Talk:WrestleMania XXVI

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Arizona (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Professional wrestling (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon WrestleMania XXVI is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

learn to count[edit]

If it's Wrestlemanie XXVI, it is hardly the 25th one like last year, but probably the 26th one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism that was reverted as soon as it was caught. For future reference, you could have fixed it yourself. ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 13:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Too early[edit]

It is WAY too early for this article to exist. It is at least 13 months away (maybe 13 1/2 if WWE holds it in early April). All that is known is that it expected to be in Glendale. No date, no logo, no information. It should go back to a redirect to WrestleMania until at least the day after WrestleMania XXV. I support changing it back to a redirect. TJ Spyke 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, one month really doesn't effect anything. Usually, WWE will release the logo at the press conference. Various sources have reported it so its not that bad. Next years Super Bowl already had an article way before this year's Super Bowl.--TRUCO 03:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
At least with the Super Bowl they have plenty of other information though. This article will pretty much stay like it currently is for at least several more months, nothing more than a stub. It's the same reason we don't have articles for SummerSlam 2009 (which is only 7 months away) even though we know more about that PPV than we do this one. TJ Spyke 03:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Super Bowl XLIV just has more wording about the selection process but is only verified by 2 refs, its practically the same as this article.--TRUCO 04:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It has a lot more info. Stuff like being the first on digital TV, the Pro Bowl being played before the Super Bowl for the first time, info on it being a national security event, among others. My suggestion is to do what we always do, wait until after WrestleMania XXV. I know not much will change by then though. TJ Spyke 04:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

<--If not much is going to change by then, what's the point in redirecting it now, and recreating it then? Why not just leave it now? ♥NiciVampireHeart♥ 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would be all for keeping it a redirect even longer. The article will only get the date and logo added, then nothing for several months when WWE announces the ticket date (if past years are any indication). TJ Spyke 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It would remain a stub though no less. I mean regardless of whether we wait until WrestleMania 25 or tomorrow how much difference do you think a day or a month would make for something that is a year away? Now take another thing into consideration: IPs and one-time edit users. With the subject already being covered by news organizations, giving these IPs and users self-justification, do you realize how many times we would be reverting and page-watching, and page-protecting, and possibly even blocking? It’s just best to avoid this problem, as we should with any conflicts.--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
But under that logic, why not add in rumored matches to PPV articles ahead of time to avoid having to revert IP's all the time. Keeping a stub article that will not be expanded for like 5 months just because IPs's and some users might try creating it over and over is not the best idea IMO. TJ Spyke
That's not the logic at all, because for rumored matches and all the nonsense that IWC organizations report there is no reliable source covering the subject. IWC sites are not news organizations. In this case however, we have reputable news orgs covering the subject. That is what I was referring to.--UnquestionableTruth-- 04:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
All events with the notability of this caliber should be able to maintain a stub article until info is added. Although the SB article has a bit more info (since its broadcast on television), it is still a stub neither-the-less. Take all that info out, you're just left with the selection process. Same as this event.--TRUCO 12:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on, this is WAY too early. WM 25 hasen't even taken place yet--Falegas (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Read the above comments.--Best, RUCӨ 18:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

what does it matter if its a stub why cant it just sit here if u dont like it then dont visit it here is some people who may be curios on the date its taken place and where and now they can seean logo so i say keep it up Golefsgophan (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


Since Wrestleview is only considered reliable for TV and PPV results, sooner or later it needs to be replaced with a more reliable source for the tagline. TJ Spyke 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it will once more information is released by reliable sources. For now, WrestleView is best for it since their "work" is from the official WrestleMania XXVI Press Conference.--TRUCO 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but there is no way to verify it since it was not a public press conference. For now I suppose it's OK, until another source is found. TJ Spyke 21:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can Verify it since it was a Public press conference that they show on their website SupermikeKSK 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually it was not a public press conference. What site has the video? only has pictures of it. TJ Spyke 18:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Ross returning to WrestleMania?[edit]

Is it Known that J.R. is coming back? (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrcdhus (talkcontribs) 06:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Shut up troll.

To the IP, 2 thing: 1)This is not a messgaboard, this talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article. 2)JR has said he hopes to be able to do the show (his health is the main issue), but he doesn't know yet when he will return. TJ Spyke 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


"Undefeated" needs to be included as that implies the significance of the match. From

At WrestleMania, The Undertaker will put his 17-0 undefeated streak on the line against Shawn Michaels’ storybook career, in a rematch so highly anticipated and potentially explosive that it could only occur on The Grandest Stage of Them All.

Without it, the "streak" does really mean anything at all. –Turian (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What kind of other streak would be on the line? A losing streak? Besides, it's always just called The Streak and the match is being billed as "streak vs. career". This is also a situation where "duh" comes to mind as it's obvious what streak means. TJ Spyke 00:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
You discuss it before you revert it. Also, we cannot assume the reader knows things about wrestling. It can be any kind of streak: matches where he wins, where he punches someone, where he choke slams someone, where he loses, where he never gets pinned for even a one count. There can be many streaks. –Turian (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
But everyone knows about Undertaker's Streak at WrestleMania. So there's no need.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
We cannot assume a reader knows what is going on, nor can we assume the position to tell someone that they know something. Without the "undefeated," the word streak essentially means nothing. –Turian (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, go for it.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I am going to wait for more replies before I do anything. –Turian (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
One question though, why is it so important to state the obvious when wrestling fans know "what" streak it is referring to?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
This page isn't just for "wrestling fans" it is for anyone, fan or non-fan.--WillC 08:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Why not just link "streak" to the section on it in Undertaker's article? Not to mention the fact that it's already explained in this article what the streak is too. TJ Spyke 22:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
In context, streak means nothing. I think the best thing would be to mention "undefeated" and link it. People don't always read the pages, especially when their is a table. –Turian (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


Here is a part of the text:

It was announced on the March 5 edition of SmackDown that The Big Show and The Miz would defend their Unified WWE Tag Team Championship at the event against the team who won the qualifier that night. It was contested as a triple threat match with the three teams being Cryme Tyme, The Hart Dynasty and the pairing of John Morrison, co-holder The Miz's former partner, and R-Truth. Morrison and Truth would go on to win the match.

I'm not really sure but I think you guys are saying that they will win the match before the match, or wikipedia is wrong or you are making a spoiler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

they went on to win the qualifier and will face The Big Show and The Miz at WrestleMania XXVI i will re word it to state that--Steam Iron 23:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


On the most recent Smackdown (March 5th) manager Teddy Long mentioned Kane will no longer be in the match.--Cooly123 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

No he didn't. He said that even though McIntyre's loss was expunged, Kane was still in the match. TJ Spyke 19:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Triple H vs. Sheamus[edit]

Not too sure, but didn't Sheamus initially make the challenge to Triple H? 22:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Triple H was talking to Sheamus about a match for WrestleMania.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I know, but before that, when Sheamus first came out, one of his first statements was about WrestleMania 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Here is what happened: Triple H came out and was cutting a promo, Sheamus interrupted him and challenged Triple H to a match at WrestleMania. Triple H then talked about his WrestleMania history (which was full of BS, BTW) and then asked if Sheamus really wanted to risk his career to try and make a name off of Triple H. Sheamus said yes. The source next to the statement ('s Raw results page) even supports this. So Sheamus challenged Triple H. TJ Spyke 21:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
His remark about his first Mania match was true, TJ. He was referring to the Warrior BTW. !! Justa Punk !! 08:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

MITB Spoiler[edit]

I read somewhere that had SmackDown spoilers that said Drew McIntyre will be in the Money in the Bank ladder match, raising the contest to nine competitors. Can I add that info?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you add reliable sources. –Turian (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Is one of them, since it's the place I read it?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Nope, WrestleZone is considered unreliable by WP:PW. TJ Spyke 22:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Michael Cole on Superstars, there will be 10 participants in MITB this year. I'm adding a tenth TBD to the match. Dahumorist (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The tenth entrant will be decided on Raw on Monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

According to, it's only going to be 9 wrestlers. TJ Spyke 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

there is now 10 in MITB, with Kofi Kingston earning the final spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rey Mysterio vs CM Punk[edit]

Wasn't a match between Mysterio and Punk confirmed for Wrestlemania this past Friday on Smackdown? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The match is not a singles match, it's a Street Fight, Mysterio challenged Punk to a Street Fight on Smackdown —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a singles match, Rey did challenged CM Punk to a street fight, but Punk wanted a singles match to where if he wins, Rey must become the new member of the Straight Edge Society. In order for Punk or Rey getting their way is by having Rey face Luke Gallows. Luke won so it's a singles match.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Diva's match[edit]

I'd expect they will be a diva's match added to the 'Mania card sometime this week. Probably with the diva's that were involved in the match on Raw last night, with a few other diva's thrown in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is from SEScoops, idk if it counts as a reliable source, but it says that Beth Phoenix, Kelly Kelly, Gail Kim and Mickie James vs. Layla, Michelle McCool, Maryse and Vickie Guerrero has been added Blackballoon222 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New official theme songs.[edit]

The Johnny Cash song is listed as an official theme song on the WWE website.

There has been another official theme song added to Wrestlemania. Band name is Since October. Song name is The Show —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cash's song is only listed as "Music of WrestleMania", which more or less classifies as a non-theme song like "Touched" and "Crash" were for WrestleMania XXV, not to mention it's only used for the Undertaker/Michaels matchup. But thanks for pointing out "The Show", didn't catch that one. --  Θakster   23:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

jim ross?[edit]

jim ross is back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I know, he has always been back, but now he's "Supposedly", supoost to make his televison re-debut at Mania, but then who knows?2hedsbtrTHAN1 (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXVI[edit]

So, I guess there's not going to be any Miss WrestleMania batle royals this year, huh?Daniel 5790 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A divas match will be added on tonight's Smackdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


Any worth adding?45g (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to get this added to all wrestlemania articles.--Cooly123 20:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)


Some or all the pictures you used was not on WrestleMania XXVI [1]. For instance, the picture of Chris Jericho, the ropes in the picture was red, the ropes in WrestleMania 26 was white. ZZero4K 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZero4K (talkcontribs)

Images are used for reference, not recap. –Turian (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Worth Mentioning?[edit]

This was the first WrestleMania to end in a match with no title since XI. Shouldn't this be worth mentioning?

YES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Viewer07 (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle Royal Participants[edit]

Hornswoggle was NOT a participant in the battle royal. If you go on, - you will see that Chavo Guerrero is a participant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? Danny Boy 420 02:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Boy 420 (talkcontribs)

I know what he means you see it was a 26 Man Battle Royal not 27 man and besides Hornswoggle didn't enter when the bell was rung thus making him and unofficial particapant and if you see another site that says he was in it he wasn't. TIP: watch the match entrance then you'll see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toonpatrolfav003 (talkcontribs) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


We should add the Lumberjacks for the Hart/McMahon match

You do have a point. Feedback 22:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Than I say we should. It's common sense for on wikipedia to add the lumberjacks to provide visuals to the reader who didn't see the match

New Notes[edit]

I think there should be another note for the 26-man Battle Royal, since it was the last match for Jimmy Wang Yang, Kung Fu Naki, Mike Knox and Slam Master J and a note for the MitB match since it was the last televised match for Shelton Benjamin. The reason because they were released from the WWE just a few weeks later. Anyone agree to it?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not? It seems note worthy.--Cooly123 02:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talkcontribs)

Battle Royal[edit]

Can you create a infobox where you will put the battle royal participants, order, eliminated by.... Here is a video of the match -- (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Attendance Record[edit]

I don't quite understand how this sets a University of Phoenix Stadium attendence record when the attendence was 72,219 yet the 2007 Fiesta Bowl had an attendance of 73,719, the 2007 BCS National Championshi game had an attendance of 74,628 and the 2010 Fiesta Bowl had an attendance of 73,227. I do understand it may have set a grossing attendance record and maybe an enteraninment record but not a sporting event record, but I think that should really be mentioned cause it is by far not the highest attended event in the stadiums history.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 10:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Its explained in the University of Phoenix Stadium article.--UnquestionableTruth-- 11:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)