| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WrestleMania article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | WrestleMania was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | ||||||||||||||||
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:WrestleMania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Most of the the article is unsourced, and many of the sources that are used are pictures from Amazon. Beyond that, the article still needs further cleanup. It's getting better, but it's still a long way from GA status. After cleaning up and adding references, try bringing it to peer review first. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Each Wrestlemania has a few of its matches mentioned in this article, usually the title matches and the other acclaimed matches. The Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 25 was a classic, and we are not talking in just the qualitative sense here but it can be quantified since it won Match of the Year from Wrestling Observer Newsletter, PWI Illustrated, WWE Slammy Awards, and also won a lot of acclaim from the reviews of Slam! Canoe wrestling, The Sun and many other journals. WWE.com itself called it one of the greatest matches of all time. It also made it to the front page of the Houston Chronicle, and it was the first time in 22 years that a pro-wrestling match did that (after Hogan vs Andre at Mania 3).
So, YES, Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels was ACCLAIMED - it is a fact. Anyone who removes its mention must first justify as to why he is removing it from the article and why other matches which were not so acclaimed (e.g., Chris Jericho vs the legends at Wrestlemania 25) are allowed to remain mentioned. Mayankeagle ( talk) 10:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- You already posted the same comment a few weeks ago. Its in the archive now. However, I'll reply to your post again. This page is just a summary of some of the matches that have taken place at Mania over the years. A Taker/Michaels match is already listed for XXVI and already makes note of their match from XXV. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 18:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- However, it is not mentioned how acclaimed the Wrestlemania XXV match was, so it perhaps deserves a mention. Several other matches which happened more than once are also mentioned in their Wrestlemania descriptions, like Austin vs Rock. Not sure why this one does not deserve a mention considering how successful it was. Mayankeagle ( talk) 05:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually the reason they may be mentioned twice is because they are not consecutively mentioned in each WrestleMania. They in fact are one or two WrestleMania's apart. Remember, this isn't a list of ALL important WrestleMania matches. Some may be listed while others won't. Besides, the tidbit about the WrestleMania XXV match is already heavily mentioned at WrestleMania XXV. No worries. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 07:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've mentioned that it was an acclaimed match. The rematch is mentioned as "highly acclaimed" whereas the original isn't mentioned as even acclaimed, which sends the message that it was not, although it was since it unanimously won Match of The Year from almost all journals. Four words "in an acclaimed match" won't kill the article, especially since its a fact and verifiable. If its removed, it should be done only if the match was not acclaimed - which is not the case. Mayankeagle ( talk) 15:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:WrestleMania/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nikki♥ 311 03:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be approximately 3 or 4 paragraphs summarizing all the main points of the article.
- The majority of the text isn't sourced by in-line citations.
- The information under "Celebrity involvement" could be trimmed substantially due to it having a main article elsewhere ( List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania).
- The article needs more reliable third-party sources. Also, the sources in the reference section need to be fleshed out using the correct templates (ex: Template:cite web).
- A large part of the article is missing....the economic effects on the city hosting the event.
Nikki♥ 311 03:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Failing for lack of progress. Nikki♥ 311 06:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Lomba for the WWE Championship
ADITYA BANERJEE ( talk) 16:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hulk Was in the in the main event in each of the first nine, this says Rowdy Rodd Piper was in the 2nd. rather confusing there. Lihaas ( talk) 06:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I think the main event should be the final match. Hogan&Mr.T/Piper&Orndorff (WM1), Hogan/Bundy (WM2), Hogan/Andre (WM3), Savage/DiBiase (WM4), Hogan/Savage (WM5), Hogan/Warrior (WM6), Hogan/Slaughter (WM7), Hogan/Justice (WM8)... I'm a little confused about Wrestlemania 9, I know the main even suppose to be Hart/Yokozuna bout. After Yokozuna won the title from Bret Hart, Hogan wants the title shot from Yokozuna. I don't think Hogan/Yokozuna consider as a true match. ( Mjsynth ( talk) 16:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC))
It seems like POV is employed when it comes to listing main events, so I think we should stick to just listing the actual main event. For example, with WM25, Shawn Michaels/Undertaker was one of the most heavily promoted matches on the card, and a focal point in the build up. Why is it not considered a main event, but the throwaway Chavo/Kane match from WM24 is? -- Scorpion 0422 04:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- We kinda spent some time covering it here [1] Additionally, Undertaker matches tend to be heavily promoted but aren't necessarily considered main events, with the clear exception of WM26. Ever since the brand extension there has been clear examples of consistent multi main events in the card. The problem is with the last discussion we were trying to conclude which matches should be listed. With the brand extension and the effect it's had on PPVs why not list simply list the highest promoted match from each brand. -- Unquestionable Truth-- 07:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should limit it to just the actual final match on the card. Otherwise, this has lead to edit wars as editors insert their own opinions. For example, apparantly throwaway mid card matches (Chavo/Kane) and the opening match on the card (Edge/Del Rio) are considered main events. To avoid that whole quagmire of POV, it should be limited. I actually believe that the who column should be removed - there really aren't true main events anymore, especially since WWE is more dependant on the brand and collective, rather than any individual star. But, I know I'll never get consensus for it, so I'm not going to waste my time. -- Scorpion 0422 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that this is your first reply to my response in two months, during which you've seemingly reverted the page time and time again. If we can get into a discussion without throwing in our points of view on certain things, I think we can get a consensus down. As noted above, multi main events is a term that does exists in sports cards. The way WWE has usually done things is promote the biggest match of each brand as a main event. If a match can be cited as being a main event by the promoter then its just a simple issue of noting those matches in the article. --
Unquestionable
Truth-- 23:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, I was rather busy over the last two months, so I had no desire to get into a large debate with you. Reverting vandalism is much easier than debating though, which is why I've assisted in maintaining the page. The biggest problem is that the definition of main event varies. For example, why is Chavo/Kane from WM24, a match never promoted by the company as a main event, listed, but not Flair/Michaels from the same show, which the company considered making the actual main event (and, indeed, several WWE folks said afterwards that it should have). Other examples exist. Why Kane/Undertaker from WMXX, but not Undertaker/Michaels from WM25, another match which was heavily promoted and considered for the final match on the show? (Presumably, it's because someone around here is a Kane fan) Because of these (and other) inconsistancies, we should limit it the actual final match on the card. --
Scorpion
0422 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, if it can be cited that the match was promoted as a main event, then it simply can be listed. On the notes under the Dates, venues, and main events section, #1 states "With the introduction of a second world heavyweight title in September 2002, every WrestleMania since has featured at least two main-events on the card." Through this, the World title match post Mania X8 can be listed as well as the ECW title at Mania XXIV. Note #2 states "Promotional materials for the PPV highlight an additional main-event that does not involve a heavyweight title" and then goes on to list the matches which did not involve the heavyweight title but were noted to be main events through promotional material. Kane/Taker at XX was not cited but was added by someone as a main event. Michaels/Taker at XXV was neither cited nor added. This in an issue of simply maintaining the article (keeping an eye on it). Again if it can cited then it can be added. It's the only way we're ever going to keep in NPOV.--
Unquestionable
Truth-- 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the easiest way to keep this NPOV is to follow what the WWE says. In the old version of their website, every page for a Wrestlemania also included a "Main Event" section, which listed the last match on the card. I also have a copy of WWE magazine's WM26 special, which has a section on main events, and only counts the final match on each card (though in fairness, it might not be the best source since to them, the WMXX main event no longer exists). I should also point out that the WWE never really considered the ECW title to be a world championship. I'd have no problem with including bouts such as Hogan/Rock which were the real main event of the show even if they weren't last. But, the problem is that people have varying opinions about main events. For example, Edge/Del Rio from this year. It was for the World Heavyweight title, and a great match. But, at best it was the fifth highest promoted match on the card, and it even opened the show. You could make a very strong argument that Cole/Lawler should also be included (since it was called a "main event" by the company numerous times). And, I could probably dig up a source that calls Orton/Punk a main event as well. As such, we should eliminate all possibility for opinion and POV, and just limit it to the last match on the card (which is what several WWE sources go by). --
Scorpion
0422 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I find numerous instances of POV in your response, by which I mean arguments that cannot be cited by any source. For example, your view on WWE's stance on the ECW Championship, the Edge/del Rio match's promotional value, and probably WWE's statements on the Cole/Lawler match.--
Unquestionable
Truth-- 00:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- And that's why I'm arguing that we need to stick to what the WWE says or a strict guideline. --
Scorpion
0422 23:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- You do realize then that according to WWE, the winner of the RR earns a main event spot at Mania, something that evidently (again per WWE) doesn't necessarily mean the last match on the card. If WWE.com noted that del Rio would main event Mania as a result of his RR win, then the match itself is a main event per WWE.com, regardless of the match order. The same goes for the similar cases in which the winner of the RR did not end up on the final match of the card despite WWE's promotion of that individual's match as a main event (WM 22/23/24/26). Additionally, as already noted within the article, WWE has promoted matches as main events despite no championship being involved. My point is that the article has been going by what WWE says before you decided there was something wrong with it, which is why I sense some POV involved. Finally, what you refer to as the possibility of WP coming up with "a strict guideline" regarding what is and isn't to be listed pretty much comes down to notability. What I mean by that is should we ask the question, "is listing every main event on the main page infobox really notable or does it qualify as cruft?" In other words that "strict guideline" means we either list the main events on the Dates and venues section or not.-- Unquestionable Truth-- 00:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- And that's why I'm arguing that we need to stick to what the WWE says or a strict guideline. --
Scorpion
0422 23:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- I find numerous instances of POV in your response, by which I mean arguments that cannot be cited by any source. For example, your view on WWE's stance on the ECW Championship, the Edge/del Rio match's promotional value, and probably WWE's statements on the Cole/Lawler match.--
Unquestionable
Truth-- 00:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, the easiest way to keep this NPOV is to follow what the WWE says. In the old version of their website, every page for a Wrestlemania also included a "Main Event" section, which listed the last match on the card. I also have a copy of WWE magazine's WM26 special, which has a section on main events, and only counts the final match on each card (though in fairness, it might not be the best source since to them, the WMXX main event no longer exists). I should also point out that the WWE never really considered the ECW title to be a world championship. I'd have no problem with including bouts such as Hogan/Rock which were the real main event of the show even if they weren't last. But, the problem is that people have varying opinions about main events. For example, Edge/Del Rio from this year. It was for the World Heavyweight title, and a great match. But, at best it was the fifth highest promoted match on the card, and it even opened the show. You could make a very strong argument that Cole/Lawler should also be included (since it was called a "main event" by the company numerous times). And, I could probably dig up a source that calls Orton/Punk a main event as well. As such, we should eliminate all possibility for opinion and POV, and just limit it to the last match on the card (which is what several WWE sources go by). --
Scorpion
0422 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, if it can be cited that the match was promoted as a main event, then it simply can be listed. On the notes under the Dates, venues, and main events section, #1 states "With the introduction of a second world heavyweight title in September 2002, every WrestleMania since has featured at least two main-events on the card." Through this, the World title match post Mania X8 can be listed as well as the ECW title at Mania XXIV. Note #2 states "Promotional materials for the PPV highlight an additional main-event that does not involve a heavyweight title" and then goes on to list the matches which did not involve the heavyweight title but were noted to be main events through promotional material. Kane/Taker at XX was not cited but was added by someone as a main event. Michaels/Taker at XXV was neither cited nor added. This in an issue of simply maintaining the article (keeping an eye on it). Again if it can cited then it can be added. It's the only way we're ever going to keep in NPOV.--
Unquestionable
Truth-- 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, I was rather busy over the last two months, so I had no desire to get into a large debate with you. Reverting vandalism is much easier than debating though, which is why I've assisted in maintaining the page. The biggest problem is that the definition of main event varies. For example, why is Chavo/Kane from WM24, a match never promoted by the company as a main event, listed, but not Flair/Michaels from the same show, which the company considered making the actual main event (and, indeed, several WWE folks said afterwards that it should have). Other examples exist. Why Kane/Undertaker from WMXX, but not Undertaker/Michaels from WM25, another match which was heavily promoted and considered for the final match on the show? (Presumably, it's because someone around here is a Kane fan) Because of these (and other) inconsistancies, we should limit it the actual final match on the card. --
Scorpion
0422 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bear in mind that this is your first reply to my response in two months, during which you've seemingly reverted the page time and time again. If we can get into a discussion without throwing in our points of view on certain things, I think we can get a consensus down. As noted above, multi main events is a term that does exists in sports cards. The way WWE has usually done things is promote the biggest match of each brand as a main event. If a match can be cited as being a main event by the promoter then its just a simple issue of noting those matches in the article. --
Unquestionable
Truth-- 23:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
You're not getting the point. I mean clearly WWE has promoted other matches as main events that those simply listed on WWE.com for each Mania.-- Unquestionable Truth-- 03:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- I guess you're right on that one. Any match that can be referenced by WWE.com as a main event should be included. But the key is to have refs, to avoid the old game of editors adding their favourite matches. --
Scorpion
0422 17:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed.--
Unquestionable
Truth-- 00:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The only match WWE really did promote was Triple H and Undertaker's Match.-- Voices in my Head WWE 01:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed.--
Unquestionable
Truth-- 00:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Actually, the easiest way to keep this NPOV is to follow what the WWE says." Actually, that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what NPOV means. That's WWEPOV which isn't the policy here. If WWE said that Hulk Hogan was the 1st man to walk on the moon we wouldn't add it to Wikipedia because it's not true. There can't be more than one MAIN event, just like there can't be more than one opening match. The last match of the show is the main event, period- it's not the mainest main event, there's a reason there's no such word as "mainest". No matter what the WWE wants to say, they don't have the authority to change the English language. Just like how tomorrow's Royal Rumble is being billed as the 25th anniversary when it's actually the 25th Rumble, and the 24th anniversary (your wedding night isn't your 1st anniversary). The whole concept of putting more than one main is actually violating NPOV as we're towing WWE's bullshit line, if WWE wants to call every match the main event on TV & WWE.com they can but it's not encyclopedic and thus wouldn't belong here. -- TheTruthiness ( talk) 05:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Problem solved actually. Through the magic of google, I was able to find the WWE.com pages that list Wrestlemania main events (and I was wrong, some of them include other heavyweight title matches). I'll add them and the sources. -- Scorpion 0422 00:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I was only able to find refs for the first 21 Wrestlemanias. -- Scorpion 0422 00:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your preaching to the choir buddy. Problem is there are too many stubborn editors with WP:PW who want to keep it like this. I'm not one of them but they're a lot.-- Voices in my Head WWE 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Again, your preaching to the choir, and again, the problem is there are too many stubborn editors with WP:PW who want to keep it like it is.-- Voices in my Head WWE 23:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I received a tweet from Jericho saying that WM29 might be held in toronto for the 3rd time. 66.108.210.86 ( talk) 12:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, wrong-- 123.211.23.86 ( talk) 08:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The table is broken with the list of WrestleMania's. Everything that should be after the table is in the WrestleMania 29 entry of the table.
I would fix it, but I don't know the syntax.
Anthony ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC).
The article includes the statement "The event has facilitated the rise to stardom of wrestlers including Hulk Hogan, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Macho Man Randy Savage, The Ultimate Warrior, The Undertaker, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, The Rock, Triple H, Chris Jericho, Kurt Angle, John Cena, and CM Punk."
It seems like people just kept adding main eventers, without really understanding what the statement means. It means that the event helped make them a main eventer in the eyes of the fans and cemented their rise. I'd argue that WrestleMania had little to do with the rise of a good portion of those wrestlers. Hogan and Piper were already established main eventers by WM1, but I suppose the event did help make them household names, so I have no problem with them.
But, Bret Hart was already a main eventer by WM9. After all, he went in as champion. And in the events before that, he never really had that legacy-cementing match. Same with The Rock, Triple H, Chris Jericho and Kurt Angle. Hell, Angle didn't main event until 2003 and he was already a star by then. CM Punk is also questionable, but I didn't remove them, because the two MITB matches he won led to him winning the title. -- Scorpion 0422 13:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It's stupid that the wrestler names were removed but the celebrity names were kept in. 172.164.16.39 ( talk) 11:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Are fans simply deciding who headlined based on how "big" they felt the matches were? Unless WWE promotional materials specifically stated that a card had a "double/triple/quadruple" main event, then the match that closed the show is the sole main event. WrestleMania VIII had a legitimate double main event, [2] [3] but I don't recall seeing Daniel Bryan vs. Sheamus being billed on any WWE promotional materials as a main event. Also, if you're going to use the picture that appeared on the event poster to position that person's match as a main event, then consider this: The Miz was the poster for the recent Survivor Series, yet was of no consequence on the card. This section needs serious revision, because all we have is a bunch of original research and fan opinion, with very little in the way of official WWE sources. أنا أحبك ( talk) 13:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
![[2]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A9e4mfvI3FE/TCxms_ICIjI/AAAAAAAAADs/sH6Xtfnyc4s/s1600/Wwe_Wrestlemania_8_Complete_Antholo.jpg){kind=link}
- Agreed, dreadful article. "I love CM Punk, so he headlined WrestleMania!" No, he absolutely didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.178.54 ( talk) 17:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
The mention of Undertakers loss under the 90's section sounds odd and out of place. I believe it should be removed all together since it is mentioned again under the 2010 section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B2daisa ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
You look like a douche B2daisa ( talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.143.85 ( talk)
The WrestleMania 33 location is not confirmed. Please stop adding bogus locations, even rumored ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusamator ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Just revert any claims on sight unless it's sourced. Mister Q101 ( talk) 05:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hogan vs Yokozuna was not the main event of Wrestlemania 9. It should be changed to Hart vs Yokozuna as that was the advertised main event 2.222.103.94 ( talk) 19:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Hogan vs Yokozuna was the final match of the event, and is thus considered the main event. Also shown in WrestleMania 31, where Reigns vs Lesnar was advertised, although Reigns vs Lesnar vs Rollins was the final match.
JTP (
talk •
contribs) 01:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For Wrestlemania 9, Yokozuna should be put first as he was the defending champion and Hogan's name should be highlighted as he's already been mentioned. For Wrestlemania 10, Bret Hart's name should be highlighted as he is mentioned for the first time. 2.222.103.94 ( talk) 17:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The Night Is Ours by The Funshiners was used for a WrestleMania 34 commercial during the WrestleMania 33 PPV. Should The Night Is Ours be listed as an official song for WrestleMania 34? - 2A02:C7D:C84:9900:FD6D:FEFB:8FA1:46AA ( talk) 14:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
How can you have three main events, roman v taker was the final match Vikramrat ( talk) 10:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
There have now been 33 'manias so the mention of 30 taking place in America and 2 in Canada should really be updated to 31 and 2 respectively. 86.2.34.39 ( talk) 19:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on WrestleMania. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20100403082320/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2010/2010_3_28.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2010/2010_3_28.jsp
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717164401/http://www.universityofphoenixstadium.com/index.php?page=press§ion=stadium_features&feature_id=69 to http://www.universityofphoenixstadium.com/index.php?page=press§ion=stadium_features&feature_id=69
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_March_26/ai_54217444/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm15/factsstats/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2001/2001_09_03.jsp
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2009/2009_02_24.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 14:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I strongly suggest we return to a column named "final match" (which was far better), with a couple notes stating that the final matches of WM9 and WM31 arose in irregular circumstances. What is particularly concerning is that we have multiple WrestleManias listed as having three main events, while the official WWE website lists only one WM as having a double main event: WM8. Editors are just indulging themselves at the expense of the encyclopedia, pulling totally unreferenced "main events" out of their asses because they want to re-write history with their favourite stars "headlining" the show. So, how about we fix this abomination? Cheers. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:C92B:3F9F:4AC3:5155 ( talk) 15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Where is wm 35 The reaper of lost souls ( talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
What about now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.134.2 ( talk) 20:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- What about now? Its currently listed in two different places. That not good enough for you? - Galatz Talk 02:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wrestlers that are mentioned for the first time in the main event e.g. Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton should be linked to their Wikipedia pages 2A02:C7D:2588:7000:E97D:51CC:128D:DE9 ( talk) 17:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
John Cena should be linked as well, first mentioned at Mania 22 2A02:C7D:2588:7000:E97D:51CC:128D:DE9 ( talk) 20:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Done
Spintendo 01:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Re this diff
Addition of this passage is proposed
"For the fourth consecutive year in 2017, Forbes has named WrestleMania one of the 10 most valuable sports events in the world, ranking at number 6 behind only the Super Bowl, Summer Olympics, Winter Olympics, the FIFA World Cup and the NCAA Final Four. [1]"
Please discuss it here prior to re-adding it to the article. Gryllida ( talk) 20:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think it belongs in the lead (compare WP:LEAD: "a summary of its most important contents" - this isn't one of the article's most important contents), and certainly not supported by a bunch of WWE press releases. Also, the wording seems less than neutral to me, and the Forbes source itself doesn't say what it's cited for. The "Organization" or "History" sections seem the appropriate place for that content. Since it's currently in the "Organization" section, I'll leave it there; if someone wants to move it to the "History", I wouldn't object. Huon ( talk) 20:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Forbes Fab 40 2017". Forbes. 24 October 2017. Retrieved 24 October 2017.
Can someone do something with the commentary timeline table thing? It's too big (as in size) and there's too many black bars that cover the names. 188.26.69.125 ( talk) 16:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
And the saddest part about this problem, is that it has persisted for so many years, and no one did absolutely nothing about it. 188.26.69.125 ( talk) 17:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
It really is ridiculous to have three "Final matches" for Wrestlemania 2. The entire event was aired as one show from three separate locations. There was only one final match of the show and that was Hogan vs Bundy.
WM9's final match was Hogan vs Yoko not Bret vs Yoko
Lastly, while Wrestlemania 36 was two nights, it was STILL technically ONE event simply split into 2 nights. WWE Network themselves list the show as "Wrestlemania 36 Part 1" and "Wrestlemania 36 Part 2" on the network. The final match of this 2 night event was Brock Lesnar vs Drew McIntyre. Until WWE acknowledges AJ Styles as having "main evented" a Wrestlemania or the Undertaker having "main-evented" five Mania's, Wrestlemania 36 should be left as Brock vs Drew as the final match. 24.38.208.110 ( talk) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Someone with a lot of wishful thinking added Sasha vs Bianca as the "final match" for night one of Wrestlemania 37, wich as of march 27th of 2021, remains unconfirmed.
"Technically" speaking the Triple Threat has not been confirmed as the final match either so both should be removed until there's an explicit announcement or the event actually happens.
Please remove this event from the dates and venues table, as this has not been confirmed by WWE to be part of WrestleMania in any way. We've already had this discussion on the WrestleMania Backlash page. Unless WWE confirms the event's lineage to be apart of WrestleMania itself, we should not make any assumptions. The name mearly implies that it will involve the fallout from this year's WrestleMania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 ( talk) 15:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- There are two reliable sources which back it up. — Czello 15:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Are one of the sources WWE? They would know better than any other dirt sheet website as to whether or not a PPV is part of their WrestleMania history or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 ( talk) 17:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:WrestleMania 40 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the nickname section “ Grandaddy of them all”. Needs to be removed. That was the nickname for WCW’s Starcade Pay per view, not wrestlemania 2600:1700:FFD0:5020:D936:B356:DDA:88AC ( talk) 16:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide
reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.
Lemonaka (
talk) 10:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- @ 2600:1700:FFD0:5020:D936:B356:DDA:88AC I don't close this case, I believe this can be proved by you. So please give me a source, and I will help you. Lemonaka ( talk) 10:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, please remove the Chris Jericho vs CM punk match as it was not the main event of wrestlemania 28. It was John Cena vs the Rock. No other wrestlemania list a co-main event. Thank 68.132.104.196 ( talk) 03:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Done —
Czello 08:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Not sure why Dave Meltzer is included in this article nor why he's credited as a "sports journalist." He's a non-credible critic that is best known for reporting inaccurate information about the industry. 2600:6C50:6000:18D4:344C:9F81:F277:7ADF ( talk) 05:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: Please see
WP:MELTZER —
Czello (
music) 07:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)