Talk:WrestleMania XXIV/Archive 1

Not reading the article
As I stated at Talk:Royal Rumble (2008) (and others agreed), we are through putting up with people not reading the article first before saying something on the talkpage. I just had to delete a comment about the official theme song of WM XXIV, showing that the editor hadn't bothered to check the article at all (the official theme song has been listed on the WMXXIV page for several HOURS). People do the same thing for matches (coming to the talkpage and saying "so and so vs. so and so was announced" and not bothering to check and see that the match had been added to the page minutes or hours earlier). Any such edits will be deleted since the editors are too lazy to check the page first.  TJ   Spyke   06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on. Was this really necessary? I understand where your coming from but you sound like a whiney bitch. When you have a website that anyone can edit, this sort of stuff comes with the territory. And did you really expect anyone other then the 4 or 5 people who troll WP:PW to read your comments on Talk:Royal Rumble (2008) (or this talk page for that matter)?

I'm confident most active members of WP:PW have added WrestleMania XXIV to their watch list. So when and if something not to their liking is added, it will be removed. Simple as that. And if you're 'through with putting up with people not reading talk pages', quit. --Endless Dan 15:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I could have phrased it a little nicer, but I was stating what other people agreed with. What happens (and this has happened before) is that WWE will announce a match, within a few minutes (less than 1 for matches announced on TV) it will be added to the article, and then several hours later you will see someone posting on the talkpage "WWE announced wrestler A vs. Wrestler B").

You obviously did NOT understand what I said. I am not talking about people posting in the article and not reading the talkpage, I am talking about people who post something on the talkpage without bothering to read the article. What is the point of posting something like "WWE announced Edge vs. Mysterio for No Way Out, please add it" several hours AFTER it had already been added to the article? That just shows that the person didn't bother to even check the article first.  TJ   Spyke   15:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand where TJ Spyke is coming from and probably agree with him on this issue. However I don't think it is a very important topic to bring up. I don't think that it is the crime of the century. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 19:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a big problem before, but for some reason the 2008 Royal Rumble seemed to cause peoples IQ to drop since people kept doing it every time a match was announced or RR contestant announced.  TJ   Spyke   00:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey TJ im sorry my browser didn't update yet. im with you on this too it is annoying when people don't read the article first S-PAC54 21:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, your browser must be really slow (your comment came 7 hours after the theme song was added). No harm I guess.


 * REALLY SLOW at some points —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-pac54 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just delete that section of the Talk page and leave a message on that users talk page. Simple, doesn't need to receive this much attention. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 02:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You all do realize that on occasion, a visitor's first visit to a page will be several edits old, with it not showing new information? Mshake3 (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark Match Battle Royale
I heard this rumour on a forum that WrestleMania 24 is definitely going to begin with a dark match battle royal. I think we should put it in the article. I know WWE haven't confirmed it but they always confirm things without confirming them so it's pretty much confirmed. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ SpeakSign 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Without a verfiable source I don't think we should be adding any matches. None pay per view articles allowed mataches unless they were on WWE.com or US televioion and I don't see why that should be any different now. --69.156.205.86 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I should explain. That was a joke since someone kep adding a battle royal in the WrestleMania 23 article saying that "WWE confirmed it even though they have't announced it". TJ Spyke 03:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True, and we don't even know who's IN the battle royal, if there is going to be one. [wossi] 05:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for any confusion, I was just trying to inject a bit of humour. I didn't think anyone would take my comment seriously. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ SpeakSign 06:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Sarcasticly) I'm busting a gut.-- Hornet man  16  01:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Request to relocate to WrestleMania XXIV
WWE just released the new logo for WM, and it includes the roman numerals. By virtue, should we move the article over to WrestleMania XXIV? --Raderick 01:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your source? I'm not seeing anything on WWE's regular site or their corporate website. If it's a rumor site like PWInsider, then no. TJ Spyke 01:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah we need a WWE source for this. A Google search reveals 830 hits for "WrestleMania XXIV" but none of them are from WWE, so no. --Naha|(talk) 01:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit it's hard to find a source, WWE had a new WM logo on a bumper during the WWE Unforgiven PPV. Just a thought. --Raderick 02:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Raderick, the Unforgiven bumper is your source. -- Aaru Bui  DII 12:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a picture I took off my screen of the new WrestleMania XXIV logo. I apologize for the crappy quality of it. New logo Patriot174 23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heres a better version of it http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/1064/bscap0003yo4.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.61.110 (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The page should stay where it is unless WWE releases a press release in which they officially confirm the title to be "WrestleMania XXIV". The most recent official source calls it "WrestleMania 24". -- Scorpion0422 12:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The new logo did in fact appear for a promo during the Unforgiven broadcast this past Sunday. The reason why WWE.com might have not updated their page with the new logo immediately after Unforgiven is probably because there aren’t any news updates concerning the event therefore there is no rush in updating the page. Here is the link to the new promotional video uploaded on youtube. . Since the new logo now uses Roman numerals the event is no longer known as WrestleMania 24 but rather WrestleMania XXIV, and as a result, the article's name should reflect that change. Take WrestleMania 22 for example. The same thing occurred when the promo that aired during WrestleMania 21 announced the event as being WrestleMania XXII then a few months later the second and final logos were released which replaced Roman numerals with Arabic numerals. As a result the event immediately became known as WrestleMania 22. While I am positive that the change of name will not be reflected immediately in press releases or news media in that sense, the change has been made clear by WWE as proven by this new promotional video. If they chose to release yet another logo like they did with WrestleMania 22 that’s their business but for now the event's name is WrestleMania XXIV.-- bullet proof  3:16 01:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's another another promo from Unforgiven.-- bullet proof  3:16 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. Here's a press release from WWE.com, showing the new WM XXIV logo . This proves (as of right now) that it will be called WM XXIV. MI   TB   LS  03:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WRESTLEMANIA XXV
Anyone hear about the 2008 royal rumble being the last show at Madison Square Garden until 2009 with Wrestlemania XXV being the next show there? It would make a lot of sense with WMXXV being there, is IS the 25th anniversary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavasthma91 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and this isn't the place to discuss it since the talkpage is supposed to be for discussing ways to improve the article, not general discussion. TJ Spyke 22:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * About WMXXV: don't start it until the event is actually announced. (Where did you hear about WMXXV being at the MSG anyways?) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. T he   C hronic  06:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ticket/Spoilers
Is a picture of a ticket really needed for the article? What does it add to the article?  TJ   Spyke   00:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't see the point of having an image of a ticket in the article. -- bullet proof  3:16 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's the only proof that the event is happening, and it does confirm the name as XXIV. Darrenhusted 14:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The logo does that already... and it was released long before the tickets were... -- bullet proof  3:16 16:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

at no way out there will be a elimination chamber match with undertaker vs. the great khali vs. finlay vs. mvp vs. big daddy vs. batista to find out who will be the #1 contender

the winner of that match will face the winner of this no way out match:

edge vs. rey mysterio for the world heavyweight championship —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack91193 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't use spoiler reports because they aren't reliable sources.  TJ   Spyke   03:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please wait until SmackDown's elimination chamber and the World Heavyweight Championship matches have been announced on WWE.com GuffasBorgz7 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Logo
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this already, but I put on the article how this is the first Wrestlemania to use Roman numerals since Wrestlemania 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkdemon90 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I see someone deleted the information I put on it. I don't mind I just wish you could've gave me a reason why, because it does seem like information that should be on the article.User:Darkdemon90 18:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See the edit summary. Now that we are expanding PPV articles we are trying to avoid having trivia and notes sections. -- bullet proof  3:16 18:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

John Cena choice
I know we all know he going for the WWE title but to be on the safe side I think we should wait till Raw before we say who he faces Supermike(talk) 7:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

winner of cena/orton match
The current sentence reads "The winner of that match, will face the winner of the Elimination Chamber match." Not if Cena wins by DQ or Count Out though, unless a title can change hands via that method for the match. Lugnuts (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If Cena wins the title or Orton retains and who ever wins the Elimination Chamber match will face each other at WrestleMania XXIV. Z enlax  T C S 20:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WWE has made a new poster for WrestleMania XXIV you can find it at this link http://www.24wrestling.com/index.php?id=extras/499 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack91193 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments. Even if that really was the poster (they have no proof, and fake posters come out all the time), we only use the logo for WrestleMania articles.  TJ   Spyke   03:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman Numerals
This is the first Wrestlemania since 20 to be in Roman Numerals,is it not,I think that should be placed in the article.As so "This is the first WrestleMania since WrestleMania XX to have Roman Numerals in its title."Does anyone else think this should be in the article?--WillC (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It will probably be added after the article has finished expansion. Right now we are trying to avoid having notes sections.-- bullet proof  3:16 04:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay,I didn't know that.I put it on there before and someone took it off.So this time I thought I would see if it was something that should be on there,before I put it back.If no one puts it on there after WM then I will.--WillC (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

theme song
was that the offical them song that played during the countdown earlier. MATT (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a production theme not an actaul song. They usually don't settle on an actual theme song until a few weeks before the event. -- bullet proof  3:16 03:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The song wasn't a production track. It was actually "Snow (Hey Oh)" by The Red Hot Chili Peppers. It hasn't been officially named by the WWE as the theme song, so it still shouldn't be added to the page. Patriot174 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Compare that song to the WrestleMania countdown promo. It's not the same song but good try though Patriot.-- bullet proof  3:16 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They had a completely different version (an actual video rather than just the countdown graphic) last night on Raw that had "Snow (Hey Oh)" playing in the video. Here's the link: New WM Countdown promo from Raw. Another countdown video just premiered on ECW right now, using the same song. Patriot174 (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks i was just wondering MATT 05:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by S-pac54 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't know if people here saw different promos or something, but they definitely played "Snow (Hey Oh)" last night on Raw. However, they said nothing about it being the theme song. -- Scorpion0422 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two theme songs for WrestleMania XXIV, Snow (Hey Oh) by Red Hot Chilli Peppers and Light it Up by Rev Theory, and both have been confirmed by WWE.--$$$Keeton D.$$$ 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ric Flair vs. Shawn Michaels
Look at this, is a reliable source?, sould be listed?. --KingOfDX (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say no, because 1) The Sun itself doesn't seem to be a reliable source and 2) it refers to an even more unreliable source with its link to "WrestlingNewsDesk", which again is only some dirtsheet site. and 3) Its a spoiler to the No Way Out Elimination Chamber Match. Diivoo (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have heard those rumors too. We shouldn't announce the match unless it is on WWE.com, the only reliable source in my opinion. Spoiler websites are right sometimes and wrong on others mainly because WWE changes things last minute etc. It will probably Ric v Michaels at 'Mania, but we shouldn't note it yet. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 23:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like every other rumor site ("Plans may change, but WWE is set"). Thanks for checking first, but no it's not reliable. WWE won't announce any match involving Flair or Michaels at WrestleMania since Michaels is in an Elimination Chamber match for a title shot and Flair has a "career threatining" match against Mr. Kennedy.  TJ   Spyke   23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just kinda making a note; it's speculation to say "It will probably Ric v Michaels at 'Mania", just saying. Have you noticed how if you go to wrestlezone.com, headlines change so many times a day, and most of them just repeat news that's already been announced? Not to mention, it's a forum site where people discuss what they want to see happen, and they're just dream cards, is all. I only use it to preview spoilers for shows, but I wouldn't rely on it to correctly predict PPV matches. For example, it says Montel Vontavious Porter "hinted" a match with Matt Hardy at WrestleMania XXIV, but we can't say something like "It probably will happen, but we can't cite it yet until wwe.com announces it first." --Lord Dagon (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection Request
Just a heads up. Feel free to put in your .02 cents --Endless Dan 18:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you new to making requests at RFP? I hope so, because you asked for Full Protection. That would make it so no one except admins could edit the article. Semi-Protection stops IP's and accounts less than 4 days old from editing. Full Protection is usually only used if an edit war is going on between 2 or more regulard editors.  TJ   Spyke   00:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think fans are learning or at least users of Wikipedia. This is actually one of the well written (and kept up to date and not overly full of "un-needed information") Wrestlemania articles I've seen. Weatherman289 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

New Theme
On ECW this week they showed a wreslemania promo featuring Light it Up by Rev Theory so could that be considered the new theme? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.212.34 (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you would read the article before posting on the talk page you would see that it is mentioned. Please do so in future. Thank you. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 02:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh. If you read the bloody thread at the top you will see TJ Spyke frustrated with users doing this exact thing. Please read the article before posting stupid useless posts! -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 08:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, completely. This site was created to catalog facts, not heresay and prediction. I'd see why TJ Spyke would be mad.Scca8704 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Triple H Vs Randy Orton
May we remove this match as even though they both won there respected matches at no way out it has no been confirmed by wwe.com if you look on there wrestlemania 24 page you will only see Undertaker vs Edge for the world title so may we remove that much until it has been confirmed by wwe.com that it will happen because as we all know anything can change leading up to wrestlemania.Deadman lastride666 (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. WWE.com doesn't alway add matches right away. It was confirmed that the WWE Champion would face the winner of the RAW EC winner. That is Randy Orton and Triple H.  TJ   Spyke   07:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Who Say Orton Will Still Be The Champion In 2 Months? --Furrywannabe (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who says Edge will still be the WHC? The fact is that right now Orton is champion. If that changes, we will change what we have listed (WWE has done this before, like at Armageddon 2005 when they announced MNM vs. The Mexicools for the WWE Tag Team Championship, but then had MNM lose the titles on the SmackDown before the PPV).  TJ   Spyke   08:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

it hasnet been confrimed cuz id bet anytihng theire adding cena via some angle tonight —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The match is confirmed. What your saying is just speculation. This talkpage is NOT the place for speculation. Any more will be deleted.  TJ   Spyke   11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

money in the bank
this isnt on wwe.com so i've deleted it. if im wrong to do so. just say.Black6989 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Black6989
 * Ignore what i put i just saw it on the raw preview on wwe.com sorryBlack6989 (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Black6989

confirmed
cena has been added to the wwe title match —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.220.188 (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the ARTICLE. It was already there! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If Cena wins wouldn't that still count as every man winning the royal rumble since whenever went to Wrestlemania to win the title? Vermon CaTaffy 8 (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a good question. I guess not because his chance was at No Way Out wasn't it? His WrestleMania match is just a rematch, nothing to do with the Royal Rumble. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

6 man mitb
Jr stated on Raw that this year it is 6 man. LifeStroke420 (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The source in the article (the official wwe.com preview) says 8 wrestlers.  TJ   Spyke   05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The Money In The Bank Match Preview page at WWE.com (http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/matches/6464426/preview/) Does not actually specify how many participants will compete in this years match. It refers to them as "A Collection of Superstars" as opposed to naming a set number of stars. May I enquire which official WWE.com preview TJSpyke was reading? SubzeroWrestling (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The mitb match was originaly supossed to have 8 men but since Jeff Hardy got suspended the match will have 7 men.--$$$Keeton D.$$$ 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

MITB Qualifiers
Should we put Money in the Bank qualifier matches like we did for Royal Rumble (2008)? -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 10:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We haven't done it for any of the previous MITB's, probably because the MITB page already lists the qualifying matches (so people interested could just check that page).  TJ   Spyke   12:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When I expanded WM23, I did include the MITB qualifiers in the Background section. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think that since we put down the Royal Rumble qualifier matches in their own section we should do the same for MITB qualifier matches. It is certainly a lot better than just simply naming them in the Background. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no objections, I will add it to the article. Any objections? -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 08:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they'd be better suited here than the MITB page itself. In keeping with the Rumble too, I support it. Tony2Times (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)T
 * The preview said it would be "benjamin, kennedy, and 6 other superstars" so there xD Meepboy (talk)
 * Meepboy, please sign your comments and structure then properly, I have just added your name and fixed it but I am unsure as to what time you added that comment. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 09:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you all I made a mistake in the editing of some information. should we put "TBD" on the 8th spot? or just wait til SD airs tonight? Weatherman289 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish it were that way but some feel once it airs outside of the US first, it's fair game to be added, which make it a spoiler for those of us in the US, unfortunately. ArcAngel (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

is WrestleMania 24 outside
if it is how will they do the ladder match? will the do a TNA ultimate X match? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.48.233 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not known at this time. Also, this isn't a forum. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this really important? This isn't a forum! -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what she/he is try to ask is, If WrestleMania is outside (with no roof), how will they do the Ladder match?, and if they can't, will they use four polls similar to an Ultimate X match? -- L A  X  20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But this isn't the place to ask that. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More than likely they will construct something over the ring.LifeStroke420 (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we'll just have to wait and see at Wrestlemania. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There'll be lighting girders. Probably be suspended from that. Tony2Times (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

matches
Note: Info for Wrestlemania matches based on this week's not yet aired Smackdown is spoiler info and can't be added yet. EvWill (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Spoilers can be added, if a reliable source such as WON or WWE.com reports them. It's just unlikely that such a source will be become available. Instead, they are removed for violating WP:V. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Match order
I find it odd that on the edit page it states that matches are listed in order they are announced, yet it lists the WWE championship match first. The SmackDown Elimination Chamber and World Heavyweight Championship matches at No Way Out both came before the RAW matches, so we knew it'd be Edge vs. Undertaker before we knew it would be Triple H vs. Randy Orton. Not only that, but the WWE title match has been totally changed (triple threat match) so shouldn't the WHC match be listed first? Mark handscombe (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the logic (which I disagree with) is that the Raw EC match was announced first, therefore setting up the stage for a "TBD vs TBD" WWE Championship match at 'Mania. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh right I see that now, makes more sense. Thanks for clearing that up Mark handscombe (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Another reason this rule has to go. Mshake3 (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a rule, it was a consensus made becuase it's neutral avoids BS like people listing matches in the order of what they think is the level of importance. I don't understand why you are opposes to a system that is neutral and avoids and kind of dispute?  TJ   Spyke   00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's stupid because the two opposing sides (WWE.com, or personal preference) at least had orders that made sense. This "compromise" ends up with match orders that are vastly different from both of the proposed suggestions, and not in a good way. James Storm vs. Eric Young would be near the bottom under both suggestions, but under this "agreement", it had to be listed first. I don't care if it's neutral and avoids a dispute. It still doesn't look good! Mshake3 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How does PERSONAL preference make sense? It varies from person to person, so it makes no sense at all. There were disputes about using the order wwe.com does as well. "Doesn't look good" is your opinion, I see no reason to not stay with the currect system (which has been working fine since December 2006).  TJ   Spyke   02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WWE WrestleMania 24?
Why is it that searches for "WrestleMania 24" automatically redirect to WrestleMania XXIV, and yet Searches for "WWE WrestleMania 24" go to a search page with the WrestleMania XXIV article 5 places down on the list of results? Is this an error, or is it assumed that nobody searches for an event on the site with WWE in the name? Besides, the official name is actually WWE WrestleMania XXIV anyway, so it surely should be included? SubzeroWrestling (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Endless Dan 21:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dan, I removed the link just to avoid having a redirect (i.e. there should be nothing linking to "WrestleMania 24" or "WWE WrestleMania 24".  TJ   Spyke   02:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Another time
Is Online World of Wrestling a reliable source?. Thanks!. --KingOfDX (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why yes it is..Please read WP:PW/PPV/G.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 02:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, is a question, because in that link they list Big show vs. the boxer of no way out, in a Wrestler vs. Boxer match. Should be added?.--KingOfDX (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because WWE has not said when the Big Show/Mayweather match will happen.  TJ   Spyke   12:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But if Online World of Wrestling is a reliable source then should we not put it in the match listings as they state that the match is at wrestlemania 24. Or is that not how it works?Black6989 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Black6989
 * Matches are added as they are announced on WWE.com, or air on RAW, SD!, or ECW. I do believe. ArcAngel (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. OWW tend to jump ahead of things like that, but they are reliable on the whole. D.M.N. (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Another week, another request for protection
Here. --Endless Dan 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like a few peeps attended the SD! taping last night and are eager to contribute. :)  ArcAngel (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And/or read spoilers --Endless Dan 19:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Spoilers are fine and dandy, remember? Mshake3 (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * lol - Do I ever! --Endless Dan 01:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Umaga v. TBD
should we at least mention that the match will be a Raw v. SD! match? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.166.223 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already mentioned that Umaga will face a SmackDown wrestler (and even though spoiler reports say who it is, spoiler reports are NOT reliable sources and it should stay "TBA" until it airs).  TJ   Spyke   00:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Are not reliable sources", unless the information comes from a reliable website... D.M.N. (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, Ive got several sources saying its Batista. And isn't it clear? Great Khali, Finlay, MVP, Edge and Undertaker are all either never EVER going to face Umaga or are doing somthing already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.190.130 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the point is probably none of those sites are reliable. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear until it's reported on WWE.com, or airs on RAW, SD!, or ECW. ArcAngel (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for spoiling the results, also your "sources" are all spoiler sites as they are the only ones who report that Batista is the person, as they spoil the SmackDown! results. T r U C o 9 31 1 22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to be spoiled, don't edit these articles! Mshake3 (talk) 03:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be better if editors didn't add spoilers in the first place, would it not? ArcAngel (talk) 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Another revert because someone doesn't want to pay attention to WP:CONSENSUS regarding adding spoilers - plus I made an error in my edit summary - it SHOULD have said WWE.com and InDemand WERE reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And the consensus was "add with reliable source, being a spoiler doesn't mean s***", right? Mshake3 (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's my understanding of the consensus. And in this discussion no-one has provided a reliable source, so..... ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 08:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can spoiler comments be removed from the talk pages from now on or something? Some of us still enjoy the minute pieces of shock we can get by not knowing what happens, I'm really sick of trying to help out pro-wrestling project and people ruin it with spoilers. Tony2Times (talk) 14:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I think it should be billed as a Smackdown! versus Raw match or a brand superiority match. I can't really articulate a reason though, it just feels like it should be on the card. Tony2Times (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you all just wait till tonight, gosh.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Smackdown has aired in the UK now, and the participant is announced as Batista, so surely now is the time to add this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.246.72 (talk) 23:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

America the Beautiful
SmackDown! just stated that John Legend would be singing "America the Beautiful" at WrestleMania XXIV. I suppose this should be mentioned in the WMXXIV article? 216.195.145.34 (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it but I am not sure whether it is notable or not. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It will definately be mentioned after 'Mania happens. Until then, I'm not sure. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We mentioned Aretha singing at WM23 before the PPV happened, but WWE made a big deal out of it (including having an article on it at wwe.com). So far they haven't even mentioned it on their site.  TJ   Spyke   23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do we need WWE to make a "big deal" about something for it to become notable? -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 09:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they had to. I was just mentioning that they made a big deal about Aretha singing last year but have not done anything this year (other than the brief mention on SD).  TJ   Spyke   16:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, i think we should add it. Useful info is always welcome. Diivoo (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to an article,  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prdawg21 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD.  TJ   Spyke   03:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXIV Parking
I heard they are selling parking in advance for the event. They do this for the bowl games every year and sell out all the parking around the Citrus Bowl. You have to go to www.clickandpark.com and purchase a parking permit in advance. Just thought this might be useful information to post.Blufkin (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think it's worth noting.  TJ   Spyke   19:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with TJ, this is non-notable info. ArcAngel (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with TJ also, how is this relevant to anything? -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 20:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is notable if you are going. Unless you want to park a couple of miles away in a yard...Blufkin (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but still isn't isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Blufkin, it sounds like you are just advertising for this site. I could be wrong, but these are the only 2 edits you've made, and you're first post is advertising a website selling parking permits.  TJ   Spyke   21:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a worldwide website. It is not specific to Orlando, Florida. It is not notable to a worldwide audience. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only way the parking issue would become notable is if there is widespread mainstream media coverage relating to parking problems (pre- or post-event) or issues post-event surface, such as if there were to be large numbers of tailgaters littering and/or causing disruptions to nearby businesses. Frankly, I don't see any of these things happening (then again, I don't live in Orlando, Florida). Besides, Wikipedia is not a guide to parking at major sporting events. The best thing to do is contact the Citrus Bowl and then plan ahead. Briguy52748 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Posters vs. Logos
Why can't the posters be used? They both contain the logos, so what's the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the exact reasons, but it was agreed long ago to use just the logos for WrestleMania articles.  TJ   Spyke   19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Times change though and I think the poster should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CinnamonCrunchy (talk • contribs) 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If you want, you can bring it up at WP:PW along with a good reason why you think it should be changed.  TJ   Spyke   19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sieg Heil --Endless Dan 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

50 cent?
Well I know its speculation but MTV has reported it, so is it kinda confirmed?-- T r U C o  - X  00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like 50 Cent will just perform the song live. It could be mean he will be at ringside. It's not clear, it's not even confirmed 50 Cent will actually appear (Mayweather asked 50 Cent, but it's up to WWE who appears and who doesn't). Maybe we should wait and see if it becomes official and what (if any) role 50 Cent has.  TJ   Spyke   00:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed.-- T r U C o  - X  01:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 23:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Partially agree. Think we should add a note that 50 Cent will perform Mayweathers entrance theme live, cause that is confirmed. Diivoo (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

MVP
Can someone put MVP back in the Money in the Bank Ladder Match, as WWE.com have officially announced that he has qualified for the match by defeating Jamie Noble on March 8th 2008 in Oshkosh, WI. michaelclarkc (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD.  TJ   Spyke   16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeff hardy in trouble
STAMFORD, Conn. – In accordance with its Substance Abuse and Drug Testing Policy, WWE has suspended Jeff Hardy for 60 days, for his second violation of the company’s policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So, was he stripped of the I-C title since he can't defend it? Sorry, can't check WWE.com from work.  ;)  ArcAngel (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack - nevermind, just checked Hardy's article and have my answer. ArcAngel (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. Its his own fault. How can you not follow simple rules, dont do drus and dont do steroids. There is no excuse, the only logical one would be he had perscription pain killers and kept taking them after the perscription expired. I dont see how some wrestlers can be so stupid. They pay you more then enough to get by. Why the hell do you have to turn to drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.241.250 (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yeah just one problem.-- T r U C o  - X  03:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if he's being replaced in that match or is it just going to be 7 people? WeLsHy (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just going to be 7 people.--$$$Keeton D.$$$ 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KBD5196 (talk • contribs)

That is really wierd to have an uneven number of people in that match. 207.69.137.11 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. Jeff Hardy shouldn't of gotten himself suspended, I hear he was going to win the MITB. Shame. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 00:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On WrestlingRevealed.com it was said that Matt Hardy was supposed to replace Jeff Hardy but nothing has been announced since he's only been back for a week or so...oh and i Missed SD this past friday i was at DisneyLand!Torobone (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)ToroboneTorobone (talk) 09:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no more spots left. It will just be 7 men. Besides, rumors (which is what that it) don't go in articles (not that you are saying we should put that in).  TJ   Spyke   19:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lumber Jack Match
Is it known if its a lumber jack or jill match? It just seems it'll be a lumber jill match but wwe.com is saying lumber jack. Also if until wrestlemania wwe state it as lumber jack. Shoul;d we keep it as this even if the riong ends up being surrounded by just woman? because does the match description for each match state about the sex of the participants?Black6989 (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Black6989
 * Well they've also used the term "Diva Lumberjack" for other matches. Plus with the context of the storyline, I can see Santino being at ringside. So it should stay as announced. Mshake3 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WWE uses both terms in the few womens versions they've had. They have used "Diva Lumberjack" and "Lumberjill", but are currently calling this one a Lumberjack (or more specfically "Playboy BunnyMania Lumberjack").  TJ   Spyke   15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested page protection
Due to the unnecessary high number of edits/reverts going on here, I have requested FULL protection until after the event is over. ArcAngel (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, looks like SEMI protection was granted for a month. That should help cut down on the number of unneeded edits.  ArcAngel (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. Also, you do realize that full protection would have meant that only admins could edit the article?  TJ   Spyke   22:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I fully realized what I was requesting. :)  ArcAngel (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont do that, if there are to many edits, admins should monitor this, not by taking the easy way out and putting full protection. If only a select few are going to be supplying wiki with the info, we are not going to have much then, are we?Dingyv03 (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Event Time
Could we provide a list of "kick-off" times for WM for the main city in the world eg: USA (UCT) UK, Australia, Japan? Dingyv03 (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now why would we do that? –Cheers, L  A  X  10:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because wiki is a sourse of information, and this is valuable information. The times for WM outside the US isnt well advertized, and with this info people will turn to wikipedia for times. I'll wait a week without critizism before adding, so i dont anoy the bloke who is wingeing ^^^above^^^ about full protectionDingyv03 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information. The "kick-off" times for WM in all the main cities in the world just smacks of trivia to me. Plus, it would probably bring up the arguement of "how do you define main city of the world?" I think it's pointless to add. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 01:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that it's just too trivial to add.  TJ   Spyke   02:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to go with Nici on this one. T r U C o  - X  02:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I realize Wikipedia needs to be worldwide in focus, the only times that should be added for any event (including WrestleMania and other professional wrestling events) are for the U.S. Eastern Time Zone, and that would be for historical purposes only. Otherwise, you should contact your cable/satellite TV provider for the information you're looking for. In agreeing with Nici, Wikipedia is also not a program guide, nor should it be. Briguy52748 (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Isnt it 12am on Sky Box office for the people who live in the UK: my source channel 755 on the preview show --81.99.45.84 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)chrispowellathome

Details
Why does TJ Spyke seem to have total control over the details in this article? If you look at the edit history you will notice he gets the final say over practically everything. 86.11.167.148 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Mayby because he has this article on his watchlist and is patrolling it from vandals, he doesn't get the final say, most likely because his sayings are correct and WP:PW members agree to it. And this is not the place to discuss this.-- T r U C o  - X  18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, if you have a problem with TJ, you should calmly discuss it with him on his talk page, remaining civil and not attacking him.  iM at  th ew   20  08  18:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a lot of free time to edit Wikipedia anymore (which is why some may have noticed I haven't realy built any articles lately, I was heavily involved in getting the Wii article up to featured status), I usually just correct for vandalism and agreed standards. Like iMatthew said, feel free to discuss any problems you have with me on my talkpage. If you calmly discuss it, I will do the same with you (if you act like a prick like some editors I have encountered, I will just ignore you). I don't control the article and have never claimed too. From my experience, if I didn't make those edits then I know someone else would have.  TJ   Spyke   19:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Battle royal edit
It says that whoever wins the battle royal will face the ECW champion afterwards. That is a rumor as the wwe website that the winner will face the champ later in the night. Even if that is not true, it is still a rumor and change it to later in the night. Change it back if it's a rumor, I don't care as long as that is taken care of. Meepboy (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to check the actual WrestleMania website and the page for the match . From it: "The winner will receive an ECW Championship Match against Chavo Guerrero – on the spot", meaning the match will happen right away. So it's not a "rumor" since it's right from WWE.  TJ   Spyke   00:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I never check the website, but your right, god that will be a bad match... 76.116.191.171 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

BunnyMania Maria & ???
Ashley was announced on the 3/24/08 episode of Raw as Maria's partner
 * Just added it, but without any reliable sources as of yet, if anyone is able to add it is it is available. --Blazzeee (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

25 Man 24 man battle royal?
The list of participants has 25 people listed. Big Daddy V may have been "confirmed" earlier, but he was not in the match on ecw, or in the graphic shown later which had all the participants (Although I swore I saw Edge in there for some reason). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.167.200.173 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I guess it has been fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.167.200.173 (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Career threatening match
OK, since Mshake3 continues trying to put this in the article for no reason, please try and say why you think it should be listed as the match? So far every one of Flair's PPV matches since this angle started as mentioned it as one of the subpoints and not as the match type. No one else seems to insist on putting it in, and the stipulation is already mentioned. I see no reason to list "Career Threatening match:" and am not alone in thinking this.  TJ   Spyke   19:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, per (the RR & NWO articles before the event). TJ is only following past consensus. I see nothing wrong with following past consensus. D.M.N. (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no beef with this label. And considering MShake's reputation and contributions, I don't understand why this needs to be a big thing. If Flair loses, he retires. So his career is threatened. Does this need a source from WWF.com specifically saying Career Threatening Match?? --Endless Dan 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. TJ's version of WMXXIV just followed past consensus, unfortunately Mshake3 doesn't seem to listen to consensus. D.M.N. (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "The whole point is to list what type of match it is, not a tagline used for the match." Mshake3 (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, D.M.N., if this is the consensus, why did you revert back to my version? Mshake3 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I got in an edit conflict, and reverted back to the wrong version. D.M.N. (talk) 10:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You just killed your case right there. Don't list nicknames. As it is not a career threatening match which would be where one or the other is fired not just one. Follow consensus.LifeStroke420 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with TJ and DMN this what has been done for everyone one of flair's matches since the angle started on here and tv S—PAC54 03:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're agreeing with them, why did you change the article to be against their views?

If this is not a match type, then there needs to be some changes to Professional_wrestling_match_types, namely removing it. Also, the consensus was to list match types. That means we've been wrong for the last few months for the other PPVs. There has to be a better reason than "this is how we've been doing it." Mshake3 (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you put it in? they are against the career threatening match title.LifeStroke420 (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't getting anywhere. Right, to determine a firm consensus, which version do you like the best?

Version 1

 * Career Threatening match: Ric Flair vs. Shawn Michaels
 * If Flair loses the match, he must retire from wrestling.


 * Support
 * Mshake3 (talk)
 * Endlessdan

Version 2

 * Ric Flair vs. Shawn Michaels
 * If Flair loses the match, he must retire from wrestling.


 * Support
 * D.M.N. (talk)
 * iMat thew   20  08
 * Darrenhusted (talk)
 * -G uf fa s  B or gz   7-
 * ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥
 * Normy
 * –Cheers, L  A  X 
 * -- T r U C o  - X 
 * LifeStroke420 (talk)
 * ArcAngel (talk)

Discussion
If we use the first version, saying that the match is a "career threatening match," that seems to imply that it's career threatening for HBK and Flair. With the note, it says "If Flair loses the match, he must retire from professional wrestling." iMat thew   20  08  10:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Version 2 gives a bit more clarity. Although, in Version 1 it does still say Flair beneath it. Although, if it says the Flair thing beneath it, having the "Career Threatening Match" is sort of redundant. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 11:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I didn't notice that note under V.1. I'm still in favor of V.2 though. iMat  thew   20  08  11:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Version 1 is redundant..two times there is a redirect to the match type of retirement, one is enough, and version 2 is the one.-- T r U C o  - X  14:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well thanks everyone for proving my point. LifeStroke420 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And the point was? Mshake3 (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That you were wrong.LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I love this place. Everyone is strongly for or against something, but half the time, they don't even know what they're for or against.
 * Please both of you, remain civil. D.M.N. (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me we are.LifeStroke420 (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In any event 2 against 9 is a clear consensus, so this discussion is mute now. D.M.N. (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, not really. The basic argument was "this is how we did it", but with no explanation of why it was done in those instances. Mshake3 (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was put to a vote. You lost. Now move on.LifeStroke420 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think I'll keep it up. Mshake3 (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok waist your time.LifeStroke420 (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Put card in order
does anyone know what order the matches are goin to be in, i think MITB match is first,, but afet that idk.... could someone put them in order so we know what kinda emphisis wwe has on each match, i think HBK v. Natch is going to be the main event 70.129.176.202 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Until it airs, it's all speculation, which is not allowed per WP:V. The consensus of WP:PW is to list PPV matches in the order that they are announced until the PPV actually airs. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok Num 1. It's speculation. Num 2. WWE always puts HHH in the main event. Everyone knows that and Num 3. WWE always puts the cards in random order except for HHH matches, so you won't know till the event. 76.116.191.171 (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, Triple H isn't always in the main event. –Cheers, L  A  X  19:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Advertised WM ME's:


 * 16: HHH vs. The Rock vs. The Big Show vs. Mick Foley
 * 18: HHH vs. Y2J
 * 19: HHH vs. Booker T
 * 20: HHH vs. ***** ****** vs. Shawn Michaels
 * 21: HHH vs. Batista
 * 22: HHH vs. John Cena
 * 23: Did not compete (rumoured to main event again with Cena)
 * 24: HHH vs. Randy Orton vs. John Cena

Yah, I would say he's not, always, but quite often is, in the main event. And who can blame the E for doing so?Killswitch Engage (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, for the final time, per WP:PW consensus, the matches are ordered by the order they were announced. Until after the event, will they be re-ordered. Please just wait until after WrestleMania (less than a week). T r U C o  - X  20:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my num 2. doesn't go with my num 1. so yeah we'll just wait. Meepboy (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC) I laughed really hard when I saw you censored benoit. Also Hbk vs. Flair won't be the main event it will be the WWE title match. LifeStroke420 (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * sigh* here I go again... num 1. Don't get into Benoit, it's been almost a year now I think we should just let it go. Num 2. It's all just speculation. Really the only match order we know is that the 24-man battle royal will be first because it's before they go live. But we don't even know THAT if there's some sort of freak mistake like pyro or something. Meepboy (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com Battle Royal
Should we be even having the Battle Royal in the Matches section. I think it should be in the Background section as it is not a match occuring at WrestleManiam, it's occuring on WWE.com. What do you all think? -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We mention dark matches in the section. We'll mention this. Mshake3 (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really the same though. Dark matches are just lower card wrestlers wrestling purely for crowd entertainment. I think that this shouldn't be noted in the Matches section, but in the Background section. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 02:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Dark matches are used for the company to see what said wrestlers are capable of. The battle royal is a pre-show/Sunday Night Heat match. It's notable.Killswitch Engage (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. because if a match takes place at a PPV event and is not shown live on PPV, it is a dark match, like Mshake said.-- T r U C o  - X  02:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it once was on the card and it is to determine who will fight Chavo. So I think it should be mentioned on the Card. Some people don't even read the Background section unless they have to. We should keep it on the card.--WillC (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also it is still on the card at wwe.com. Right Here.--WillC (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

WillC, why don't we put the RAW Elimination Chamber match on the card too? That shows us who will face Randy Orton for the WWE title. That sort of information, goes in the background, it is not apart of the WrestleMania card. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 06:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Wrestlemania is an event, not only a PPV program. The Elimination Chamber was part of No Way Out event. It doesn't matter if it will be broadcast or not, the Battle Royal will be part of the Wrestlemania event and it will be one of the matchs there --Asmactic (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is no longer part of the event. It is a way of determining one of the participants for the event. It happens before WrestleMania, not at WrestleMania. IT SHOULD NOT BE PART OF THE CARD! -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The people on the website will see it, the people live (including me) will see it, and it leads into another match on the card. Therefore it should be on the card. Meepboy (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be there, definitely. They are advertising as a part of the WrestleMania event, only it can be viewed for free. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * GuffasBorg, you do not have a strong argument, look-The match is not going to take place on PPV, it will be similar to Sunday Night HEAT where matches aired on Heat, but took place at the arena where WrestleMania was set up, thus they being included in the matches section of other PPV articles.-- T r U C o  - X  19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I kinda agree with that. Meepboy (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I guess I am outnumbered here. I still don't agree, but there is obviously no point in continuing as I don't have any supporters. -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I don 't care if it's on wikipedia or not i'm gonna see it anyway. Meepboy (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mayweather vs. Big Show
Doesn't "Anything goes" mean No Disqualifications (I may just be mistaken). –Cheers, L  A  X  20:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, several reports online say it will be a No Holds barred match/No Dq/Hardcore type of match, so for now I guess No DQ is where we should go from here..-- T r U C o  - X  20:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So it should list:

Correct? –Cheers, L  A  X  20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No Disqualification match: Floyd "Money" Mayweather vs. The Big Show
 * For now yeah, until WWE reports otherwise, or until the PPV itself..-- T r U C o  - X  20:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Stevie Richards Replaces Matt Striker in the Battle Royal
Check the battle royal graphic on WWE.com, and it appears that Stevie Richards has replaced Matt Striker in the match.

--Bigmackdaddy (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Any more sources beyond a graphic? lol. Meepboy (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)