Talk:WrestleMania XXIV/Archive 2

Vandalism at approximately 7:30 PM

Did anyone saw it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.160.9.147 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did unfortunately =/ 90.198.66.113 (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, It was nasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonKSK (talk • contribs) 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Who? Who put that image? Who likes to "prank-up" pages like that? If it were a text vandalism saying "TNA RULES, WWE SUCKS" or "[wrestler name here] is a loser" it would be a simple joke to be simply erased. But THAT wasn't funny, It was tasteless and nasty.

But there are many persons that like to ruin articles by "shocking" people with obscene messages and, in a more advanced form, putting un-erasable images or messages...189.160.78.119 (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Kane

So is his win against Chavo Guerrero the fastest Wrestlemania match, the fastest ECW Championship Match, and the first time the ECW Championship was defended at Wrestlemania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.124.171 (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, but it will not be noted because it is trivial.--3L VaK3r0 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Kane clearly won that match in 11 seconds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.232.108 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

He's right. If you can use the youtube video as a source, the match starts at 2:43, and ends at 2:54, making it 11 seconds, not eight. dR (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The youtube video can't be used as a source, because youtube isn't considered a reliable source due to it hosting illegal videos. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I was told wwe.com is not a reliable source either and both sources have wwe.com as its source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.170.204 (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bunnymania

It says Snoop Dogg kissed Maria after the match but who won? Or is this just vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermon CaTaffy 8 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC) No, I believe this is true. He also clotheslined Santino following his celebrating in the ring. Dmasta (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable. –LAX 02:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

STOP REMOVING THE BOLD AND TIMES

To whomever is removing the Bold and times,

Unless the times are incorrect, STOP REMOVING THEM!

AND STOP REMOVING THE BOLDS FOR THE MATCHES. THIS IS THE STANDARD AMONG ALL WIKIPEDIA PPV PAGES. AndarielHalo (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Per discussions at WT:PW, bolding is discouraged on PPV articles; the only time bolding will be used, is before a PPV airs. The times will not be added until a reliable source is found for those times. Also, please do not use CAPS locks, that is rude.--3L VaK3r0 01:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, is Online World of Wrestling an OK source? They said Kane beat Chavo in 09 seconds. --WestJet (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup. –LAX 10:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to make sources but can you do it? [1] --WestJet (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. –LAX 10:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That's utterly ridiculous. It makes it that much more difficult to differentiate the titles from the information beneath them, as well as making it all seem to cram together. AndarielHalo (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

But that is how we [WP:PW] do it now. –LAX 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed some more. Just because some people over at the PW group agree doesn't mean there's consensus. I believe the page looks better with the main results in bold. --Maestro25 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why it should be bolded, it's not about looks. –LAX 20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this manual of style is the result of years of disputes. I've been here for 1 year and 10 months. The disputes began before I got here, and didn't end for some time afterwards. If you want to stir this up again, then I'm not going to stand in your way. However, I would like to point out that no matter how you think they look better, the current MoS is functional, and is certainly the result of a consensus. While consensus can change, and I doubt all hell will break loose if a discussion is started up about it again, it would be nice to just not deal with this at all. Like I said, feel free to start up a new discussion as it probably won't turn into a big deal, but please consider if it's worth all the trouble first. Cheers, SexySeaBass 20:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Bolding is discouraged? Even though all the other PPV articles follow the same format where wrestlers, match types and belts are bold. Yeah right. All the other PPVs look fine and are much more easy to read. Mark handscombe (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Conensus has changed based on a recent FAC review. Bolding is being discouraged not by the project, but by Wikipedia itself. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the opinions of the one reviewer, that is. Mshake3 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

On PW Style Guide still saying "When writing results, the match result should be in bold". I dont know where it was discussed, but if it was the page should be changed --Asmactic (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Flair vs. Michaels

The match between Ric Flair and Shawn Michaels was not a retirement match. The retirement stipulation would not have applied to Michaels had he lost the match. It only applied to Flair due to what Vince McMahon said months ago when Flair returned, that the first singles match Flair lost would end his career. That said, someone please change it.

Dmasta (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that already clarified? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, someone unaware of that might believe that the loser of the match would have to retire, when it's only true for Flair. It's trivial I guess... Dmasta (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, someone will clarify that, I guarantee you that. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the editing war currently going on... there are three options. 1) Retirement match - we've basically argued this one out, since it doesn't apply to HBK 2) Career threatening match - I'd personally argue this one because it's the one displayed on WWE.com 3) mention nothing at all - after all, the tag is there describing Flair's retirement ( :'( ) Debate on? --3pointswish (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The condition was that if Flair lose, he had to retire. If HBK lost, nothing would have happened, and Flair would not have to retire Bo18 (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to the "edit conflicts", this will be explained well. Just, give it sometime, jeez. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll make this short and sweet It was not a career threatening match because had Flair won nothing would have happened. LifeStroke420 (talk) 04:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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 [2][3] (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#Retirement_match, 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)
• iMatthew 2008
• Darrenhusted (talk)
• ^{-GuffasBorgz7-}
• ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥
• Normy
• –Cheers, LAX
• --TrUCo-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." iMatthew 2008 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. ^{-GuffasBorgz7-} 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. iMatthew 2008 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.--TrUCo-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)

Attendance

It was announced in a promo after the Big Show vs Floyd Mayweather match. Bo18 (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake. It was actually 74,635. Thanks to whoever corrected it. I put down 74,035 originally Bo18 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edge vs Undertaker

^{Superscript text} Who in the hell said that UNdertaker beat Edge. The PPV I'snt over yet. I'm On Base (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just ignore them, They are vandalizing the page. The match is still on Bo18 (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ok. tnx pal. see talk No way out 2008 to see my anger issues with vandals. I'm On Base (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Undertaker won just then, so yeah Bo18 (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And what a great match it was too :) Poison-System-X (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a forum. –LAX 03:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We know Bo18 (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Does any one know what the name of the song that was used for the Ric Flair tribute video? Tkosmach (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Leave the Memory Alone by Fuel ThanksTkosmach (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Rated R era is overed by the same person Dead man from whom edge stole his first W H C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.184.57 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, but Wikipedia is not a forum. –LAX 10:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Pyro malfunction / falling cable injures fans

I'm not much of an editor but I consider this worthy of inclusion http://www.wftv.com/news/15748647/detail.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.21 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Oakster  Talk  17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a major event/malfunction. As more information becomes available, it should deserve its own section. I think it should be separated by a subsection right now. Helltopay27 (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

See thats why it was a bad idea for them to have that outside event if one hut me i would have sued--The real rj (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC) --The real rj (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we don't care and Wikipedia is not a forum. –LAX 03:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Power outage

Was the power outage part of the show or did it really happen.--$$$Keeton D.$$$ (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope really happened. For a second I was like "thank god it's in the middle of a women's match", no offense. Meepboy (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned in the article?--$$$Keeton D.$$$ (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

yes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadbellly (talk • contribs) 10:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ring Ropes

was the ropes Orange or were they the Red ropes. also the ropes should be mentioned, like in last years WM 23 section mentions the all white ropes.--Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They were red and IMO, it's not very notable. –LAX 06:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's not notable, i'll delete it from the Wrestlemania 23 page then.Meepboy (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC) The Ropes were orange because of the tagline and it was outside in the sun and in Florida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTWRESTLING (talk • contribs) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's notable for WM 23 because it was the first time WM had all white ring ropes. IT's not the first time they've had red ropes. Alexrushfear (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Orange and it is the first time they use Orange ropes in WrestleMania too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miroa12004 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is notable for 23 i'll give you that, but there's other colors that have to do with the tagline too so it should NOT be notable in the 24 article. Meepboy (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, not that it really matters...the ring ropes were orange. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Triple Threat Match

Can someone please correct this segment of the article. Randy Orton won the WWE Title when he pinned Cena after HHH hit Cena with the Pedigree. I dont know what the guy writing it was smoking... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.35.138.10 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it should say that Orton pinned Cena after a pedigree from HHH and an Orton punt kick on HHH I think, well at least if you wanna give people more info. Meepboy (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Is Wrestlemania itself (broadcast of the event) a source? I ask because of the matches, some people have put but were reverted because there is no source. but if Wrestlemania is a source the times should be kept. --Asmactic (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if WM is a source to you, you prob. have to give the PPV provider you got the PPV from. Meepboy (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There'll never be an official source on match times. Everyone we see is going to be just some guy watching the tape with a stopwatch, and according to some, that's original research. However, that goes against the spirit of the rule, which is to prevent creating new views to a topic. So come on, just get a stopwatch, add it, and let's move on. Mshake3 (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

For match times, to my knowledge, we mainly use the times that Pro Wrestling History provides. –LAX 01:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. We should keep using it. But I don't see how that's any more reliable, considering the method of getting the times. Mshake3 (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Match times

Will this do as a source? [4] Alexrushfear (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Travis

Why are we doing away with it? Supermike(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Doing away with what? And who's Travis? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok??? are you on something its like records for example Undertaker win the title for the 2nd time at a WM back to back or Cena WM streak end at WM24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he is trying to say "Trivia" --Asmactic (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Trivia. Nice typo then. Trivia sections are discouraged, per WP:TRIVIA

But people like them and their fun I have them on my website and their a hit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But that is irrelevant to what Wikipedia does. Trivia sections are discouraged per WP:TRIVIA. –LAX 10:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Then what the point of even coming here kinda of make the site pointless then —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it will help if you think about it this way: If you want to get trivia about some subject, do you go look for it in your (or your library's) encyclopedia??? Probably not. Most likely you will go to an excyclopedia to get relevant, concise, and throughly-researched information about a subject; and since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then it has to look and feel like one first. Thus, trivia is not allowed—though some of us would want it to be. Hope this helped. --Andresg770 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gogoplata

"Undertaker forced Edge to submit with the Gogoplata." The move has never been referred to on WWE Television as a gogoplata (even though it is). I thought Wikipedia only allowed things which have been confirmed on WWE Television. Michael Cole instead calls the hold "That Submission Maneouver" IanDangerously (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well think about it. "Undertaker defeated Edge with that submission move." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smackdownraw (talk • contribs) 08:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Event section missing matches

Is it me or is the Event section of this article missing the last few matches. --- Paulley (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Users are working on it. Give it time. :) –LAX 22:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's ok then LAX, just thought it might be one of those unnoticed deleted section. -- Paulley (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Orton

Should it be noted somewhere, either in this section or the WrestleMania section that Orton is the only other heel than Triple H to walk out of WrestleMania's WWE Championship match victorious? I think I seen it somewhere a while back mentioning that Triple H was the first heel to win/defend (can't remember) the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If he is the second or only other, what makes it notable? –LAX 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's an event that a face generally wins. I see a bunch of other random bits of information on pages. I've been looking around for the one that noted Triple H and I don't see it anymore, so I guess it might not be notable. I think it is, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I, personally, do not think it is. It seems like fancruft to me. –LAX 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, than neither are WWE Superstars' tattoos, who they're married to, etc. That's what I think. I guess if one were to note this, they could put it on the Triple H/Orton page. But, like I said before, it's not on the Triple H page anymore, so maybe it is fanbunk or whatever.

It's a grey area, because if you want to include this then you would have to consider Yokozuna winning the title over Bret Hart at Wrestlemania IX. Even though Hulk Hogan beat Yokozuna moments later to close the show, that would still be a heel winning the WWE championship at Wrestlemania. Also, Steve Austin won the WWE title at Wrestlemania 17 and closed the show as a heel, as the heel turn actually ocurred during the match. So you may need to include these also if you were going o mention it, it's really not notable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.220.220 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. But, as you said, Yoko did NOT walk out with the title (guess I should've said the event instead of match) in his hand, and, Stone Cold, at that point, was gaining momentum as a face. The Submission Match featuring Stone Cold and Bret Hart was, actually, the turning point for Stone Cold's face turn, not the match with Shawn Michaels. I do see your point, though, for not looking at it as notable, but if you look at it, Triple H and Randy Orton are the only two to walk out of WrestleMania with World gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.179.34 (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I misread what you said. Still, Austin was more along the lines of a tweener than a genuine heel.