Talk:WrestleMania XXIV

message: 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)
replies: text: -- Oakster  Talk  21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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

message: #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)
replies: text: -- Oakster  Talk  21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First paragraph 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Reception of the event

message: 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)
replies: text: Because of WP:PW's WP:PW/MOS.-- 21:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.-- 21:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.-- 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Descriptions of moves

message: IMatthew, see Wikipedia:Peer review/Bad Blood (2003)/archive1. An image reviewer explained why the DVD cover should not be included.-- 18:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me a discussion. One image reviewer is not a consensus. ayematthew</span> ✡ 18:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.-- 18:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD Cover 

message: 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)
replies: text: If you can source it, then WP:BOLD. TJ Spyke 15:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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. I'm against the gay movement anyway. 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)

text: This discussion is over if you can't be civil. Forget, it is over anyway. Bye.--WillC 12:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Best Major Show 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  best show of 2008 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Semiprotection review

message: 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)
replies: text: Most celebrity appearances are listed on the main WrestleMania article.--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  HOW DARE YOU PEOPLE!? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fireworks incident 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Positive Critical Acclaim 

message: Xxxxx 2401:4900:3DDC:2933:F993:19B1:97FA:D42 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xxxxx