Talk:WrestleMania 25/Archive 1

I'll upload the logo soon
I took a screenshot of the WM25 logo and hopefully will add it later today unless someone else beats me.

Darn beat me to the article. Meepboy (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure that real and is it too early to know what the theme song is Supermike(talk) 20:45 April 7 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It really was played on the advert, but whether it will eventually become the theme song only time will tell. As a matter of fact, the Reliant Park's website already has the advert with the song dubbed out. -- Oakster  Talk 10:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Odds are there will be a new song, WWE likes songs within a years old these days for WM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.37.174 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

April 5? Update the results it's already late —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.145.125.100 (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since WrestleMania XXv is scheduled for 2009, I don't think it's late at all. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Date for Wrestlemania 25
Ive just gone onto wwe.com and it says on there upcoming ppv's that Wrestlemania will be on 03.05 so may it be changed or may it be considered a mistake by the wwe?? you know spelling error kind of thing but with numbersDeadman lastride666 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked and it says 4.05 on their site. Must have been a error when you checked.  TJ   Spyke   16:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i just checked it again it back to the 4.05 so it was an error just wanted to be sure though thanks for clearing it upDeadman lastride666 (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Tickets go on sale...
September 20, according to WWE.com and there is a new logo as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.139.107 (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the new logo is not the official logo, its just a promotional logo, unless stated otherwise in the future by WWE.-- S R X   01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Date
I'm not sure why this was deleted from the main article, but I just wanted to point it out: Although WWE's promotional materials for the event bill it as the "25th anniversary" of Wrestlemania, it is in fact only the 24th anniversary since the first event took place in March of 1985 (it is the 25th occurance of the event, but it has been only 24 years since the first). Philliplybrand (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)PL
 * Anniversary also refers to the celebration of an occurrence of an event, thus being 25 WM's and the 25th anniversary of WrestleMania.-- S R X   01:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the current Wikipedia article for the term "anniversary," Wrestlemania 25 will actually be the 24th anniversary of the event. The first Wrestlemania took place in March of 1985, and 2009 - 1985 = 24. 2009 will mark the 25th occurance of the event, but the inagural occurance of an event (1985) is not the first anniversary. The first anniversary of Wrestlemania was in 1986. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philliplybrand (talk • contribs) 01:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Misuse of the the term "anniversary"
 * So what's your point? It's just yet another error in WWE's marketing, these mistakes have happened before and theu'll happen again. Why is this particular mistake notable enough for mention here? -- Scorpion0422 04:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the same thing happens everywhere; wedding anniversary, they count the inagural occurance of an event too. Mecha13 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who do you know that does that? I've never seen a couple (for example) that has been married for 1 year say "this is our second anniversary". I am not sure about other events, but this never happens with things like wedding anniveraries, deaths, births, etc.  TJ   Spyke   17:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the same thing with the Super Bowl, Super Bowl XXV was refferred to as the Silver Anbniversary of the game, but yet it was played 24 years and about 12 days after the first one. It is just something done in sporting events, get over it.68.191.13.235 (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
This is rather like the "year zero" debate. There will always be two opinions on it. I think that the reader is the important thing in an encyclopedia:we build it for them to read it. As such, if the company and those involved in the event call the event the 25th Anniversary, then that's what the article should state. Why I feel this is a) to avoid confusion for the reader (Poster says 25th, Wikipedia says 24th ??!!??) and b) it is the name of an event. If the Superbowl series decided that they were going to call the next Superbowl, Superbowl 200; it'd raise some eyebrows, but it'd be perfectly legal. AS such, the term becomes marketing and if that's what they call it, that's what they call it. We can have a private opinion, just like the year zero debate. :-) Fr33kman talk APW 05:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Main Event
It has been Roumored The Undertaker vs HBK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.174.113 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes rumoured. We need a reliable source to add it to the article. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 17:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Should it not be Randy Orton vs HHH or Edge, as Orton won the Royal Rumble match and it's traditional for the Rumble winner to be in the main event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.7.130 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We won't know the main event until the PPV happens. The Royal Rumble winner is SUPPOSED to be in the main event, but doesn't always get it. Take WrestleMania XI for example, the main event was Lawrence Taylor vs. Bam Bam Bigelow (instead of Diesel vs. Shawn Michaels). WrestleMania 23 is another example; The Undertaker won the Royal Rumble, but his match with Batista for the WHC was only the 4th match of the event (out of 8 matches).  TJ   Spyke   00:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Logo
The current logo is not the one that is shown, that logo hasn't been used since March. The new logo has been used on new advertising and has been seen on Raw - therefore how is still the grey logo the current logo? Cookfan (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, the blue logo is not the official logo. But, the image is already in use. I am unsure whether it should stay like that or not because I uploaded the same image and put in on the article, but it was remove because it is not the official logo. So, I don't think it is actually the official logo. SAVIOR  _  SELF  .  777  03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reset the logo to the original Wrestlemania XXV logo, but if there is a consensus to change it back to the Wrestkemania 25 logo, then please by all means let me know and change it. Thanks and Happy Editing!  Hairy Perry  14:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
Ok lets come up with an agreement for the logo is it the Wrestlemania 25 logo or the Wrestlemania XXV. I'm tired of all this edit warring over this logo, so lets come up with a consensus on which one we will use to stop this edit warring on this logo, please and thank you.  Hairy Perry  15:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Logo
The new logo is the one that has the "25th Anniversary" on it. On the October 20, 2008 episode of Raw, promos for WrestleMania had that logo and not the one presented the night of WMXXIV. Also, on WWE.com, they call WMXXV.."The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" which coincides with the logo. -- S R X  21:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Only is used for ticket promotion I never seen it that did not mention tickets if you wanna be fair how about this: we don't use neither we wait until WWE launches the subpage (example:http://www.wwe.com/shows/cybersunday/) so what do you say? SuperSilver901 (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No because the official logo was presented this Monday on Raw, which you can see here at 01:25. I also got a screen image of it for you, .-- S R X  22:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I didn't watch Raw last night because it was so horrible it enough proof for me : ) SuperSilver901 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this event going to be officially called WrestleMania XXV, WrestleMania 25, or WrestleMania: 25th Anniversary? ViRaKhVaR321 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virakhvar321 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm seeing them use "25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" more often than anything else, especially on WWE.com. Jeff Silvers (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Event title
"25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" seems to be used the most, I've only ever seen WrestleMania XXV used during WM XXIV. Luther Hull (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right from the top of my head (I am a little busy with some last minute assignments for school right now), WWE's front page uses WrestleMania XXV.  TJ   Spyke   18:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Spyke, the chronological name of this event is "WrestleMania 25" or "WrestleMania XXV," as per World Wrestling Entertainment.--SRX 21:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This page suggests otherwise: WWE.com the weekend in general is being referred to as WrestleMania XXV but the event itself is being referred to as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania. Luther Hull (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But thats not the official website, wait until further confirmation.--SRX 22:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its WWE's official website what more do you want? The event's not called WrestleMania XXV, hence why its not on the logo. It's either called "25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" or "WrestleMania 25". Surely that's not difficult to see. Luther Hull (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It matters what the event is actually called and not referred to. WWE has yet to call it The 25th anniversary of WrestleMania, WrestleMania: The 25th anniversary, or anything with anniversary in its title. They simply refer to it as WrestleMania. It is for promotion purposes that they use anniversary, it is not the title of the event. Royal Rumble is around the corner and afterwards we will know what the official title is because that is all they will talk about.-- Will C  15:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename: WrestleMania XXV --> The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania
Discussion taking place at WT:PW (Wikiproject Professional wrestling). click here for discussion.--Truco 16:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It will be referred to as both...Wrestlemania 25 and the 25th Anniversary (of) Always Always look at history peeeple, X, 2000, XX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.145.53 (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But the official name is 25th Anniversary. Brady4mvp (Talk) 19:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't know that.  TJ   Spyke   19:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They're calling it all sorts of things. "WrestleMania XXV" (WWE.com), "WrestleMania 25" (also WWE.com), "WrestleMania 25th Anniversary" (the logo), "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" (the announce teams). IMO, there's actually no "official" name for the event since WWE can't seem to agree on a name. I say rename the page according to the logo and then just make a bunch of redirects (the logo should have the most precedence since it's what's used to promote the event). SuperSonicTH (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Time line for WMXXV
wwe just put up the schedule of events preceding WM. should that be added to the page? also idk how to sign, so i'll put it here ---ihavasthma91--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavasthma91 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mickey Rourke
I've just found a decent video source for Mickey Rourke's announcement about being at WrestleMania here. I was just wondering if it warrants a mention or not seeing as we don't know his actual involvement yet. -- Oakster  Talk 12:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

it is true, but you know how the poeple on the articles are, they wont add anything untill it been officialy announced my wwe--58.174.177.204 (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Being a part of as you say "the people of the articles", sources are not necessarily limited to WWE on its own. It's more of a case of the source given being reliable enough (i.e. not taken from the dirtsheets). Anyway, it has been placed into the article now so it seems okay. -- Oakster  Talk 20:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's official it is, and I think wrestleview and all that are good sources. Mecha13 (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, they're not.--ECWAGuru (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hes not going to Wrestlemania, anyway heres the link, even the Assoicated Press said he wasnt going to wrestlemania. http://www.wrestleview.com/news2009/1233222574.phpPookeo9 (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a dead link. Besides, all he has said is he is not gonna compete (which was never official anyways).  TJ   Spyke   17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed the link, I didnt know it was a dead link till now.--Pookeo9 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Light it up.
I just saw on RAW like, 2 minutes ago, that Light it up by Rev Theory is going to be used again as the theme song for 'Mania. 206.75.167.246 (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they clearly said "last year's theme song." -- Scorpion 0422  04:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this year's theme song will be by AC/DC, probably from the album (Black Ice).-- $eaneth   13:44, 28 January 2009 (GMT)
 * Just speculation, but everyone in music is saying it's going to be Shoot To Thrill. Wasn't it also played on a promo during the Rumble? --70.167.10.66 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the music in promos isn't always the final theme song. For example, the first one they used was "Cowboy" from Kid Rock.  TJ   Spyke   21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's going to be something by AC/DC CFountain (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename round 2: WrestleMania XXV -> The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania
See here-- TRU    CO   18:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can it be noted on the page that it's actually only the 24th Anniversary of WrestleMania, but due to the WWE having a superiority complex they've decided to rewrite the definition for this event? TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It already is noted under the production section.-- TRU  CO   04:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great job. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Past tense
Not going to lie -- I'm quite confused how a future event must be written in past tense (especially considering it has the "future event" tag, the rest of the article is written in future tense, oh...and the event hasn't happened yet). These policies make less and less sense to me by the day. --ECWAGuru (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, there is no reason to write about an event that won't happen for 2 months as if it has already happened.  TJ   Spyke   04:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here. That's really confusing. To Truco, since when has that been a policy, or just the accepted convention? ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 11:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting me out there =P At times it depends when to use past tense, some future articles can use past tense in the bg sections, see No Way Out (2009), but I don't think the production can so let me change it.-- TRU  CO   21:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"All Wrestlers"
Is it really accurate to say, "All wrestlers will be from WWE's Raw, SmackDown, and ECW brands—a storyline division in which WWE employees are assigned to a television program of the same name?" For example, let's say either Mickey Rourke or Ric Flair end up wrestling at the event. Neither one of them are "specific" to a brand. This is even an issue to be addressed in the Royal Rumble (2009) article; the same sentence was written there, but RVD was a one-time guest (and, thus, not assigned to a brand). --ECWAGuru (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the "All wrestlers" part needs to go. Something like "The event will consist of performers from the WWE's Raw, SmackDown and ECW brands." would be better. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Royal Rumble article should be updated accordingly, but I think the statement in that article should remain the same because Van Dam was a surprise entrant and not a planned/scripted entrant, so he isn't part of the background of the event. In this article, it should remain the same until WWE announces or acknowledges that someone other than a Raw/SmackDown/ECW wrestler will perform. Once that happens, it can be updates accordingly. All we need is the time, to wait.-- TRU  CO   03:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But considering WWE can always bring in an "unassigned" wrestler, wouldn't it be preferable to make a more preemptively accurate statement? Why make a blanket statement that will not always be correct? (For instance, WWE generally brings in a legend to wrestle at Cyber Sunday.) Something more general (along the lines of Tony's suggestion) will serve two functions: 1.) Ensure uniform accuracy from here on in. 2.) Prevent us from needing to go back and change inaccurate articles on a case-by-case basis (i.e., RVD in the Rumble).--ECWAGuru (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But we can't speculate (per WP:SPECULATION) whether WWE will do this, we have no official source that WWE will do this, which will violate WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. For now, its best to wait. I'm not against it, it is just best to wait for an official confirmation rather than violate policy.-- TRU  CO   03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't change it, but I think it's something worth discussing. (Although, technically, isn't writing "all wrestlers" a form of speculation?)--ECWAGuru (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't base a consensus on speculation or original research, so the best option is waiting. Hmmm, you make a point there. But not necessarily because per WWE's ticket information and event details, they have stated that wrestlers featured will all be from the Raw, SmackDown, and ECW brands. So not necessarily, however, once non-WWE brand assigned wrestlers will perform, we can update it accordingly. There is no harm in waiting.-- TRU  CO   03:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud!
IT'S NOT CALLED WRESTLEMANIA XXV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Luth (talk • contribs) 22:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)Don't shout, you only hurt your "argument". 2)See WT:PW for this discussion. 3)Remember to sign your posts.  TJ   Spyke   22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing JBL was wrong then other day when he said WrestleMania 25. It is called WrestleMania 25.--WillC 22:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

To end all arguing over the name
The logo is simply stating the event as WrestleMania's 25th anniversary. The actual event name is WrestleMania XXV/25, as stated by WWE.com and StubHub, respectively. End this bickering, as it's unproductive and going nowhere. ''' Dyla nlip (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What bickering? The many sections are spread out since the creation of the article. The consensus is to leave it where it is, so your comment is unproductive since you did not read any of the above or respective discussions.-- < TRU  CO  >  5 0  3 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This may be stuipd to ask but
You are going to put up the match for whatever title randy orton is going after tonight after NO WAY Out right?Supermike (talk) 1
 * Based on past years, we will add it whenever Orton announces which title he will challenge for.  TJ   Spyke   18:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)