just removed the word.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

5. Particularly to the reception section, every time you quote, you need an inline citation. Even if all the quotes are from the same material and it's cited at the end of the paragraph. Direct quotes are one of the few times inline attribution is required.

   Never really had a problem with it in the past since the entire paragraph is quoted from one author. I did it, but it increases the reference usage by alot for each one.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

   Yeah, I agree, but criterion 2b is rather clear on quotations needing direct attribution. Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

6. I don't think this show's rating needs to be compared against every other rating they've gotten. Plus, when ratings are just thrown about, it's not actually very useful. Try and incorporate more prose and limit the number of figures given int he reception section.

   This is based on uniformity with other articles along with a consensus conducted by the project. Out of my hands.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

   This may cause some problems at FA but I'm fine with this.

   Based on Turning Point (2008 wrestling), Money in the Bank (2011), and Lockdown (2008) it should be fine.--WillC 09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

7. Is "insane" a good thing? It's quoted and I'm not sure if it's a good or bad comment. That should be made clear.

   That would be placing my opinion into the article instead of letting the author's comments speak for themselves. I can't explain someone else's opinion.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

   The problem is I don't know what the author feels. You can reasonably interpret text. If the article is largely positive, it would be unreasonable to say this isn't a positive statement, for example. And if it's not clear from the article, then it probably shouldn't be quoted. Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

   I think it is taken as is. A man got thrown through a table that was on fire. I think he either means it was an insane sight or that it was insane to even do it. Could be either one. I'm guessing moreso that it was an amazing sight.--WillC 09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

   "There was an insane flaming table spot after which Abyss caught fire—I don't get how they usually do those without bad things happening." is the full quote from the article. I think he just means it was cool looking or something. Not sure what I can do here.--WillC 09:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

   I think including that whole quote instead of just the "insane" part would be better. That way there's context and readers can figure it out themselves. Wugapodes (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

   @Wugapodes: I placed in part of the quote.--WillC 15:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

8. The background of Nash's betrayal is long and largely unnecessary. In an aftermath section, it's talking about events from a year prior to the event. I'd say move the information to the background section or remove it.

   It wasn't part of the build to the event and played more into the aftermath of the event than prior. It was a year build to the next event so it is all where it needs to be in order to keep accuracy. There is actually alot more to include in that but I removed most of it. There is material from about 6 events and several tv episodes that hasn't been included. That is the basic points.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

   I disagree. I think you really should try and shorten it or move it. As it stands, the article starts with the build up, describes the event, talks about some matches after wards and then jumps back to a year before the event and in a paragraph gives the buildup, event, and aftermath, and then continues on. That's really confusing and you should really consider other options. Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

   I cut a bit and reworded some stuff in order to keep the point but remove some length.--WillC 09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

9. "were furious over how well Steve McMichael performed as the Special Guest Referee" Reading this, I was confused because it seems like they were angry that he did a good job as ref? But apparently it's the opposite.

   I can see how that can be misinterpreted. It was supposed to mean how well he had performed, like his actual performance. I removed well to explain the point. Now it is just "how Steve McMichael performed"--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

10. Gallery should be removed per WP:GALLERY

    "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. See 1750–75 in Western fashionfor an example of a good use of galleries." - It is discouraged, but if it adds to the article it is fine. I checked this prior to adding the gallery. It is displayed in a way to add to article in a way that text cannot, with each image captioned appropriately.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

    I'm not convinced that the gallery improves the article, but I'm also not 100% sure it's within the the GA criteria so I'm going to let it go. Though this may wind up being contentious at FA. Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

    I'm expecting this to be an issue. I actually want a long discussion on it. I've got all these images from the event and I can't use them in the article. This way I can so I just thought I'd try it. If at FA they don't approve then I guess I'll remove it. It is an attempt of mine to make this the best article as possible.--WillC 09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

    It's largely that pictures are for informational purposes rather than decoration. A number of them to me don't seem particularly informative; they don't add information. Some do, and you may want to try and incorporate those, but not all. The general reason for arguments against galleries is that they don't add much information and seem primarily decorative. Wugapodes (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of background could stand a copy edit. The prose doesn't really flow well.
  • Cleaned it up a bit.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
• The miscellaneous subsection of the event section is probably unnecessary as it's just a paragraph.
  • Consensus from project. It is also included commentary, interviewers, and referees. All important to including all important information.--WillC 07:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    • MOS:PARAGRAPHS recommends against subheadings for short paragraphs. Not a GA thing, but probably something to be aware of when you go to FA.
      • The same FAs above have the format so I'm thinking that FAC will approve this one too.--WillC 09:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Results

On hold for 7 days. Very close, and only a few problems to address. Let me know if you have any questions! Wugapodes (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll address these once I have some time. Thank you for the review.--WillC 18:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wrestlinglover: Any progress? If not I'll probably close the review at the end of the day. Wugapodes (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the nominator hasn't edited in over a week, I'm going to wait until Sunday to close instead to give more time to see this. If he shows up before then, I'd be willing to extend it a few more days. In the mean time, if anyone else wants to help work on things, feel free! Wugapodes (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Shit, I forgot about this. My bad. I'll solve the issues right now. It completely slipped my mind. I apologize @Wugapodes:--WillC 06:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes:, alright I've addressed everything. Sorry about the wait. This slipped my mind entirely. I thought I was still waiting on this review. I've been busy with work and school. Finals is about to occur and I've been focused on 7 classes.--WillC 07:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wrestlinglover: It's really no problem! Feel free to have a life (or, as much as you can with exams coming up). There's no deadline so I'm usually rather lenient with hold periods. I've revised my review. Non-struck through comments still need more discussion before I can pass it. I think there are only 2 left. Do you think you can address them by Wednesday? Wugapodes (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Issues addressed. I'm sure we'll be done with this before Wednesday.--WillC 09:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Listed as a WP:Good Article. As I typically do, I recommend you submit this for a peer review or Copy edit before taking it to FA to tighten up the prose and make sure it complies with all the MOS. The standards between GA and FA are rather far apart, but I think this article is close. I already mentioned where I think you'll hit some snags at FA but none of them are particularly big hurdles. Great work so far, and I can't wait to see this at WP:FAC! Wugapodes (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bound for Glory IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6LDla2zy5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fentertainment.howstuffworks.com%2Fpro-wrestling.htm to http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/pro-wrestling.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151205200547/http://www.searscentre.com/ to http://www.searscentre.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)