Talk:WrestleMania 23/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Buy rate press release

And I quote "WrestleMania 23, held April 1 at Detroit's Ford Field, established new records for pay-per-view buys and revenue. Preliminary estimates show that WrestleMania 23 has achieved 1.2 million pay-per-view buys, achieving global revenues in excess of $24.3 million.

The event also set new attendance and ticket revenue records, spurred record highs in merchandise sales, and brought unprecedented page-view numbers to WWE.com.

WrestleMania 23 packed 80,103 ecstatic fans into Ford Field setting an all-time venue attendance record, with fans converging on Detroit from 24 countries, all 50 states and 9 Canadian provinces. WrestleMania 23 is the highest grossing one-day live event in WWE history, grossing more than $5.38 million in ticket sales.

The event set an all-time WrestleMania record for merchandise sales with more than $1.6 million in gross revenue with a per cap of $21.37. Online, the WWEShop.com experienced more than $395,000 in sales during the week leading into WrestleMania 23 -- 50 percent higher than at the same time last year.

WWE.com shattered its all-time WrestleMania record by 114 percent with an astounding 67.6 million page views the Monday following WrestleMania 23. WWE.com received more than 120 million page views from more than five million unique site visitors from Saturday, March 31, through Monday, April 2.

The week-long celebration in Detroit was also the culmination of the 2007 WWE Fan Axxess Tour. The annual three-month tour brought a series of parties, rallies, and autograph signings to 14 cities across North America - energizing more than 237,000 fans in the lead up to WrestleMania 23."

Info to digest. Darrenhusted 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. It beat WrestleMania 21's buyrate record of 1.1 -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow is right. You even pointed it out yourself, WM23 had 1.2mil buys, making it the highest in WWE history as stated by numerous others here and therefore it is a significant thing to put on the article. User:Mal1988 20:20, 21 July 2007 (AEST)

Deleting Mania Buyrate

This Mania had the highest buyrate of all time with 1.2 million people ordering it.

How is that nonsense and useless information? Can we quit deleting that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Janders3 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Is it really all that notable? Also, it's only the largest if you consider worldwide buyrate, other WrestleMania's have had higher buyrates when just considerint the North American market. TJ Spyke 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This included the World wide comparison. If 80,103 fans is notable, if the live gate is notable, then this major success is notable. Darrenhusted 19:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Find a source from WWE, and I suppose it can be integrated into the article. TJ Spyke 23:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

1.2 MILLION? That's pretty low, if you ask me. Anakinjmt 20:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Last years was about 1 million. TJ Spyke 23:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The buyrate for WrestleMania 23 will be announced in the financial report that covers the second-quarter of the year.

As mentioned in WWE’s first-quarterly report, preliminary figures indicate that WrestleMania 23 drew 1.2 million buys. This will surpass the previous record of 1,040,000 for WrestleMania X-Seven.

You can read WWE’s quarterly-report here; http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/1Q2007Presentation_000.pdf

Also, you can also view the webcast on WWE Corporate where Linda McMahon announced that 1.2 million will be the highest in company history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.124.135 (talk • contribs)

Actually it surpassed WrestleMania 21's record. Still, however, Not Notable.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tara Conner

Should she be listed with Lashley? I've reverted edits a few times to put her back there, but someone else is reverting them back. Perhaps a discussion is in order? Gavyn Sykes 17:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because she had nothing to do with him. All she did was go to the ring with Trump. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No other opinions? Gavyn Sykes 00:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I too don't think she needs to be listed with Lashley, all she did was accompany Trump. - T-75|talk|contribs 06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Trump shaving McMahon's head

Since that match is what drew much mainstream attention, I believe it should be included in this article. There is a photo that came from a newspaper already present on the Donald Trump in popular culture article, perhaps it should be included on this one as well? Kyle C Haight 08:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is a good idea...be bold! - T-75|talk|contribs 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No other objections = picture posted! Kyle C Haight 02:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: The head-shaving photo would be better placed in the results section and the photo of the "attendance record" moved elsewhere in the article as a more generic representation of the event. --Dave. 15:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Special Wrestlemania Entrances

Cena's, MVP's and Undertaker's are mentioned. IIRC, several other people had special, unique entrances, such as Kane and (I believe) Michaels. All special entrances be listed or none of them, not only some of them, in my opinion. Gavyn Sykes 19:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kane and Michaels just came out like normal. Kane did have pyrotechnics, but that is part of his normal entrance. MVP doesn't usually have cheerleaders, Cena doesn't usually enter in a car, and Undertaker doesn't normally have druids. TJ Spyke 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall Kane having a flaming Star of David or pentagram above the Titantron. Gavyn Sykes 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say pentagram since it is supposed to be evil and I doubt Kane would have a Jewish symbol. I don't feel it's worth noting, but I would be willing to read your reasons why. TJ Spyke 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Pentagram can actually be a sign of good depending on what religion you look at. It's good luck in Wicca. Killswitch Engage 02:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Promotional Poster vs. McMahon head shaving

Personally, I'm inclined to include the head shaving picture rather than the promo poster. Since only one is allowed (both is redundant, too many pics aren't a good thing) what's everyone else's opinions? Gavyn Sykes 21:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the live picture is a free image so that one is staying. The poster hmm... maybe... But the image of the head shave seems to depict something more important than the poster does. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my view as well. The poster tells you nothing the article itself doesn't. Pictures of results of matches are a bit more important. We have pics of the MitB, WWE, and WHC matches, which were among the "most important." The battle of the billionaires was definitely another important match (at least in Vince's eyes). Gavyn Sykes 22:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If the poster is just there to decorate or for the hell of it, then it should be taken out. I'd wait, however, to see what others think first so it doesn't look like its just us two that don't think the poster is useful. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it shouldn't be there just for the sake of being there. But yeah, we should wait for a few other comments. Gavyn Sykes 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Changed it back to the Lashley/Trump/McMahon picture. The poster was just there for the sake of decoration, really. Didn't add anything to article, like the Lashley/Trump/McMahon picture did. Kyle C Haight 09:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a picture of every event that happened at WM23. The Promotional poster serves a far more greater purpose.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 21:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is?-- bulletproof ^3:16 21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Shows matches--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But not results which is what we do in the section.-- bulletproof ^3:16 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The poster was in a different section.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is it important though?-- bulletproof ^3:16 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The poster's on on every other PPV why is this one such a discussion?--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Becuase the posters there are used to replace the logos. Since the logos for Mania here aren't the same every year like other events, we use the logo instead of the poster. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I'm fighting so hard is casue I looked hard for that poster and now it in danger of being deleted.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. If you found a picture you looked so hard to find, save it to your computer or upload it to photoshop.com instead. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This page should be LOCKED from future edits

I'm sure that everyone who edits this page does so with good intentions, but really, the amount of edits this page gets is getting totally ridiculous. People are adding insignificant little tidbits of information to the notes section, or the match results section. Seriously, this page is as good as it's going to get, it has all the verifiable facts that it needs, everything is correct and factual, the right participants are listed, the right pictures are up, they're in the right places. The page isn't going to get any better, unless someone can add some more free use photos. (I'd some myself, but, my digital camera pictures from WrestleMania 23 are somewhat distant).

I recommend that this page be locked from future edits because anything added from this point is superfluous. Thoughts? Kyle C Haight 09:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Put a request in for a full block, but I get the feeling it may only get semi. Darrenhusted 11:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

At least block non-members. Those are the ones who are abusing the page. --Janders3 01:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the Cena haters have been mucking around just enough to be a nuisance lately. The last two have changed the result of the main event. !! Justa Punk !! 21:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Commentary teams

I think it's more important in the article to list the commentators by their brands and as a team instead of alphabetically. Alpha order looks ugly and unprofessional in this case IMO. Justa Punk 10:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Third highest attendance

This information is not notable. If it was a record then fine, but as it's not it shouldn't be here in my opinion. Discuss. !! Justa Punk !! 01:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that by adding the WrestleMania III and SummerSlam 1992 notations, it helps put the attendance record for WrestleMania 23 in perspective with the rest of WWE history, which is why I believe it should remain in the article. It certainly doesn't detract from the article in the slightest, and I'd challenge anyone to argue against that point.Kyle C Haight 19:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Being the highest attendance for a WWE event in 15 years is pretty notable in my opinion. I think it should be mentioned. TJ Spyke 02:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Why are we so strict on the trivia stuff? That is part of the fun of Wikipedia. As long as it is true (Janders3 13:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Agreed, since it is true that it's the largest audience since SummerSlam 1992, I've reworded it into the article. Of course, I'm sure it'll get deleted again, anyway...Kyle C Haight 04:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Who remembers who finished third? Attendance record at Ford Field - OK. Third highest in....who cares? It's not notable. Saying it's the highest is 15 years however - that's more like it. !! Justa Punk !! 02:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Notes on IC title, Royal Rumble and the Undertaker

All three are definitely notable points of trivia.

1. The IC title has always been one of WWE's drawcards. Arguably two of the greatest matches in Wrestlemania history were for the IC title - Randy Savage v Ricky Steamboat at Wrestlemania III, and Shawn Michaels v Razor Ramon at Wrestlemania X. To have it ignored five times in a row on WWE's biggest card of the year is not only notable, it's a travesty!

So what? Wikipedia isn't a forum for thought and protest. The WWE title's been defended at 22 straight Manias. Under your logic, that's notable too.

It's not a protest, it's stating that the title has not been defended in 5 years. As for your second note, it's already noted on the WrestleMania I page that it is the only WM where the title wasn't on the line. TJ Spyke 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

To add to the first note - to say it's notable that the IC title hasn't been defended for five years is to say that the title isn't notable. !! Justa Punk !! 09:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So are we going to add a note about it every time a title isn't defended at a WrestleMania? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we note it after it happens several times in a row to a notable title. !! Justa Punk !! 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

2. The fact that the winner of the Royal Rumble has such a consistent strike rate makes the position very notable and because it has a major effect on the Wrestlemania lead up and aftermath it is also notable.

Again, so what? It's just trivia related to a streak that isn't too notable. If Undertaker's 15 Mania win streak isn't mentioned here, neither should this.

The consensus was made that Undertakers streak would not be mentione in individual articles. His streak is just mentioned in his article and on the main WrestleMania article. TJ Spyke 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So what???? *shakes head* !! Justa Punk !! 09:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

3. The Undertaker achieved another first for the biggest card of the year. Also definitely notable. !! Justa Punk !! 23:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The only reason the Undertaker is the first to achieve this is because the World Heavyweight Championship didn't exist for 18 of the 22 Manias. As time goes on and others achieve this, it will be MUCH less notable.

Being the first is still notable as it had never been done before. TJ Spyke 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely! !! Justa Punk !! 09:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Then how come the WrestleMania 2 article doesn't note that Hogan was the first to successfully defend the WWF championship? It's all trivia.

Because Wrestlemania was new at the time and had virtually no history. !! Justa Punk !! 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

All of this trivia relates to streaks that may seem relevant now, but in a couple years they will seem barely notable. What if at WM24, the Rumble winner wins the Heavyweight title, Batista wins the WWE title and the IC title is again not defended? Will all of this same trivia be added there too? I think stuff about streaks and firsts should be excluded from Mania articles because a lot of this stuff becomes irrelevant after a couple of years. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If Batista won the WWE title, nothing would happen since it wouldn't mean anything. If the IC Title wasn't defended, the note would be there and the one here would be deleted. Important notes about titles should be noted. TJ Spyke 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Scorpion, I'm sorry - but I don't think you have a grasp on what is notable and what's not when it comes to this subject. !! Justa Punk !! 09:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I just have a better grasp of what's cruft and what's not. It's all trivia no matter which way you slice it. You can call it notes and act like it's essential information, but it's really not. It may seem essential now, but it fails the 100 years test and once WM24 is over, it will likely be removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fails the 100 year test??? It doesn't, and that proves my point above. !! Justa Punk !! 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was trivia, please see WP:TRIVIA (and read the whole thing, it seems like most people just read the first sentence and then say "All trivia must be deleted"). TJ Spyke 22:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about WP:TRIVIA, I'm talking about WP:CRUFT. Nobody other than a wrestling fan would really care if a championship wasn't defended at five straight wrestlemanias. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The only one I could think of as cruft would be the one about the RR winner challenging for the WHC. TJ Spyke 23:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding pictures

Is there a reason that there are two pictures here that really have nothing to do with WM 23? The picture of Austin is from Tribute to the Troops, and who knows where the first picture of Cena was taken. Considering the pictures are not of the people at WrestleMania, I suggest those two pictures be removed. Anakinjmt (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures like that are being included in most of the expanded PPV articles. They help illustrate the point of who everyone at the was. If a non-wrestling fan reads this article, the pictures help them visualize the event. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a little bizarre, considering the article is about the event, but w/e. If that's the consensus.... Anakinjmt (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A fair point. To my knowledge, a consensus wasn't reached, but no one has objected to it, so one wasn't really required. I'd bring this up at WP:PW. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I have brought it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional Wrestling#Pictures that have nothing to do with the PPV. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They should be from the event, or at least from the same time (the Royal Rumble article had a picture of Scott Steiner from arounf 2003, after he pumped up with steroids and got short blond hair). TJ Spyke 00:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Backstage dance segment

From the looks of it, only TJ Spyke strongly wants it in the article. It went 2 days, with no one re-adding it back. In my view, backstage segments (even if it's something as big as Wrestlemania) aren't needed to be included in the article. Look at other events: legends Fabulous Moolah and Mae Young made numerous appearances, we don't list all of those (as it would be un-needed clutter). A dance segment with a bunch of legends doesn't show more importance. This is just fancruft and clutter. Let's stick with talking about the event's important details: the matches and their results, not some little event that took place backstage. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And it went over 7 months with no one removing it. What has changed since the discussion back in April to warrant removing it? TJ Spyke 06:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more notable than the usual backstage segment due to the massive amount of legends, but I'm on the fence on whether it should be in the article or not. Consensus was to include it, and it should have been discussed beforehand rather than have a near-edit war over it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I still feel it's not notable, and consensus can change. One backstage segment not being in the article isn't a big deal TJ. This is the problem with many wrestling articles: one little thing gets removed and he throws a huge stink about it and can't let it be. This claiming of ownership needs to stop.RobJ1981 (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, consensus can change, which is exactly why you should have started a discussion on the talk page to clarify if it had, before changing it against the former consensus. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Rob, i've never claimed or acted like I own an article. I've removed a lot of cruft from wrestling articles myself. TJ Spyke 21:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with TJ in that he doesn't intentionally act as if he's owning an article. But on occasion, I believe his actions could indeed be misconstrued as such. That's just my opinion though. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I want the info in the article, as I feel it is notable so many legends were there in one segment. Also, enforcing a consensus that hasn't changed yet (it can't change without a discussion, now can it?) isn't controlling an article, especially when he points you to the talk page in his summary. Has TJ controlled articles in the past, IMHO yes, but I don't think this is anywhere near an example of such actions. Reverting you in honest disagreement is called being bold, not controlling. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 14:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Triple H

Normally I wouldn't even think about putting it in, but should we mentione that the original plan was for Triple H to face Cena? The only reasion I am saying this is because in the new Shawn Michaels DVD ("The Shawn Michaels Story: Heartbreak & Triumph"), Triple H says that the plan was for him to face Cena until he suffered that quad injury at NYR. So this isn't like some "news" site saying he was supposed to, this is from an official source. TJ Spyke 12:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to add it. As some situations like, Triple H replacing John Cena in the Last Man Standing match at Unforgiven. Zenlax ^{T C S} 21:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That might have been the plan, but there have been numerous changed plans for this event, such as the Hogan/Khali match. Since the match was never announced, I'm leaning toward not mentioning it. Mshake3 (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlike any other rumored matches, this was actually confirmed by an official source (I doubt WWE would leave that comment from Triple H on the DVD if they didn't want anyone to know. TJ Spyke 01:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If this was stated in the DVD, I see no problem adding it. But, this is just my suggestion to the question. Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Taker's Entrance

I know it is not correct, but what was the name of the song that someone put and said Taker came out to? Rollinman (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Was it "O Fortuna?" Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I originally thought it was, but some other user said it was just generic druid type music (I am not sure since it's been so long since I heard O Fortuna). TJ Spyke 23:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely NOT O' Fortuna. It is a gregorian chant track I believe. Yagobo79 (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I am currently working on this article, though I have other things on my mind and to do right now. I will slowly expand the article and once I've done a significant amount, I plan to source it all at once. Please don't go and delete information because there is no source, there WILL be, hence the "under construction tags." Thank you. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

The picture of the 8 men in Money in the Bank (443125281 5f47496613 o.jpg) is extremely POOR quality. Blurry blurry blurry. I really think it should be removed as it adds nothing to this article and is just an eyesore. Yagobo79 (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be removed for that reason? If you can find a better one then by all means upload it. A blurry picture is hardly a good enough reason to have it deleted. I actually think it's OK. !! Justa Punk !! 09:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Images: "Poor quality images (too dark, blurry etc.) or where the subject in the image is too small, hidden in clutter, ambiguous or otherwise not obvious, should not be used." --202.180.171.150 (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"20-foot ladder"

Wasn't it only like a 15-footer? I know they emphasize it and say it's a 20, but shouldn't we have the TRUTH!?!?...but yeah, anyone else think it should be changed? Ladder4321 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what WWE said. If you can find a reliable source (otherwise it's original research) that says otherwise, present it here. We all know wrestling in general exaggerates stuff like this alot, but we can't just change things to what we think they actually are. TJ Spyke 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Batista Bomb?

"At one point, both men were outside the ring and Batista hit his Batista Bomb on the The Undertaker through an announce table"

Batista hit a Running Powerslam through the table, not a Batista Bomb. Can someone clean this up? J.C. (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

ya, if you had thought of it, you could of cleaned it up!!!--Altenhofen (talk) 08:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. It was a running Powerslam.-- bulletproof ^3:16 08:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it was? My memory is foggy, my apologies. Thanks for catching that. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Production section

I recently added a new section to the article that goes over the event's production. It gives some info on the behind-the-scenes stuff it took to produce an event of this magnitude. What do you guy's think? -- bulletproof ^3:16 07:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Superb. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Backstage Dance Segment and Sourcing

Can anyone recall between which matches the segment took place? I intend to merge that info into the event section once I figure out where to place it. I also intend to delete it from the other on-air talent section.

I will be trying my hand at sourcing this article next weekend when my first two midterms are over. Thanks to Truco, I now know how to cite sources. This may come as a surprise to many of you, but I actually had no clue how to do that. I may be the only editor in history to be granted rollback rights before learning how to cite. I always thought members of the project gave me more respect than I really deserved for that reason. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, on my DVD listing it came between the Kane/Khali match, and the Benoit/MVP match. You really didn't know how to source? Wow. In my eyes, you were so experienced when I first started that it didn't even occur to me that you wouldn't know how to cite. LOL. Appearances are deceptive, huh? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

They can be. I honestly just never learned how, as it seemed overly complicated. But I think I contribute well enough in other ways. But now I can source too, lol. I'm just happy we can all sit and laugh about it now. :) Oh, and thanks for clarifying the placement of the segment. I could have swore it was later in the show though. Oh well.Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. ;) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. It looks a lot nicer without that notes section and the crufty list in the other on-air talent. It only needs to be listed once and in neither of the places it was mentioned. I deleted the other note as well, as I don't feel it's notable, but if anyone disagrees, then by all means start a discussion. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have been sick as of late. Any major edits I attempt to make will likely be botched. I'm waiting until I feel better to source this. Cheers. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ring ropes

Surely notable enough as it was the first time they had all white? Ropes' colour/design has been mentioned on previous WM articles. Alexrushfear (talk) 10:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To-do

• All parts of the lead and prose need a copyedit.
• Replacing refs:
  • There are too many WWE refs, and there needs to be a balance.
  • Online World of Wrestling and PWWEW.net need to be replace, since they have not been proven reliable
  • The publishers need to be changed from WWE to World Wrestling Entertainment
• Article needs to be taken out-of-universe, which includes removing jargon.
• See also section needs to be created and the portal link needs to go there
• The article has WP:OVERLINK issues.

iMatthew (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Lashley

The wrestling project style guide states that in the background section of a PPV, the wrestler's ring name and birth name in a Wrestler A stage name(Wrestler A Birth name) format should be used. The article for Bobby Lashley mentions that he is called Franklin Lashley. The source used for verification dosent work so I was unable to check that the information is accurate but i have made the edit anyway. If anyone can say otherwise please undo the edit. CMPunkster (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Steven Anderson?

Pretty sure Stone Cold Steve Austin's real name is Steve Williams. He may have been born Steve Anderson, but in HIS article it states his name as Steve Williams. Argue but keep your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorlizard (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Daivari vs. Scotty 2 Hotty

This match did not happen. I went to try to remove it, but this page is locked. 75.45.181.165 (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)