Talk:WrestleMania 25

Final discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This straw poll has ended in a majority of support for the article to remain as WrestleMania XXV, due to WP:Naming conflict. Another result is that a disambiguation page has been created as a result, which is needed to disambiguate between XXV and XXVI, so thus this title is also needed to distinguish the two.--Truco 22:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the final discussion. Majority vote ends this thing. One week, after one week, everything is done. Who believes the article should be named WrestleMania XXV? Who believes it should be named 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania? The end result is the final one, whatever happens. No more moves, no more discussions, no more involving admins. This ends it now and once and for all. I believe it should be WrestleMania XXV for the record.--WillC 14:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This really should be added to WP:LAME. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For what? I don't know what you are getting at.--WillC 14:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait, why is WrestleMania XXV being redirected to 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania when we JUST started this discussion? SuperSilver901 17:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support the page location being at WrestleMania XXV. D.M.N. (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support moving it, as due to a lack of math knowledge in the WWE they fail to realise it is actually the 24th anniversary. Also to match the naming of all other WM articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean move it to WrestleMania XXV? Not sure if that is a typo or not.--WillC 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As in support the move, and support your statement above Will. Sorry too many tabs open. Amended to reflect. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose; the official name was 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania and like 13, 2000, X-Seven, and X8 which all have articles titled with their official title it should be 25th Anniversary even if we all know it was the 24th anniversary. No-one calls it ex, ex, vee so if you're moving it to what people pronounce it was then it should be WrestleMania 25/Twenty Five. Tony2Times (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That same argument can be used for the Super Bowl, you don't say Super Bowl XLIII, you say Super Bowl 43. D.M.N. (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, yet the article is XLIII because that's its official title and how it is presented. We may all call it WrestleMania 25/XXV but its official title is 25th Anniversary. Tony2Times (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Who is to say that is the offcial title? Bound for Glory IV was never referred to as Bound for Glory 4/IV. It was just Bound for Glory. Who is to say that Bound for Glory IV was the offical title, even when they didn't even write four in articles? They also have three different names for WrestleMania. 25th annniversary is better to advertise than WrestleMania 25. More things they can do and make the event mean more.--WillC 17:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Whose to say what is the official title? WWE is who. And they said with their logo, with their rhetoric and with their stage sign that it is the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. The name WrestleMania XXV was never used during 2009, only during 2008 just like the name WrestleMania 2001 was only used the previous year. I don't know what this third name is. If Bound For Glory IV was never called it, then that's a case for it to be moved to BFG (2008). I'm not saying it should be, but that argument works against moving this article seeing as BFG's article is based on the typeset of the poster, calling this article WM XXV would contradict that. Tony2Times (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

See the logo nor poster are what we should go by. There is no special cases where we should go by the poster or not. In the new Sacrifice poster AJ looks like he is in Gears of War, should we state that is his new gimmick because of that, no. The wrestlemania poster has two names. The 25th anniversary of WrestleMania and WrestleMania: 25th anniversary. WWE just contradicted themselves with their own poster. Too many names.--WillC 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And WrestleMania 13 was also called 13 WrestleMania(!) Tony2Times (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support I support this being WrestleMania XXV. I don't know if we put we're opposing the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania by putting oppose or supporting WrestleMania XXV by putting support. SuperSilver901 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose throughout wrestlemania it was called the 25th anniversary of Wrestlemania and even announced by Howard Finkel "Welcome to the 25th Anniversary of Wrestlemania" Adster95 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support technically next year is the 25th anniversary and this IS Wrestlemania XXV not The 25th Anniversary of Wrestlemania despite what WWE says.LifeStroke420 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Mshake moved it without discussion, so I moved it back (so those saying "Support move" were supporting WrestleMania XXV). Yes WWE mostly used 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, but they have also continued using WrestleMania. The last consensus (which was just last week) was to keep it at WrestleMania XXV and I support that. This is ridiculous and petty by those who keep trying to put it somewhere else, it's like those who start a AFD request only hours after previous one failed. If the consensus stays at having it at WrestleMania XXV, it needs to be move protected so that certain vandal editors (and they know who they are) can't keep moving it despite knowing that general consensus is against them. TJ Spyke 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support Wrestlemania XXV. Most news sources refer to it as that. Examples of such are [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. All of these RS use either "Wrestlemania XXV" or "Wrestlemania 25" predominantly. We should look beyond primary sources to see what the WP:COMMONNAME is. This is enough to convince me that it is the most common name for the article.Firestorm ^Talk 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support WrestleMania XXV -- per WP:Naming conflict. 1)It wasn't the 25th anniversary of WrestleMania 2)That can cause a mishap here with redirects, since WrestleMania XXVI is actually the 25th anniversary. 3)Like NAMECON states, the title should be neutral (the chronological title) and the naming issue can be covered in the article, which it is, so there is no more need to move it.--Truco 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the vote altogether per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Majority votes violate policy, and even "straw poll" results can't be considered permanently binding. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. I asked for discussion and it turned into a vote, so I said screw it and let it continue.--WillC 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • You asked for a vote. "Majority vote ends this thing. One week, after one week, everything is done.". Voting isn't against the guidelines, but it can be challenged as the decision would be made by a technicality instead of a binding discussion as evidenced by the WT:PW archive where I opened a discussion to move Atlas DaBone to Ricky Ortiz (which out of some weird way ended up being moved to Richard Young (wrestler). Besides the poing, I agree on keeping it in WrestleMania XXV, per Truco's perfect explanation. Raaggio 01:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I would expect people could understand I meant majority decision. I used vote loosely.--WillC 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • • That one actually started at Richard Young (wrestler), somebody moved it to Atlas DaBone when you started the discussion and then moved back (I supported moving it to Ricky Ortiz BTW). TJ Spyke 02:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Just to let everyone know, since this will end up as remaining as WrestleMania XXV. I created a disambiguation page for 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, since it can refer to either the 25th or 26th edition one.--Truco 02:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support (page remains as WrestleMania XXV ...Could we just drop it already? It is clear that the community has decided to keep the page under this name. This continuous disruption is pointless and unnecessary. The community would be better off going about their business than to spend another second on this ridiculous subject.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support keeping article at "WrestleMania XXV". Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2009 (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.

Colours and brands

I have a question. Why in the divas battle royal table you put the brand if the brand can be reconocided buy the colour grey, blue and red?? --81.36.175.63 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Because Red = Raw which is the color on their logo, Blue = Smackdown which is also on their logo, Gray = Past divas for some reason and purple = ECW for some reason. SuperSilver901 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The ECW logo used to be purple, that's probably why. TJ Spyke 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he means why list the name of the brand if the colours tell you them. My answer would be because I'm colour defective and barely able to distinguish the difference. Tony2Times (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you are right. We have to think of users with disabilities. Someone who is color blind should be able to tell what brand they were on. TJ Spyke 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the ECW divas should be in gray or a variation of black, as that is their color which they are represented by.--Truco 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that you don't understand me. I say that in top of the table, you say that the divas in blue are of SD, the divas in grey are in ECW and the divas in red are in RAW. I say that is ridiculous write in the table Brand, between Diva and Order of elimination, because we know the brand seeing the colour. --81.36.175.63 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

TJ just answered that...some people can't SEE colors or have a hard time seeing them, so they make a legend of what each color means, and not everyone will know red means Raw (sounds ridiculous but I'm sure there's someone out there)--Lord Dagon (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Sorry, I don't understand him. Thanks for your time. --81.36.175.63 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

I fully support this page. It is and was the 25th anniversary of Wrestlemania who cares if it does not add up. Technically speaking the first WrestleMania was in celebration of everything WWE had accomplished at the time. This is the same as if people are married. When you have been married 25 years you don't say that this is your 24th anniversary lol you say it is your 25th. I say we all drop it and let it be. Glenn83e (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have agreed to drop it and keep it as Wrestlemania XXV. This is the overwhelming consensus. Firestorm ^Talk 18:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

This is a notice to Mshake. I know that you believe that it is "officially" known as the 25th anniversary etc. The fact is, there's no press release that says that's the official title. Most RS primarily used XXV, such as the ones I linked to above. If you wish to keep edit warring, then please provide your justification on this page. We must obtain consensus before changing it, following the "bold, revert, discuss" format. I am restoring it to the previous version, but I will adhere to WP:1RR from this point on. Firestorm ^Talk 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Official WWE press releases here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Mshake3 (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

By "officially" you mean it that WWE only called it by that name, when it used more than 1 name. The most commonly used names were WrestleMania XXV and 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, which is what is denoted in the article. There is no official title.--Truco 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If WWE is the one calling that, then that is the official name. No nicknames folks. Mshake3 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We're done here... and have been for quite some time.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Miss WrestleMania

There used to be a page showing the history of who became Miss WrestleMania just like all of the title belts in the WWE both past and present as well as other title belts past and present from other professional wrestling compaines. Why is the Miss WrestleMania page deleated and redirected to WrestleMania XXV? Gibsonj338 (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is kept as a redirect because at the moment the Miss WrestleMania Crown is not known to be a notable yearly occurence. There just isn't any notable information about the subject right now. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned in the article that May Young was the special guest timekeeper? my source is that they said that at The event.--JereMerr 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing real names

I saw the talk page discussion, and the change seems to be totally spurious and randomly enforced. Much like an episode of a TV show, the characters are named as they are in-show and then links are provided to the appropriate character page (in this situation, the wrestler). It's especially confusing when a in-ring name is used as the wikilnk with the real name as the display text. I get the feeling that edits made to wrestling articles talk WAY down to readers who may not know much about wrestling...often stepping outside what is generally considered good form for an article. If a reader wants to read past CM Punk landing the Go To Sleep on Edge for the championship...let them dig down further. Otherwise you're just flooding them with WAY too much info that they may not really care about. Such as full on descriptions of move names...followed by a wiki link to an article that basically repeats what's already printed in the parent. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 07:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends on how well known the wrestler is. If a wrestler is not well known (like Ricky Ortiz) or if they are well known by more than one ring name (like Billy Gunn/Kip James), we list their real name. There are lots of example of people that we don't use their real names in TV articles (in a article on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, we would just write "Ice-T" instead of his real name "Tracy Marrow" for the same reason). I don't think we should list their real name at all (unless it's a situation like The Undertaker vs. the fake Undertaker at SummerSlam 1994), but the general consensus is to do it in the situations I mentioned. TJ Spyke 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand it's "consensus"...but can somebody PLEASE explain to me why it seems like the wrestling related articles are the only ones where consensus generally breaks Wikistyle? I mean, if you're going to include the wrestler's real name in every article that references them....and then include descriptions for moves in every article that references...what's the point of having wikilinks? That's the problem I have with the "consensus" being built in these articles. Especially when you note that the article is tagged for needing cleanup. Yet every change made in an attempt to do so is reverted. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This project has 4140 articles in total. 186 of them are either FL, FA, or GA. Out of those 186 half are probably poorly written, badly sourced, etc and the project only has a handful of editors working on expanding them or fixing the already finished ones. The rest pop in for PPVs and to do small things. This article like many others is not being expanded. This article does not follow guidelines such as Jargon, Fiction, etc. The reason not all articles follow the correct format is alot don't like saying wrestling is fake so they don't follow it and trying to change that format will just result is a big argument which will get us no where because we someone trying to improve the article, users just whine. The descriptions are supposed to be cut down. But noone has done that. When they do, they either remove them entirely and keep a poorly worded sentence instead. So sometimes they are reverted, though I don't watch this page much so I can't give an instance. It is laziness which is causing things to not be correct. No one taking it under their own power to improve things to the agreed format. I would improve this article myself like I planned, but work is stopping me from doing that.--WillC 13:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Diva Battle Royal Chart?

Do we really need this? None of the other battle royals at Wrestlemania have a table like this. Thebookofaustin3:16 (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a good, useful chart. Charts like that should be added to the other articles, not removed from this one.--Josh (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Beth Phoenix eliminated Maryse in the 25 Diva Battle Royal, not Santina Marella ! watch the match on dailymotion or youtube and see for yourself ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeakFreak24 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting name change

None of the promotional info I've seen on the event have used roman numerals. Therefore, I would suggest a name change to "WrestleMania 25" with WrestleMania XXV redirecting to it.--Josh (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see above and the archives as to why its at its current name, there lengthy and numerous discussions over this.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That discussion involved a change from "WrestleMania XXV" to "the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania", which was most of the debate, where I am only recommending a change from "XXV" to "25".--Josh (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia elite" are far too up their own arses to listen to you. Don't waste your time, honestly. What do you think this is? An encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Oh, wait... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.67.15 (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stone Cold Steve Austin's Final Appearance

Shouldn't this be noted somewhere in the article? I mean, it was a pretty major event in the middle of the show. You know, where Steve Austin drank beer in-ring for 5 straight minutes, lol. You can't miss it :P If nothing is written, I think you could just lift the section from Steve Austin's wikipedia page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.47.74 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not that notable, so what if he hasn't appeared in 9 months? Even if he were to die before he ever appeared on WWE programming again, I still don't think it would be worth nothing (at least here). TJ Spyke 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How could it not be notable, anything with Stone Cold is always notable. Is Stone Cold coming in to the ring with a Zamboni not notable, is Stone Cold filling up Vince's car with cement not notable, is Stone Cold breaking the law by dressing up as a doctor to attack Vince in the hospital not notable, is Stone Cold driving a Beer Truck into the ring not notable,is Stone Cold along with the Big Show destroying a TitanTron not notable, is Stone Cold destroying the DX Express not notable, is his match in the 6 man Hell in a Cell match at Armageddon not notable, is all his matches with The Rock at WrestleMania not notable,was his induction into the WWE Hall of Fame by Vince McMahon (Vincent Kennedy McMahon, the Chairman of World Wrestling Entertainment) not notable, or is his appearance as guest host of Monday Night RAW on March 16th, 2010 not notable TJ Spyke?! Cause if his last appearance at WrestleMania ever wasen't epic or even notable then how was anything else that the guy who made the greatest era in wrestling ever even notable?! Answer me that TJ!--Nascarking (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"25th Anniversary" false advertising / bad math

This is something that was originally noted/discussed on the WM25 page when it first went up, and I think it should remain in some form. The "25th anniversary" of Wrestlmania took place on March 31, 2010, which is 25 years to the date after the first Wrestlemania on March 21, 1985.

Wrestlemania 25, which took place on April 5, 2009, is roughly twenty-FOUR years after the original Wrestlemania took place - roughly one week after the 24th anniversary.

While one can't argue against the fact that WWE did, in fact, use "the 25th anniversary of Wrestlemania" in their marketing for Wrestlemania 25, that doesn't change the fact that the event took place a year before said anniversary.

Btw, for those of you out there that don't understand the math issue at hand: if you get married on June 1, 2000, when is your 10th wedding anniversary? If you said anything other than June 1, 2010, you're wrong. WWE was essentially passing off June 1, 2009 as the date in question because it made their poster look cooler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.18 (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well for your information, we do understand the math issue at hand. The problem is the entire issue is simply not notable. Promotional material in various genres will often use "anniversary" in the same manner WWE has. (Super Bowl, Grammy Awards, etc.) The entire thing is trivial and per WP:TRIVIA doesn't need to be noted. Simply let it go. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The official website for the Grammys says "50th annual" and not "50th anniversary." They got it right, FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.18 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We know this already, but it's still not notable in any way. Simon^KSK 19:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It is notable, though.76.226.120.12 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

no its not its trivia... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 09:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

background

this section is not neutral and uses language that is suspect. examples: Orton's 'twisted' visions of the future, and his shock at seeing the McMahon's with HHH, and Cena 'fittingly' being attacked by Edge and Bigshow, before Bigshow getting his 'just deserts'. what the hell? this whole section needs to be redone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Cameraman that flattened by Undertaker

I've heard rumours that the cameraman who squashed by Undertaker's suicide dive was Sim Snuka. Is this true? FlapjackStantz (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

While that would be an interesting detail, there looks to be little coverage on the subject. It seems it may be just that, a rumor. It doesn't seem relevant enough to be in the article.Cstam716 (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Re-Opening Name Change Suggestion

I wasn't part of the conversation 11 years ago when the topic of whether or not to title this event "25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" or "WrestleMania XXV" came up. At the time, it was decided to keep it as "XXV", because the roman numerals were more or less a standard. What I don't understand is why wasn't "WrestleMania 25" an option for a title back then. Today, looking back, it's silly to call this event "WrestleMania XXV" when no roman numerals were used at all during this PPV. If you look at how every WrestleMania is titled on WP, we only use roman numerals in the titles when they were used during the event itself. Like Mania III, IV, V, etc. Now in the case of events that didn't use roman numerals during the event, like Mania 31, 32, 33, etc. we don't use roman numerals in the titles. So why should Mania 25 be given the roman numeral treatment when it's no different than WrestleMania 2, 13, 21, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36? Nowhere during the PPV are the letters XXV seen or shown anywhere. No graphics at all depict this. The only time I can recall seeing this event marketed as Mania XXV was a year earlier at Mania XXIV when they played the hype video announcing this show for the following year. WWE eventually changed all advertising, many months before Mania 25 took place, to remove the roman numeral graphics and rebrand the show as “WrestleMania: 25th Anniversary". The same thing happened with Mania 22. When they first showed the hype video a year earlier at Mania 21, the graphics showed "WrestleMania XXII". Eventually they changed the advertising and removed the roman numerals there too. And we list it as "WrestleMania 22" not "XXII". So, I ask again, why is Mania 25 getting special treatment compared to other similar Manias? I think it's time we rename this to the proper "WrestleMania 25" title. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The question comes down to what its called in WP:RS more than what WWE's official name is. I looked through the first 10 pages of google results for RS. [8] [9] [10] [11] support your name. [12] does not. Therefore I believe more use 25, than XXV. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok. And I can also find a bunch more that use 25 instead of XXV. Here’s PWInsider’s original coverage on the day of the show [13] and the issue of the Wrestling Observer that covered the event that week [14]. Also remember, a lot of places, including WWE themselves sometimes, use WP as a reference point. So some places will use XXV simply because it’s been listed that way on WP for a long time. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, if there is several sources calling it 25, we can change the name. Even if WWE.com writes sometimes WM XXV, the name of the event it's 25 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Just waiting to see if anyone objects to the move, which I can't see why they would. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@OldSkool01: After a 10 days discussion, I think you can change the name of the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I tried to move the page, but needed to make a technical request first. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)