# Talk:WrestleMania XXIV

I'm going to take this piece by piece.


### Lead
the other being --> the first being
I think that the Smackdown main event should come before Raw's considering the Smackdown match was last.
which Orton won by pinning Cena after a Pedigree from Triple H -->  which Orton won by pinning Cena after Triple H delivered a Pedigree to Cena
Wiki-link "highest-grossing" if it's possible
I'll get to the report later on. iMatthew 2008 19:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Oakster  Talk  21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


### Background
the following pay-per-view. should be the pay-per-view following the Royal Rumble or just removed.
slapping the referee slapping --> hitting
general manager should be capitalized.
if Special Guest is capitalized, then "referee" should be as well.
assistant general manager should be capitalized.
Smackdown wasn't the night after No Way Out
Refs are needed for the first paragraph.
will come to an end --> would come to an end
he defeats him should be more specific
comma after mentions of "Curt Hawkins" when it comes before "and Zack Ryder" and after "Edge, "
On the March 21 edition of SmackDown, after The Undertaker defeated Chavo Guerrero, Edge attacked The Undertaker, and executed a spear. Shortly after, Edge, Hawkins and Ryder hit him numerous times with steel chairs, which concluded with Edge executing a con-chair-to. is not really notable, it seems week-by-week
The picture caption for Mayweather shouldn't be a sentence. It should say "Floyd Mayweather, who..."
"it would be an honor for him to retire at the hands of Shawn Michaels." "i"t should be capitalized.
Every one of the match results in the last paragraph need to have a source.
More coming later on the event/aftermath. iMatthew 2008 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Points 1-6, 8-13 are  Done. I'll get back to the other points later. -- Oakster  Talk  07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Im new to this but in the Wrestlemania 24 page you need to place The Undertakers name beside the first mention of his real name (Mark Callaway)Putangsang (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"The event featured ten professional wrestling matches, performances with pre-determined outcomes between wrestlers with fictional personalities that are portrayed as real, were featured on the event's card. The buildup to the matches and the scenarios that took place before, during, and after the event were planned by WWE's creative staff."
Does this article really need a definition of what a wrestling match is? Or an explanation of kayfabe for that matter? I think not. 86.46.41.175 (talk) 11:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. It's the new format agreed upon at WP:PW for wrestling pay-per-views to take them out of universe. Not doing so violates WP:FICTION. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
But how can a buildup to a match happen after the match has ended for that match i think that statement needs to be re worded Golefsgophan (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand why the stuff I edited was taken off. Can somebody explain. --L0W3R1D3R | TH3 L0W3D0WN 01:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we should add a reception section to this article about the reception of the event as I read at Canadian online Explorer's professional wrestling section, they gave this entire event a 9 out of 10 stars with the main event for the world heavyweight championship recieving 9.5 out of 10 stars , the career threatning match between Ric Flair and Shawn Michaels recieving a perfect 10 out of 10 stars, Big Show vs. Mayweather Jr. recieving a 7 out of 10 stars and the triple threat match for the WWE championship recieving 6.5 out of 10 stars. Please add the reception section to this article with this information as many of the WWE and TNA pay per view articles have reception sections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali92shah (talk • contribs) 09:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC) 

Why are there literal descriptions of moves rather than the simple names for them?
Example:
Batista won the match by pinning Umaga after he sat Umaga on his shoulders and slammed him down in a sitting position.
That's a Batista Bomb, and I don't understand why the quality of the article was downgraded like this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.179.122.109 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 

Because of WP:PW's WP:PW/MOS.--SRX 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Of coarse the current system is wrong. Wanting to be OOU is one thing, but not using the actual names of the moves? That is why we link the names of the moves, so people can find a description of the move. I agree with the IP. TJ Spyke 21:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
TJ, you were gone while the new system was established. A clear consensus was formed, many and many people opposed it, but once everyone agreed on a system, the one in the MOS, they supported it. See WP:JARGON and WP:IN-U as to why the system was formed.--SRX 21:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but if anything it should be like "Batista won the match by pinning Umaga after a Batista Bomb (lifting Umaga on his shoulders and slamming him down in a sitting position)." TJ Spyke 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Well it can be interpreted in many ways, and the one you have is one. See Over the Edge (1999) for a very different format.--SRX 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

IMatthew, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Bad Blood (2003)/archive1. An image reviewer explained why the DVD cover should not be included.--SRX 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Show me a discussion. One image reviewer is not a consensus. ayematthew ✡ 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Like the reviewer stated, the FUR for the DVD does not give an elaborate explanation to its purpose. If a poster was needed, then a poster should be uploaded in the infobox versus a DVD cover. Since Pro wrestling and film articles are related see MOS:FILM#Home media.--SRX 18:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should mention that Wrestlmania XXIV won an award for Best Major Show for the Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards.  
24/01/2009
Mmr30 (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmr30 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC) 

If you can source it, then WP:BOLD. TJ Spyke 15:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok i have added that Wrestlemania 24 has recieved an award for the the best major show by the wrestling observer newsletter. I you want a reliable source than there is an article here at wikipedia named Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards go and search there and you will find out that this event did indeed recieve an award for the Best major Show. Or go to www.wrestlingobserver.com to find out what are the awards yourself you will have to be member. Please don't remove this info i am just trying to add as much info about the event as possible. Summerslam also recieved an award for the best major show in 2002 and it has been added to its article. Ok any objections.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali92shah (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 

You point to the WON article, the problem is that no source is provide on that page either. See WP:RS for how to add sources. You might have problems here though since sources that require paid membership are usually discouraged (if you can find another reliable source that includes the info, that would be preferred). TJ Spyke 20:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is a reliable source.http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=540178, now please put that it won the award.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.200.243 (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 

A messageboard is not a reliable source, and that user just uses Wikipedia as their source (and a unsourced Wikipedia article on top of that). 07:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you people have against wwe, cant take the fact that they put on the best ppv that year? just put the reward in the recaption table. Also ask yourself why would the message board lie? it clearly shows the winners, runner-ups and the number of votes for the canditate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.200.243 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 

I have nothing against WWE, I love WWE. You can't use a Wikipedia article to source another Wikipedia article, plain and simple (and that is what you want to do here as the messageboard post flat out says they just copied the information from Wikipedia). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TJ Spyke 18:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Where in the hell does it say that they used wikipedia?, all they say is that "For previous winners go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrestli...sletter_awards", also why is Wrestlemania XXIV still listed in the Best Major Show
section in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards article?

"For previous winners go to http://en.wikipedia....", does that ring a bell? The Awards article is a completely unsourced mess. Also, I pointed you to the article on why messageboard are almost never considered reliable. Some random person on a random messageboard is not the slightest bit reliable. TJ Spyke 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is another source which needs membership to the website http://wrestlingclique.com/independent-wrestling/100019-wrestling-observer-awards-rohs-results.html, if this is'nt good enough then you might as well remove wrestlemania from the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.235.149 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC) 
You know what? the person that is refusing to acknowledge this 5-star ppv won the best major show award, has to be a (Personal attack removed), tna is a joke to the wresting business have you seen that ring, hell even bishoff ripped that shithole organsion apart. for those who are interseted he was asked the question "What was the thinking behind doing CCW? Surely you and Hulk could have made a lot of money by going to TNA or even going back to work for WWE?", his replie was "Neither one of us were interested in TNA. It’s a small organisation that doesn’t have very much vision. The best way to describe it is like WWE-lite. There was nothing exciting there for Hulk or myself. Although Dixie Carter is a nice woman, and I’m sure very intelligent, the rest of the people in senior management there are not the sort of people we would like to work with. he was then asked the question "Have TNA approached you at all about working for them?", he replied, "Sure they have. 
But look, the people that are involved in the creative process and vision for TNA are people that couldn’t get a job in WWE or shouldn’t have had a job in WCW. There’s no vision for that company. They are people who have never been to the dance. They’ve never been a part, really, of any of the decision-making processes that led to the success of the industry. 
Some of them happen to have been working there while other people did it, but have never really done it for themselves. They just don’t have the feel for it. So that’s the reason we wouldn’t want to be there. For me to sit down and say “listen guys, this is what you have to do to be successful” would be like telling a three-year-old how to fly an aeroplane. You can try all you want, they’re never going to get it." Oh and here is a link to that interview, just incase that (Personal attack removed), http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/wrestling/article2211886.ece 
Also I took the time (2 mins actualy) to find another source in which tna is a embarrsment and PROOF that it won the worst show of 2007 & 2008 by a landslide, http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/stories/iMPACT_Tapings_Tonight_iMPACT_Named_Worst_TV_.shtml
If you think about it wikipedia used to be the best place to find accurate info but now after encountering this bullshit, this website sucks, every single wrestling website says that wrestlemania 24 WON the award for best major show of 2008, EVERY WEBITE YOU (Personal attack removed), but your just a (Personal attack removed). Oh and for that comment you made "For previous winners go to http://en.wikipedia....", does that ring a bell", they said go to wikipedia if you want to know who won LAST YEARS AWARDS, they did'nt "say soure: wikipedia" you (Personal attack removed). After giving two websites as reliable sources you just ignore them all there say is left to say is screw you.

Look kids, it is a WWE mark. Now listen, shut up. The whole TNA vs WWE thing is old, stupid, childish, etc. The reason it is not mentioned is there is no source for it. You've given sources regrading Bishoff, who ran a company into the ground and thinks anyone can wrestling, but have given no reliable source for this award yet. Yes, it did win it, but a reliable source is still needed to credit it in this article.--WillC 10:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
(Personal attacks removed)
Notice how "willc" defended the guy who refuses to acknowledge the award? is there something there something there not telling us? ali
LOL, Maybe TJ Spykes and willc are lovers. CSW

LOL Paul Heymen commended TNA last year after Lockdown. He says they deserve better rating than they get. We will not put the award in until a source comes. But I'm talking to someone who is brainwashed, so what is the point. Also, TJ doesn't hate WWE. You just don't like the rules. Anyone who disagrees with you, you think hates WWE. TJ nor I hate WWE. So you couldn't be more wrong with your accusations.--WillC 12:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If wwe won the award then why not put it up it clearly says on f4online.com that they won, if you look at some articles some don't have sources next to them, also if tj spyke and will are lovers then why should that effect the article, guys whatver the two of you do in you time is up to the two you but please don't keep the facts away, and judging by the two sources given by the user that gave the sources they should be relible. Singh2king1000
The guy that put up the sources has got a point, those sources looked hard to get, and still the two users are denying them. No wonder he snapped. If you look at the wrestling observer newsletter award section the "sources" dont take you to the websites. Maybe if two new users came in instead of will and tj whatever, or maybe just put  the award in the recaption area. Govinda sharma  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.235.185 (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 
Just to note paul hayman said the main event at lockdown was good but who knows where you got the shit from. Hayman critized tna for not having any talent apart from ex-wwe/wcw, he said "when you look at anyone noone represents tna. maybe the other users are right that will and tj are lovers. If thats the case why would they have something against the ppv, unless there just sad in not adding the award. Jim ray

Okay, now everybody quit talking about TNA. This isn't about TNA. I said after Lockdown. I was talking about when Heyman stated that TNA deserved better ratings by giving a PPV match on free tv with Samoa Joe facing Kurt Angle. I don't know TJ. I'm straight and he probably is as well, but I don't know. (Redacted) Sites that require you to become a member to use it hurts its reliability. It is harder to determine how it checks its facts. There are only few reliable wrestling sites. Not any old site will do.--WillC 12:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
(Redacted) Reddevil  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.235.185 (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 

This discussion is over if you can't be civil. Forget, it is over anyway. Bye.--WillC 12:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
To be honest this page is a little interesting, ever since tj refused entry for the award there as been a guy that has given some sources that look legit it even has the number of votes, the sources looked hard to get no wonder he was pissed, he probley got the anger out, but the comment that will made probley made things worse. An apology is looks to be in order. Alekh Buboo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.235.185 (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 
LOL Ali was right will is off to shag tj spykes, but still they need to get page and there needs to be new users. Reddevil  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.235.185 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 
Lets just say will and tj got proven OWNED BADLY. LOL. Axel Wright  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.235.185 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 

Um, how? You have yet to provide any reliable sources for the award. And you aren't fooling anybody by writing a different name. The policies have already been pointed out to you but you ignore, you are acting like a troll with you comments and will be blocked from editing if you continue attacking editors. TJ Spyke 15:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
(Personal attacks removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.196.53 (talk • contribs) 

One more remark like that, I will be forced to ask for your ip to be blocked for refusing to remain civil.--WillC 14:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

im sure most of you would know that Wrestling observer voted this as the show of the eyar for 2008..i don't know if this has been stated but it should be added...--Ruthless-paki (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD and WP:RS. Also, please read a talkpage before posting a topic as this is mentioned already (right above this section). TJ Spyke 20:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

19:18, 9 June 2008 Acalamari protected WrestleMania XXIV ‎ (Recent vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])
That was 16 months ago.  I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary.  As well as welcoming views from regular editors I've contacted user talk:Acalamari, the protecting admin. --TS 19:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the request here, though I'll link to it from this page to let others see what I said there. I don't mind unprotecting this article. Acalamari 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I have no problem with the article being unprotected now. If vandalism returns, we can just request protection again. TJ Spyke 19:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION OF RAVEN-SYMONE'S APPEARANCE AT THIS SHOW AND I DEMAND THAT YOU ALL FIX THIS IMMEDIATELY! HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY SAY THAT IS ARTICLE IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING RAVEN SYMONE'S AMAZING APPEARANCE AT THE SHOW!? THAT IS A PIECE OF CRUCIAL INFORMATION AND THE LACK OF IT MAKES THIS ARTICLE A LIE WITHOUT IT!!! FIX IT NOW!!!190.59.6.228 (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Most celebrity appearances are listed on the main WrestleMania article.--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I hate how IP's don't know basic Internet etiquette and make demands, especially since they don't realize they are not helping their cause. Maybe the article should mention the involvement of the different celebs. TJ Spyke 21:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

45 people were injured and several hospitalized, but all mention of the event is relegated to "aftermath" and discusses only the fact that the WWE was criticized.  I'd think that dozens injured in a fireworks accident should have more prominence and a mention in the lede.  It looks like someone buried an unpleasant fact. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This was a very good WrestleMania, and it was highly praised all over the world and the internet. Until 2014, it was stated in the Reception section that this event was met with positive critical acclaim. But then some new user who has been on the wiki edit team for only 2 years, without any valid reason removed that part based on this personal perceptions. What gives him the right to do that and modify edits by legitimate wiki users who have been around longer than him and when the event actually took place? All WrestleMania articles in the reception section have satements on whether they were met with positive, mixed and negative receptions. All the big matches of WrestleMania were good and received high raings, he career threatening mach received a 10/10. This was one of the very few WrestleManias named best major wrestling show of the year of Dave Meltzer's wrestling observer and newsletter. I have undone the edits by the 2 year member Romanian user and re-wrote that the event received positive critical acclaim.

Just because I joined in 2015, it doesn't mean that I'm not experienced at all. The thing is that you reverted to version from 2 years ago, which had issues with both writings and unsourced content. And no, don't add the Best Major Show of 2008 by Wrestling Observer, unless it's from the site itself, not from Wikipedia (which is not a reliable source). Nickag989talk 09:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Thats no valid reason tor you to remove it received positive critical reception either, the high ratings of the matches are good enough to say that, and go check the wrestling observer newsletter website, it states its the best major show there too. I have addressed the matter on wikipedia help desk too. Until 2014 it was stated the event received positive critical reception, and I don't see what logic makes you remove that other than your personal perception. All the other WrestleMania articles with reception section have statements whether they had mixed, positive or negative review. I am sorry for any personal attack, I was very angry. But please re add the fact that this event had positive reception!

Don't be mad about that bit. I will add that, but the problem is, there's just one source. All the other Mania's had more of them. If there were more sources that say that it was well received, I have no problem, but it doesn't matter that much. Nickag989talk 10:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok take your time, and sorry for being a bit disrespectful, you are a good editor, and I will not challenge any of your edits again. Bu please consider adding back the positive review part. Thats all, take care!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengoman1993 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)