Talk:WrestleMania 23/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about WrestleMania 23. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Wow, people who think they own Wikipedia

Im talking about people that whenever someone makes an edit, they revert it to the prior version. The sell out crowd picture I posted looked alot better than the cell phone image, yet the cell phone image was used. Why? I dont know. Person who posted the image must be more popular than me I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.248.201 (talk • contribs)

You violated American copyright laws. If you really want us to use the image, then you cough up $200,000 to cover the fines from the lawsuit, and the legal costs. And yes, the person who took the cell phone picture is more popular than you. -- The Hyb rid 23:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the crowd image is better, but Hyrbid is right. Free pictures are supposed to be used instead of fair use if there is a free pic, and we don have a free pic. I just wish it was from a digital camera and not a crappy cell phone pic. TJ Spyke 23:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't the other images with copyright violations being removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.248.201 (talk • contribs)

Because there's no freely-licensed substitute available. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Those images do get replaced if/when a free use one is found. TJ Spyke 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks BMG and TJ Spyke. You guys actually explained why the image wasn't used rather than threaten me with the legal implications I could have suffered. I also wish it was a digital image.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.248.201 (talk • contribs)

No problem. If you want more info on WP's policies regarding pictures: WP:FU (the FU stands for "Fair Use", not the slang term). TJ Spyke 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And I wasn't threatening you. I was doing it to entertain someone else. Sorry if I offended you. -- The Hyb rid 23:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To TJ- Thanks for the link, I will remember these things next time. To Hybrid- It's no prob, no hard feelings.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.248.201 (talk • contribs)

Upcoming/Finished Matches

The difference between the two should be noted, for those that are not watching.Socby19 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)SocBy19

Breaking News!

Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information. (from WP:NOT) Suriel1981 00:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Results and 'breaking news' are two different things.71.180.75.10 02:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh of course. Results = good. Blind speculation = bad. I think I was also trying to point out that as Wikipedia isn't a news site there was no need for a huge rush of people fighting to add information and make their mark on the article. It happened anyway ;^) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dance Segment

The individuals in the dance segment:

Who else? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How could you forget "The Doctor of Style" Slick? TJ Spyke 00:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, Simmons was there but didn't dance. TJ Spyke 00:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The dance segment isn't notable. Backstage segments are not a big part of the show, period. It being Wrestlemania doesn't make it an exception. I've removed it from the article a few times, but people keep re-adding it for no reason. RobJ1981 04:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Simmons didn't dance? Damn! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Carlito/Ric Flair

I have added the Carlito and Ric Flair vs Chavo Guerrero and Gregory Helms, due to an article on WWE.com listing the match before Mania. Link is provided. Anakinjmt 00:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I was so sick of people saying a dark match happened (this is with other PPVs) and then not providing a source. TJ Spyke

well they did talk about it anout halfway through the pay per view so i wouldnt of thought a source would have been needed Cradle666 10:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I added it before they mentioned it at Mania. I noticed it during the Kane/Khali match. Anakinjmt 23:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Undertaker Winning

Seeing as Undertaker has won, should it be relevant to say he has defeated every member of evolution at Wrestlemania? MrLeCrow

No. TJ Spyke 01:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well at least we cleared it out of the way before people came and added that. MrLeCrow

"Evolution" doesn't even exist anymore. =) But shouldn't we also include a reference to Undertaker's 15-0 Streak?Aznality 04:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As John Cena's 'back to back defences' has been put in trivia then the 15-0 streak could go in there too IMO Suriel1981 04:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the Evolution thing shouldn't be added in there. It was a prominent stable, of which all four members are (as of now) former world champions. For Undertaker to defeat all four of them as part of his big 15-0 streak is a notable accomplishment that should be noted somewhere. Seriously. It's this simple: "With his championship victory over Batista, the Undertaker is now 15-0 at WrestleMania, including victories over all four ex-members of Evolution." It's a quite notable truth. What is so wrong with putting that in there? 172.129.47.107 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For one, they weren't all Evolution members at the time of their defeats. -- The Hyb rid 05:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It has already been discussed and agree not to include Undertaker's streak in the individual WM articles. It is mentioned in the main WM articl, and has it's own subsection in the Undertaker's article. TJ Spyke 05:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a fun piece of trivia about Undertaker defeating an entire stable. Which is one of the best parts of Wikipedia is the trivia sections, especially in the wrestling pages. JackalsIII 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

But he didn't defeat an entire stable did he? None of them were Evolution members at the time of their respective defeats, besides which Evolution has been gone for over 2 years now. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of "fun pieces of trivia" either. Peace, -- The Hyb rid 00:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it shouldn't for all the reasons listed. You made your case and lost. A good rule of thumb is that if you'd have to consider whether or not a fact belongs on an individual's article, it doesn't belong on an event article. Wayman975 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Time for Lashley/Umaga...

How long was that match? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SuperSonicTH (talk • contribs) 02:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Don't know off the top of my head. I'm sure someone else will add it. I am recording the PPV, so I will add it after the PPV if no one else does. TJ Spyke 02:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (on last year's WM article), and the consensus was not to inlcude it. It is mentioned on the main WrestleMania page though. TJ Spyke 04:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What's so special about Lashley's match that caused you to not include the time for it? Its standard Wiki procedure. SuperSonicTH 11:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dark Match Battle Royal

Let that be a lesson to all the idiots that were adamant that WWE were definitely going to have this match. Don't believe rumours some teen fanboy decides to put on some crappy forum. Suriel1981 03:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, people just assumed they would have one since they did at the previous two WM's. Off-topic, but once again the Royal Rumble winner was NOT in the main event (hell, it was match #4 out of the 9 match PPV). TJ Spyke 03:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess we've got Backlash to look forward to now... <sighs> Suriel1981 03:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Weren't there only 8 matches? Besides, the main event isn't a position on a card.Koberulz 14:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are people making such a big deal about the RR winner not being in the Main Event? It happened last year too.. It should be obvious by now that RAW always gets the Main Event at WM. - The UNSIGNED IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.138.240 (talk • contribs)

Fan Interference

At the beginning of the Cena match, after the ref patted down Shawn, did a fan run in the ring and then they cut away? chadking704 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.171.86.158 (talk) 04:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Dunno. Why not go to a news site and see? Suriel1981 04:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a fan gettign into the ring and the ref ran over to keep him out, and the cut away. Michaels got on the top rope and sat there, waving goodbye to him. ProtoWolf 04:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL, im pretty sure i saw that.

71.249.82.78 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it. It isn't important though. -- The Hyb rid 23:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody seems intent on an edit war because they believe the incident was "very notable". I challenge anyone to prove, using Wikipedia policy, that the incident was notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 23:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know if the interference will be on the DVD release? I dout it. Dro Boy April 3, 1:26

From everything I've heard it wasn't even shown on television so I guess the secret of whether or not the invading fan really was trying to steal Shawn Michael's chaps whilst naked apart from Union Jack underwear will remain with the crowd in live attendance. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 04:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It was, for about half a second, before someone realised what happened and cut to a different camera. Koberulz 13:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

None of this makes it worth noting. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 16:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's no more noteworthy than, say, the fact that a fan ran into the ring at WM3 at the end of the Piper match, and that's also not mentioned anywhere. So this really isn't noteworthy either. Wayman975 18:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was at Wrestlemania, though my seat wasn't very good. I could tell the guy wasn't wearing a shirt, not sure about pants, but he did get half way into the ring before being pulled out by security. Shawn waved goodbye to him as he was dragged away. I don't know what he was trying to do in the ring because, like I said, he was pulled out before he was even completely in the ring. When Shawn saw him he turned and got on the defensive, probably thinking he might be attacked by a rabid Bret Hart fan. - The UNSIGNED IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.138.240 (talk • contribs)

Undertaker's Entrance

No other Wrestlemania articles describe Undertaker's entrance, so we either need to remove the description of it in this article, or describe it in the rest of the Wrestlemania's he has participated in... ProtoWolf 04:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See WrestleMania XIV. It's noted because it's a unique entrance (the same way we noted Cena's entrance last year). TJ Spyke 04:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

However he did the same thing at WrestleMania XX and it is not noted at all in that article. If anything it seems more like trivia that he did it the same way as he did at WrestleMania XIV. ProtoWolf 04:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was noted at WM XX. TJ Spyke 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I said it wasn't noted ate WM XX, but he did enter to the music with druids, and it is not noted. So it should be noted there, or removed from here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ProtoWolf (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

"the highest-grossing event in professional wrestling history~!"

The highest grossing event in professional wrestling history took place on October 9, 1995 in Yokohama Japan. 57,000+ fans and a gate of $6.1 million. Source - Death of WCW, Alvarez & Baer, pg 316

Hmm... Well until somebody here actually gets the book I'm afraid the statement stays in because it is the only source available at the moment. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Mick Foley's first autobiog refers to that match as having a 6 million gross. It was a combined supershow. Would Foley, Bryan Alvarez and Real Deal be suitable sources? I say we wait, if we can quote two books and, say, Wrestling Observer then we could overrule the statement on this article. Suriel1981 05:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Just find a reliable source and we'll change it in the article. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Suriel, do you know where in his book Foley says it? I have his first two autobiographies, so I can confirm it for you. TJ Spyke 05:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's when Foley's talking about working for Tatskuni Asano in IWA:Japan with them putting on a 6-man tag deathmatch, Foley trying to set a chair on fire and Asano getting so mad at them that he hit a referee backstage. Suriel1981 06:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

According to a Power Slam supplemental I'm now reading, the show actually was April 2, 1995 from the Tokyo Dome and 60,000 attendance. This is the one Foley was referring to as having a $6m house. Hope I'm not getting shows confused. Suriel1981 06:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's pg 422 of the first book, though that is a different show than the one I mentioned. The 10/09/95 card was NJPW vs UWFi. Additionally, a show the next year with Takada vs Hashimoto did well over 5 million. So WM23 as the biggest gate ever is bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CASE (talk • contribs)

I will change it to "in North America" for now. TJ Spyke 06:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Crikey, I was just looking through www.wrestletapes.net (probably not a citeable source I know) and they give several NJPW supershows at drawing well in excess of $5 million. It doesn't look like WM23 has it. Suriel1981 06:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should point out that the $5 million amount came when they had sold 63,000 tickets. We will have to wait to see how much those extra 13,000 tickets added. TJ Spyke 06:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah WWE's corporate site will have a press release up on the event in the next few hours.-- bulletproof ^3:16 06:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got a press release here [1] stating $5.38m, however that was a few hours ago. Suriel1981 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

awesome entrance, however i dont think it was 'o fortuna' im pretty sure it was his normal entrance music. Cradle666 10:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Steve Corino uses a remix of O Fortuna as his entrance music and the Undertaker is probably to scared of him to steal his gimmick Suriel1981 15:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Undertaker used both. First the druids came out to O Fortuna, then Undertaker came out to his regular music. TJ Spyke 21:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

so shouldn't the article be changed? only the druids came out to 'o fortuna' not the undertaker as stated??? Cradle666 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

O Fortuna was only used by Undertaker at WrestleMania XIV. The druid entrances from WM20 onwards have used generic druid music while Undertaker uses his regular theme. -- Oakster Talk 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dark Match lumberjacks

They are not currently listed, so I will ask. Does anybody know if Stevie Richards, Val Venis, Little Guido, Scotty 2 Hotty, Funaki, or Johnny Nitro were included as lumberjacks? DaHumorist talk 1:36 2 April, 2007

I didn't see them. Wrestling Observer doesn't mention them, and wwe.com doesn't mention them. So I guess not. TJ Spyke 05:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/52565/Notes-From-WWE-WrestleMania-23.htm there are more unlisted participants including Val, Nitro, Scotty, Funaki, Duggan, Eugene, Vito, Guido, Cade, Murdoch, Kenny, Yang, and Nobles, so I added them. Still no mention of Stevie, Rene, Regal, or Dave Taylor though... DaHumorist talk 2:19 2 April, 2007

I believe anyone who didn't have a match at WM was a lumberjack. - The UNSIGNED IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.138.240 (talk • contribs)

Hall of Fame Class

Did Dusty Rhodes come out? He's not listed in the article. Tomtyke 15:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added him. I'm fairly certian he did indeed come out.....Gavyn Sykes 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

He did, -- The Hyb rid 17:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

He's come to terms with his homosexuality then? Suriel1981 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

HAHA! That was funny......

This isn't a forum, you know. Gavyn Sykes 18:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Come on man, we're all supposed to be friends here. Everything doesn't have to be formal. Get a sense of humor. -- The Hyb rid 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If only I'd made that remark about Al Snow I could have gotten a barnstar from Mick Foley. But yes indeed, Dusty Rhodes ~~entered~~ ~~came into~~ ~~went up the aisleway~~ was present in the arena with the rest of the HoF class. Suriel1981 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

2 Things

-There was a part in the Trivia section that mentioned Undertaker and John Cena as being undefeated but didnt mention Rob Van Dam who is also undefeated being 4-0. Just thought id note it here incase someone adds it again.

-Should the WrestleMania set be noted in the article because wwe.com said this was the highest stage ever used and the longest entrance way. It also morphed for different entrances (I didnt notice this but it was mentioned on wwe.com) Don.-.J 16:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally say that if you can word it and provide a reference then go ahead. It seems like a piece of trivia that differenciates this WM from the 22 previous and a morphing entrance (I didn't see the show so I can't comment) has to be unique in wrestling/boxing/MMA pay-per-views Suriel1981 16:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The set did morph occasionally, specifically for Edge's entrance I remember. All of the competitors came out of the side, but the side Trons moved in to the center so they couldn't see Edge until he came out of the middle of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ProtoWolf (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Adding streaks to the individual articles is against consensus. Neither Edge or Taker should be mentioned. That goes in their articles. -- The Hyb rid 17:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

-ok, i couldnt think of a good way to word the part about the WrestleMania set so heres the link to the wwe.com article describing the set Don.-.J 20:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about the ring ropes?

I believe this was the first WrestleMania to use white ring ropes so I think it should be noted here.Ppcha 17 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The Sheik's widow

I believe her name was Joyce Fahart or something similiar. If someone can confirm the name, is there any reason not to add her name. Right now, she's just refered to as "The Sheik's widow." Gavyn Sykes 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Joyce Farhat she is. The WWE Hall of Fame article has already set a precedent for adding the acceptee's name so yeah, add it. Suriel1981 17:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cena winning

This year mark cena and undertaker defeating stables at this years wrestlemania, Undertaker defeating all former Evloution members (Batista, Flair, Orton, and HHH) and Cena defeating current and founder DX members (HBK and HHH). Should this be notice under the triva columm? or ignored? Dro Boy April 2, 2007

I think ignore is the common view. Darrenhusted 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cena beat HBK before

71.249.82.78 20:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

He means AT Wrestlemania. But yeah, it's not that relevant. !Gavyn Sykes 00:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

World Tag Team Champions

Is this the first time that the World Tag Team Champions faced each other at wrestlemania. This is not to be confused with the WWE Tag Team Champions which were Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio. They faced at Wrestlemania 21. Does anyone know if the World Tag Team Champions ever faced each other in a singles match at Wrestlemania? Please tell me! Big Boss 0 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It might well be the first time recognised World Tag Champs have faced off for a recognised World Title at a major supershow in North America. I don't really have the personal inclination to check all the records but previous occasions don't spring to memory ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

7th Straight

Shouldn't it be noted that with Taker winning, this marks the 7th Straight Wrestlemania that the winner of the Royal Rumble Match went on to win the WWE/World Heavyweight Title? 24.239.158.35 00:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, no. TJ Spyke 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You could note it at Royal Rumble#Records and statistics, it's more interesting than several of the points they have there already. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fan Run-In?

Do you think that we should mention something about the fan running into the ring before the bell rang for the Cena-Michaels match? MakeDamnSure 01:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, I wish people would read the talk page before starting an old topic: #Fan Interference. TJ Spyke 01:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Also, there's already a section about that up above a bit. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 01:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. I reverted it because we've already reached a consensus on this issue. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

D-Generation X Trivia

I thought that wasn't notable... people keep adding it. I removed it after TheDingbat added it... So before we add it more and start a war over it, let's discuss it here... Everything I've read puts that piece of trivia as not notable. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't notable. Even if Triple H had been a member at WM 22, I wouldn't consider it notable. So Cena defeated 2 of the founding members of DX, that seems like something is a little interesting but not something that will matter. TJ Spyke 21:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TJ. It is interesting, but not encyclopedic. Peace, -- The Hyb rid 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the same thing with Undertaker now defeating every member of Evolution at WM. Interesting, something perhaps to put in the article for the individual wrestler, but not in the WM article. Anakinjmt 22:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

None of the 4 wrestlers were members of Evolution when he defeated them and Evolution has been defunct for over 2 years which makes it non-trivia in my eyes. If anyone's been following WWE in the last few years they know it already and I fail to see the interest or relevance it would have for a non-fan. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it is non-notable cruft. -- The Hyb rid 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's all notable! So do the silent majority. Two of the most dominant and recent teams beaten by the same two guys, respectively, at the same event. If it comes up on TV, then it should go in. --Maestro25 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The "silent majority" is wrong for the reasons up above. I can guarantee you it won't come up on TV. ---- GIGGAS2 | Talk 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, silent majorities don't get noticed, or obeyed, due to their silence. -- The Hyb rid 00:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

*LMAO* In all seriousness though anyone citing the beliefs of the silent majority would need to provide proof per WP:A. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 15:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure, in the history of wrestling, there are other wrestlers who have beaten all wrestlers in a stable before or after they were in said stable. If they were in the stable at the time, it might be worth noting, but not in the given circumstances. Koberulz 07:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cena's Winning Move

Cena winning with the STFU is not notable, he uses that move once a week. Not winning with is more note worthy, and even then it shouldn't be in a WM article, unless someone goes back and adds "Undertaker won with the Tombstone" and "Hogan won with the Leg-Drop" to every other WM article. Darrenhusted 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A: He doesn't use it every week, at least on RAW (who knows if he uses it at house shows) B: It's policy to say how the match ended, either "So-and-so pinned what's-his-face after a whatever-move" or "So-and-so made what's-his-face submit using the whatever-move" That's how it's been done. Anakinjmt 15:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? It does list the move, "Cena forced Michaels to submit with the STFU". TJ Spyke 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, in the trivia section, the moves keeps being noted with "this is the second year Cena won with the STFU", I took it out, it keeps coming back. As it stands it's not there now. Darrenhusted 23:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I originally put it in (when making the note about it being the second year in a row he main evented), but I agree that it is NN and have since removed it myself as well. TJ Spyke 23:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How To put new picture

How do I put a picture that I took on to the page? I think it is a good picture and it can be found here, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wrestlemania23_002.jpg Stealthpirate07 01:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice picture, but we already have a picture of the arena (filled with fans). There isn't really a need for 2. I wish you had taken the same picture when the arena was filled with fans, because then it would have been better than the current one. TJ Spyke 01:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have better ones from that same vantage point. Did you mean with the arena filled or not filled? You said the same thing twice. The seats are empty in that picture. Stealthpirate07 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

with the arena filled. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is that we only need 1 picture of the arena, preferably filled with fans (which the current picture has). If your picture had been filled with fans, I would have supported replacing it. Also, you sign at the end of your posts. TJ Spyke 02:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this one, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wrestlemania23_019.jpg Stealthpirate07 02:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is definitely a lot better. Could you upload more to see which one would be best?-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a great pic. I agree with bulletproof, do you have any others? I would be fine with this being the new pic, but would like to know if you have any others that would be better. TJ Spyke 02:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, heres just a few more that aren't smoky and are clear. Personally I like that second one I uploaded because it shows everything clearly and it even has Jeff Hardy's Pyro going off. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stealthpirate07 Stealthpirate07 02:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I say we use this one - Wrestlemania23 017.jpg. Nicely done Stealthpirate07.-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I like 19 best, then 17. TJ Spyke 02:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pick which ever one you want, But I like 19 also.Stealthpirate07 02:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

19's alright but I like 17 more because the stage is in its neutral setting and doesn't have the "money in the bank" graphic or Jeff Hardy's pyro going off. You can also see more of the crowd in 17 than in 19.-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I vote for 17. I also vote Stealth is a lucky bastard for getting to be at WrestleMania live. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

17 is a great pic, Its right after the start of the show. It was fun to go and I really like how some of my pictures turned out. I even got to see Maria up close outside before the event.Stealthpirate07 02:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, you're pics turned out real well man. That's sweet about Maria, because unlike most of the Divas she's actually HOT in person and isn't caked with makeup (i.e. Candice Michelle, I saw her at the NYR 06 press conference....ew). Bmg916^Speak_Sign 02:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you take any pics of the MITB match? Because the current one is not that great (it's too far away and blurry). BTW, glad you enjoyed the show. I can accept pic 17, why don't you go ahead and upload it to Wikipedia? Just click on the "Upload file" link on the left side of the screen and follow the instructions. TJ Spyke 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No need. Any image uploaded to commons can directly be used in Wikipedia.-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

No, none of the MITB match pictures came out good. All the pics that came out great were shots of everything. Zooming in on the ring was blurry. Stealthpirate07 03:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed the show. I suggest #17 for the crowd image, that looks great. By the way, I've put your Maria image on her article now. -- Oakster Talk 10:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've got to disagree about the pic, and I'm not just saying that because I want my picture on the article, but, in my pic's defense, mine is from the top of the stadium and truly encompasses the fact that there's 80,000+ people there, while the other one, while good, is missing a good portion of the audience. Kyle C Haight 20:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So in your opinion... these pics [2] [3] of yours with that huge chunk of the 2nd bowl above you blocking the veiw of the ring, stage, and stadium, is a better pic than Stealthpirate's photo?-- bulletproof ^3:16 22:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That kid's head blocking the shot is a nice touch too.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Critisizm

I've noticed many WWE fans were dissapointed with the "All Grown up" tag line, some calling it a rushed and sudden because of the fact the first tagline "Detroit will never be the same" was hastily dropped for some reason. --ÄtΘmic R€£igione ^sїgñ

1)Where have you seen this, because I have not seen any criticism. 2)It has nothing to do with this article. TJ Spyke 04:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23 revenue

The main article says they generated about $25 million dollars for the event, but most websites and news sites are reporting that WrestleMania 23 generated around $30 million Click here for article. I think the article should be updated with this new info. I personally cant edit cuz the articles been locked to non-users.

give them a chance because they have billioons of pages to edit also the fact is that the revenue changes almost every day so the fact it is 25 million is because that at the time it was 25 million see where i coming from -deadman_lastride666

The WWE corporate website (which is more reliable than Rajah) says $25 million. TJ Spyke 22:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

It is against Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy to use a copyrighted image to replace a free-use one. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 16:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one guy blocked for copyright abuse. Lets hope it doesn't have to happen again. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak_Sign 18:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

MVP's Cheerleaders

Were they anyone specific to Detroit ? Maybe the Detroit Pistons or the Lions ? Hermiod 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It has to be the Pistons instead of the Lions, if anyone. The reason is that the Lions do not have cheerleaders. - Desmond Hobson 16:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus required to prevent edit-warring

Okay, is the phrasing going to be: The ending video package music was "The Memory Will Never Die" by Default or The secondary theme was "The Memory Will Never Die" by Default...? Let it be known that either way I couldn't give a shhhhhhh....ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care either, as both are accurate. -- The Hyb rid 05:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Judging by sporadic edits over the last week it seems that some users really do care. Which is cool with me, no worries, I know it's just about getting the article right. I just don't want the situation to escalate ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's all compromise. Watch the page. -- The Hyb rid 06:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Does that work for everyone? -- The Hyb rid 06:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe WWE.com actually referred to it as the "Secondary Theme Song" so I think we should keep it as such. Either way though, it's rather trivial....Gavyn Sykes 14:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think WWE.com lists it as a theme song, though obviously Ladies and Gentlemen is primary. Anakinjmt 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I said, ‘The secondary theme song, and the music used in the ending video package was "The Memory Will Never Die" by Default.’ That takes care of both. Does that work? -- The Hyb rid 21:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

For me, yes it does. It should satisfy everyone. Gavyn Sykes 22:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Anakinjmt 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, nobody can reasonably have an issue with that. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine with me. TJ Spyke 22:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops I just saw this... Yeah sure no prob. I was just trying to be consistent with the rest of the Mania articles but either way is cool with me.-- bulletproof ^3:16 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

page protected

¡Ay caramba! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the issue which has caused the protection? Is it the secondary theme? The backstage dance number? Because neither of those are worth an edit war. And if it was those can we reach a consensus and get the protect off, it does not reflect well on the project. Darrenhusted 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you on that, Darren. There are much bigger things in the world, and even on Wikipedia, to worry about. At least I can still read about what happened. - Desmond Hobson 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It's the backstage dance segment, the page protection was requested by Rob (who also seems to be the only one who really opposes it). TJ Spyke 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just run through all of the previous WM and none have backstage segments. However they do all list celebrities in attendance. So may be a middle way is needed. Darrenhusted 22:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Undertaker's 15-0

Shouldn't there be mentioned that The Undertaker made his WrestleMania streak 15-0 and at the same time made himself the 15th (regognized by WWE) World Heavyweight Champion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.218.49.232 (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

It was decided long ago not to mention Undertaker's win streak on individual WM articles. It is mentioned at the main WM article though. Also, Undertaker is technically the 10th champion, it's only 15/16 if you count Triple H and Batista's reigns as seperate (i.e. consider Triple H as the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 8th and 9th/10th champion). TJ Spyke 08:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And really it would be the 15th title change, not 15th champion. Not notable either way really. Darrenhusted 13:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a nice coincidence, though. Maybe Taker's trivia section? Koberulz 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What was the real attendance at Ford Field?

It was said on the actual event, that the record attendance was 80,103, but on an article on GERWECK.NET, it says that the real number was 74,867 people.

It says: "- The actual attendance at Ford Field was 74,867. (Super Bowl 40 in Detroit drew 68,206 by comparison).

- The way the building was set up, it was impossible for Field to accommodate 80,000 fans.

- It was Vince McMahon's idea to announce the attendance number at 80,103 fans."

You can check it on the article Wrestlemania News and Notes, published on 4/9/07. So, should we publish the number gave by WWE, or what we should consider the correct number? It should be discussed, since it has been considered a historic number.

Thanks—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateuspfc (talk • contribs)

A rumor site who has no access to the ticket sales or the official number from the only people who actually have access to the numbers (besides the people at Ford Field)? Which do you think we should use? Why should we think Gerweck is more reliable and that they didn't pull that number out of their ass? Unless there is solid concret proof that WWE is wrong, the 80,103 number is correct and Gerwecks number is false. TJ Spyke 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, do you work for Vince McMahon, or you shill for the company for free? The Attendance for Wrestlemania 23 is 74,687 paid. The 80,103 number WWE gave includes everyone who was in the building during the event, including wrestlers, announcers, building employees etc. The source for this is the 4/9/07 issue of Wrestling Observer News, and as soon as this article is unlocked, it should be changed to reflect that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spman (talk • contribs) 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

No it shouldn't. The reported number (which is far more reliable then a rumor site) is the most accurate number. I am not shilling for anyone, I would do the same thing for ROH or TNA. Rumor/"news" sites like Wrestling Observer do not have access to ticket sales info or attendance numbers. The most reliable source says 80,103 fans and that is what will stay. TJ Spyke 04:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh*, you just don't get it do you? The Observer isn't the National Enquirer, it is a legitimate respectable news outlet for professional wrestling that has been in publication for 25 years and is renowned in the industry for it's accuracy and journalism. Dave Meltzer has inside sources that give him access to the same information financial and attendance information that the WWE does, and is most certainly a reliable source for information. The stupid arena can't even hold 80,000 people without a stage blocking up a significant number of seats for crying out loud! How are they going to fit that many people in with at least three entire sections of seats blocked for the stage?!Spman 04:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The WWE is the official source, and the one that we will use, period. -- The Hyb rid 04:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

THE ARENA DOESN'T EVEN HOLD THAT MANY PEOPLE! The WWE is NOT a reliable source! That's like citing The North Korean Governmet in an article discussing Economic Prosperity of North Korea! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spman (talk • contribs) 04:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

WWE is more reliable than WO. Also, unless you work for Ford Field or WWE, you don't know how many people Ford Field can hold. TJ Spyke 04:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this guy is a Meltzer-mark or something since he is arguing on the WrestleMania III page as well, saying we should use Meltzer's number of 78,000 rather than the official 93,000 number. TJ Spyke 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Then he obviously hasn't read our arguments as to why we don't use his numbers in articles, as there is no logical contradiction. I respect Meltzer on a fair number of things, but he is once again mouthing off about something he has no way of knowing anything about. -- The Hyb rid 04:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, because he's been writing a successful newsletter for the last 25 years with no inside sources or contacts that provide him with specific information, right?

I would trust the WWE for a number like this over him any day. The WWE has access to the ticket count; he does not. We cannot trust him because he may have spoken to some anonymous informant in the WWE. He could have pulled some random number out of his hat just as easily. We know that the WWE has access to the ticket count, so they are the more reliable source. -- The Hyb rid 04:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What reason might he have for reporting false information? I can think of aobut a dozen reasons why WWE might want to inflate the attendance, but zero incentive for a journalist like Dave Meltzer to report false information. The fact is that he is an authority figure on Professional Wrestling, whether you are willing to accept it or not, and he is as reliable a source as the WWE themselves. I still have yet to receive a response though about how WWE could have filled the arena past cpacity, even with a stage blocking a bunch of seats.Spman 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm if Ford Field had an attendance of 78,128 for a basketball game WITH the north and south ends of the nose bleed sections covered with a damn curtain...-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What incentive you ask? Maybe to get people to subscribe to his newsletter since that is how he earns most of his income. You haven't provided any proof of the maximum capacity (and I doubt you know since Ford Field doesn't provide estimates for wrestling, only traditional sports like basketball and football). TJ Spyke 05:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the Ford Field article itself. It hold 80,000 for basketball, and that's when the entire arena, every single seat, is full. WWE blocked off at least three sections with the stage. They did have floor seats, but there was maybe a thousand of those tops. I still don't see a valid argument about how the 81,000 number is even possibleSpman 14:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As with the WrestleMania 3 article I feel there should be a difference made between paid attendance and people who were there. There is a significant difference between the two. –– Lid^(Talk) 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well unfortunately as much as myself, and a lot of other people agree with you, there seems to be a large contingent here that thinks Dave Meltzer writes the National Enquirer, and seems to want to remain blissful in their ignorance, so it doesn't look like it's gonna happen.Spman 14:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we are using the WWE as the official number and there are no reliable sources for the other number exactly how do we put the two numbers up. Do we list 80000 and say the source is WWE and then put 78000, source "a figure from off the top of Metzler's head, confirmed by unnamed, anonymous source". To put any figure on other than the official figure just invites a challenge to every figure for every WWE PPV, and I'm not about to get in to an edit war on 150 different pages over what is a trivial fact. So the WWE pumped the building with 2000 extra bodies to make their biggest PPV look full, do we need Metzler to tell us that not every one of those people paid? And if you want why not find out how mant were in the building becuase they won competitions, or were friends with the stadium manager. There should only be one figure and the WWE is the only reliable source for that figure, unless a Ford Field ticket taker can give us any further insight. Darrenhusted 11:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you go here: http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight/ you'll see that he is the 15th champion according to WWE.

You've posted that in the wrong section, and you've also missed the point of that debate. Darrenhusted 11:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

To throw my .02... First and foremont, the seats that were tarped up behind the set, was easily made up by the seats on the ground level. You can fit more people on the floor than behind the set by a good thousand or two.Second, to have a unrefutable source, the same source must also have a good source for it to be unrefutable. (i.e. when you read a news story, 99.99999999999999999999% of the time, it notes who gives what statement, so for example, the story says "according to XYZ, The War on Iraq costs over $XXX"). It's called a citation, for those who didn't take high school english. Dave Meltzer usually never cites the source where he gets his inside dirt on the inner happenings of our favorite wrestling promotions. Therefore due to this, in a situation like WikiPedia, the WON wouldn't be a good source. Last, the WWE, who is the one who promoed the event is the only source to consider in this matter, since they were the one who released the number in the first place. Just throwing all of that out there. --Raderick 12:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

They by your argument ANY news asrticle where the writer cannot reveal his sources, which is like all of them, becasue that's how journalism works. Dave Meltzer doesn't need to cite his sources. He should BE the source, he3 has been writing for long enough and has enough credibility that he should be an acceptable source for Wikipedia.Spman 14:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just want people to understand, that number isn't for tickets paid, tickets paid for is included. You see what most are forgetting is the WWE has a select number of allocated tickets for the event. So the calculation is in fact the whole lot of people that went through the turnstiles. This will be including those who went under the WWEs allocation. Totalling 80,103. Also, you're also forgetting that number is excluding all stars, staff, back stage people, people that work for the arena. I would also like to point out the arena official safety limit is different for different events. For the WWE and boxing events the safety limit is 100,000 spectators. So we know the arena can in fact hold a lot more. Hope this helps you all. Govvy 12:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Meltzer has plenty of reasons to write speculative material. It creates controversy and, as Eric Bischoff put it, controversy creates cash (in the form of subscriptions). I don't honestly believe Meltzer would outright lie but I sure as hell believe he will print a story told to him by a dubious source because his readers want scandal, they want gossip, they want to feel they are "insiders" who know more than your average fan. To editors who want to "expose the truth", I'll quote Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men: it doesn't matter what is true, it matters what we can prove. Tranquility--ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are in a situation where enhanced numbers are the name of the game. Billed height/weight anyone? Ironically a story from a dubious source can be argued for the WWE's version as well given their known habit of enhancing numbers. It's an impossible situation to be in. –– Lid^(Talk) 14:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a question: anyone read Bischoff's book? If so, you'll know why Meltzer is not a reliable source for things. Vince is paranoid about leaking information, and if someone is leaking stuff, Vince would find it. Besides, as said countless times before, WWE themselves is a more reliable source than Meltzer. Anakinjmt 15:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you have no understanding of journalism. News sources almost always give their citations. Not in the papers themselves, but on their websites they often have a list of the sources that they use, and what story it was used in. By doing this they are showing people that they can trust them. Meltzer doesn't do this, so his website fails Wikipedia's standards for what is a reliable source, and fails badly. -- The Hyb rid 01:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a flaw in that rationale in that the Observer is used as the source of the news with their sourced "protected" as if the sources were to be found out they would be of no use. This is commonly used in journalism to protect a source which would otherwise be unable to give out the information. Meltzer is wrong sometimes, but he is also often the first to reveal news that has yet to be revealed thus other places get the source from him. (See: Randy Orton's suspension and Kurt Angle's suspension for recent examples in which both were revealed long before they were confirmed). –– Lid^(Talk) 03:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly this is veering off topic. There is no reliable source for any figure other than the WWE figure. I see no reason as to why we would alter a figure from a reliable source for one form an unreliable source. The debate was about the number, and no consensus has been reached to alter it, the 80,000 should stand, and a debate about Dave Metzler should be started on the project talk page, as sourcing is becoming a big issue, even if the cause of the source debate is an abusive puppet master. Darrenhusted 11:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

McMahon could’ve fabricated attendances in 1987 (whether he did or not is another story) but, since 1999, WWE has been a publicly traded company, with a number of investors.

Intentionally misreporting gate reciepts to shareholders as chairman of a public company is, to my knowledge, a federal offence, monitored by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. McMahon claimed 80,103 via WWE Corporate, 80,103 is the official attendance, unless you are suggesting that McMahon is committing a federal offence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.115.173 (talk • contribs)

Has anyone considered standing room only seats? According to PWI, "several thousand SRO tickets" were made available. Mshake3 18:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

MITB

For the picture of the money in the bank dont u think a picture of JEff HArdy doing tht crazy leg drop tht BROKE the ladder would capture the essecene of the match better then a dark low quality pic of Mr. Kennedy getting the briefcase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.185.117 (talk • contribs)

We only accept free-use pictures (see WP:COPYRIGHT) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)