Talk:WrestleMania 35

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (NEW RECENT INFO !) --Fmm134 (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019
86.142.42.205 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC) PLEASE CHANGE THE WOMEN'S TITLE MATCH OR ELSE WE RIOT!!!
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideautalk 16:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019
In the main paragraph technically Becky did apologise but after Ronda came out to meet her face to face, Mr. McMahon came out and suspended Becky for 60 days, choosing Charlotte Flair as her replacement 213.217.213.84 (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  20:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2019
There's two sentences in the Background section that state the same thing:

"The event will be the first WrestleMania to be held in the state of New Jersey since 2013 (at the same venue)."

"WrestleMania 35 will be held on April 7, 2019, six years after WrestleMania 29 was hosted at the same venue on April 7, 2013."

Can someone remove the second one, please? We really don't need some Captain Obvious around here. 2A02:2F0D:A00:C100:247C:10AB:FC50:C8E4 (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2019
PUT BACK BECKY OR ELSE DEATH WILL FALL ON YOU!!!!!!! 31.53.253.46 (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideautalk 16:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Theme songs
I was wondering if you could put or at least see the edit to show theme songs to Wrestlemania 35? Swat9483 (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus was this is not encyclopediac and is no longer shown on Wikipedia. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Would like to requests the return of WWE PPV theme songs. Along with this one with "work" please Swat9483 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Who came to that consensus? And what determines whether something is "encyclopediac" or not? The definition of encyclopedia, according to Wiktionary, is a "comprehensive reference work..." and "comprehensive summary of knowledge...", and the definition of comprehensive, also according to Wiktionary, is "broadly or completely covering." Therefore, I believe including things like theme songs falls under the category of "encyclopediac", because that would be included in "completely covering" an event, as long as they have been announced as official theme songs by WWE (or whatever wrestling company is in queston), which are items that have been including on Wikipedia for so long. 199.82.243.109 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How do the theme songs better assist your understanding of the topic? They were WP:Trivial at best; just a random tidbit of information that was there because it could be.  JTP (talk • contribs) 16:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Because for me personally I felt it better gave the ppv more distinguished and remembered. I always enjoyed making playlists with my kids of songs and remembering which PPV. Maybe it's just me but it was more for enjoyment. But if it cant be provided than I understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swat9483 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They're still over at the pro wrestling Fandom site.  JTP (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019
Under matches since the Ronda Rousey (c) vs. Becky Lynch vs. Charlotte Flair match will be the main event I suggest we move this to the number 1 spot and move Brock Lesnar (c) vs. Seth Rollins to the number two spot This is the change I suggest

So instead of this

I would do this Since the Ronda, Becky, Charlotte match has been set as the main event I would suggest we move it to the number 1 spot and more the Brock, Seth match to the number 2 spot

Jasontal (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * per WP:PW/SG until the event airs it goes in order it is announced. At the time the match airs, it will move to the last spot not the first. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Storyline
Congrats for all your effort on creating all WWE articles, you do an amazing job. I wonder if its possible to change the wording on Storyline. Is it really necessary to state always the word Scripted? "The card will include matches that result from scripted storylines", I think that without the word Scripted makes the same impact. Same on "Results are predetermined" do you guys really believe that is necessary to state that the results are Predetermined? Everybody knows that so why add those words? Everything else is good but that specific part makes me imagine a guy screaming Wrestling is FAKE! lol. I believe that you can produce the same impact, or even better, without stating that everything is scripted and predetermined (as everybody knows). Thnak you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.46.243.122 (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a point to be taken up with the project, not on a specific article. With that said, as wrestling fans, a good bit of us agree, however, the clarification is included for those who do not know. -- JDC808  ♫  04:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All that being said, this still remains the dumbest thing we do here. No one reading a page on professional wrestling is going to have any confusion as to the nature of how a pro wrestling show works anymore than they would any other scripted television showSpman (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You would be surprised. -- JDC808  ♫  23:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Add Farewell opponents for Kurt Angles Farewell tour?
Can we add Apollo Crews, Chad Gable, Samoa Joe, and AJ Styles And also Rey Mysterio for the April 1st edition of Monday night Raw rumored that Rey Will be his opponent. ZebraDX3.1 (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see much reason to add the names - they add nothing to understanding the Wrestlemania match and there is the danger that this will bloat the section as someone will undoubtedly not be content with listing the opponents but add match results. Every year, the Wrestlemania article has issues with keeping the background section under the set word-limit. OTOH, there is not a huge reason not to mention them. However, we certainly should not add rumours. Str1977 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok I was asking Because Just Give some background of some his foes he had faced before that’s all ZebraDX3.1 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It adds nothing important to the background of the match. Str1977 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2019
please change "The card will include matches that result from scripted storylines" to "The card will include matches that result from storylines" 2601:47:0:1A45:5095:FD55:C60C:6164 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * per current consensus of the style guide. -- JDC808  ♫  18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we call Zack Ryder and Curt Hawkins The Edgeheads
I think it should say The Revival (Scott Dawson and Dash Wilder) (c) vs The Edgeheads (Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder) ZebraDX3.1 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since they do not currently go by that name (as far as I know), then we should not list them as such. StaticVapor message me!   21:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with STATicVapor, and that name was really only used when they were affiliated with Edge. -- JDC808  ♫  22:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I Also agree, their article hasn’t been titled Edgeheads since December 2007.--67.71.202.162 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hawkins!
Y’all better add Curt Hawkins winning! AnUnoriginalEmo (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2019
Since his debut in 1990, this was also the 3rd WrestleMania event after Wrestlemania X and WrestleMania 2000 that did not feature The Undertaker. SmackdownPsycho (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 09:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

What about we add this
Should we put A section that says “This is the First Wrestlemania in 19 years without the Undertaker the last Wrestlemania he did not show up was Wrestlemania 2000 ZebraDX3.1 (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That does not belong on this page. Potentially on his if properly sourced, but not here. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Undertaker was an annual attraction of WrestleMania. A mention, even if small, should be noted in this article. -- JDC808  ♫  19:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats potentially making a case for the main WrestleMania page, but not for here. The lack of something happening is not really that notable. Do you have examples of RS talking about it to support its relevance to here? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  19:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't personally looked (yet anyways), but I am sure there are some. -- JDC808  ♫  21:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm skeptical of such non-events being included too - we at least have to be careful to restrict it to the very biggest stars - but the first absense of Hulk Hogan is also noted in the WrestleMania X article. Sure, Hogan was a much bigger deal as he had been in every Wrestlemania while Undertaker frequently missed a Wrestlemania. Str1977 (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC) PS. Of course, it should be sourced. Looking for sources should come before including it, not after.
 * He might be a bigger star but thats still WP:TRIVIA. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Chris Sharpe
Can we add Chris Sharpe to referees — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnieofnj2 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Other on-screen personnel
Can I get some input on this table. It's absolutely huge. Can we potentially change this into a prose section (maybe on-screen personnel), or hide the table in some way? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The table is huge but turning it into prose is worse IMHO. This way you can at least quickly get the information. In prose, it will not only be more voluminous but also less clear.
 * Also, I'm more bothered by the width of the table, given that so many commentators have to have three notes about which matches they worked on.
 * I think the best solution would be if we could make the table collapsable. Str1977 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Storyline wordcount
With a lot of cutting and moving, a few editors (including me) have brought the wordcount of the storyline sections down to 1499 words (excluding the dreaded disclaimer, section headers and picture captions). I think that is all we can do for an 8 hour show (unless we want to cut a few more words for the Cruiserweight buildup). Any disagreements? Str1977 (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. Although we should try to be concise, we restrict ourselves too much by a precise word count (instead of enforcing that it has to be 1500 or less, we should just try to get around there, even if it is a little more). For example, some needed details got cut, like why Shane attacked Miz, or why McIntyre wanted to challenge Reigns. Some clarifications were also cut, which could potentially infer a different meaning without those clarifications. -- JDC808  ♫  21:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about a precise word count. Though the style guide says 1000 words, we will never get there. I am talking about at least trying to be concise and I think being under 1500 would be a good job. And then you reinsert Triple H and Batista hugging. Not every explanation needs to be included. And not every pontential farfetched misunderstanding must be clarified.
 * I'm afraid, going by your way, we will have 3,000 words soon. Str1977 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For example, you write: "since Orton began his career on SmackDown in 2002 and became very successful, while Styles, who debuted in WWE in 2016, spent most of his career on the independent circuit." instead of:
 * "Orton had been very successful on SmackDown since 2002, while Styles spent most of his career on the independent circuit."
 * (And in previous versions, there were even falls claims that Orton alluded to ROH and TNA when he only ever talked about indies in general.
 * How is it so important to put Orton's beginning in a separate phrase from his succcess or include AJ's debut in WWE?
 * Some other editors and me worked hard to cut this down. So please post and explain your concerns here before (often blanket) reverting. Str1977 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Soon? Not really. And yes, some things need clarification. Don't assume that all readers will understand. -- JDC808  ♫  21:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Another example: you keep on inserting that "Vince overruled the decision and suspended her again" - that's totally unnecessary. Just say he suspended her again. That's not so hard to understand. Again, I invite you to explain your issues here on talk. Explain why your addition is needed for readers to understand. Str1977 (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In regards to Orton. He wasn't on SmackDown from 2002 to present. Your wording implies that. He began his career there and became successful (across both brands). The mention of when Styles debuted clarifies Orton's issue (as Styles had not been there for very long but was making such a claim).
 * Because her suspension was lifted, but it was not Vince who made that decision, which is why he "overruled it". -- JDC808  ♫  21:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On Orton: its is not important if he jumped brands but if so, it can be fixed by saying "in WWE" (but that actually hurts Orton's point, as he obviously did not build SD either). The statement makes it clear that during the same time, Styles was in "the indies".
 * On the suspension: that's not true. Vince overruled the decision because of Becky's "bad attitude" (i.e. arbitrarily), not because he didn't lift the suspension. Also, the text didn't say who lifted the decision (obviously not Vince) because it's not important. It was a formality: fulfill a condition or be suspended. Becky refused and was suspended, then she complied and the suspension was lifted. All this can be said in a few words (as I am trying) or in sentence upon sentence upon sentence, explaining very person involved and every announcement with a detailed time stamp. Str1977 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding Becky vs. Asuka: it is relevant for the storyline as Becky lost her SD title thanks to Ronda, then tried to get it back and since that didn't work out she entered the Rumble and won it. In the end, with some detours, she got the SD back and also won the R title. Str1977 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is you think Wikipedia's job is to tell a story for the reader, its not. If you read WP:NOTEVERYTHING you will see that its about providing a summary of important and relevant data. For example, there is nothing here on the Raw tag team match, and there shouldn't be. Several other matches that were minimal focus could be excluded completely as well. Minor blow by blow things like being unsuspended and immediately resuspended are not the relevant facts. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean it's not like I've gotten several articles promoted to FA or anything. Summaries are one thing, but they have to make sense to the reader (fan and non-wrestling fan alike). And that's the issue with some of this cut back. -- JDC808  ♫  21:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Galatz, I am walking the edge between the two positions. I want to retain what's necessary but I also see that without any checks, the articles will get out of hand. I disagree with you on some details but I agree with your overall observations.
 * However, I do not see any room or need to remove entire match storylines, with the possible exception of the US title match,
 * JDC808, I am not interested in featured articles, I'm interested in a good, concise, readable article. And I think the barely under-1500 versions can be understood by the average reader. We do not need to spell everything out for them. Nor do we need to include two old men embracing in the ring to explain that a few weeks later one yanks out the other's nose ring.
 * Also, there's the obsession with telling everything twice: first a match is scheduled, then it happens. That might be okay as a step in between, as articles are written gradually, but when all is said and done, we only need what happened. Str1977 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of what makes it long is every thought being its own sentence. Like saying "Wrestler A came out on Raw and insulted Wrestler B and challenged them to a match at WrestleMania. The next week on Raw Wrestler B accepted the challenge and told Wrestler A he was going to beat him." All that could just be "Wrestler A challenge Wrestler B that was accepted the next week." We do not need to say the name of the show it happened on every time, the references can fill in some of that issue. Similarly we dont need to say they challenged them to a match at WrestleMania every time, if its on the WrestleMania page it could easily be assumed. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  11:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We've just about got it like that. -- JDC808  ♫  20:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If feuds are focused on one brand/show, we could do without the show name everytime. And yes, many things can be summed up in fewer sentences (grammtical ones of course). But JDC is right that this has largely already been done. Str1977 (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in WrestleMania 35
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of WrestleMania 35's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "SmackDown04162019": From Money in the Bank (2019):  From Kevin Owens: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

78.60.127.225
Can someone Please revert this 78.60.127.225's pending revision because this 78.60.127.225 is doing the same thing before being blocked last month by Johnuniq.

Please compare this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_35&oldid=1009485011 and this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_35&oldid=1009253153 It is not the same

What he is doing is getting out of hand. Chip3004 (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You should be able to edit the article directly (it's not protected, there's just pending changes). Feel free to fix the issues yourself, since I am not knowledgeable on the issue. If the IP is still posing problems and it's the same then I guess can block them. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  21:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked the edit from 78.60.127.225 on 28 February 2021. All of it had been reverted except for a typo which I fixed. Thanks for checking the IP. Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

GAN
Hi guys, I took a look through the article, and it needs a bit of a copy-edit and removal of some cruft, but I'd like to take the article to GAN - would anyone mind if I fixed up the article and gave it a nom?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)