Talk:WrestleMania X-Seven/Archive 1

"It is considered by many to be one of the greatest WrestleManias of all time." and phrases such as "Some fans have cited..." are examples of "weasel" words. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words Need some objective prose here. FinFangFoom 06:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those things I usually edit out on sight and let someone revert if they can justify it...but that's just me. PhilTLL 07:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I edited out the bit about Undertaker's undefeated streak. It was mentioned at Wrestlemania XIII. Mr. Papaya

Actually, Wrestlemania X-Seven is argued by some as the end of the Attitude Era, it wasn't the official end.LC6

Actually the overall consensus is that WrestleMania X-Seven did mark the end of the attitude era.-3bulletproof16 17:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, because ratings were still high after Wrestlemaia X-Seven, and overall the product was still doing fine in everything. Even during the Invasion business wasn't really slumping. After Wrestlemaia X-8 though the Brand Split came along and rating started hitting scary new lows and the Attitude Era stars started taking a back seat to new stars. LC6

Yeah but that's your POV which by Wikipedia policy is not allowed. We have reached an overall consensus on this matter already. This is the way things work around here. I can tell you are new so I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy before you make any more edits.-3bulletproof16 22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You could've at least said by some, because not everyone thinks that X-7 was the end of the Attitude Era. Some debated that X-7 ended it, they didn't say that it was the official end. Check the WWE article on end of Attitude Era, it says that fans said different things on what ended the Attitude Era. It didn't completely say X-7.LC6

Where was this "consensus" reached? I don't recall seeing that on the WP:PW talk page. TJ Spyke 21:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well they need to go back and discuss that because I truly disagree with Wrestlemania X-7 as the end of the Attitude Era. Just because Austin turned heel doesn't mean it was the end of the Attitude Era. The stars make the era not heel/face turns.LC6 19:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it was the end of the Attitude Era, I completely agree with claim by the previous user that WM17 is one of the greatest Wrestlemania's of all time and was easily the greatest up to the that point. THX-1138 03:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC) THX-1138

Irony

• Despite portraying a Russian character, Nikolai Volkoff had the same entrance theme as Ludvig Borga, which is ironic becuase Borga's entrance theme during his 1993-1994 WWF tenure was the Finnish national anthem.

That isn't ironic, that's just dumb on the WWF's part. The term ironic is used entirely too much in wrestling wikipedia entries. Perhaps someone should learn what irony is before they start using it so liberally in an attempt to sound intelligant.--Ganley894 20:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen amen amen. And not just in wrestling. Tony2Times (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when was it verified that Borga's entrance was the Finnish National Anthem? It was the same exact theme that THE MOUNTIE used to use before "I'm The Mountine" was recorded! I think it's just an internet rumor. 64.19.152.102 (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia -- Light Heavyweight Title defense

I'm not sure when this tite defense actually take place, but it says that it happened on the Sunday Night Show preceding WM (which I guess it means Heat). It couldn't have happened on Heat, though, because the Heat match was X-Pac & Justin Credible vs. Steve Blackman vs. Grandmaster Sexay. Maybe it happened at Axxess... Anyone who knows, please make the corrections necessary... --Andresg770 19:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Austin's heel turn is important

I added his heel turn since it was the major moment of the evening—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Showster (talk • contribs)

Heel and face turns are rarely worth mentioning though since they happen all the time, and especially not-notable in a PPV article. TJ Spyke 18:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, this was no ordinary heel turn. Steve Austin aligned himself with Mr. McMahon during the match, which is a major event considering the history between them. At a push, the description of the end of the match should include the fact Vince interfered. Other, less notable matches, at other, less notable PPVs, have this type of description included, so why should this PPV be exempt? HDC7777 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Vince didn't interfere though, he just handed the chair to Austin. TJ Spyke 23:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is interfering. He was not a part of the match as either a participant or an official, therefore everything he did is classed as interference. Plus the magnitude of the turn, the fact that Steve Austin joined forces with Vince McMahon, the guy he had his biggest fued with, deserves at least a passing mention. HDC7777 01:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not interefering. Anyways, the turn is mentione on plenty of other articles. TJ Spyke 01:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But it happened at this PPV, and was a major event in the course of the WWE (then WWF). It mentions it in other articles, but what if people don't read those other articles? Not to mention the instances where lesser interference is mentioned in the article. Brock Lesnar v Eddie Guerrero from No Way Out 2004 being a prime example. HDC7777 12:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Lesser interference"? Goldberg actually did interfere (spearing Lesnar), Vince didn't interfere in the Austin-Rock match. TJ Spyke 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Define "interference" for me. As I am led to believe, interference is when a third-party, not directly involved in the match interjects himself in some way. Vince handed Austin a chair, and that led to the victory. And even if the interference isn't worthy of mention, the fact that Steve Austin aligned himself with Vince McMahon is, as this was a turn that, considering the history of the two before the event, was as unexpected as any turn before it. Plus, Christian's debut, when he appeared during an Edge match is mentioned, even though he didn't do anything but stand there. How does that warrant more of a mention in the match result than what transpired between Vince, Rock and Austin? --HDC7777 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interefered=Physically interacted with one of the wrestlers/referee or maybe distracting one. Christian debut is noted because of that, it was his debut, otherwise it wouldn't be mentioned. I suggest you bring this issue up at WP:PW. TJ Spyke 23:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Done.--HDC7777 23:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania X-Seven is highest-grossing pro wrestling PPV?

This line: "WrestleMania X-Seve is the highest-grossing WWE event and highest-grossing professional wrestling pay-per-view" - it is not right according to the information that exists on Wikipedia, the highest-grossing PPV is actually WrestleMania X8. The WMX8 page states that over 68,000 fans attended the event at Skydome whereas the count for WMX-Seven stands at over 67,000. Also the converted 6.1 million Canadian dollars stand at 3.9m USD, compared to 3.5m USD for this event. Please check that page out too and put down the right figures. Birdeditor 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Logo Replacement

The current logo on this page is somewhat of poor quality. I have a much better quality one to replace it, however, the only catch is that it has the WWE logo on it, instead of the WWF logo. What do you think, could the WWE logo be used? Kyle C Haight 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No because then it wouldn't be the same logo used in the event.-- bulletproof ^3:16 00:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Replaced the WWE logo with a WWF one. This new logo should function adequately. Kyle C Haight 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you upload over the old pic? The current one looks ugly. I will find a better one (unless someone else can find one). TJ Spyke 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion, sir. More to the point, why did you upload over mine? Frankly, the current one is ugly. You wouldn't need to find another one if you didn't replace the newer and better one I uploaded. Kyle C Haight 21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

1)I didn't do it. 2)The user replaced your pic, not uploaded over it. 3)You shouldn't upload over someone else's pic like you did (uploading a pic on the same name as another) since it basically erases the old pic and requires them to upload it again. TJ Spyke 00:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"WrestleMania X-Seven is considered to be the event that concluded the Attitude Era for the World Wrestling Federation and the pinnacle of the 1990s wrestling boom."

Hmm, could have sworn this was April 1st 2001. I don't care if it's talking about an era perceived to have continued into the early noughties, it just looks plain dumb. SupernintendoChalmers 00:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha what the hell is Noughties? (Punisher88 06:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punisher88 (talk • contribs)

Titles

Just looking and the Women's, Hardcore, European, IC, Tag and WWF Championship belts were all on the line here. As far as I remember, this is every title that was around at the time was it not - does it often happen that every championship is defended on the same PPV, Vengeance 2007 granted. Would this be worth mentioning in the trivia section?Tony2Times (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really... The WWF Light Heavyweight Championship was still active at the time (the champion was Crash), yet it was not defended at WM X-Seven. So not all titles were defended in this PPV. --Andresg770 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Even if it is rare (another PPV it happened at off the top of my head was WrestleMania X, where all 4 titles that existed at the time were defended), it didn't happen here. TJ Spyke 22:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WMXSEVENtlc.jpg

Image:WMXSEVENtlc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)