Talk:WrestleMania XXVIII

<Jimmy Hard Nails vs The Undertaker><To end the streak>

82.36.34.56 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CTJF83 16:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan

Should Daniel Bryan's supposed title match be on here. He has now tried to cash in his briefcase twice before Wrestlemania. There is no reason to believe he will wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.37.127 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011

please change "2 matches" to "1 match" the matter has been discussed before

The Mizzzzz (My Talkkkkk) 05:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ive made the changes.--Dcheagle 08:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011

30 November 2010

16 April 2012 Thearticleupdater20 (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Daniel Bryan's match should be removed, this has been discussed before and conclusions have been reached, no need to bring the matter up again. Also this page should be fully protected for awhile.

The Mizzzzz (My Talkkkkk) 04:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of "Charlie" in the article. This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - ie, I don't know what you want me to change.  Chzz  ►  07:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Daniel Bryan vs. TBC

Listing this was clutching at straws to begin with, as there's not even a match. The version of this article driven by its enthusiasts pushes an angle where "Bryan declared he would cash in his Money in the Bank briefcase at WrestleMania XXVIII", completely ignoring the fact he tried to cash it in on Mark Henry and confirmed that cashing in at WM is no longer his plan on the November 29 edition of Raw. There, Michael Cole interviewed Bryan, calling him a "hypocrite". Bryan responded by saying, "I had big plans for this [the briefcase], I had planned to main event WrestleMania, but guess what? Plans change, and my plans changed when Mark Henry tried to induct me into his hall of pain. He tried to end my career, and that's when I realised that this doesn't guarantee me anything." This really is a no-brainer, but people seem to be intent on rigging the article to reflect two confirmed, scheduled and advertised matches, and waving around an entirely weightless claim of "project consensus" as the grounds for doing so. Wwewrestlingmadman (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What you're missing is that WWE still lists the match for WrestleMania as of this morning. Something could change but until WWE removes the match from their WrestleMania card we have to acknowledge it. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Outdated websites carry little weight. If a dead pop singer's site still lists tour dates, does that mean they're still alive? A little common sense would be useful. Wwewrestlingmadman (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about a dead celebrity though, we're talking about a fixed storyline, the storyline is ongoing and the latest information suggest the match will still happen at Mania. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we semi act like adults here Wwewrestlingmadaman do you have a link that states that the match wont take place at WW.--Dcheagle 22:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

CR no offense but WWE isn't as predictable as this website makes it seem like. If anything WWE is more like Kim Kardashians marrige (not black and white). And before you say I'm crystallballing here, let me remind yall Christian was supposed to take part in Survivor Series but an injury has him out for the next couple of months.--Voices in my Head WWE 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So? He was confirmed for the match up til the moment he was injured. Your argument makes no sense. By that logic, let's delete the TLC article, someone might be injured before the PPV. You argument is flawed in the sense that what is announced will happen unless something happens. Sure Bryan could be injured, but we don't go by that until something happens other wise it would crystal balling. Here's point I'm trying to make, just because something can go wrong doesn't mean it will and until something does we go by what the sources say, the sources say at this point the match will happen. Please quit speculating. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, as long as WWE is still advertising the match on WWE.com, we must report it as so. Sure, Bryan did attempt to cash it in, but now that he has received the briefcase back, he can cash it any time he wants to and Bryan did not say explicitly say that he was not cashing it in at Mania. Likewise, WWE also did not announce that Bryan is not cashing in at Mania because the match is still advertised at WWE.com. If you want to go by the terribly flawed argument that "injuries / shit can happen... look at Christian at Survivor Series" then we might as well not report any match at all for any future event. Injuries can happen to the Rock. Injuries could happen to John Cena. Why are you not pushing for the removal of this other match then? The ring could collapse again before the Royal Rumble. Let's not state on Wikipedia that WWE is advertising a Royal Rumble match. You guys seem to forget that what Wikipedia is doing is reporting what WWE is advertising. We report exactly what they advertise because the most accurate source for the promotion of future WWE matches on PPV is WWE itself. Therefore if they promote a match we should jolly well follow them. Starship.paint (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to write a long paragraph on this trivial matter. This is a common sense issue. It's plainly incompetent for anyone to want to remove Daniel Bryan's match from the article. It might not happen, but we're not interested in "mights". The article is about the PPV and WWE is advertising this as one of the matches. End of discussion. Feedback ^☎ 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We're heading towards re-affirming the original consensus. Can't say I'm surprised. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 08:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside Comment - In all fairness (though this point will contribute nothing towards the argument for removing or keeping the debated mention), the "card is always subject to change". Just something to keep in mind. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 03:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback can you ever say something that isn't dickish.--Voices in my Head WWE 04:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How was he dickish? Blunt yes, but dickish? How? CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 06:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully, it was a bit distasteful in its wording and tone from my personal perspective. I will remind User:Feedback that common sense isn't common which is why there is no common sense. I'll also remind all involved parties that the so-called implication of "common sense" is nothing more than the personal perspective of the involved party. Please fully read and understand the policy you are citing before choosing to do so. That said, based on these last few comments posted, I personally believe all involved parties could do with a reading of WP:CIVIL. Perhaps, a reading of WP:DBAD wouldn't hurt as well, all things considered.... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 06:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah who cares, so what he's dickish? It always gets a chuckle out of me.--Deely talk 05:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very blunt, and I admit sometimes a little dickish. It's more of an instinctual nature, but I usually apologize if someone is overly offended. I guess I was kind of "dickish" to call someone incompetent, but I have to disagree with Goku's evil son over here because I definitely believe this falls in the realm of commons sense. By the way, common sense is something the common person would consider obvious, it doesn't mean that everybody will agree on it. If everybody did, it wouldn't be common, it would be freaking universal. Anyway, the match is advertised to happen so we put it in the article. As simple as that. If someone doesn't get that, I don't think he's paying enough attention. Feedback ^☎ 07:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the garbage content is gone. Wwewrestlingmadman (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, remember to be civil. There was no need for that comment. It was not "garbage content" as it was official up til last night. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, a match that was officially promoted by the WWE is not garbage content regardless of the fact that the MITB contract was cashed in earlier anymore than the mentioning the Rock Cena match would be if the match is later cancelled because Cena injured himself next week and was out for seven months.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)