Talk:Over the Limit (2012)

PUT A LOCK ON THIS PAGE! IT KEEPS GETTING EDITED JOHN LAURANITIS DEFEATED CENA http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/wweppvs/article_61620.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.251.19 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Lock

This pages seriously needs a lock because there is tons of vandalism. Every time I go back to the page there is more blatant vandalism. Something needs to get done. Lonewolf1992 (talk)) 23:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

ANNOYING!!

The page needs a lock. Completely over the vandals--Mjs1991 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Six matches were announced, not nine

It states nine matches were announced for the card in the open paragraph. This is untrue, as there was only six matches announced. The rest were filler matches which were not known of until the night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.158.28 (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Correction of the poster

The official poster is this please correct it.

File:WWE Over the Limit 2012.jpg

Over the Limit Official Poster

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin J94 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I would add the photo for you, but that image is unlicensed and is scheduled for possible deletion today (25 May). SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no merge. Target article deleted, see WP:Articles for deletion/2012 in WWE events. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Call for merge with 2012 in WWE events for Notability Small individual pay-per-views are not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul "The Wall" (talk • contribs) 00:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Please be specific about why you feel this is true (based on policy), so others can clearly refute your point(s). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The proposed article for merging is currently being considered for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2012_in_WWE_events. We should wait to see how that goes first. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Regardless of the ongoing deletion debate, this merge request has be done in bad faith in order to push Paul's idea of merging every WWE PPV in to one page without even discussing it with the Professional wrestling wiki-project to establish consensus to even do something like this in the first place.--Dcheagle | ^{Thunder Up} 05:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as "small" individual pay-per-view's can be notable. For instance, championship titles are almost always defended and/or change hands. Also, WWE doesn't usually refer to the year something happened, say for example in reference to a storyline, they usually refer to the individual event. Readers, especially pro wrestling fans, will search by event name and not so much by year. InFlamester20 (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe this should be a single article. Putting all of the PPVs in one page deletes some of the details and makes it harder to search the PPV you're looking for. I would rather have to search a PPV article than go to one page and scroll down that page looking for it. And notable, how come small PPVs are not notable? Some of the greatest matches have been in those so called small PPVs. Also, InFlamester20 is right, readers and/or pro wrestling fans will search the event by name and not by year. GTAjaxoxo 08:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Why should it be merged? No other Pay Per View for WWE is merged, so why should this be. And even though it's a small PPV, there is always a big match involved--Mjs1991 (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
• Resolved The guy who proposed this has voted to delete the page he intended to merge this with. I think it's safe to say the matter is settled. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nothing is Resolved till the page in question is eather kept or deleted. Till then this merge request stays open.--Dcheagle | ^{Thunder Up} 06:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.