Talk:WrestleMania

message: Each Wrestlemania has a few of its matches mentioned in this article, usually the title matches and the other acclaimed matches. The Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels at Wrestlemania 25 was a classic, and we are not talking in just the qualitative sense here but it can be quantified since it won Match of the Year from Wrestling Observer Newsletter, PWI Illustrated, WWE Slammy Awards, and also won a lot of acclaim from the reviews of Slam! Canoe wrestling, The Sun and many other journals. WWE.com itself called it one of the greatest matches of all time. It also made it to the front page of the Houston Chronicle, and it was the first time in 22 years that a pro-wrestling match did that (after Hogan vs Andre at Mania 3). 
So, YES, Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels was ACCLAIMED - it is a fact. Anyone who removes its mention must first justify as to why he is removing it from the article and why other matches which were not so acclaimed (e.g., Chris Jericho vs the legends at Wrestlemania 25) are allowed to remain mentioned. Mayankeagle (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You already posted the same comment a few weeks ago. Its in the archive now. However, I'll reply to your post again. This page is just a summary of some of the matches that have taken place at Mania over the years. A Taker/Michaels match is already listed for XXVI and already makes note of their match from XXV. --UnquestionableTruth-- 18:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: However, it is not mentioned how acclaimed the Wrestlemania XXV match was, so it perhaps deserves a mention. Several other matches which happened more than once are also mentioned in their Wrestlemania descriptions, like Austin vs Rock. Not sure why this one does not deserve a mention considering how successful it was. Mayankeagle (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the reason they may be mentioned twice is because they are not consecutively mentioned in each WrestleMania. They in fact are one or two WrestleMania's apart. Remember, this isn't a list of ALL important WrestleMania matches. Some may be listed while others won't. Besides, the tidbit about the WrestleMania XXV match is already heavily mentioned at WrestleMania XXV. No worries. --UnquestionableTruth-- 07:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mentioned that it was an acclaimed match. The rematch is mentioned as "highly acclaimed" whereas the original isn't  mentioned as even acclaimed, which sends the message that it was not, although it was since it unanimously won Match of The Year from almost all journals. Four  words "in an acclaimed match" won't kill the article, especially since its a fact and verifiable. If its removed, it should be done only if the match was not acclaimed - which is not the case. Mayankeagle (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels Wrestlemania 25 mention 

message: Hulk Was in the in the main event in each of the first nine, this says Rowdy Rodd Piper was in the 2nd. rather confusing there.Lihaas (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1-9 

message: It seems like POV is employed when it comes to listing main events, so I think we should stick to just listing the actual main event. For example, with WM25, Shawn Michaels/Undertaker was one of the most heavily promoted matches on the card, and a focal point in the build up. Why is it not considered a main event, but the throwaway Chavo/Kane match from WM24 is? -- Scorpion0422 04:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We kinda spent some time covering it here  Additionally, Undertaker matches tend to be heavily promoted but aren't necessarily considered main events, with the clear exception of WM26. Ever since the brand extension there has been clear examples of consistent multi main events in the card. The problem is with the last discussion we were trying to conclude which matches should be listed. With the brand extension and the effect it's had on PPVs why not list simply list the highest promoted match from each brand. --UnquestionableTruth-- 07:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind that this is your first reply to my response in two months, during which you've seemingly reverted the page time and time again. If we can get into a discussion without throwing in our points of view on certain things, I think we can get a consensus down. As noted above, multi main events is a term that does exists in sports cards. The way WWE has usually done things is promote the biggest match of each brand as a main event. If a match can be cited as being a main event by the promoter then its just a simple issue of noting those matches in the article. --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Believe it or not, I was rather busy over the last two months, so I had no desire to get into a large debate with you. Reverting vandalism is much easier than debating though, which is why I've assisted in maintaining the page. The biggest problem is that the definition of main event varies. For example, why is Chavo/Kane from WM24, a match never promoted by the company as a main event, listed, but not Flair/Michaels from the same show, which the company considered making the actual main event (and, indeed, several WWE folks said afterwards that it should have). Other examples exist. Why Kane/Undertaker from WMXX, but not Undertaker/Michaels from WM25, another match which was heavily promoted and considered for the final match on the show? (Presumably, it's because someone around here is a Kane fan) Because of these (and other) inconsistancies, we should limit it the actual final match on the card. -- Scorpion0422 23:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, if it can be cited that the match was promoted as a main event, then it simply can be listed. On the notes under the Dates, venues, and main events section, #1 states "With the introduction of a second world heavyweight title in September 2002, every WrestleMania since has featured at least two main-events on the card." Through this, the World title match post Mania X8 can be listed as well as the ECW title at Mania XXIV. Note #2 states "Promotional materials for the PPV highlight an additional main-event that does not involve a heavyweight title" and then goes on to list the matches which did not involve the heavyweight title but were noted to be main events through promotional material. Kane/Taker at XX was not cited but was added by someone as a main event. Michaels/Taker at XXV was neither cited nor added. This in an issue of simply maintaining the article (keeping an eye on it). Again if it can cited then it can be added. It's the only way we're ever going to keep in NPOV.--UnquestionableTruth-- 23:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the easiest way to keep this NPOV is to follow what the WWE says. In the old version of their website, every page for a Wrestlemania also included a "Main Event" section, which listed the last match on the card. I also have a copy of WWE magazine's WM26 special, which has a section on main events, and only counts the final match on each card (though in fairness, it might not be the best source since to them, the WMXX main event no longer exists). I should also point out that the WWE never really considered the ECW title to be a world championship. I'd have no problem with including bouts such as Hogan/Rock which were the real main event of the show even if they weren't last. But, the problem is that people have varying opinions about main events. For example, Edge/Del Rio from this year. It was for the World Heavyweight title, and a great match. But, at best it was the fifth highest promoted match on the card, and it even opened the show. You could make a very strong argument that Cole/Lawler should also be included (since it was called a "main event" by the company numerous times). And, I could probably dig up a source that calls Orton/Punk a main event as well. As such, we should eliminate all possibility for opinion and POV, and just limit it to the last match on the card (which is what several WWE sources go by). -- Scorpion0422 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I find numerous instances of POV in your response, by which I mean arguments that cannot be cited by any source. For example, your view on WWE's stance on the ECW Championship, the Edge/del Rio match's promotional value, and probably WWE's statements on the Cole/Lawler match.--UnquestionableTruth-- 00:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's why I'm arguing that we need to stick to what the WWE says or a strict guideline. -- Scorpion0422 23:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize then that according to WWE, the winner of the RR earns a main event spot at Mania, something that evidently (again per WWE) doesn't necessarily mean the last match on the card. If WWE.com noted that del Rio would main event Mania as a result of his RR win, then the match itself is a main event per WWE.com, regardless of the match order. The same goes for the similar cases in which the winner of the RR did not end up on the final match of the card despite WWE's promotion of that individual's match as a main event (WM 22/23/24/26). Additionally, as already noted within the article, WWE has promoted matches as main events despite no championship being involved. My point  is that the article has been going by what WWE says before you decided there was something wrong with it, which is why I sense some POV involved. Finally, what you refer to as the possibility of WP coming up with "a strict guideline" regarding what is and isn't to be listed pretty much comes down to notability. What I mean by that is should we ask the question, "is listing every main event on the main page infobox really notable or does it qualify as cruft?" In other words that "strict guideline" means we either list the main events on the Dates and venues section or not.--UnquestionableTruth-- 00:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You say, "the article has been going by what WWE says," which is untrue, as shown by what their website says regarding the first 21 Wrestlemanias. Also, when I say "strict guideline", I meant going by the last match on the card. -- Scorpion0422 03:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I guess you're right on that one. Any match that can be referenced by WWE.com as a main event should be included. But the key is to have refs, to avoid the old game of editors adding their favourite matches. -- Scorpion0422 17:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.--UnquestionableTruth-- 00:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The only match WWE really did promote was Triple H and Undertaker's Match.--Voices in my Head WWE 01:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

text: "Actually, the easiest way to keep this NPOV is to follow what the WWE says." Actually, that's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what NPOV means. That's WWEPOV which isn't the policy here.  If WWE said that Hulk Hogan was the 1st man to walk on the moon we wouldn't add it to Wikipedia because it's not true.  There can't be more than one MAIN event, just like there can't be more than one opening match.  The last match of the show is the main event, period- it's not the mainest main event, there's a reason there's no such word as "mainest".  No matter what the WWE wants to say, they don't have the authority to change the English language.  Just like how tomorrow's Royal Rumble is being billed as the 25th anniversary when it's actually the 25th Rumble, and the 24th anniversary (your wedding night isn't your 1st anniversary). The whole concept of putting more than one main is actually violating NPOV as we're towing WWE's bullshit line, if WWE wants to call every match the main event on TV & WWE.com they can but it's not encyclopedic and thus wouldn't belong here. --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, I was only able to find refs for the first 21 Wrestlemanias. -- Scorpion0422 00:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Your preaching to the choir buddy. Problem is there are too many stubborn editors with WP:PW who want to keep it like this. I'm not one of them but they're a lot.--Voices in my Head WWE 22:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Again, your preaching to the choir, and again, the problem is there are too many stubborn editors with WP:PW who want to keep it like it is.--Voices in my Head WWE 23:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Main events

message: I received a tweet from Jericho saying that WM29 might be held in toronto for the 3rd time.66.108.210.86 (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not knowing if this is reliable or not but... 

message: The table is broken with the list of WrestleMania's.  Everything that should be after the table is in the WrestleMania 29 entry of the table.
I would fix it, but I don't know the syntax.
Anthony (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Table 

message: The article includes the statement "The event has facilitated the rise to stardom of wrestlers including Hulk Hogan, Rowdy Roddy Piper, Macho Man Randy Savage, The Ultimate Warrior, The Undertaker, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, Steve Austin, The Rock, Triple H, Chris Jericho, Kurt Angle, John Cena, and CM Punk."
It seems like people just kept adding main eventers, without really understanding what the statement means. It means that the event helped make them a main eventer in the eyes of the fans and cemented their rise. I'd argue that WrestleMania had little to do with the rise of a good portion of those wrestlers. Hogan and Piper were already established main eventers by WM1, but I suppose the event did help make them household names, so I have no problem with them.
But, Bret Hart was already a main eventer by WM9. After all, he went in as champion. And in the events before that, he never really had that legacy-cementing match. Same with The Rock, Triple H, Chris Jericho and Kurt Angle. Hell, Angle didn't main event until 2003 and he was already a star by then. CM Punk is also questionable, but I didn't remove them, because the two MITB matches he won led to him winning the title. -- Scorpion0422 13:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "The event has facilitated the rise to stardom of wrestlers including"

message: Are fans simply deciding who headlined based on how "big" they felt the matches were? Unless WWE promotional materials specifically stated that a card had a "double/triple/quadruple" main event, then the match that closed the show is the sole main event. WrestleMania VIII had a legitimate double main event, but I don't recall seeing Daniel Bryan vs. Sheamus being billed on any WWE promotional materials as a main event. Also, if you're going to use the picture that appeared on the event poster to position that person's match as a main event, then consider this: The Miz was the poster for the recent Survivor Series, yet was of no consequence on the card. This section needs serious revision, because all we have is a bunch of original research and fan opinion, with very little in the way of official WWE sources. أنا أحبك (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, dreadful article. "I love CM Punk, so he headlined WrestleMania!" No, he absolutely didn't.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.178.54 (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Main event matches

message: The mention of Undertakers loss under the 90's section sounds odd and out of place. I believe it should be removed all together since it is mentioned again under the 2010 section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by B2daisa (talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undertakers loss mentioned in 90's section as well as 2010's 

message: You look like a douche B2daisa (talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who broke the page trying to guess Wrestlemania XXXII main event? 

message: The WrestleMania 33 location is not confirmed. Please stop adding bogus locations, even rumored ones.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deusamator (talk • contribs) 06:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just revert any claims on sight unless it's sourced. Mister Q101 (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WrestleMania 33 location not confirmed  

message: Hogan vs Yokozuna was not the main event of Wrestlemania 9. It should be changed to Hart vs Yokozuna as that was the advertised main event 2.222.103.94 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Hogan vs Yokozuna was the final match of the event, and is thus considered the main event. Also shown in WrestleMania 31, where Reigns vs Lesnar was advertised, although Reigns vs Lesnar vs Rollins was the final match. JTP (talk • contribs) 01:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2017 

message: For Wrestlemania 9, Yokozuna should be put first as he was the defending champion and Hogan's name should be highlighted as he's already been mentioned. For Wrestlemania 10, Bret Hart's name should be highlighted as he is mentioned for the first time. 2.222.103.94 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Done JTP (talk • contribs) 20:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2017 

message: The Night Is Ours by The Funshiners was used for a WrestleMania 34 commercial during the WrestleMania 33 PPV. Should The Night Is Ours be listed as an official song for WrestleMania 34? - 2A02:C7D:C84:9900:FD6D:FEFB:8FA1:46AA (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "The Night Is Ours" an official song for WrestleMania 34? 

message: How can you have three main events, roman v taker was the final match Vikramrat (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestlemania 33  

message: There have now been 33 'manias so the mention of 30 taking place in America and 2 in Canada should really be updated to 31 and 2 respectively.
86.2.34.39 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on WrestleMania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100403082320/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2010/2010_3_28.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2010/2010_3_28.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717164401/http://www.universityofphoenixstadium.com/index.php?page=press§ion=stadium_features&feature_id=69 to http://www.universityofphoenixstadium.com/index.php?page=press§ion=stadium_features&feature_id=69
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1999_March_26/ai_54217444/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm15/factsstats/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2001/2001_09_03.jsp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2009/2009_02_24.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I strongly suggest we return to a column named "final match" (which was far better), with a couple notes stating that the final matches of WM9 and WM31 arose in irregular circumstances. What is particularly concerning is that we have multiple WrestleManias listed as having three main events, while the official WWE website lists only one WM as having a double main event: WM8. Editors are just indulging themselves at the expense of the encyclopedia, pulling totally unreferenced "main events" out of their asses because they want to re-write history with their favourite stars "headlining" the show. So, how about we fix this abomination? Cheers. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:C92B:3F9F:4AC3:5155 (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we please stop just making up "main events"? This article is a disgrace. 

message: Where is wm 35 The reaper of lost souls (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is officially announced for it. - GalatzTalk 14:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

text: What about now? Its currently listed in two different places. That not good enough for you? - GalatzTalk 02:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestlemania 35 

message: Wrestlers that are mentioned for the first time in the main event e.g. Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton should be linked to their Wikipedia pages 2A02:C7D:2588:7000:E97D:51CC:128D:DE9 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Fixed it in the meantime. Nickag989talk 18:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018 

message: John Cena should be linked as well, first mentioned at Mania 22 2A02:C7D:2588:7000:E97D:51CC:128D:DE9 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Spintendo      01:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018 

message: Addition of this passage is proposed
"For the fourth consecutive year in 2017, Forbes has named WrestleMania one of the 10 most valuable sports events in the world, ranking at number 6 behind only the Super Bowl, Summer Olympics, Winter Olympics, the FIFA World Cup and the NCAA Final Four."
Please discuss it here prior to re-adding it to the article. Gryllida (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it belongs in the lead (compare WP:LEAD: "a summary of its most important contents" - this isn't one of the article's most important contents), and certainly not supported by a bunch of WWE press releases. Also, the wording seems less than neutral to me, and the Forbes source itself doesn't say what it's cited for. The "Organization" or "History" sections seem the appropriate place for that content. Since it's currently in the "Organization" section, I'll leave it there; if someone wants to move it to the "History", I wouldn't object. Huon (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing this! Really appreciated. Gryllida (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re <span class="plainlinks">[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania&type=revision&diff=832751825&oldid=832751581&diffmode=source this diff]</span> 

message: Can someone do something with the commentary timeline table thing? It's too big (as in size) and there's too many black bars that cover the names. 188.26.69.125 (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2019 

message: It really is ridiculous to have three "Final matches" for Wrestlemania 2. The entire event was aired as one show from three separate locations. There was only one final match of the show and that was Hogan vs Bundy.  
WM9's final match was Hogan vs Yoko not Bret vs Yoko
Lastly, while Wrestlemania 36 was two nights, it was STILL technically ONE event simply split into 2 nights. WWE Network themselves list the show as "Wrestlemania 36 Part 1" and "Wrestlemania 36 Part 2" on the network. The final match of this 2 night event was Brock Lesnar vs Drew McIntyre. Until WWE acknowledges AJ Styles as having "main evented" a Wrestlemania or the Undertaker having "main-evented" five Mania's, Wrestlemania 36 should be left as Brock vs Drew as the final match. 24.38.208.110 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: WrestleMania 2, 9 and 36 Final Matches

message: Please remove this event from the dates and venues table, as this has not been confirmed by WWE to be part of WrestleMania in any way. We've already had this discussion on the WrestleMania Backlash page. Unless WWE confirms the event's lineage to be apart of WrestleMania itself, we should not make any assumptions. The name mearly implies that it will involve the fallout from this year's WrestleMania. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two reliable sources which back it up. — Czello 15:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Are one of the sources WWE? They would know better than any other dirt sheet website as to whether or not a PPV is part of their WrestleMania history or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRESTLEMANIA BACKLASH 2021 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:WrestleMania 40 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: In the nickname section “ Grandaddy of them all”. Needs to be removed. That was the nickname for WCW’s Starcade Pay per view, not wrestlemania 2600:1700:FFD0:5020:D936:B356:DDA:88AC (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

text: @2600:1700:FFD0:5020:D936:B356:DDA:88AC I don't close this case, I believe this can be proved by you. So please give me a source, and I will help you. Lemonaka (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023 

message: Hi, please remove the Chris Jericho vs CM punk match as it was not the main event of wrestlemania 28. It was John Cena vs the Rock. No other wrestlemania list a co-main event. Thank 68.132.104.196 (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  — Czello 08:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestlemania 28 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Not sure why Dave Meltzer is included in this article nor why he's credited as a "sports journalist." He's a non-credible critic that is best known for reporting inaccurate information about the industry. 2600:6C50:6000:18D4:344C:9F81:F277:7ADF (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: Please see WP:MELTZER — Czello (music) 07:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2024