Talk:WrestleMania 32

Proposal to redirect to WrestleMania#Future

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a proposed redirect. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Not redirected due to no renewed discussion and stalled consensus. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I am formally proposing that this article redirect to WrestleMania#Future until there is officially some build for the event, which means until the Royal Rumble (2016) is done. There seems to be no sourced information that is not currently duplicated at WrestleMania#Future. The official "background" disclaimer for professional wrestling in all PPV articles doesn't count. Pragmatically, this article is a magnet for disruption from IPs and redlinks. Alternatively, we could request to semi-protect the article until February 2016, but some disruption might still slip through. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC) ping @LM2000: @TheMeaningOfBlah: @CRRaysHead90: @RadioKAOS: @InedibleHulk:

• Support - I've spoken a lot about this issue on WT:PW and look forward to not talking about this any more. I support this proposal for the many reasons I've stated over there. If this does get support then page protection is obligatory.LM2000 (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think semi-protection would be better worth it, maybe until mid-April of 2016? TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article meets WP:GNG and is reliably sourced. Secondary sources exist. Yes, I'll admit that the article is a ground for possible vandalism. But that has never stopped us in the past 9+ years from creating the article one year in advance, as soon as the next host location in announced. I'm firmly opposed to changing precedent at this point. If anything, the semi-protection will be fine. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 21:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Neither of you have addressed WP:PAGEDECIDE under WP:GNG. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. [...] Sometimes, when information about a future event is scarce, coverage may instead be better suited to a larger encompassing article (see also Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). Other times, a future event may clearly be suitable for a standalone page before it happens (such as the 2020 Summer Olympics). Look at the amount of stuff in the Olympics article, which has details about the bidding, sports, stadiums etc. Our article has almost nothing at all! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 22:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Since this discussion started, I've pointed out that Wikipedia requires articles to demonstrate notability through secondary sources. Despite some making it clear that these sources exist, not a single one has been added to the article. If someone wants to finally make a legit standalone article, I'll change my mind. But this stub serves no purpose not served by the WrestleMania table. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Secondary source that was added like a day ago TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• @TheMeaningOfBlah: That's a standard press release by WWE, republished in entirety. It doesn't tell us anything noteworthy other than "AT&T Stadium will host ... WrestleMania 32, on Sunday April 3, 2016." Still does not address WP:PAGEDECIDE. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and that exact same claim is already sourced to WWE. So it added nothing at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:PAGEDECIDE doesn't mention anything about secondary sources, so I'm still opposed to this redirect proposal. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Secondary sources -> notability. Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. It is unlikely that there will be anything to write about this event until January 2016, so we should redirect until then. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 13:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

That's the funny thing about this, though. There is stuff to read and write. Quite a bit of it has already been presented in the discussion, the rest is at everyone's fingertips. You don't even need to leave Wikipedia, there are "Find sources" links right in the tag at the top, straight up asking people to add them if they don't want the article merged, redirected or deleted.

It seems like these people exist, because we're having this chat, yet here Wikipedia stands. HowStuffWorks and WWE. The sum of human knowledge on WrestleMania 32. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the thing that bothers me the most about this discussion is that in the time it's taken us to get this far in this discussion, any one of us (including you two, @Starship.paint: and @InedibleHulk:) could have added something based on the links I provided on WT:PW to establish notability. The line about the possible record breaking attendance writes itself. But the two aforementioned editors seem content redirecting an article even though they know the secondary sources exist to keep the article as is. (On the flip side of that, me and Blah aren't innocent, we could have added it too.) WP:PW seems plagued by laziness when stuff like this happens. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 02:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I had half a mind to do it myself, especially after a few days. But then it became like when a kid refuses to clean his room until you have to do it, just so it doesn't become dangerous. So far, not a lot of danger, just a Sting vs Taker threat. But I started this on the Redirect side, and will not be moved by inactivity! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well it may be worded horribly because I'm not a content guy, but rather a minor edit guy, but me and Blah have added what you suggested. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 03:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It wasn't exactly worded horribly, but I touched it up a bit. I'm more a sculptor than a builder. There wasn't really anything in that one source about it being highly talked about, but it's a start. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@CRRaysHead90: - I am sorry, it's very hard for me to care about WWE at this time. I can't bring myself to update their articles much. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a proposed redirect. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Official logo?

Where did it come from? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Here. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright then. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

Those unsourced statements in the lede in citations. Same goes for WrestleMania 31. They are WP:OR Could someone better explain to User talk:TheMeaningOfBlah#Manual notification? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I've seen the statements you two are warring over. Yes, they are OR, however they're also true and easily verifiable by clicking on the wikilinks. I say ignore it in this case. 2014 World Series had similar statements before the series happened, and Super Bowl XLIX currently has similar statements. They're not hurting the wiki. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 20:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinks can work as simpler citations, if the claim is sourced in the link. But we should never double up, linking to an article which links to another with the source. That's too distant. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection

My request for page protection went through, this should filter out most of the people who want to dump their speculation until December. My hope for a redirect still stands though.LM2000 (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2015

rumoured matches 86.163.235.212 (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Higher Quality WrestleMania 32 Logo Found

I have found a higher quality PNG of the WrestleMania logo, this one is sized at 1,482 x 529 pixels (The one currently being used on the page is 500 x 200). I found this on the Pro Wrestling Wikia: http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/File:Wrestlemania_32_logo.png The direct link to the full resolution logo is here: http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/prowrestling/images/b/b0/Wrestlemania_32_logo.png/revision/latest?cb=20150123211002

I can't edit the file, but maybe someone else can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby165324 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if this is formatted incorrectly, I don't really edit Wikipedia.

Just wanted to point out that the graphic on the right says that WM32 takes place on March 4th 2016 when the correct date is April 3rd.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

Category:Professional wrestling in Texas 59.101.98.130 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done jcgoble3 (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Matches

I just want to point out that the projected match card still says the there will be a one on one match for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Since the Royal Rumble has been modified, there's a chance that the Wrestlemania 32 main event might be a bit different, anyone agree? 147.69.38.96 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC) You said The Undertaker would be barred from competing at wrestlemania again. Did you mean banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfisch (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Injured reserve list

Is there some space to talk about this topic?

• Talked. Background section starship.paint ~ KO 14:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Theme song

Remove the theme song which is not supported by a reliable source. 198.108.244.195 (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Found a few very new youtube videos, but nothing reliable/offical , so it has been removed --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 18:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What's the point of this?

I hereby move this to talk. Apart from maybe the date when tickets went on sale this whole package seems unencyclopedic trivia:

Travel packages and individual tickets went on sale on November 6, 2015, with the Gold Circle VIP Packages available for $2,360, and 
individual tickets ranging from $18 to $1,180. The Gold Circle Packages include seating at ringside, a "VIP Stadium entrance" and a 
"take-home" folding chair.< ref name=32Tickets>"WrestleMania 32 tickets on sale now". WWE. Retrieved 25 November 2015.</ ref>

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Str1977: While the folding chair is definitely trivia, the highest and lowest priced tickets would be very informative to anyone looking to attend a WrestleMania event in the future, by using and comparing past Wrestlemanias as a guide. starship.paint ~ KO 04:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't object to a severely trimmed version of this being reinstated into the article. No travel packages, no folging chairs, no advertisement language. Just the date the sale began and the maximal and minimal prices. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Str1977: See the edits. starship.paint ~ KO 00:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay! Str1977 ^(talk) 01:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Divas Title match

As far as I know, there has been no confirmation of a singles match for the Divas Title, let alone one featuring either Becky Lynch or Sasha Banks, beyond Charlotte saying so in a promo. For all we know, there could be a Triple Threat or Fatal Four-Way match for the title at the event that's still almost six weeks away. Isn't it premature to list otherwise on this page? Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This match is just WP:CRYSTAL for now. Pedrohoneto (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Since it is WP:CRYSTAL, it should be removed. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I pulled it. I had done so before but my edit was undone. Now we have a conversation on the Talk page to refer to. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And I've already had to take it back down AGAIN, along with claims about Tag Team and IC title matches. I guess there's not much we can do about this. Skudrafan1 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Added a statement that matches should be referenced before being added. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Another. Pedrohoneto (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Besides the fact that it's confirmed that she will defend the title against at least one of them at WrestleMania.... --JDC808 ♫ 03:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Give a credible reference and the match can be added to the table. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There was one, the show itself. --JDC808 ♫ 07:22, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact is: Charlotte will have a match at WrestleMania. Against who? We do not know yet. It will be 1 vs. 1, triple threat, handicap, tag team, etc? We do not know. Pedrohoneto (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's for the title, so it wouldn't be tag team match and very less likely a handicap match. --JDC808 ♫ 17:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

See, but you're just assuming. Wikipedia isn't a place for assumptions; it's a place for the aggregation of facts. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There were no assumptions, and to put Charlotte vs TBD for the title is not an assumption. If a match type was listed, then it would be an assumption. --JDC808 ♫ 22:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The litmus test should be whether a match is listed on the official WrestleMania preview page on WWE.com. Until it is, it's just speculation and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Skudrafan1 (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte will have a match at Mania. That is confirmed. The opponent is not, which is why the table would say "Charlotte (c) vs. TBD". This shows that the match is confirmed, but the opponent(s) is not. It's not rocket science. --JDC808 ♫ 17:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTAL, therefore the match cannot be posted to the until it is official. Yes, the show is a source, yet you need other sources to confirm the match. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not CRYSTAL balling to say Charlotte vs TBD. The fact that Charlotte will be defending her title in some sort of match is confirmed. --JDC808 ♫ 22:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

What's "not rocket science" is the fact that we shouldn't be listing matches until they are confirmed by WWE. We can reasonably say that AJ Styles will have a match at WrestleMania. Should we put AJ Styles vs. TBD in the chart without having any knowledge of what the match stipulations will be? Of course not. This is no different. Skudrafan1 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, yes, there is a difference. AJ Styles has not been confirmed to have a match at WrestleMania (though it probably will happen in some form), however, Charlotte has been confirmed. --JDC808 ♫ 22:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2016

The type of match between Dean Ambrose and Brock Lesnar is wrong, its a No Holds Barred Street Fight match, according to the official match cards shown in Youtube and other sites

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFbqaHUx0WM Nathalex1 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Request granted per Wrestlemania. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016

Add match: Charlotte Vs. Sasha Banks or Becky Lynch - Divas Championship Geekhunter33 (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

poster

Dose any one know the poster Victor2C (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The poster should also show other wrestlemania participants Abdurrahmanchamp (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Rock

The Rock has confirmed he will appear at Wrestlemania, in the description, why does it not say that The Rock will be appearing at the event, WWE.com and The Rock's twitter account have both confirmed it, could you please add in the description that The Rock has confirmed that he will be at the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.127.41 (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

His role needs to be defined before someone to add him anywhere in the article. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We know he will be appearing at Wrestlemania, yes, we don't know if he is in a match, but it would be nice to mention that he will be at Wrestlemania in the description — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.127.41 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Now listed. starship.paint ~ KO 04:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal

Add the new participants for the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal to be officially listed. Bo Dallas, Curtis Axel, Heath Slater and Adam Rose have been officially announced as entrants in the match tonight on an episode of SmackDown.

source: [1] KO Asylum (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Per Wrestling Observer, The Battle Royal is now on the Main Card. Link: http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/full-wrestlemania-card-plus-tv-network-and-ppv-schedule-210166 Quoting article for those who cant get through the paywall:

"WWE has officially updated the plans for Sunday's WrestleMania regarding where the different matches will air on the show.

As of right now, and this could change during the week, the Kalisto vs. Ryback U.S. title match will take place at about 4:30 p.m. Central time, 5:30 p.m. Eastern, and will be a WWE Network exclusive.

The USA Network and WWE Network one hour simulcast from 5-6 p.m. local time and 6-7 p.m. Eastern time, which will also air at WWE.com, the WWE app, and YouTube, will have the women's ten person tag team match and the Usos vs. Dudleys match.

The 20 man Andre the Giant Battle Royal will now be on the WrestleMania PPV card." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.42.51 (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

New Day vs. LON

Someone added the claim that the New Day vs. LON match is a handicap match for the titles. However, the only source used thus far says nothing about handicap matches nor does it explicitely speak of a title match. We need sources for this. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk): source - [2] KO Asylum (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a step up but a mere interpretation of the WWE graphic. If this really is the match we must be able to do better. Somebody must have said something to that effet. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the tags are there so that a source is provided. If your link was enough, you would have to include the link into the article. Instead you go and simply delete the tags. That's no way to go. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk): Can you or someone include the link into the article because i'm unable to do it at the moment. Everything points to it being a 4-on-3 handicap match. At Roadblock, they made sure to state it was 2 vs. 2 when citing Sheamus and Barrett of LON vs. Big E and Kofi of New Day. source: [3] KO Asylum (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• @KO Asylum and Str1977: Indeed, there is no confirmation that the titles are on the line, or who will be wrestling at here. You can also read [4]. When the title is on the line the wrestlers are mentioned as champions. starship.paint ~ KO 04:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@KO Asylum and Starship.paint:: I will not include the link because a) I'm not convinced of the whole matter*, b) why did you remove the tag when you can't edit the article?

It is possible that the picture indicates a handicap match but that's not certain until we have a reliable source that clearly says that. "Everything points" is not enough.

It is strange that this article made several songs and dances arounds Charlotte's match but simply inserts handicap title match (which normally would be contradictory) without any source. Thanks, Starship, for removing this. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link that proves the tag team titles will be defended. Here's the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfisch (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Alfisch: Wrestlinginc is not on the reliable source list. Also that tweet seems to be removed starship.paint ~ KO 01:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Starship.paint and Str1977:: Official reliable source: [5] Wrestling Observer/Figure 4 Weekly Online states officially there will be a 4-on-3 Handicap match with the Tag Team titles not at stake. KO Asylum (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• If you can see past that paywall (because I can't), then add the info with a quote in the reference. Or paste the quote here... starship.paint ~ KO 06:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what those vandalizing the article to insert the unsourced handicap match have to say now. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2016

Chris Jericho Vs. AJ Styles 2601:240:4300:10D4:B422:87FB:BD80:77F0 (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

sort out the order of matches and the neatness of the table

the most important matches should go on top, followed by secondary main events like the cell match, followed by the other title matches (order: intercontinental, tag team, US and women's or the last two can be switched), followed by the remaining matches, with the pre-show matches lised at the bottom as they're the least important. reading this, you see the first match and think that's the main event match. it's not.

think of it like this - back when you used to buy wrestling videos and dvds, the list of matches at the back, the matches shown at the top of the list is most important, with lesser important matches going further down. it makes sense.

also for notes, make them short and concise. use * and footnotes if it's long and complex, so that the resulting table looks neater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.146.226.199 (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no point in such sorting. It is pretty subjective and will be meaningless in a few hours, when we will conform to the order in which the matches were held. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The Official Poster

There's been some back and forth editing over what the "official" poster of the event is. There are two images in question:

1 is here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WrestleMania_32#/media/File:WrestleMania_32_poster.jpg

2 is here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WrestleMania_32&diff=712023455&oldid=712002085#/media/File:Wrestlemania_32_poster.jpg

If you check out Stephanie McMahon's Instagram account here: https://www.instagram.com/p/BCiHW2YhEb_/?taken-by=stephaniemcmahon&hl=en, you can see a picture she posted of the real poster hanging on a wall. It is the 1st image I linked. That 1st image has also been shown hanging on the wall in the office during Raw the last few weeks.

There are some people removing that 1st image off the Mania 32 Wiki page and replacing it with the 2nd image. The 2nd image is a photoshopped picture of an image that is used when you sign up for WWE Network, which you can see here: http://www.wwe.com/wwenetwork. The 2nd image is not a poster. It is a fan manipulated image where they added the WrestleMania logo and and the date and other text to make it look like an official poster. Nowhere on WWE.com is the 2nd image I linked shown as an actual poster with text over it. It's a photoshop. A very well done photoshop, but a photoshop nonetheless. Until someone can can prove otherwise, keep the 1st image as the official poster on this Wiki page. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@OldSkool01: what about this third poster? It's official. Although since it's on a TV screen rather than a wall, it might be called more of a promotional image than a poster necessarily. With the gradual shift from paper to TV for advertisement, I have to wonder though, should we continue to prioritize printed-on-paper posters over digital images if digital images will probably reach a wider amount of people? If you compare it to the present image, our current poster is basically a cropping of this wider shot except HHH is overlapping reigns more. Ranze (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't show the date, the time, where to watch it, or anything else that a promotional poster uses. That is just a promotional image. Not a poster. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan

Daniel Bryan retired because of brain damage from too many concussions in his career. Not from his neck injury. Joshua ariel 97 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to support this? Anyway I don't think we specify the nature of why he's retiring, just that he is. Explaining why would be relevant to his article but not for WrestleMania. Ranze (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016

82.170.115.123 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Change the match between triple h and roman reigns from for the wwe world heavyweight championship(x) to no disqualification for the wwe world heavyweight championship(y) here is the source with picture http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/691887-wrestlemania-32-main-event-match-possibly-getting-an-added-stipulation 82.170.115.123 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The sources says "possibly". Str1977 ^(talk) 20:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Event is currently airing, matter is probably already settled or will be shortly. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Strangely worded editorializing

I hereby move the following over here:

In a rare event for WrestleMania main eventers, it was theorized that WWE scripted Reigns not to speak on the last Raw 
before WrestleMania 32 to avoid him being booed, in a repeat of the Raw before WrestleMania 31 (which Reigns headlined). 

Not only is this extreemly strangely worded - it is also not actually included in the source attached which merely said:

Instead of getting a chance to state what this match means to him, Reigns said nothing at all Monday night in Brooklyn. He 
didn’t have to say much, but something would have sufficed.
Instead, it felt like WWE was sort of afraid to put him in front of a hostile crowd for fear of him being booed during his 
promo. If that was the case, WWE had good reason to feel that way because despite beating up Triple H on multiple occasions 
and closing the show by doing a cool dive over the top rope, the fans still jeered him.

There is nothing in there about anyone "theorizing" or WWE "scripting". There is also nothing about last years pre-Mania Raw, which makes the inclusion of a RAW report from 2015 all the more pointless. So it's best to put the whole thing away. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Str1977: it's the "RAW report from 2015" that pointed out (paraphrasing) it is a rare event for WrestleMania main eventers to not speak on the go home show. WWE is a performance. If someone didn't talk, it's not a stretch to say that he wasn't scripted to. starship.paint ~ KO 14:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Time of pre-show and main show

Can we please list the date? I tuned in at 7pm because usually it's 7-8 preshow 8-11 main show but accoding to results, the 3 pre-show matches all completed? Can someone list a reference to support these? When did this happen? When does the main show happen? Ranze (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as the end time goes, this WAS in fact the first WWE ppv that went past its scheduled end time. An edit was made stating that WMXX also went over, but that is not true as WMXX was advertised as a 5 hour show that was scheduled through 12am est. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.59.98 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

league of nations

It was a six man tag not a handicap match

• Should be settled now starship.paint ~ KO 14:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

When the show is over, can the article be locked from editing permanently?

The vandalism is insane.

I doubt that would be necessary since the vandalism is certainly due to this being a current event.--76.65.41.126 (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016

220.244.228.72 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016

Roman Reigns defeated Triple H by disqualifaction in 28:37 minutes 2.50.150.106 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Battle Royal

Can we fix the elimination thing.

The Rock vs. Erick Rowan

Why is this not listed under results? WWE acknowledged that this match set a record for the shortest match in WWE Wrestlemania history and that the Rock set a new record.

John Cena?

Why is John Cena even mentioned in the results. No hate to him but he wasn't even with The Rock during those six seconds he faced Erick Rowan. 98.19.214.13 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Women's Title Match

In the results table, Charlotte should not have a (c) next to her name since she was not the defending Women's Champion. She was the Divas Champion, but the Divas Title was not on the line. The match was to decide who would be the new Women's Champion and when the match was over Lilian announced Charlotte as the NEW Women's Champion. Essentially it was a match for a vacant championship where all 3 women in the match were challengers. Charlotte's Divas Title was not on the line so her having a (c) next to her name doesn't make any sense. This shouldn't be that complicated of an issue, but some people keep editing back in the (c). Hopefully this clearly explains it. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

She should absolutely have that "c" because she went into the match - which was advertised as a Divas Championship title match - as the Divas Champion. She went out of it as the Women's Champion as through that match (and only at the end of the match) the one title was replaced by the other. By retaining her Divas Championship, Charlotte became the Women's Champion. Neither was the Divas Championship vacated nor was there a vacant Women's Championship before the match.

On another note, you could also drop that condescending attitude that anyone who disagrees with your preference must be "not getting it". Str1977 ^(talk) 19:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You're missing a big point here. Yes, Charlotte was the Divas Champion heading into the match, but her Title was NOT on the line. Yes, in the weeks leading into WrestleMania it was advertised as a Divas Title match. During the Kickoff show that all changed when they made it very clear that the match was now for the new Women's Title, not the Divas Title. The Divas Title did not "become" the Women's Title during the match. They are 2 completely seperate championships. Both Titles were not on the line in this match. Only the Women's Title. If Sasha or Becky would've won the match they wouldn't have been declared both the Women's AND Divas Champion. In the results table of any wrestling event, you only put a (c) next to the champion who is defending the Title in the match. Charlotte did not defend any title during the match. There was no Women's Champion when the match started. Once Charlotte won the match, Lilian Garcia announced her as the NEW Women's Champion. That's the only title that was on the line during the match. Again, the Divas Title and the Women's Title are 2 different titles. Only the Women's belt was on the line. The reason I make the comments about why this shouldn't be hard to understand has nothing to do with people disagreeing with my opinion, it has to do with facts. The Divas Title was NOT on the line in the match. Go back and watch the match again. The commentators even make that very clear. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "missing the point" - I just don't accept your particular interpretation that Charlotte was just another challenger. Your reasoning (there was no Women's champion before the match, Becky or Sasha wouldn't have been both Divas and Women's champion, had they won) is actually beside the point. The Women's Championship was created in this match with the winner of what was signed and advertised as a Divas title match being awarded the new belt and title. Charlotte won it by virtue of her successful title defense.

If your interpretation - just three challengers for a vacant title - were correct, then why was Charlotte announced as Divas Champion, called champion by commentary and carried the "butterfly belt" with her. It seems it wasn't obsolete at that point.

Finally, while these things contradict your interpretation, both interpretations are possibly under the wording you repeatedly erase. It has the "c" marking the champion but also explains the intricacies of the case with a footnote. Hence, I will restore it. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason Charlotte was announced as the Divas Champion before the match is because she was the Divas Champion. The New Day was announced as Tag Team Champions before their Mania 32 match as well, doesn't mean their titles were on the line. My interpretation that the Divas Title was not on the line during the match is because Cole, JBL and Saxton said on commentary that her Divas title was NOT on the line. Go watch the match again. This isn't my opinion. This is a fact. Not an interpretation. A fact. Watch the match again and pay attention. As for the footnote, I have no problem with that. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that New Day didn't fight in a title match at all, while Charlotte came into her match a champion, wrestled for a championship and came out the champion. You are suggesting that there was a time where a Divas title (held by Charlotte) and a Women's title (vacant) existed side by side with only the latter on the line. I say the former was replaced by the latter at the end of the match, with Charlotte being crowned by virtue of having held unto her title.

I will rewatch it again (since it's basically the only enjoyable match on the card there is no harm in this) for commentary but I'm afraid that what commentators say is just what commentators say. And very often they say pretty stupid things (comments about "rope breaks" in that match come to mind). But I will have a look.

Nevertheless, neither your nor my interpretation is a fact. Keeping the (c) with the footnote (which you DID delete at least once) allows for both and hence we should keep it. Str1977 ^(talk) 04:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This article from WWE.com clearly states the the Divas Championship was not defended in this match, only the Women's Championship was on the line... http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/32/charlotte-becky-lynch-sasha-banks-results ... This specific quote from the article says it all "After preparing to fend off both aspiring challengers at WrestleMania, Charlotte then learned her Divas Championship reign would end by official decree. Rather than competing as a reigning titleholder, the Charlotte, N.C., native instead became the third and final contender for an unprecedented opportunity to make WWE history on The Grandest Stage of Them All." This should end the debate once and for all. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I will have a look at this. But you can immediately forget about "once and for all" on Wikipedia. Str1977 ^(talk) 04:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about Wikipedia. There are always going to be vandals changing things just to change them, even when there are sources proving otherwise. I agree with you on that. OldSkool01 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I resent any implication of vandalism. However, as you can see in the history, people pushing unsourced claims about handicap matches at Wrestlemania, even after the event had proved them wrong, kept me busy over the last two or three weeks. Str1977 ^(talk) 05:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The vandalism comment wasn't a shot at you, just WP in general. Also, to be fair, WWE.com and even the Kickoff show itself, advertised the match as a Handicap Match. It was changed. But it was definitely advertised as a Handicap Match beforehand. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to make sure. WWE.com didn't advertise the New Day/LON match as a handicap match, at least in their run-down of all Mania matches. I have read through that page a dozen times and the information wasn't there. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I can live without a "c" qualifier for Charlotte as long as the footnote remains as it now is: "Charlotte entered the match as Divas Champion, but was crowned WWE Women's Champion at the conclusion of the match." Is that acceptable to you? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. That's the way it's been the last couple of days. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

However, Charlotte shouldn't be called "the first-ever Women's champ". Apart from being an over-used phrase, it is clearly not accurate, given that there have been WWE Women's Champions before. Even if the new WC is a new title, there cannot be a first-ever champion udner that name ever again. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely with that sentiment. In fact, if it was up to me I would combine the current Women's Title WP page with the old Women's Title WP page because it's the same title. But there's a lot of WP editors that are claiming this to be a completely seperate Women's Title from the old Women's Title, which is just absurd. The only reason they're seperating them is because WWE.com is run by imbeciles and they gave the current Women's Title it's own seperate lineage from the old Women's Title. It's dumb. Regardless of what WWE says. WWE has been known to rewrite their own history at the drop of a dime. WP should be a place where we seperate fact from fiction and tell history as it actually happened, not the way WWE constantly changes it.OldSkool01 (talk) 01:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That's my sentiment too. But even if we take the two championships to be separate we cannot accept absurdities as Charlotte being the "first-ever WWE Women's champion". Str1977 ^(talk) 05:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The way WP has it listed, if Charlotte is to be called the first ever WWE Women's Champion(which she isn't) then it would have to be "first ever WWE Women's Champion (2016-present)." And how ridiculous does that look?. But this is most likely a fight we won't win because there's some stubborn editors on here. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

We have to resist the "first-ever" nevertheless. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. We can handle that. It's just like a few years ago where people were trying to say Orton was the first ever "WWE World Heavyweight Champion" after the unification match with Cena. It wasn't true. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OldSkool01,

I don't know who keeps changing that all the time but my understanding was that the note about "going in Divas champ, leaving as Women's champ" should stay next to Charlotte's name, where under different circumstances the "(c)" would be placed. That was part of our compromise. Agreed? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. I haven't changed anything. You have to check the edit history page to see who changed it. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Today I fixed an error, when you restored the note next to Charlotte's name you also moved the other reference with it. The note next to her name is perfectly fine, but all references belong in the stipulation column. No big deal. OldSkool01 (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. That was an oversight. Thanks for correcting my error. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Delays in entering the stadium

Would anyone be interested in reporting on delays on fans not able to enter the stadium or reach their seats?

http://www.pwinsider.com/article/101077/getting-into-att-stadium-is-a-long-tedious-process.html?p=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.5.252 (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Added in the Reception section. Thank you. starship.paint ~ KO 13:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Attendance

Just like the Pontiac Silverdome that hosted WrestleMania III, why is the attendance of over 101,000 at WrestleMania 32 disputed. Also, where did you get the source that it's disputed? 98.18.59.229 (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Just read the article which has links to Dave Meltzer. He is also the main source for disputing the WM3 figures, doing so by estimations based on inside information. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

removing the blatantly obvious

I removed the following content from this article "WrestleMania 32 consisted of professional wrestling matches that involved wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds or storylines that played out on WWE television. Wrestlers portrayed heroes or villains as they followed a series of events that built tension and culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches" because of the following reasons.

1. It's merely stating something that every single reader over the age of 5, would be blatantly aware of. 2. The wording is awful, it sounds like some badly scripted warning on a TV show. 3. It is covered in a lot of detail on the Professional wrestling article, which is linked directly before previous location of the offending content.

If anyone can explain why they think it actually adds to the quality of the article, please explain here. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Come on, don't just revert, without even attempting to discuss the issue. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as there have been no comments here, and the editor who reverted me has not replied here, on his talk page, or on mine, I will assume that there is now consensus for my edit, thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, does no one here actually understand what "D" in "BRD" means? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nickag989: I actually messaged the last editor to revert me - and he responded by deleting my message, with a personal attack in the edit summary. I guess there is no respect being shown for the standard editing procedures. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420:I agree with the removal of the content in question, this is well known information to people around the world on how pro wrestling works and is not needed in this article. There is no point to it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

If this was a website designed for kids, I might consider it worthwhile, but as it isn't, I think you're right. It's embarrassing to read such a silly disclaimer, on an otherwise decent article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected three days

I've fully protected the article for three days. @WarMachineWildThing and Danratedrko: Edit summaries are not a substitute for talk page discussion. Danratedrko, I came close to blocking you as you haven't seemed to learned from your last block for personal attacks. Please tone down your rhetoric and discuss content issues here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Noted Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• I fully oppose the edits made by Danratedrko on 25 June 2016, which were basically the mass removal of sourced information. These sources were judged by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources to be reliable. The information was corroborated by the sources. It seems like Danratedrko is merely using WP:IDONTLIKEIT, whle violating WP:NPA. Calling Dave Meltzer a dirt sheet rumor doofus is hilarious, this is a person featured by the New York Times for his (now 45, then 43) years plus of covering pro-wrestling, and "Frank Deford, a 50-year veteran of Sports Illustrated, once labeled Meltzer the most accomplished reporter in sports journalism." starship.paint ~ KO 07:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: I think someone got them reverted before the lock down.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Attendance

Article referenced to dispute the attendance contains opinion saying WWE had to announce over 100,000 and does not describe how Mr. Meltzer came up with the lower figure. Slumpercat (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The article itself has a quote from Vince McMahon confirming it. - Galatz^Talk 12:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

"WrestleMania XXXVI" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect WrestleMania XXXVI. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 21#WrestleMania XXXVI until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Kakarott

@Kakarott: I'm starting this thread for you to discuss why you're inserting fabricated numbers. Please keep discussion here rather than reverting. — Czello ^(music) 07:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The cited source that is being referenced is a Tweet. WWE's own claim differs from what this tweet states. As there is a discrepancy this number is very much in dispute. Your claim that the numbers are "fabricated" is not substantiated and does not rely on primary sources. As such, you have no grounds by which to make such a statement.

The correct course of action here is to use the disputed total and indicate that the number itself is under dispute. Since the tweet linked relies very much on the personal opinion of one individual it is not evidence of anything other than that one journalist's opinion and the dispute should be clarified as such in the article itself.

Bluntly insisting that "fabricated numbers" are being inserted is not in good faith with this article or Wikipedia standards. Kakarott (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The "tweet" in question is from someone that is deemed a reliable source per WP:PW/RS. WWE, even by their own admittance, inflate their numbers. Current consensus is to prioritise independent sources over primary sources in these instances. — Czello ^(music) 20:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer is very much not a reliable source per WP:PW/RS. There is no such consensus, and moreover this only illustrates further why the article and the number must be considered in dispute. Kakarott (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I encourage you to visit Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Reliable_sources, which states:

Reliable sources on Wikipedia may include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.

Considering the total attendance reported by this source has changed multiple times throughout the years, it is important to contextualize the change appropriately. Classifying this number as under dispute is the only way by which this can be accomplished, as there are a half dozen references in this very wiki page that have different numbers quoted.

Edits/reverts by @Czello represent a bad-faith effort to gaslight the community in the wake of a competitor's event. Kakarott (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. The implication that I am doing this because of a rival promotion is a bad faith claim. As stated multiple times, Meltzer is considered reliable. — Czello ^(music) 20:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Considering Dave Meltzer's own number on this attendance has changed 3 times over the years, it is clear that there is a dispute on this claim. You don't get to just wave a magic wand and declare someone reliable, especially when their story has changed multiple times to suit whichever narrative he is attempting to carve out for his subscribers. Kakarott (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't wave a magic wand and declare him reliable; the WikiProject has decided it (especially given he's the most respected journalist in the industry). If you don't believe he's reliable you'll have to petition at WP:PW to remove him from WP:PW/RS. — Czello ^(music) 20:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

With regards to this specific instance it is irrelevant, as there is ample evidence to suggest that the figure he provided is in dispute. It is in a reader's best interests to know of this, since multiple sources claim multiple different figures at different times.

Until an authoritative source can be referenced the dispute status is very much warranted and very much indicated as per WP:AD Kakarott (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Meltzer is considered an authoritative source. The fact he clarified the number later on does not make him unreliable. You're going to have to attain consensus for this to be the case. — Czello ^(music) 20:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is this making you argue with so many users? That alone proves there has been no consensus,Just give up already,people outside wikipedia are fusturated at what you are doing and laughing,it has been even more obvious now since you are from the UK and attended AEW ALL in,your edit history proves it,Richard

secondly,how is this hard to understand? Even if Meltzer is a reliable source on wikipedia,he isn’t the only source that makes you use him everywhere not even putting the word ‘disputed’ with his numbers as well after being wrong so many times in the past is crazy

no specific person on wikipedia is the only source

even if you think his numbers are true

is it 100% true to not even put a note that those numbers are also disputed? Why is it it 80,709 not 80,706 or 80,707?

or why is it 80,000 not 80,329 for example

How can you be so confident how many hundreds were there? Same for what you are doing on the other pages,all numbers are disbuted,if you want to add a note why it is disputed

you are welcome

He isn’t a bible,he wrote an entire issue after Wrestlemania 32 about it being over 93K in attendance,that tweet you put isn’t even a source.

i’m on Kakaroott side in this argument,promoted figures should be on all the WrestleMania pages that you messed up

we need a higher user on wikipedia to decide here about what czello started doing to those pages a couple of weeks ago Heyyo456 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Kakarott,I’m on your side regarding wrestlemania 32 and other shows,keep going,don’t worry,just don’t go into edit war for more than 3 times in the last 24 hours

Heyyo456 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

just don’t go into edit war for more than 3 times in the last 24 hours This sounds like an invitation for WP:GAMING. — Czello ^(music) 08:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Attendance Figure and Dave Meltzer's lack of Neutrality on WM 32, a figure based on a simple tweet rather than WP:RS, new consensus here

This discussion has been borrowed from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling

Copy and pasted thread

Example text Why single out WWE? What about other promotions like TNA, ROH, AEW that all inflate attendence. TNA Lockdown (2013) claimed an attendance of 10,000 a decade ago which is purely dubious but neither Meltzer nor any of you complained just because it was not WWE. It appears to be an attempt to promote AEW following AEW All In 2023's success, people always root for David against Goliath, thats why people want to bring WWE down. Disputinbg attendences of events such as WrestleMania 3 based solely on Dave Meltzer whome people in this p[roject literally seem to worship sorta here is non WP:neutral. The guy never even attends events and writes based on speculations, and ranks non WWE matches higher and it was supposed to be a part of his criticism section, you guys dismissed. Love your work over the years you made WP:PW beautiful but don't let your personal grduge against WWE get in the way. There is already a dispute tag under attendence figures in info box of WrestleMania 3 and WrestleMania 32, what more is needed? Many crucially accepted Wp:PW/RS accept WWE's claimed attendence, just because a few like Meltzer disagrees does not dicredit them. Let them stay as they are and if you disagree leave the dispute tag but it will be pure WP:NOR and non WP:Neutral if you go on decreasing them based on personal grudge against WWE and Meltzer's views! The mahority WP:PW/RS agrees with WWE's figure and thats how it should go, and if there is dispute just add dispute tag on the info box but we should never decrease the figure based on Meltzer's views! Dilbaggg (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC) The reason we focus on WWE so much is because they are the most notorious at inflating numbers. However, the neutral solution (to use independent sources rather than WP:PRIMARY sources) applies to all companies, not just WWE. It just affects WWE the most because they're the ones who use fabricated numbers the most. — Czello (music) 07:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC) @Czello Primary sources can be used to report accurate statistical figures, they may not be in part of the body but info box stats can use primary sources, and whats more better priomary source than personal views of Anti WWE and Pro AEW,TNA fans (not claiming anyone here is that way but there are some people who do hold grudges here). Also there are numerous secondary WP:RS that supports claims of 100,000+ attendence figures at WrestleMania 32: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and the list goes on and on. Please do not selectively chose anti WWE sources. best to leave the attendance as they are and leave a disputed tag as some disputes exists but non are verified and Meltzer's words can't be taken as gospel, no wiki policy states dirt sheet writer Dave Meltzer is some divine entity here. Mpost WP:PW/RS agrees with WWE's attendance records. Anyway lets please go along with the attendance figure as they are while leaving dispute tag lines and its all fine. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC) just for clarification. if we say WWE we mean every wrestling promotion. if we say Meltzer, we mean independent source. As we have discussed, independent sources are used in wikipedia to avoid the promotion interest. you are talking about including fake numbers even when other sources debunked them. i just want to mention that wiki admins even complained with wrestlers with fake heighs, i dont want to know what the think for fake --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC) The problem is that they're not accurate statistical figures, even by WWE's own admission - that's the whole issue here. The sources you link are citing WWE directly - yes, WON takes priority over those. — Czello (music) 09:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC) @HHH Pedrigree No source debunked them,, they alleged it, there is a huge difference between DEBUNKING using scientific methods and making ALLEGATIONS based on personal views as what Dave Meltzer in his dirt sheet does. He hasn't proven anything or used any proper investiagtion method and just made a claim based on his opinion. And I have provided five of MANY WP:RS which supports WWE's claimed attendance. By WWe you can never claim all promotions, similarly Dave Meltzer doesn't represent all independent Wp:RS, he himself doesn't have many reliabl=ility in 2014 he made a false debunked claim that Punk was returning to WWE that year. Anyway while some disputes, vast majority "independent" Wp:RS (and please never claim Dave Meltzer represents WP:RS alone, there is a good reason for WP:GS) vast majority "independent" WP:RS accepts that WWE's claimed attendance and it is good the way it is stating the claimed attendance figure and just adding the dispute tagline indicating some people sources may disagree. Also WWE's claim as well as many independent well established WP:RS are far more reliable than selective figures that a few WWE hating Dave Meltzer fans wants to add up. Anyway I understand and respect you guys have worked hard all these years to keep good articles like these but please be WP:Neutral and there are many independent WP:RS that agreed with WWE's claim, and there are already dispute tags indicating some might disagree but majority agrees, and so they are good enough as they are at the moment. Good day. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Please remember nothing was debunked by the disagreers they just alleged they didn't have any valid scientific research method, and vast majority of independent sources supports WWE's claims, Here again are few of the many WP:PW/RS that agrees with WWE's figures: WrestleMania 32: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I think the figures are fine the way they are at the moment and as soime disagrees there is even disputed tags, that is sufficient. Please do not comment on my two consequtive comments addressing @HHH Pedrigree comment without fully reading these two comments as I have addressed every one of your concerns. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC) @Czello despite some of WWE's unofficial statements , they officially maintain the 100,000 + figures and its supported by numerous independent WP:PW/RS and I gave some of many examples above. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Please seek proper Wp:RfC consensus before changing established attendance supported by numerous independent WP:RS fot 7+ years since 2016 until suddenly AEW fans want to diminish WrestleMania 32's significance, note Meltzer is biased and never disputed All In (2023) but the Wp:PW e3ditors seem to worship him so much they even removed the criticism section of Dave Meltzer article and various Wp:RS points out his bias against WWE [16], [17] he is not a researcher, he is just a dirt sheet writer! Anyway please seek proper consensus and I hope Dave Meltzer who made false claims in the past [18] is investigated by broader Wikipedia community about his lack of Wp:neutral assessment and actual credibility. And as for this as given above numerous independent established Wp:RS supports the 100,000+ attendance figures and so we need proper consensus including from broader Wikipedia community outside Wp:PW. Dilbaggg (talk) Dilbaggg (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

A few things. First, I've collapsed the above as you shouldn't copy and paste conversations even as a quote - you can link. Next, please WP:AGF about other users. Saying we're doing this because we're AEW fans is an assumption of bad faith. As for consensus, there is one and it's here. As for Meltzer, as has been stated numerous times on this page and elsewhere, he is considered reliable. If you want to argue he should be removed from WP:PW/RS, please argue it at the Wikiproject. — Czello ^(music) 14:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Czello thank you for fixing my formatting error bro and you are right I should take WP:AGF, but now point is Meltzer made unreliable claims in the past I gave the 2014 Punk return example. Also like I said in the collapsed copy pasted part there is a difference between being debunked and alleged. Pro Meltzer sources downplays the attendance of WrestleMania 3 and WrestleMania 32 and try to reduce their attendance but they never ever carried valid scientific research or anything, its all claims in their dirt sheet WON, and the reliability of Dave Meltzer should be judged by broader Wikipedia community, hope WP:PW stops seeing him like some divine deity! And now there are many historic and well established and reputed WP:RS that supports the claims of 90,000+ and 100,000+ attendance for WM 3 and WM 32. Unfortunatley I was away when you guys debated this otherwise I would have vetoed right then. Notice all this comes after the success of All In (2023) and biaosed Meltzer doesn't dispute its claim. Now very few WWE attendnaces have been disputed, like for e.g. no one disputes WrestleMania 22's attendence as it was in a small arena, but jealous people like Meltzer disputed every WWE attendances in large arenas. But their allegatiuons of smaller attendance have never been verified. So I request you guys to maintain WP:neutral and restore things as they were upto July 2023, you had the WWE claimed attendance and most events weren't disputed like WM 22, but those like WM 3 and WM 32 that are disputed had a disputed tag attached! That was the best thing, it was neutral and supported both WWe loyalist views and Meltzer loyalist views. But current version is non Neutral and only takes the Meltzer loyalist views! There are so many reliable independent non WWE well established and respected WP:RS that accepts 90,000+ and 100,000+ attendance for WM 3 and WM 32, keeping in mind please rever it to the old way keeping the claimed figures for these two events and also adding the disputed tag, in that way we can still maintain WP:neutral. Btw I am going to set WM 3's attendance to a range 78,00-90,000+ because like the higher 90,000 figure is disputed by Meltzer loyalists, the 78,000 lower attendance is also disputed and deserves a disputed tag as it is disputed by WWE loyalist. Keeping all in mind old format was better for both articles! And I request broader Wikipedia community to judge Dave Meltzer's dirt sheet's credibility! Dilbaggg (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Journalists can make errors, it doesn't immediately make them unreliable. There are plenty of sources at WP:RSP that might have made errors at some point. The question is if they cross the threshold. Ultimately you've said that WON should be judged by the wider community, but the issue is that WON is considered the most reliable source in wrestling, and it's not even close. Indeed, most other sources even cite Meltzer regularly. Many of the sources supporting WWE's numbers are citing them directly. I think ultimately if you're just going to accuse Meltzer of being "jealous" then this isn't a serious discussion about his reliability. If you want to establish a broader consensus around him you should do so at WP:PW. Please don't alter any more attendance records unless you actually have a consensus. — Czello ^(music) 15:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

You guys actually say an error prone open WWE hating dirt sheet writer Dave Meltzer is more reliable than New York Times? [19] Dilbaggg (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

As I pointed, this is more based on a anti-Meltzer feeling. We never said Meltzernword is the Holy Bible, (in fact, i prefer Sean Ross and Mike ohnson from Fightful and PWInsider) but he is independent from WWE, which is a company with his own interest, so he is an independent source --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with this discussion, but it's clear that there is a dispute. Wikipedia's job is simply to reflect what is written in reliable sources, hence the full range of attendances needs to be mentioned in the infobox with a note that it is disputed. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide which attendance is correct. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hashim,Thank you so much for that

even though i think we should put the 101K figure and a disputed note besides it because there is big gap between 80k-101K

Czello claims that there is concensus to what he is doing when it has been clear as day there has been a disagreement/opposition from the majority of users

you need to go to his edit history and change back all the wrestlemania numbers that he changed yesterday as well not just Wrestlemania 32 Heyyo456 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the majority of the users on the Wikiproject were quite clear about the consensus. No reliable source puts the paid attendance at 101k. — Czello ^(music) 17:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Czello More WP:RS some of which I included abvove claim the upper 100,000+ attendance than the lower one, and the title is total attendnance, regardless whearer its paid or unpaid! If you want to write only the paid attendance write Paid Attendance in the info box, who said unpaid attendance do not count, anyway there is already a WP:GS on pro wrestling so i don't want the project to be in troble and I respect more of yuour woks but whitewashing WWE's legacy and over glorifying AEW and Dave Meltzer, do as you wish but even major news media like CNN and all reported historic authenticity of WM 3 and Wm 32 90,000+ and 100,000+ attendance and Wikipedia is deemed unreliable for reasons like these, few editors teaming up together to select their choice sources (like Dave Meltzer who never doid any scientific investigation on the matter all are his claims, he never been to the stadium) rather than main stream sources. Anyway do as you want but truth won't change that wheather paid or unpaid WM 32 had 100,000+ attendance and most main stream sources WP:RS supports it. I have nothing more to say to such a non WP:Neutral judgement. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

As we've said, the problem is that the sources quoting 100k are citing WWE directly. Ultimately CNN isn't going to investigate wrestling attendance numbers as deeply as someone who specialises in the subject. Please stop implying myself or other users are attempting to whitewash WWE, glorify AEW, or otherwise are acting in bad faith. As always, WP:AGF. Until WP:PW decides WON and Meltzer aren't reliable then they do take priority. — Czello ^(music) 08:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Meltzer has provided no evidence to support his number. I don't understand why simply keeping it the 101K number with (disputed) after it is an issue.

It becomes very suspicious how this is suddenly an issue with the show now that their largest competitor AEW had their biggest show which would put them over the "legit" number of paid attendees for this event. If it's not blatant favoritism for AEW it is definitely not an honest reflection of the truth.

Why should we trust any wrestling promotion's attendance number? Most attendances for shows are not verified outside of the promotions statements so it's very suspect this show in particular out of all the Stadium Wrestlemanias is getting the number permanently changed as if Meltzer has the correct and accurate number. Honduras445 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

To further emphasize my point, the "source" provided is a TWEET from the guy. Not even referencing his observer newsletter or any written publication that can verify even slightly that he has the more accurate number. It's 100% in bad faith. Honduras445 (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Honduras445 Completely agreed with you, also in 2016 Meltzer claimed 93,730. Meltzer is always anti WWE, and now suddenly in 2023 after All In (2023) he claims 80,709 and all this on twitter rather than actual publication, literally the only source used (and rightfully challenged by Raj Giri another prominent wrestling Journal;ist): https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/1678456928031350784 look at his retweet "You had mentioned after WrestleMania 32 that the real attendance was 97K+. What led to the big discrepancy with the later 80K number? I'm not being a smartass, I'm legitimately curious twitter.com/davemeltzerWON…" ]. The claim of 80,709 is based on a single police station report but there is no link to that but figures of 93,730 and 101,763. There wasn't a proper consensus even in project page, and here we should do a new consensus. It seems 4 people in favor of the upper limit than 2 so far. And Twitter can't be used as a legitimate source. Why did Meltzer suddenly change the number again after All In 2023? To make it look as if All In had more attendance. But I stand by more well sourced comments and we can't use Twitter as a source, get a better source for 80,000 figure. Since you like WON so much, lets use the more well sourced WP:RS 93,730 rather than using a tweet as a source! And take into account new consensus here. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Why prioritize Fightful and Meltzer's new tweet ober every other sources, they didn't simpply quote WWE, they are way more reliable across broader Wikipedia such as ESPN, CBS and more and concluded between 90k-100k figure: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] and disregarding all these you are using twitter as a source. At least include Meltzer';s original published claim of 93,730 over his WP:recentism tweet to glorify AEW All in 2023 as a source. Anyway a proper consensus is needed here, 4 in support of 93,730/101,763 and 2 in 80,000 based on a simple tweet. Also the thing is plainly "total attendance" not necessarily paid/unpaid, it doesn't say paid attendance in the infobox, it is supposed to encompass all! The consensus is 4-2 for now, after a week I might come back to change. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Also as WM 32 happened back in 2016, to avoid WP:Recentism we should take only sources uto June 30, 2023, the last two months there are lots of non WP:Neutral pro AEW sources that tries to glorify All In 2023, and this is how the consensus should go, any source used must be upto June 2023, amnd never use a simple TWEET as a source like it was done here! Dilbaggg (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Much of your argument centres on the allegation that Meltzer is anti-WWE, which remains unsubstantiated. Not for the first time I'll point out that he is considered the most renowed journalist in wrestling. — Czello ^(music) 06:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

"The most renowned journalist" Dave Meltzer is purely personal views and non WP:Neutral and don;t forget his mistake in 2014 about Punk's return where he was wrong: [26]. Either ways I made my point and will leave it for now, the current consensus is 2-4, but please understand even if you disagree the 100,000+ figure, Meltzer himself claimed 93,000+ people before AEW All In 2023 got 80,000+ and now he wants to glorify AEW so any source after June 2023 which are simply based on Meltzer's TWEET rather than actual wrestling journals are dubious, also Wikipedia has been influential to many things considered RS (like Reality era term emerged in 2011 with Punk's pipebomb) Wikipedia was the first to claim 2014 and now other RS says 2014, people get misled by what we put here) last thing i say about this for now, count WP:RS such as CBS and all until June 2023 only. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it's pretty well accepted that Meltzer is the most renowned journalist in wrestling. There's a reason why most other RSs will cite him. Meltzer is basically the reason wrestling journalism exists. You keep bringing up the Punk thing, but an error doesn't invalidate everything that comes afterwards. If it did we'd have to remove things like the BBC from WP:RSP. Ultimately what it comes down to, again, is that Meltzer is considered as reliable as you can get until you can convince WP:PW otherwise. — Czello ^(music) 07:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is an article from the biggest wrestling website wrestlinginc.com exposing Dave Meltzer

One of the first things that pops up when you search for dave meltzer on google actually

Prominent Wrestling Journalist Dave Meltzer Accused Of Publishing Stories Based On False Information

Read More: https://www.wrestlinginc.com/1166732/prominent-wrestling-journalist-dave-meltzer-accused-of-publishing-stories-based-on-false-information/

and he admitted that he was wrong and was crying and embarrassed by it on his show

that article was viewed by millions of views on twitter

and this is his wrestlemania 32 observer issue that are more reliable than a tweet that doesn’t even mention anything stating that wrestlemnaia 32 did over 93K tickets and how it was the biggest ever

https://web.archive.org/web/20160406104304/https://www.f4wonline.com/daily-updates/daily-update-wrestlemania-32-fallout-undertaker-done-again-210491

here is a tweet from him a month before wrestlemania 32 saying wrestlemania 32 sold 84k tickets

https://twitter.com/arashmarkazi/status/708058235060756480?s=46&t=Q0eCaopwq24B2Z53Rc57Zw

and they sold 10K after that

and Finally,Czello or Richard from england,i take a big issue that you are arguing about this subject when you never have a response about the business/numbers themselves except ‘meltzer said this or said that’ because it is so obvious to everyone that the business side of the wrestling business isn’t your expertise whatsover whether it is gates,ticket sales,attendance and the business metrics side in general

you don’t even understand the difference Between paid tickets and total attendance and just doing copy and paste For all the pages

how is a 60-70K an attendance for wrestlemania 35? There is a huge gap and it is embarrassing when we are doing estimates and all websites have the numbers except wikipedia which should be the standard

i saw you said paid tickets in one of your responses,well it doesn’t say in any of the wrestling pages rhe paid ticket sales

it is total attendance

even Dave Said a week ago that WM 32 had over 80K in attendance

well over 96K actually

and finally,where is the concensus? You are the only one arguing against the majority here,again where is the concesus? That’s 1 against 5 or 6

that’s 20% vs 80%

also how is this discussion gonna ge decided? Who is the one that will decide? We need a higher up to come here and reverse the edits that you did

and of course you are not gonna respond on every point that I made about meltzer and other subjects and will only have 2 sentences response,right?

melter isn’t the only source and nothing in wikipedia mentions that,he got exposed https://www.wrestlinginc.com/1166732/prominent-wrestling-journalist-dave-meltzer-accused-of-publishing-stories-based-on-false-information/ Heyyo456 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

WrestlingInc isn't reliable, and neither are random tweets. — Czello ^(music) 00:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The claim that wrestling journalism won't exist without Meltzer is incorrect. Pro Wrestling Illustrated 1979 existed long before Wrestling Observer Newsletter 1982 and tehre were many past publications in 1950s NWA era. Anyway new consensus on WM 32 talk page is what we go with. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

As per the 5 to 1 consensus here, the project page discussion here [27] and Dave Meltzer's own post which is backed by numerous WP:PW/RS from 2016 [28] " The actual number in the building was 97,769. ... the company had pushed the idea from the start of drawing 100,000 people (pretty much insuring they would have to announce a number over that or it would be a disappointment to the fans) ". and avoiding sources post June 2023 to avoid WP:Recentism the attendance was indeed 97,000+. This is better than posting a random recent Tweet as a source e especially after Meltzer's AEW bias he claimed AEW all in did 85,000+ when AEW themselves said just over 81,000. So lets quote 2016 Meltzer who actually published the 97000+ figure rather than a simple tweet you are using, and that 97,000 has many more independent WP:RS. And the tag is just attendance, its not "paid attendance" its attendance weather paid or unpaid!. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Fightful can't be used as its quoting WWE and WON, not doing actual analysis, just quoting "The attendance for that show, also the subject of controversy, was either 93,179 (according to WWE) or about 78,000 (according to the Observer)." WON in 2016 themselves reported 93000+to 97000+ figure and its better to use it to avoid WP:Recentism and that is what will happen based on the 5-1 consensus reached here [29] Dilbaggg (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting a 5 to 1 consensus, unless you mean in favour of Meltzer's numbers. There's certainly no consensus to favour WWE's, especially given there are some obvious sock puppets on this page (not you). — Czello ^(music) 14:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless you mean the consensus on the Wikiproject. Thank you for self-reverting on the other article, though - I appreciate that to avoid edit wars. — Czello ^(music) 14:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

consensus is not a votation. hey and honfuras are accounts created just for this discussion (which is very suspicious). as far as i can read, just Czello and you discussing. as i pointed, this is you and your hate against a parricular reported, calling him a cancer in other discussions. Basicly, you hate that man and you want his information deleted. WP:IDONTLIKEIT --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not "i don't like it" i went to detailed length to discuss. Do not claim the other editors who supported this as suspicious WP:AGF, you could go ahead filing SPI if you want but AGF first. And your hero Dave Meltzer himself reported in 2016 WON that it was 93000-97000+, the 80,000 figure is just a tweet but Dave Meltzer himself published 93000-97000+ on WON in 2016, so its Dave Meltzer's own figure. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Such behavior is why I feel WP:PW needs another WP:GS. Hope broader Wikipedia community takes a look at this. My final comment here for now. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

yes, its a pretty case of idontlikeit. in every discussion you pointed the source is against a particular promotion wanting to delete his information. you called him a cancer. also, consensus is not a votation and two users were created just for this discussion. also, the project previously get consensus to include independent numbers on the infobox. Hashiman is the only user I see and he pointed to include the full range, but again, you deleted 80.000 number. just because you hate Dave meltzer. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Fightful, in 2017, reported 80,709. This was done after some actual investigating, not quoting the figure a wrestler was told to say. Vince McMahon himself said the higher figure included ushers and ticket-takers. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

ItsKesha One last thing i will address regarding your comment, its about "total attendance" not just paid attendance, paid/unpaid doesn't matter, its to make a statement on Total attendance which the worshipped Dave Meltzer himself in 2016 and also many [{WP:PW?RS]] said was 93,000-97,000+. Anyway life is so busy these days I can't fix the mess now or seek WP:DR, but hopefully someday I or someone will clear this mess.You guys are just desperate to selectively chose stuff that makes AEW All in 2023 superior to any WWE event. I had it, don't ping me again here, tho might/might not drop by when real life matters are resolved. Best wishes! Dilbaggg (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

We're not doing this to selectively favour AEW, remember WP:AGF. We're doing this because independent sources take priority and the most recent Meltzer numbers support this. — Czello ^(music) 14:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The very first line of the article says "80,709 fans went through the turnstiles at WrestleMania 32 last year". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The Fightful reporting is more credible than WWE's. starship.paint (RUN) 07:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah; WWE have extended kayfabe to attendance numbers for their stadium shows. At the very least, it's a primary source about themselves. In such cases, secondary sources are much preferred, and the "approximately 80,000" figure is matched by real-life primary and secondary sources. Also, I know that there is a constant undercurrent amongst people who really want to re-litigate the Monday Night Wars that Meltzer is biased against WWE – and to be honest, I don't rate the Young Bucks quite as much as he does – but in all honesty, as a journalist, he isn't too bad. Sceptre (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Time and time again Dave Meltzer has been proven wrong he was wrong about 2014 Punk return, he was wrong about 2023 AEW event being the most attended in history which showed he was biased as later it was proven All Out had less than 80,000 people, now he was wrong about Seth/Cody and Rock/Roman as its Cody/Roman at WM 40, yet WP:PW worships him, he himself said in 2016 the real attendance was 93000+ but in 2019 revised to 80,000 figure, he is an unreliable dirtsheet writer yet his words are taken as gospel, he should be classified as unreliable in WP:PW/RS which he is and the actual figure maybe not 100k but the og 93k figure restored! Dilbaggg (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Anyway its time to count the consensus. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is not achieved by how many people voted for each side of the discussion. See WP:DETCON. NJZombie (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This also isn't the venue to discuss the reliability of Meltzer. — Czello ^(music) 10:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)