Talk:WrestleMania 25/Archive 4

Proof that its the 25 Wrestlemania and not the 24
take a look at http://www.wwe.com/ and http://dictionary.reference.com/ and it will tell you that its Wrestlemania 25 25 year of Wrestlemania not 24 like so people have flase been saying although anyone that went to school know these —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are yoy still not understanding this? (Geez, it's like talking to a brick wall). NO ONE IS SAYING THIS IS THE 24TH WRESTLEMANIA. If you bother to look up the definition of "anniversary" you would know this. What you are trying to say is that the same day 2 people get married is their first anniversary ("Wow honey, we just got married today and it's already our first anniversary!").  TJ   Spyke   22:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

WOW do you need help understanding what a anniversary is I know what it is but hey you made wrestlemaina so we all wrong and you guys are right since you are the owner of WWE oh wait your not so could it be possible your wrong and guess what you are Not that hard to understand it 2009 its been 25 year since Vince made the PPV —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I do know what an anniversary is. You keep making it clear that you don't. WWE is free to market it that way and we note it, but we also note how it's not the 25th anniversary (it has NOT been 25 years since the first WrestleMania. It's like 3rd grade math= 2009-1985=24.) Do you intend to work on the article or are you just hear to try and invent a new definition for "anniversary"?  TJ   Spyke   22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Math not your strong point is it because you are wrong and see Im intend to fix it back to normal making it 25 anniversary since its been 25 years of Wrestlemania and since Wikipedia is 100 percent wrong I have every right to fix it Supermike] ([[User talk:Supermike|talk) 1 —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Gosh. WrestleMania I was not the anniversary of itself, WrestleMania II was the first anniversary of WrestleMania I. ₮  RU  C  Ө   22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way: we start on the year zero. Year one is the first anniversary, year two is the second anniversary. There was no WrestleMania Zero, there was only WrestleMania I. Thus WrestleMania 2 is the first anniversary of WrestleMania. Tony2Times (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. Even a three year old knows this. Supermike just forget it plz--Falegas (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 2 was not the first anniversary they did not take place on the same day  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.110.223 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a possible explanation....When Hulk Hogan defeated The Iron Sheik to win the WWF World Title it kicked off a new era in professional wrestling. Thus "Wrestlemania" in this case may not be referring to the actual PPV event, but rather a more abstract idea such as "WWF Attitude". In early 1985 Hogan had been World Champion for a year or so, and the first Wrestlemania PPV was a celebration of one year of The Wrestlemania Era. Most wrestling historians(such as they are) tend to mark wrestling as pre- or post- Hogan's win over Sheik. It was probably the single biggest turning point in pro wrestling history. In the same way that the "Austin 3:16 says I just kicked your ass" speech began a new era, so did early 1984...the Wreslemania era. Of course this is pure speculation, and may be complete bs on my part... 41.245.157.51 (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but we are talking about the event WrestleMania not the "era".--Best,  ₮  RU  C  Ө   15:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're just being stupid now. This is the 24th anniiversary; WWE is wrong, forget it.--Falegas (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

well We have 10 website that prove that its the 25  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 10 websites? Really? Can you list them all. Please make sure they are "reliable".--Best,  ₮  RU  C  Ө   20:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most likely these websites are simply including the tagline without giving much thought to wheteher or not it is true or not. I think this would be a textbook example of applying Use common sense since as demosterated it is physically impossble for this to be the 25th anavaersary meaning there is no logical reason for use to do so. --76.66.180.188 (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear God, this is the dumbest discussion we are having at the moment and that includes what we should name Christian's article. Spikemike or supermike whatever your name is, go up to your parents and ask them how long they have been married. What year they were married, and which anniversary they just celebrated and will. An anniversary is the celebration of a passed event. WWE are trying to re-write history. They figure it is more convenient to promote the 25th wrestlemania as an anniversary than doing it with wrestlemania 26 which wouldn't work in poor Vince's mind. WrestleMania 25 is the 25th WrestleMania, but not the 25th Anniversary of said event.-- Will C  21:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who suggested the "25 years since Hogan..." I am not Supermike. Obviously it is the 24th anniversary, not the 25th. Someone asked Jim Ross about this, and he said "It's easier to market it this way". As for Mike, what year were you born? On your next birthday how old will you turn? Why? Maybe WWE did this deliberately to get people to talk about the event? Since nobody is talking about seeing HHH-Orton for the millionth time....41.245.157.51 (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

PS. This does rather show up the flaws with wikipedia however. WWE themselves refer to it as the "25th Anniversary", loads of websites are referring to it as such, and people like supermike can link/source etc to dozens of respected and "Reliable" sources that use the "25th anniversary" tag. However, it obviously isn't the 25th anniversary. But are there any reliable sources as per WP:OR that could be included saying that it's NOT the "25th anniversary"? Remember, wikipedia is about sources, not facts! In this case, using wikipedia regulations to the detail, supermike wins, even though as anyone can work out by themselves, it's the 24th anniversary. But where is your reliable source? 41.245.157.51 (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Remember, wikipedia is about sources, not facts!" uh, no. You have that backwards. In this case we use common sense, No sources are needed. It is obvisously the 24th anniversay, no matter what anyone says. If WWE.com says cows are falling from the sky the day of WrestleMania and event will be held back because of it, and we look outside and see they are no cows falling, are we still supposed to say that falling cows are holding up the event? No, we state the event is being delayed for unknown reasons, since we can see no cows are falling from the sky; Vince or Joey Styles is just drunk. Now that might have been a bad senerio but you get the picture.-- Will C  10:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure that many people (myself included) ahve used that logic, only to be warned, or even blocked, when using common sense. And the person always says something to the effect of "Where is your source that states x?" There are numerous articles on wikipedia that state blatant bs, yet because someone has a link to a supposedly "Reliable" website, it stands as is. So you are now saying that common sense and logic is the final decider. Clearly that is not the case in general. Eg. the "bucket" example. A real discussion took place to the effect of this...

Person 1: If I told you I had a bucket, and I showed you the bucket, with the sales receipt, surely that would be sufficient to prove I had a bucket?

Wiki admin: NO! You would still need a reliable source stating that you had a bucket!

You can't have it both ways! Any fool can work out that WM XXV is the 24th anniversary of Wrestlemania, but wiki rules, re: sources and original research and what they are. You still have not provided a reliable source. Of course you are right, but the rules need to be uniform. 41.245.157.51 (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Read Use common sense.-- Will C  11:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To the IP, I would like to point out that the article already states that WWE is promoting it as the 25th anniversary (even though it's false).  TJ   Spyke   16:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also WP:IAR. Rules don't have to be consistant if ignoring them help the enclopedia and this seems like a clear case to apply this. --76.69.170.192 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is false, but where is your SOURCE that says it's false? Also, who decides that this is a clear case for IAR, while another page may not be? I know this is the 24th anniversary, yet there does not appear to be a RELIABLE SOURCE to that effect. Thus, it counts as OR or POV in your part. Just saying. 41.245.174.79 (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. It doesn't violate anything. You see the president get shot, and you don't have a source from the internet yet. You place in he just got shot in his article. It isn't original research since it is common sense he just got shot. It is common sense it is the 24th anniversary. You would have to be completely retarded and not know two plus two is four to not see that. No source is needed, we use common sense which means we are not violating OR.-- Will C  16:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say something considering this is easily the DUMBEST thing I've ever read in my entire life. And of course, I will be reiterating what so many people have said above, but it must be said again to get through to people who don't get it. An anniversary celebrates an entire year since the first time an event happened. Wrestlemania I was not an anniversary. It was the first Wrestlemania. Wrestlemania II is the FIRST ANNIVERSARY of Wrestlemania, meaning one year since the inaugural Wrestlemania. If two people get married, their wedding day is not their 1st Anniversary, that comes a year later to celebrate the FIRST day of marriage. Wrestlemania's first anniversary was the year after the first Wrestlemania, i.e. Wrestlemania II. Sources are not needed. This is logic. If you don't get it by now, you clearly have some sort of learning disorder or something. Dahumorist (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is going in circles. I never said this WAS the 25h Anniversary. I merely asked how and why you can decide when the "common sense" card can be played. Is it only for entertainment things like pro wrestling? CAn i go and edit political articles and then say "It's common sense"? I know this can't possibly be the 25th anniversary this year, I just want to know where the line is for "common sense". And can people use this discussion page and what you said as a precedent if they want to add "common sense" to other wikipedia articles? 41.245.185.66 (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. I mean people actually wasting their time to discuss such a nonsensical thing is just beyond me. I know its a free country and all that and people have the right to choose how they want to spend their time, but this is taking it too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.232.66 (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

'''THIS IS POINTLESS. LEAVE IT'''--Falegas (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Here a idea since its not the 24 nor the 25 Wrestlemania just take the whole thing out and just say its Wrestlemania  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 01:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree just take out that its the 24th anniversary of Wrestlmaina all it done is screw everything up and make everything completed the best thing to do is go bye what WWE is doing after all its their PPV Supermike] ([[User talk:Supermike|talk) 1 —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Supermike, you do realize that your edits are recorded? So we know your are just agreeing with yourself (likely to try and get a fake consensus).  TJ   Spyke   02:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This coming from a Guy who can't escape that Wrestlemaina 25 is really Wrestlemaina 25 everyone one who a real wrestling fan know these even JR know these —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs)
 * Guess I shouldn't be surprised that a troll like you can't even get basic facts straight. I have NEVER called this the 24th WrestleMania, I have said it's the 24th anniversary of WrestleMania (which you think it wrong since you don't know the definition of "anniversary").  TJ   Spyke   02:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Okay guys, lets get our facts straight. For the ones who have a brain, it is all agreed it is the 24th anninversary. Also speaking to ones with brains, it is also the 25th WrestleMania. Alright now that is settled. This discussion is useless since we should all use the common sense God gave us and understand, this section is completely dumb and useless.-- Will C --- (What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what TJ spyke I know what a anniversary I also know what Slander is which is what these article is full with Supermike] ([[User talk:Supermike|talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Wrong on both accounts. You have said many times that you think this is the actual 25th anniversary of WrestleMania. Also, there is no slander in the article (slander requires that the statement be false. Since we are only stating that this is actually the 24th anniversary, which is factually CORRECT, it is not slander).  TJ   Spyke   03:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if the statement is false, it's still not slander, since slander is when it's spoken verbally. When it's written, it's called "libel."--Unexplainedbacon (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How about we all get a third opinion before I nominate this discussion for LAME.-- Will C --- (What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 03:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends. Was there an actual edit war on the article itself or was it just confined to the talk pages? The reason I ask is because WP:LAME states that there has to be an actual edit war and not just talk page issues. --70.24.180.225 (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Im saying you calling me a troll slander and im saying there slander in these article which is true Supermike (talk) 1 —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

Way to feed the troll, guys. Way to feed the troll.--ECWAGuru (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but look at it this way, if it fits the criteria for inclusion, I'll add this discussion to Talk page highlights.-- Will C --- (What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 04:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Supermike, read the article for anniversary, go to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anniversary 41.245.185.66 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Supermike, please just shut up and quit debating us without looking at the definition. The original Wrestlemania was not the first anniversary Wrestlemania nobody knew that there world by a 2 until it was announced. Therefore, that made the second wrestlemania the first anniversary of Wrestlemania. Get over it. -- Super Silver  901 undefined 23:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be listed as the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania because, read closely..... that.... is..... the.... official.... name. You can note in the lead that the name is technically inaccurate (see Barting Over), but it's still the name. And before you say anything, "WrestleMania XXV", based on the commercials from a year ago, is the former name, and should be reflected as such. Mshake3 (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My gosh, people are STILL complaining about the freaking name. WT:PW discussed this and they said NO TWICE! WrestleMania XXV and The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania are both official names just like One Night Stand 2008 and One Night Stand:Extreme Rules. Super  Silver  901 undefined 20:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And "25th anniv" should be the article's title. Mshake3 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not slander. your an idiot. read your stuff its idiotic. you idiot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.134.206.189 (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is realy no point in bringing thit up now. The person who made the comments has not posted in this discussion in over two weeks. --76.65.141.246 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

25 diva battle Royal (2)
Since we don't which former WWE diva will appear are we going to wait till the PPV to put them name in but from my understanding we won't know till then anyways Mike  Mike  ''' 22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For a minute I thought this was TJ! Yes we will wait until then.-- ₮  RU  C  Ө   22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we do know both Melina and Maryse will be in (the wwe.com preview says both will be in). Although it may not be official, Sunny was this weeks guest on Pro Wrestling Report (which airs live on ESPN Radio every week right after Raw ends) and said she will be in the match.  TJ   Spyke   22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Can someone make a column which lists the participants in the battle royal? Melina and Maryse have already been confirmed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.187.18 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen vignettes featuring Gail Kim, so she's probably in it--Falegas (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is just speculation though, which is not what this page is for.  TJ   Spyke   20:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

She was on the graphic tonight on Raw, she is in it.-- Will C --- (What the F*** have you done lately???!! ) 07:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Heres the list of all of the divas that were confirmed in the graphic last night:


 * WWE Women’s champion Melina
 * WWE Diva’s champion Maryse
 * Mickie James
 * Gail Kim
 * Michelle McCool
 * The Bella Twins
 * Alicia Fox
 * Kelly Kelly
 * Maria
 * Eve Torres
 * Katie Lea Burchill
 * Beth Phoenix
 * Layla El
 * Rosa Mendes
 * Candice Michelle
 * Natalya Neidhart
 * Jillian Hall
 * Tiffany

Candice Michelle might not take part in the Battle Royal due to an injury she suffered last year that is coming back, if Candice is not in the battle royal that could mean 6 past divas to take part instead of 5. Gail Kim wasn't annonced on RAW that she will be in the battle royal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.174.121 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Add them to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.187.18 (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do it yourself. And where is your source? 41.245.185.66 (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

How do I add them to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.187.18 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He cant, the page is protected from IPs and new registered users. Super  Silver  901 undefined 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Army National Guard
Is the official sponsor of RassleMania this year —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.77.104 (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Other matches
Am I mistaken or didn't the announcers mention JBL vs Rey Mysterio(as a WM25 match) on RAW? 41.245.185.66 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A challenge has been made (along with Jericho/Legends) but in both cases the other side hasn't accepted yet, making the match not yet official. -- Oakster  Talk 10:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually they did confirm it in the Smackdown Spoilers http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/stories/bSPOILERS_SD_Results_For_NEXT_Weekb.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.50.82 (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not a reliable source. The matches are not official.  TJ   Spyke   19:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong they are official you just hate being Proven wrong again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.100.149 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If matches and segments can be edited before airing like this, then it's far from official. Segments can possibly be cut out and ignored. -- Oakster  Talk 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

'

Oakster, I went to the link you provided. It talked about how Kozlov's match was shortened and how Hardy's promo was shortened. SO WHAT???? Did they ANNOUNCE a match and then edit out the announcement. That article was stupid. It's nothing new for smackdown to edit. That has nothing to do with the Intercontinental Title defense against Mysterio. But still, of course, it's not good to spoil things for people on Wikipedia. But that link proved nothing. 24.160.145.53 (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And SCCA, nobody in this DISCUSSION is worried about spoilers, I guarantee that. That's why it's talked about in here and not put up on the article right away.

Actually I care very much about spoilers. Just because I want to help out WP:PW doesn't mean I don't still wanna enjoy the swerves and surprises of pro wrestling. Tony2Times (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This arguing is stupid. Everyone knows WWE pretapes some episodes of their programming, and it is usually proper to wait to post anything related to WWE or any active professional wrestling organization on Wikipedia until everyone who wasn't at the event can watch it on TV. Plus it's not cool to spoil it for everyone else who might want to watch to find out.Scca8704 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually what you said was a violation of WP:SPOILERS. Spoilers are allowed if it's from a reliable source (i.e. a premature WWE.com announcement). Otherwise it can be placed at the instance of its first broadcast (i.e. from my records the Australian broadcast), not everywhere as you mention it. -- Oakster  Talk 13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

JBL vs Mysterio has been confirmed: http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/matches/ it's also on WWE.COM's main page. Arbobug (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes Yes Yes guys, mysterio WILL face JBL for the IC Title, but this announcement hasn't been aired on TV yet. And you know, if you even MENTION that in this discussion, smarks will chew your head off and lecture you about "reliable sources." YES WE KNOW, that's why it's a discussion. 24.160.145.53 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't "chew it off" as you say. Arbobug's link is exactly the right example of a reliable source and as a consequence in the article now. -- Oakster  Talk 18:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is a primary source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. 41.245.185.66 (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, secondary sources are prefered to assert notiability of a subject. There is nothing wrong about using a primary source for this. For example it is acceptable to use a book or episode to cite something that happens in that book or episode. --76.69.166.252 (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another theme?
I heard Crash by Decyfer Down during the Matt vs. Jeff promo on Smackdown. Even though I do know that Youtube isn't a reliable source but check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umfUDwvJ974 it starts around 0:25. Super Silver  901 undefined 16:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It needs a confirmation from either WWE.com or the next televised programme that it is an official theme. You have songs like "Leave the Memories Alone" and "This Could Be the Year" which were used prominently for pay-per-view buildup yet they were not considered official themes. -- Oakster  Talk 18:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Music is sometimes played for a particular promo. WWE has given no indication on TV or their site that there is a 4th theme. It's possible they could add one, but at least at this moment it is just the three.  TJ   Spyke   18:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

chris Jericho vs. Legends Handicap Match is deleted from www.wwe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.14.80.137 (talk • contribs)
 * So? The match was still made official on Raw, so it's staying in unless they announce the match is off.  TJ   Spyke   18:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we make mention of it in the production section since WWE recognizes it-- Super Silver  901 undefined 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that we should only mention it if they use it at WrestleMania in some way.  TJ   Spyke   23:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But same holds for "So Hott". Its just being used for Divas Battle-Royal. Although, I was one who added it initially.. Now, I think "So Hott" must be removed from list of official theme songs. Or else "Crash" be added to list.. Wild MaCkeR (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. WWE has specifically said "So Hott" is one of the official themes of WrestleMania. They have never even mentioned "Crash" by name.  TJ   Spyke   17:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

List the "Divas"?
In the battle royal, would it not be good thing to list who the 25 women actually are going to be in it?

No since none of them seem to be appearing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 12:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should list them. I see no reason why we shouldn't. In fact, I'll get on it. Dahumorist (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that we should list them but not on the match table. I think we should make a table like the Royal Rumble. Super  Silver  901 undefined 20:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, now that it's listed, where's Santino? Seriously, I forget if it was yesterday or Smackdown, but Santino said he was in the Battle Royal and was going to be crowned miss 'Mania...


 * Should he be listed?  Alten hofen   01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * He's not in. He said he wanted to be in, Vickie Guerrero said he could be in if he beat Mickie James with one hand tied behind his back. Mickie won, so Santino is not in the battle royal.  TJ   Spyke   01:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't list the divas because like with Royal Rumble articles, we don't list them. Same thing here.--Best,  ₮  RU  C  Ө   02:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When approaching a Royal Rumble, we always list the expected participants on the Rumble page. This situation should be no different. This page is to be encyclopedic and there is no reason we shouldn't include the participants in such a match. I'm re-adding the names of the divas. Dahumorist (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to disagree but Truco changed my mind XD--Falegas (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But Truco is incorrect. Prior to any Royal Rumble event, the page does in fact list all the expected participants for the match. What is the logical reasoning for NOT including participants in an upcoming match? I'd really like to know, because frankly these double standards don't make any damn sense. Dahumorist (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We list them in the background, not in the table.--Best,  ₮  RU  C  Ө   02:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? Why shouldn't the match participants be listed in the match section that otherwise lists...here's a shocker...the match participants!? Dahumorist (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Because none of the diva has agree to be in the match Supermike (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, truco is correct. The Participants are always listed in the foreground leading up to the event, and are listed by order of elimination afterward, that is what we should do here. We list them in a small separate table, than once the match is underway we put it in a new table and list them by the order of elimination.  Alten hofen   08:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason we always list Royal Rumble participants in the Background section is because there are qualifying match-ups that need to be taken into account. In this instance, there are no qualifying matches, just pre-announced match participants. You guys keep replying "Here's how we do it", but nobody seems to know WHY. There is supposed to be a method to the madness, not just madness! What's with all these double standards?! Dahumorist (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hall of Fame
Does anyone think that we should have a table of all those being inducted into the hall of fame added to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidbhoy2805 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is already done at WWE Hall of Fame. Take a look at past WrestleMania articles to see how we will handle the HOF inductees.  TJ   Spyke   22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well in the production section, we should state events they had for the entire weekend. Like the Hall of Fame, Fan Access, etc. WrestleMania is known for WrestleMania Weekend.-- Will C --- Joe's gonna kill you!!! ) 23:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I managed to slot that in yesterday in the new marketing section. -- Oakster  Talk 23:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks man! Davidbhoy2805 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrestler's real names
I notice wrestler's real names have been added next to their wrestling alter egos, how come only half have been added though? CM Punk and Rey Rey's real names not listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.248.169 (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically, if the wrestler is only notable under a name they don't need it. John Hennigan has been notable as both Johnny Nitro and John Morrison (and arguably under his real name to as he won Tough Enough and wrestler a few matches in WWE under it), so he would of coarse have his real name. Paul Wight is just as notable as The Giant as he is as The Big Show. Phil Brooks has never been notable as anything but CM Punk. Same with Oscar Guitierrez (m spelling variations of Rey Mysterio/Rey Mysterio, Jr./Rey Misterio, Jr.).  TJ   Spyke   01:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Tag Team match
Does anyone have a problem if I take that back out so it just says "Lumberjack match"? The tag team part is not needed, and we don't include it in stuff like the ladder match at WrestleMania 2000 or in any TLC matches (i.e. we don't write "Tag Team Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match").  TJ   Spyke   00:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I mind. In the past, Tag Team Championships have exchanged hands in singles matches, and denoting that it is a tag team match (in a match type that is usually held among singles competitors) helps distinguish it.--Best,  T RU  C  O  01:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The tag belt in singles matches has happened very rarely, I can count on 1 hand the number of times it has happened. We don't do this for any other similar match and never have, why start with this one?  TJ   Spyke   01:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because we have grown since then. A lumberjack match tells me that its a singles match because that's what we are used to seeing. Which is why we don't say Lumberjack singles match.-- T ru  c  o  01:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets just place in Lumberjack match and get it over with. The link should state it can be tag team or singles contest. Plus the match will not be a tag team match anyway, it is possible it will be a Tornado tag Team Lumberjack match. A 7 year old can understand it will be a tag team match by looking at the participants and understanding they are two teams of two. What is the point of saying it is a tag team?-- Will C  02:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You know I rather not even fuss about this if this is what it comes to. W/E.-- T ru  c o   02:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)