Talk:WrestleMania XXX/Archive 1

Question Beyond WrestleMania XXX

Since we know that WrestleMania XXX is confirmed by World Wrestling Entertainment, as of March 2013, why is it cited that WrestleMania XXXI (or WrestleMania 31) be next without any actual "reliable source" that there will be a WrestleMania in 2015? This is "assumed and or speculation" that WrestleMania XXXI or WrestleMania 31 is next without having an official W.W.E.'s press release announcing it? This is against the Wikipedia rules that any assumption of future events, i.e. WrestleMania XXXI (or WrestleMania 31), be mention. The way that I take WP: Rules that any unknown factor or assuming that the 2015 WrestleMania is actually true or not should not be mention UNLESS there is actual prove of it being in that year. If that makes sense. I do ask the Pro Wrestling Team look at the rules here on Wikipedia site and read carefully and thoroughly and tell me if I am right or not. I "expect it to happen" does not translate to "it will happen" in my book (if that makes sense or not). I know that WP Rules said to cite the obvious but serious? WrestleMania XXXI (or WrestleMania 31) is 2 years from now and I really don't know if we are actually be here on earth then or if W.W.E. be around that time. Hindsight is 20/20 and we must not speculate that things "known to fans of W.W.E.", but noted above, without any clear and obvious press release or official documentation from the promotion saying it is true. Read the rules and reply if I am right or not. As noted above, WrestleMania XXXI or WrestleMania 31 is approximately 2 years for now and why even pass it is true without having prove (as noted above).

Thanks.

Sundogs ^{Wikia UserPage} 23:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

When you already have cities bidding for WrestleMania XXXI and WWE is figuring out where to host it, not to mention the fact that they're already planning for it, I think it's a safe bet to say "it will happen". srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 20:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Really?

Is this article necessary to have yet? It is basically one paragraph sourced by one source. Yes it has been announced but that does not make it notable. Notability is not inherited from the past WrestleManias and I doubt any new information will be available for a couple months at the least. Anyone agree? STATic message me! 14:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You're free to nominate it for deletion — you do have a good point when you say that notability is not inherited — but I don't think the deletion would pass. Given that this is the biggest wrestling event of the year, the start and end of the wrestling year, and has been confirmed, I doubt it'd be deleted (and it's inevitable that it'd be recreated not long after). However, by all means, please do what you feel is best. – Richard BB 14:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I would have jumped to do that, but I did not do to the fact that nominations on big events usually pass due to people ignoring WP:ITSA. This is why I took it up here to see if anyone shared my opinion. I mean the article is practically just going to be placeholder till about Survivor Series at the soonest and I doubt it growing larger in the meantime. STATic message me! 20:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

An IP just tried to delete this conversation; I restored it and warned them. I suppose you could try to nominate it and really stress WP:ITSA, and make the point that "It's WrestleMania!" isn't a valid argument. – Richard BB 06:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you support the nomination? STATic message me! 16:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally would not, no, as I feel this article would inevitably be recreated soon anyway. However, given that you make a good point about WP:ITSA, I wouldn't vote to keep it, either — I'd completely abstain, and maybe add a comment. — Richard BB 15:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

why not just move it & the logo onto the main Wrestlemania page for now, under #2 History, make it 2.5 upcoming/future etc. 24.24.231.104 (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)CobraMorph

As I said, you're welcome to start an AfD if you feel this should happen. — Richard BB 06:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess someone else had the same idea, I wish I would have nominated way back then since basically now that we are past Summer Slam everyone is going to want to keep it. Not to mention they have not even mentioned it on TV more then twice since the end of our last discussion. STATic message me! 15:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014

http://www.wwe.com/inside/hulk-hogan-returns-to-wwe

On February 21, 2014, WWE confirmed that Hulk Hogan will be hosting this event, and would return on the February 24th edition of Monday Night Raw. This will be his first appearance on WWE television since December 2007, since he was signed with TNA from 2010-13. 192.217.84.220 (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. wwe.com is PRIMARY and not RS. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2014

On Feb.27th it was announced the legend STING had officially signed with WWE and will be tagging up with John Cena to face the Wyatt Family at this years Wrestlemania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.207.60 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: no reliable source stated, and in hindsight, obviously untrue. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2014

41.69.106.102 (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC) down at the undertaker's section it should be a streak match

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

It says that the Andre The Giant Battle Royal will be the 4th Battle Royal in WrestleMania history and the first one since 2001. That is wrong. Not counting pre-show matches the Andre Battle Royal will be the 6th Battle Royal in WrestleMania history. WrestleMania 2(Andre wins), WrestleMania 4(Bad News Brown wins), WrestleMania 14(LOD wins), WrestleMania 17(Iron Sheik wins) and WrestleMania 25(Santino Marella wins) are the previous 5. Of course if you count pre-show matches then you add in WrestleManias 15, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 27.

 Done Old request, but the current article no longer says that now. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Promotional Poster is not up to date

In the March 17th edition or Monday Night Raw you could clearly see that Hulk Hogan was added to the promotional poster of WMXXX. It can also be seen here[[1]].

 Done Old request, but the current article now has the updated poster, from an official source (In Demand) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ryback and Axel out?

Why were Ryback and Curtis Axel taken off the list for the battle royale? I'm catching up on SmackDown, and as far as I know they're still participants. Jedi Striker (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

[2] is a pretty good indicator that they're either not in it anymore or simply removed for the time being. Antoshi ☏ ★ 03:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I just posted the new match. Can anyone fix the link mark-ups? I suck at that. Ryback and Axel were removed because it was announced on last night's RAW that they were facing the Uso's for the tag titles at Wrestlemania. Hope that helps.TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"first WWE pay-per-view to broadcast live on the WWE Network service"

This is in the lead and it is kind of an oxymoron. If you're watching via the WWE Network, it's not a pay-per-view. If you're watching it on TV and not the Network, then you're watching by pay-per-view. They are two different services.

How about It is also the first WWE pay-per-view that can be alternatively watched live via the WWE Network. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

kind of a pay-per-view seeing as you have to have a paid subscription in order to watch it, they wont be broadcasting it for free on the WWE Network.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 12:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"kind of" doesn't cut it. On one hand the PPV article is clear, it refers to television but WWE Network is on the Internet. On your other point that it requires a paid subscription, then it sounds like cable TV to me. You pay $10 per month to access the whole Network, not a $55 one-time payment for one show like a 'traditional PPV'. If it's so, what's to stop me from calling the March 25 Main Event 'kind of' a pay-per-view? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the distinction here is that WrestleMania is an established PPV and even if it is accessible through non-PPV means, it has status as a PPV elsewhere (TV) while Main Event doesn't. Ranze (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Change to Tag Title Match

On Tonight's WWE Main Event, it was announced that the Tag Title Match will now be a Fatal 4 Way with The Uso's Defending against RybAxel, The Real Americans and Los Matadores. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.195.171 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done - old request, but the article reflects that now. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Battle Royal wikitable

So, this seems to be a point of contention between a handful of editors. I think a consensus needs to be established here as to whether or not to add a wikitable listing all of the participants or to simply keep it in the Background section. Antoshi ☏ ★ 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's in the Background section, now I've also added a list of participants to the Matches section. The only point of the table is to list when and what show each participant was announced to be in the match, which to me is no point. I mean, the participants are just announced, they're not even qualifying for the battle royal. How is it important that Titus O'Neil was announced on March 17 Raw and Cody Rhodes on the March 21 SmackDown? It's not even sourced which date and show they were announced on. Just say they're in the match. We don't do this for the Royal Rumble articles too right? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that we do... but maybe we should? The announcement order is kind of a critical detail to the plot. While qualifier matches are more interesting, the time and circumstances of announcement construct the pressures leading up to battles royale. Ranze (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2014

I would like to offer a request for an editing to this article because I would like to offer my own expertise in making simple, substantive, but descriptive statements to this specific article. To make short straight-forward changes to the likes of grammar, spelling, and formatting that are very simple, but substantive. I hope you take my consideration for accepting this request and I look forward to hearing your response in the considerable future. WKRabbJ19 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 01:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

You have expertise in blanking this page right before I post something. 2 for 2 (4 including this, and this clarification). I respect you for that, oddly enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

A third theme song for WrestleMania XXX (30) needs to be added.
Mark Collie; "In Time" (from "The Punisher: The Album")
LINK: http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/30/music-of-wrestlemania-30-26207178 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KC Roosters on 28 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Antoshi ☏ ★ 15:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Historical note

I don't see historical notes on most articles, but I think it should be noted that the Divas invitational is the first time the Divas title is on the line at WrestleMania (first Invitational at WM I think since WrestleMania XX for the Cruiserweight title). Also, it will be the first time that someone from the Divas roster will compete for the title at Mania since WrestleMania 23 when the Women's title is on the line. But given that articles don't have notes and facts that are relevant, that wouldn't make sense. However, important to point out regardless. Talladega87 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Trivia more than important.--WillC 07:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@Talladega87: do you have a reliable source mentioning this? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I heard it on Raw. Right before the awful Summer Rae match. Cite episode? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No wait, double-checked. Michael Cole said it. Probably still true, but I doubt it now. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I just realized that my statement was entered wrong. This is a trivia note, moreso fancruft. Not exactly the most important information.--WillC 00:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If it were the first time any women's championship were on the line it would be more important... but... (nah Hulk, if you want to cite Cole, I would go cite him on the Authority...) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Any more trivial than telling readers Bray Wyatt called the Hulkster a liar? Or that Lesnar pressed the pen into The Undertaker's chest? I'm going with Cole on this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The storylines section has to be re-written, of course. I'll probably be the one to do it. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, leave that part in when you do. These things only happen once. Not the most prestigious championship, but worth a line. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

But it's bloody pink, for heaven's sake. More seriously though, I'd prefer a written source for verifiability. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is a bloody pink source. We're allowed to use Diva-Dirt for uncontroversial claims, and it seems fitting. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait. Google fooled me. The claim was in the comments. Still, it's true and we all know it's true. So it's not likely to be challenged. So just say it, dammit. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Bray Wyatt discussing Hogan and Cena is the storyline. Taker forcing the pen in Lesnar's hand is part of the storyline. WWE choosing to not book a certain type of match isn't. In the same vein then WWE haven't had a pole match at WrestleMania is possibly ever.--WillC 05:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Who's talking about what they're not booking? They are having the first Divas Championship match. If the belt was a on a pole, I think it'd be right to note it as the first pole, too. In any case, title matches are definitely key parts of the stories, first or not. Pens...meh. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The first time WWE is holding a certain match type in so long isn't. It has been a couple years since a ladder match. If they suddenly held one it isn't important. It is trivia. A nice thing to know, but in no way is it encyclopedic.--WillC 21:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

An encyclopedia shouldn't contain nice things to know? And we're not talking about the match type, just the title defense.InedibleHulk (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Trivia if it can actually be sourced with a reference. At best it is a Did You Know fact, but still trivia and pointless. Best suited for a wrestling wiki.--WillC 23:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added it with a reference you'll probably shit on. If you do, I'll cite the episode. If not, great. Readers can learn something more valuable than who stuck the pen where. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

One day you will learn how to edit properly and we'll all be grateful for it that you are actually learning and making progress for once. The source is unreliable and the reference was done horribly. There is a template there when you edit, a step by step process. Such a simple task.--WillC 01:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I have an interest in eventually pushing this article to GA, provided Bryan wins. Therefore I cannot support an unreliable source. Yesterday I too searched for a reliable source to support the statement but there was none. Hopefully one will turn up by the conclusion of the event. For now I'm going to implement a compromise: shifting the info into the matches section within the "ref group=Note". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. The ref group thing, I mean. I hear you on the first bit. Primary sources are perfectly fine for non-contentious things. If it's possible to link directly to the episode on the Network, it's fine to have paywalled sources (if nothing freer is available). Freer stuff will most likely be in the results April 7, so if you and the commish insist on burying the Divas, I guess I'll wait. As a courtesy. Tamina's got this one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The ref group thing. CTRL-F "Note 2", then click it. About cite episode, I've never done so before. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have, now. What do you think? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. But if this comes up in a future GA/FA review, I'm going to hound you to answer the reviewers. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Found a SLAM! source therefore removed your cite episode, InedibleHulk. starship.paint "YES!" 01:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Whew. I believe my "rewrite" of the Storylines section is complete. Hulk, you may continue your penance (copyediting) now. WillC, if you have time could you check the Storylines section as well. I admit the Daniel Bryan storyline is long but it's not my fault because that's exactly how it was in real life, a near eight-month journey with Triple H and Orton involved. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll continue repaying my debt to society, grammar-wise, after the hoopla dies down. A lot of meddlesome teens around these parts lately. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues so far that I see is some use of jargon, such as cleanly over Cena. HHH should be mentioned as special guest referee in the previous sentence, comma splice in later sentence. Punk part is not important to the storyline. If anything, that belongs in the background section. Storylines is for storylines, not backstage information. Storylines is way too long and indepth. Cut the tag title and diva title matches. They have gotten next to nothing on buildup. I'd also consider the 6 man match. Those are better suited for the bio articles. Expand the battle royal. That is a simple job or adding when people were announced. Consider cutting it down to just the plain information instead of reading like a tv report. Stabbing Lesnar and chokeslamming can be condensed to "assaulted Lesnar."--WillC 14:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wrestlinglover: - Shifted Punk. I don't mind cutting the tag title match or the Divas match, and even the six man is debatable. It's the battle royal that bothers me. I have no problem listing who the participants are, but I do have a problem with listing when each one was announced because I don't think it adds any value to the article at all. There were no qualifying matches. Wrestlers like Rey Mysterio were even announced via their picture flashing on the screen. I don't see why Titus O'Neil being announced on the March 17 Raw is any different from Brodus Clay on the March 24 SmackDown. Sourcing is also an issue as I will apparently have to find sources from every episode where the wrestler was announced.

Frankly, it's obvious to me what the "Big Four" matches are - Bryan's two matches, Cena's and Taker's. Every other match including the battle royal can't stand up. I think we can leave the storylines section intact until WrestleMania actually happens. It's less than a day now, and there's no other content in the article. starship.paint "YES!" 08:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You will have to have those references in the article anyway due to the other matches. A reference can be used multiple times as long as you don't use it excessively. Simple idea: "On the March ?? episode of Raw, Rey Mysterio, Brodus Clay, Titus O'Neil, Big Show, Dickface, Giant Elephant, Dogfucker, and Tits McGee were entered into the match."--WillC 08:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not PG, WillC! You seem a little angry? I still think it's trivia and I really hate the idea of it - like I said above, I'm willing to delete every other match except the Big Four and Hogan hosting if I have to. Anyway, I didn't get what you mean by mentioning HHH as the special guest referee in the previous sentence...? starship.paint "YES!" 08:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not angry, just an attempt to be funny. Made me laugh. "At the event, Bryan cleanly defeated John Cena to win his firstWWE Championship. After the match, Triple H, the special guest referee, turned heel by attacking Bryan, which directly led to Orton cashing in his Money in the Bank briefcase for an immediate title shot. Orton pinned a downed Bryan to capture the WWE Championship." to "At the event, Bryan defeated John Cena to win the WWE Championship with Triple H as Special Guest Referee. After the match, Triple H turned heel by attacking Bryan, which led to Orton using his Money in the Bank title opportunity to capture the WWE Championship."--WillC 08:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed. Anyway, you made me laugh, because... I wasn't trying to be funny earlier, which meant that you made yourself laugh with your own attempt to be funny... which is pretty funny. starship.paint "YES!" 09:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's all about The Game

After watching The Authority promo and video package on Raw, I, as a sound-minded editor, see no reason not to change the "TBD"s in this article to "HHH"s, WP:CRYSTALBALL be damned.

Everything they said is absolutely true. Triple H crushing the hugely popular babyface with the better workrate is a foregone conclusion. The "Yes Movement" is a myth, and we're doomed to repeat history.

The WWE Universe and their sacrificial goat can have all the democracy they want. They can have a big democracy cakewalk trending right through the middle of Twitter square, and it won't make a lick of a difference, because he's got the bombs. OK?

The game's not dead, it's frozen, and as soon as we find a cure for Attention Deficit Disorder, we're going to thaw out the K.O.K., and the crowd's going to be pretty pissed off. You know why? Have you ever seen the 2014 Royal Rumble? Multiply that fifteen million times, that's how pissed off the crowd's going to be.

So, let's just get this over with. Yes? Yes? Yes? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Fun Fact: The month my second Wikilink came out, Triple H won the Royal Rumble. The month the first did, he was champion, beating Nash, Goldberg and even Maven! Not why I linked them, just checked on a whim after. Goes to show, everyone bows down. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Venting about the current state of the product isn't helping advance the article. Antoshi ☏ ★ 04:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Venting is when you're angry. I like Triple H. But yes, you're right. I'll pay my penance by unscrewing some grammar. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fun Fact: Michael Cole just told Triple H "Congratu...uh...Good luck tomorrow...". Freudian slip, or regular Coleness? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, he just called Maria Menounos a "huge fan favourite" of The Ultimate Warrior. He's just being himself. No spoiler. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Something stands out about the championship match of WrestleMania XV

After taking a look through some old notes, I think I noticed that the only time that a "heel" won the major championship of the WWE from a "face" at any WrestlaMania is at the 1999 WrestleMania, when Steve Austin won it from The Rock. -- In any version of the major championship {WWE Championship, World Heavyweight Championship), the only time I remember seeing the "heel" leave the major championship match of WrestleMania as the champion is only when he entered the match as the defending champion (such as Chris Jericho successfully defending against Edge in 2010, and the Miz successfully defending against John Cena in 2011). Otherwise, the "face" typically wins the major championship match, especially when the face is the defending champion. This may just be speculation, but probably the reason that Steve Austin as the "heel" got to win the WWE Championship at WrestleMania 15 is because it was held in his home state of Texas. .. .. So, this major championship match of WrestleMania 30 should be quite interesting in the way it unfolds, as there are two possibilities; if in the Bryan/HHH match, Triple H were to win, the triple threat major championship match would have all three participants as "heels", including the champion Randy Orton, making it so that no matter who wins, the champion would be heel regardless of who the champion is, barring a "face turn". On the other hand, if in the Bryan/HHH match, Daniel Bryan were to win, the triple threat major championship match would have two heels including the champion Randy Orton, and one face, obviously being Daniel Bryan - and if that's the case, with the history being the way it is with this sort of thing, they would almost assuredly mean they would have to have Daniel Bryan win the big championship match, as WrestleMania history usually dictates. Although, we never know how they might possible go against their own history. Plus, there's no telling whether they will even have Daniel Bryan defeat Triple H to get into the triple threat match at all. --

But they could surprise everyone and have the championship match end up being a fatal-four-way match, in which case anything could happen. But I think the majority of us might agree that the one least likely to come out of the championship match with the championship is Batista; he's the only one of the four guys to disappear before long, since he hasn't been there. But also, being that Randy Orton is the "heel" and that he's had the championship since October, he too isn't likely to be the champion after that match. So, if we were putting odds on it, all historical facts considered, the two most likely to have the championship after that match (be it a triple threat or fatal four way, if that were to happen) is either Daniel Bryan or Triple H - Daniel Bryan because he can be the hero of WrestleMania as the good guy, or Triple H because he hasn't had the championship in five years and because he's the boss. But as I say, to my recollection, only in 1999 did a heel win the major championship at WrestleMania. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap, that's long. Johnsmith2116 - you certainly have an interesting analysis, but I hope that you're not advocating it to be inserted into the article because it would be original research without citing a reliable source.

That said, Orton has the least chance here. He's been a weakling of a champion for long enough, and his feuds with top faces Cena and Bryan have been done to death. Mark my words though, Batista will be WWE Champion on August 1. That's when his Guardians of the Galaxy (film) comes out. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't count out the WrestleMania IX scenario, brother. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking WrestleMania XV for X7, which was in 2001. Austin was as face as they come at XV, and Rock was heel. XV didn't take place in Texas, while X7 did. Austin entered as face but left as heel. Also, I'd remind you of WP:FORUM. — Richard BB 19:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum, as stated above. Take your discussion to a wrestling news site.--WillC 21:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not numbering till we know the numbers.

I suspect removing the numbers from the table will be met with rage and disgust (or reasonable dissent). So I'm starting the section.

The numbers don't mean anything if they don't mean match order. If we don't know the order, there's no point to numbers. Yet. Yes? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it's right.PeterMan844 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Support, but is there a need to mention the the Usos are on the pre-show? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a dire need, but it is a bit different from being on the PPV. Same reason we noted it while the number column was here. Go Real Americans! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

They're in a match.PeterMan844 (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if numbers don't indicate order they're useful for people counting how many events there are, but if it leads people to the false impression that we know the order, we should put a disclaimer if we do it. I think we should make some effort to put things in a reasonable order though. Like for example, we can be pretty sure it'll be the WWE title or the Taker/Lesnar match that ends things, not the Diva's title, so I don't know why that's there. Ranze (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Luckily, 8 is among the Top 10 Easiest Numbers to Count. I think the results were in order of announcement to start. Then the pre-show cut in front, but nothing followed suit. No harm in arranging them numberless any way you'd like, for now. In under a day, we'll know. Maybe there are actually nine. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If we're going by order of announcement then we should not list the pre-show first unless it was announced first, and pre-shows tend to be one of the last things announced. Although this isn't a major concern for this page (lack of necessity in half a day) for future articles, perhaps rather than a numbered column we could simply have an 'announced date' column? This would clarify that we are not presenting it in the order it will occur. It will also mean we don't list pre-shows first unless (and I have never heard of this happening) they're the first announced. People can figure out on their own that pre-shows come first. We go either by announce date or probable date of occurance, pre-show prioritizing conflicts with uniform presentation. Ranze (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'm not sure if the announcement order is a rule, or just happens naturally, but a date would make it clear.

Listing them in "probable" order wouldn't be cool. Everyone has a guess, and none of them are verifiable. Just asking for edit wars (skirmishes, anyway). For instance, you moving Bryan-HHH before the title match is reasonable, but would it be right before it? Doesn't seem fair to HHH. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

While we're here, remember that the pre-show has an official name. "WrestleMania Kickoff". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be continuing. The consensus should be to list the Kickoff match as "1" and not just "WrestleMania Kickoff". Antoshi ☏ ★ 19:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Not even really up for debate. It's a number column, and words simply aren't numbers. Fair to distinguish it from the main card, but not to treat it like zero. I think Los Matadores may have lasted zero seconds, but that's beside the point. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel like blasting somebody, because I've been occasionally reading WWE's website and never saw the words "WrestleMania Kickoff" I did a Google Search and No results found for site:wwe.com "wrestlemania kickoff". I know the previous pre-PPVs were called Kickoffs but apparently it's back to a pre-show for WrestleMania. Here's another source. Changing back to pre-show before someone provides me with a WWE source that it's a Kickoff. starship.paint "YES!" 01:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I got no problem with that. If there's no sources, it's not a thing. Antoshi ☏ ★ 02:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. They were calling it that, but I guess it could have been a lowercase "kickoff". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hulk... They were calling it that ... who are they, and where did they call it that? Were you referring to the previous Kickoffs... Elimination Chamber Kickoff starship.paint "YES!" 02:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Michael Cole and Maria Menounos, that day. And yes, I know I shouldn't trust Cole. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should mention those two. They are undefeated at WrestleMania... not Taker. starship.paint "YES!" 02:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at it, the more I dislike the pre-show match being called 1. People who ordered through PPV would have not seen it. To them, HHH would have been in the first match. Since we like numbers, I propose the pre-show match to be called 0, then HHH's match 1. starship.paint "YES!" 07:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A few problems with that. First, tailoring it to match PPV viewers recollections is biased, by excluding the producers, performers and ticketholders who saw it differently. It also furthers a confirmation bias, suggesting that TV is truer than reality. Zero isn't a positive integer, so can't be used to count actual things.

The assumption that PPV buyers don't see it only works for dark matches, not pre-show matches. If someone was dedicated enough to pay $50, there's a good chance they were aware of Heat. The whole point of the pre-show is to convince undecided people to order, so in that sense, the curtainjerker is more important than say, the comedown Divas match.

Especially now that everything's sold together on the Network and replayable, people will be just as likely to miss "#0" as any other match on the card. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Also consider, WWE often acknowledges the pre-show match(es) later in the PPV. Either by a recap, or giving Kane an ECW Championship match. So it wouldn't make sense for them to count it, and us not to. And, what about multiple dark/pre-show matches? Would we start at -3 for Survivor Series '98? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know how Heat works. I also don't know how the WWE Network works, can you rewatch the pre-show?

I'm not so sure WWE acknowledges all pre-show matches later in the PPV, but on the other hand I have not watched a lot of PPVs. Half of the pre-show matches have been largely inconsequential... "Hey, remember, Dolph Ziggler defeated Damien Sandow on the pre-show!" or "Did you know Cody Rhodes and Goldust beat Curtis Axel and Ryback?" merely two months ago.

In other words, what can I call HHH vs Bryan instead of "opener"? starship.paint "YES!" 09:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Dark match, pre-show, whatever. It's included into the event card - it should be given a numbered listing. In this case, 1. Antoshi ☏ ★ 12:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Heat doesn't work at all anymore. When it did, it normally aired four pre-SmackDown (later Raw) matches. On PPV days, it had one or more pre-PPV matches, and a bunch of last minute hype. Not 100% sure on Network replays, but 98%.

Many don't have much lasting significance, but the same is true of many PPV matches. Remember Natalya vs Brie Bella from SummerSlam? There was a US title match in the pre-show. At the Royal Rumble, The New Age Outlaws won the tag title in the zero match.

You can call the first PPV match the PPV opener. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Also known as"

Seeing as I'm fully expecting Static to revert my compromise offer for my 3RR limit revert, I thought I'd ask. The statement "also known as" means the event has a different name it's also known as, however, it's place ment with the statement "Also known as WrestleMania 30" is wrong, inaccurate and out of place because it's not a different name, it just uses a different numeral system, but reads aloud the same. There for I'm proposing two options for consensus for the permanent selection.

• Option A: "Also written with Arabic numerals as WrestleMania 30."

or

• Option B: "Also written as WrestleMania 30."

Or you can choose option C to leave it with the (IMO) inaccurate "also known as" statement. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 21:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I like B. A has too many Latin characters (no offense, Colons). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

B then. starship.paint "YES!" 04:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, B. STATic message me! 04:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus then. starship.paint "YES!" 01:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why does this say Big Show won by last eliminating Cesaro?

Really? Really guys? Are you seriously fucking kidding me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.152.229 (talk • contribs)

Relax random poster. It was vandalism and it has been reverted. STATic message me! 04:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Battle Royal

31 people are listed as competing in the Battle Royal. I can't remember seeing David Otunga in there but I could be wrong. Not going to edit it cause I am not sure, but something's not right.

Yes, he was there. — Richard BB 15:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw him, too. So did James Caldwell. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Gonna hide the battle royal for now. I'll get to it soon. Don't see how it's possible that there were only three slots left before Mania, then suddenly we have Cesaro, Yoshi, Otunga, Woods and Kidd all in the match. Ah, according to STATic, Christian wasn't involved. Anyway, we need a reliable source! starship.paint "YES!" 23:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No mention of him in the Torch above, and I don't recall him. Apparently, he was/is still concussed. Do we count The Cobra? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You tricked me. I was looking for who Woods must have replaced, and he didn't replace anyone because he wasn't there. But he was watching, and Lesnar scarred him. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Crave Online review

Here you go: http://www.craveonline.com/sports/reviews/671749-wrestlemania-30-review-the-undertakers-streak-ends-daniel-bryan-prevails --Matt723star (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Cena vs Wyatt, Main Event?

How did we decide to call it that? Or the Lesnar match, for that matter? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Changed it to "Featured" and "Supporting" matches, but that's not great, either. The first match was pretty hyped, as was the battle royal. I think like User:FlawlessViper here. Chronological order is just the most natural order. It's why Memento confused people. Let's not do that to readers, even on a smaller scale. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary when I added the Event section, I'm not sure how many main event matches there were so I guessed it was three. The way the match was hyped - with its own personalized theme, video package and the fact that it's Cena - made me feel like it was a main event. Antoshi ☏ ★ 00:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't always read edit summaries of things I missed. Any issue with having it chronologically? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Like I also said, anyone can feel free to add/remove as you see fit. Antoshi ☏ ★ 00:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I'm just giving a bit of time for other opinions/sources. User:STATicVapor saw fit (for mysterious reasons) to revert The Viper's bold edit, and now we're discussing it without them. It's like an impromptu Fatal Four-Way BRD. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems quite weird to label a diva's battle royal as a main event match. There is a very loose definition of what a main event match is nowadays. Do we usually dump the bathroom break match in the main event section in high quality PPV articles?STATic message me! 03:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now it's less mysterious. I'd assumed without looking that Viper had changed the headers. Any issue with listing purely chronologically, no divisions (maybe we can still make the Kickoff seem inferior)? Sometimes WrestleManias have advertised "double/triple main events" (VIII still rocks), but only one here. They were pretty clear about the first match being for a shot in the main event. The only main event Divas are in the Hall of Fame. I suggest rewatching Trish vs Lita from RAW, to everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Officially, it seems VIII was the only one with more than one. Check out this and change the number (actually, the numbers don't go very far) InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"The Match Made in Heaven" doesn't even count. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fun Fact: There are four "Undertaker"s down the lefthand side of his paragraph. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two options here. Either we take it that there can only be one main event - the last match, of course, or we take it that there can be multiple main events, in that case we can do it like Extreme Rules (2012): Bryan's two matches, Cena's and Streak are the main events. starship.paint "YES!" 04:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's an Option C: We take it that WWE knows how they promote their shows, and follow suit. At Survivor Series '91, Hulk Hogan vs The Undertaker was the main event, but happened in the middle of the show. There can be multiple main events, but it's rare. I think a recent SummerSlam may have had two. The recent years are the foggiest, for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How about we just ignore the term main event and just call them what they are? Matches? The next match was Cena vs Wyatt. The fifth bout was Taker vs Lesnar. The main event was a Triple Threat match etc etc etc. The event section needs to be cut down alot too. Suicide dives are not of giant importance.--WillC 05:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Suicide dives are highspots. Highspots are the giantly important spots. At least, in theory. In theory, a finisher also finishes the match. In theory, the ref has authority. In any case, yeah, too wordy. There are ways of making it fit. Which match was the Triple Threat again? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

WillC - I haven't touched the Event section yet, but I will eventually. While the Shield's suicide dives were not important, Bryan's suicide dive onto HHH/Steph/Armstrong sure as hell was. I might have to expand the Storylines section more to explain how Scott Armstrong was a crooked ref because WWE decided to for once have some continuity and tie up a loose end. starship.paint "YES!" 10:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As Hulk said, I basically just included all of the highspots and/or the more important/crucial/turnaround moments, such as the ring psychology elements in the Cena/Wyatt match. Antoshi ☏ ★ 14:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Antoshi, I know you definitely put in a lot of effort to essentially write the Event section. But it's still too detailed. Ryback hitting a big boot. Reigns hit Road Dogg with a superman punch. Wyatt using a sleeper hold. Orton using the Garvin Stomp. An event section like Money in the Bank (2011) is what we're aiming for, and WillC might still think the main event match section is too long. If I were to trim WM30's main event (which I will) most of what come before the Authority interfered is not important. It's about the climax of the match, with an overall story if there is one (HHH targeting Bryan's arm), and a few highspots (like Kofi's in the BR) starship.paint "YES!" 15:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, feel free to add/remove as you see fit. I'm not going to tell you how to edit; that's not my job. This is my first time writing for a PPV event section. I figured the turnaround portions were important, the storyline pieces, signature/finishing moves and possible pinfalls. Yes, I probably went in-depth in some parts and I figured that was happening as I was writing it. If you think it's excessive, that's fine. If you're going to remove portions, just don't gut it too badly. Antoshi ☏ ★ 15:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The event section is meant to be a summary of the event, not a play by play or a review. Just the main points, literally the main points. Finish, match type, and any memorable things that were very important. Six man tag had some cool spots. The finish is the only important spot. Lesnar/Taker main spots were the finish and the several nearfalls after finishes. Ref issue and attack on Trips in the main event is important. I'd say the table spot as well.--WillC 01:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose so. Maybe I got a little carried away. I figured since it was WrestleMania, it should deserve to have a more in-depth summary. Antoshi ☏ ★ 01:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Want to read my original write-up of MITB 2011's event section before the cuts came in? It will take you some time! starship.paint "YES!" 02:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Jiminy Christ! That main event is several times larger than WWE Main Event (where apparently no match matters). There's a balance to be found between that behemoth and Will's point form plan. I'll leave the guts alone, but trim the fat soon. Still some meddlesome teens buzzing around. I'll break up the main event block for now. Too much for one paragraph. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hulk, I'm going after the main event match now. starship.paint "YES!" 03:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool. I won't get in your way. My "soon" above meant in a few days. Or so. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Main event match is trimmed and everything written is covered by the three sources. Only thing left is wiki-linking moves, I guess. starship.paint "YES!" 05:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Alot more cutting needed. I noticed a mention of a sleeper hold. Why? Not important. Normal move.--WillC 01:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I have worked on all matches except HHH's so far. starship.paint "YES!" 04:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Other on-screen talent / Battle Royal tables

Eh... these two tables are utterly unsourced. starship.paint "YES!" 05:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed them. It's just not possible to include them because not one of our five reliable secondary sources (pwtorch.com / f4wonline.com / slam.canoe.ca / pwinsider.com / wrestleview.com) or our primary source (WWE.com) mention the details. The identities of the Spanish announce teams, the French announce teams, the referees were not mentioned. Two battle royal eliminations were not mentioned (Xavier Woods and Sin Cara). Which wrestler eliminated who is also not always mentioned. Therefore I have deemed necessary that the tables not be included in the interests of not including WP:Original research or unreliably sourced material. starship.paint "YES!" 03:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the Reception section?

Last I checked it held information about how fans and critics felt about the Undertaker vs. Brock match and now it's gone? It needs to mention that, as well as the reactions from other critics about the event itself, and each match as every other PPV event article includes. --Matt723star (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Problematically it had a lot of weasel wording such as "many critics believed" and "some fans felt," etc. Without reliable sources to go with those opinions, they are treated as non-neutral points of view. By the way, I didn't delete any of it, this is just what I saw from the recent edits to the section. Antoshi ☏ ★ 14:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It's me, Austin! - I was the one that killed it. I have experience writing PPV articles, getting 2 of them to GA, and I can assure you that there are more reliable sources out there that can be used instead of those which were in the article. I will provide them and write up the reception section within a week. starship.paint "YES!" 00:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Awesome, dude! I actually, if you look up some on the talk page, I added a link to a review, but if you wanna go scout out other reviews that's absolutely okay. I just wanna see a fuller Reception! --Matt723star (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Matt - I put writing the reception section on hold temporarily - I'm on an image uploading spree at the moment, as you can see from the newly added images to the article. I saw your Crave Online source but... I'm really not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source. When I expand the Reception section, I'll be including some reviews from the "wrestling experts" at the Wrestling Observer / Torch and SLAM! Wrestling. Apart from them, I'm going for mainstream newspaper coverage. starship.paint "YES!" 09:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

- EXPANDED IT. Is it too long now? Should more be added? There is still potentially the Baltimore Sun's review and Meltzer's Observer review. starship.paint "YES!" 06:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Usos

There's a little dispute between myself and Lukejordan02. Simply put, within the article, I advocate displaying The Usos (Jimmy Uso and Jey Uso) and Lukejordan02 advocates The Usos (Jimmy and Jey). Lukejordan02 claims that Every other event doesn't have it, imagine if the announcer announced it like that Jimmy and Jey Uso The Uso's (they don't they say Jimmy and Jey The Uso's and There is no need for a surname of a team that is there surname which is why full names are there for teams such as real Americans, look at other events and you will see he Uso's is this way.

• My stance is that every other person's name in this article is written with the first name and the last name, so why not the Usos? If you use The Usos (Jimmy and Jey) to represent Jimmy Uso and Jey Uso, does that mean that other wrestlers are called Cesaro Real American? Or Seth Rollins Shield? It's about adopting a standard style.
• Lukejordan02 mentions that the surname is in the team name, that is true, but how do you know every single reader knows that? Some people might not know. Then they will assume the duo are simply Jimmy and Jey with no surname.
• Lastly, regarding other articles, if they're not Featured Articles or Good Articles, then they don't matter. Many PPV articles are not up to standard. We should not follow them. I have gotten 2 PPVs (and 1 pseudo-PPV) to Good Article status, and this is the fourth nominee, so I do have experience in writing these articles. starship.paint ~ regal 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

If I'm honest I couldn't really give a crap which way it is written but I think that all the PPV's should have it written the same so add USO back if you want but change the other PPV's to it aswell. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'll look into the PPVs where the Usos wrestled. starship.paint ~ regal 14:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Lukejordan02 - why are you reverting me when you said I could change the other PPV's to it aswell? Thought you should honor your word. starship.paint ~ regal 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not reverting you I was just making them all the same (Jimmy and Jey Uso) rather than (Jimmy Uso and Jey Uso) Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I'm proposed. I'm proposing the full names of both. The Usos (Jimmy Uso and Jey Uso). My reasons are as above, synchronized with every other wrestler who has their "full name" displayed. starship.paint ~ regal 15:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's fine, sorry I misunderstood, go ahead, as long as every page matches. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much time left today, will handle tomorrow. starship.paint ~ regal 15:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've changed them all I think, just go over them and check when you get time. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Lukejordan02, I don't doubt you, but I think some editors are editing them back in. starship.paint ~ regal 12:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In which articles, cause I can't see which ones? Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

None at the moment because I've already made the changes again. starship.paint ~ regal 03:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We've got "The Bushwhackers (Bushwhacker Luke and Butch)" in WrestleMania V. That's inconsistent with both of your styles. They'll be the laughingstocks of the neighbourhood. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Outdented for you. Which were the correct ring names? "Bushwhacker Luke" and "Bushwhacker Butch"? Or "Luke Williams" and "Butch Miller"? The article mentions both, which confuses me. starship.paint ~ regal 12:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)