Jump to content

Talk:WrestleMania XXVI

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.144.20.54 (talk) at 21:25, 11 March 2010 (→‎Triple H vs. Sheamus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconProfessional wrestling Unassessed Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconWrestleMania 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.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArizona Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Too early

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

<--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? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh come on, this is WAY too early. WM 25 hasen't even taken place yet--Falegas (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the above comments.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 18:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tagline

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

Jim Ross returning to WrestleMania?

Is it Known that J.R. is coming back? 67.61.117.96 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acrcdhus (talk • contribs) 06:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Undertaker

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
But everyone knows about Undertaker's Streak at WrestleMania. So there's no need.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, go for it.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to wait for more replies before I do anything. –Turian (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This page isn't just for "wrestling fans" it is for anyone, fan or non-fan.--WillC 08:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Spoiler

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 201.172.72.41 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.172.72.41 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MITB

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 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

Triple H vs. Sheamus

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)[reply]
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WrestleMania_XXVI&oldid=349301589"