Talk:WrestleMania 39

WWE Namesake Pay-Per-Views

Greetings to all who took their time to read this, I came here in sound mind to request that we add the Money In The Bank ladder match information early for the upcoming event following the ongoing spectacle Pay-Per-View WrestleMania as its obvious due to the namesake Event and traditions. Mohau Garenamotse (talk) 08:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not quite clear what you're requesting. Are you asking to add it to the background section? If so, why? It's been over 10 years since it was last held at WrestleMania, and it was only featured at WrestleMania for 6 years. Money in the Bank has its own PPV that has been occurring annually since 2010. It's fine to include on the main WrestleMania page in the appropriate section, but it has no place here on this individual event (which is two years out from happening). --JDC808 ♫ 09:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Article of a future event that has a whole section about "Wrestlemania" in general.

Of course, I'd expect to see some type of link to WrestleMania, but not a whole section. It comes across as an attempt to add Fluff to a page which, by it's very nature, is sketchy in details. BenBrownBoy (Aye?) 20:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@BenBrownBoy it has one paragraph that summarizes the event series history. The rest of the info in the section is about the history of scheduling this specific event. JDC808 ♫ 12:46, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

STATUS OF VINCE MCMAHON INVOLVED IN BOOKING

Someone has repeatedly added this section "This will also be the first WrestleMania to take place under Paul "Triple H" Levesque's creative control, following the retirement of Vince McMahon in July 2022; McMahon had served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the company since 1982 and created WrestleMania in 1985, although he returned to the company in January 2023 as Executive Chairman, but with no involvement in booking the event. "

There is no source for this statement, and no definitive way to know that Vince McMahon will not have any involvement in booking. Assuming is not appropriate. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:F4C7:56ED:975B:3A1F (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there any indication Vince will have an involvement in creative? Per the sources, he presently does not have any. — Czello 16:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

If there is a direct source that says McMahon will definitely not be involved in booking, that should be cited. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:F4C7:56ED:975B:3A1F (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would that be required when he's not in charge of creative? — Czello 18:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you involved in the day to day meetings and behind the scenes? To say as a fact that "McMahon will have no involvement in booking" is simply not knowable. Frankly this info should not be included without a positive determination as such. Just because he has stepped away and now returned, does not mean he does not have some say in creative. We just don't know. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:6842:ACBB:A8F9:6ABE (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The sources say he's not involved. Unless you have a source which says otherwise, then he's not involved. — Czello 21:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

There are sources stating Triple H is in charge of creative and McMahon is not involved with creative. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That should be cited in the opening paragraph. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:286A:DAF:1886:8CCA (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Just undid your revision. Made no sense. GodofDemonwars (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

A source about HHH still being in creative control is already in the background section, so just stop removing it. StrangerMan123 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Block me. Or I will continue. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:286A:DAF:1886:8CCA (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@2604:3D09:6A85:6000:286A:DAF:1886:8CCA you're being disruptive, and if you continue, it will result in a block (either temporary or permanently, depending on an admin's verdict). The information does not need a source in the lead because it is already sourced in the body of the article (sources do not go in the lead UNLESS that information is not found in the body of the article because the lead is a summary of the information from the article). Sources currently state that Triple H maintains creative control and that Vince only returned in an executive board position. It is possible that Vince might give suggestions to Triple H, but based on the reliable sources we currently have, he does not make any decisions about creative. JDC808 ♫ 23:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You keep at it, and even dare others to block you, so know that this WILL happen to you, because although several editors are telling you to stop, you don't stop, AGAIN, this is already in the background, it only takes one source if it is not in the body of the article, as JDC808 already said. By the end of the day you are probably blocked, and i hope permanently. StrangerMan123 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That user deserved to be blocked from editing this article for 48 hours. User:Ponyo did so three minutes ago. GodofDemonwars (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Great, I really hope that after 48 hours he just stops, but because he already said that he would only stop if blocked, I have my doubts if in two days he won't be back. StrangerMan123 (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting to be blocked permanently. I will sleep better knowing I can no longer be "disruptive". 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:C48A:D87C:7095:EFD0 (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If you continue to remove this, you will be permanently blocked. I don't understand why use disruptive with quotes, when that's literally what you're doing, which goes against Wikipedia's rules and is called disruptive edit. This isn't a blog or anything like that for you to edit however you want, there are rules, just follow them, and you won't be blocked. You're wrong, just accept it, it's no use getting angry trying to think you're right, sorry but you're not.

StrangerMan123 (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not angry. Thanks 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:C862:149F:6A93:A947 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if you are a sockpuppet of User:2604:3d09:6a85:6000:286a:daf:1886:8cca or other similar IP addresses... GodofDemonwars (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Same IP range, all part-blocked from this article, so yeah. — Czello 17:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I am having fun with your reactions. Please block me 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:C862:149F:6A93:A947 (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I am SICK OF THIS. GodofDemonwars (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Stop removing that, this is not your personal blog or something, here things don't work the way you want. StrangerMan123 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I am asking you to block me, or else I will continue.

I am not negating HHH's creative control, but to say with certainty (for no reason really) that McMahon has no input, is unknowable unless we are behind the scenes.

So please block me, because I will continue. Have a good day. I will now be in Vince' words FIIRRREED. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:ADFD:9396:D39A:4053 (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

AGAIN?! What the hell is going on with those random IPs? GodofDemonwars (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not "those" GodofDemonWars, it's just one ramdom ip acting like a child, but don't worry, soon that ip will be blocked. StrangerMan123 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You're acting like a child who won't take no for an answer, you want to keep removing it, keep going, but it won't last long, because other editors like me will keep reverting it until at some point you're blocked for good, simple. StrangerMan123 (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I am waiting to be blocked. I am not adding anything, simply removing something that is unknowable.

I have no problem engaging in edits until I am blocked.

Have a nice day. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:ADFD:9396:D39A:4053 (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You're wrong, and that's why you keep removing it, you can't accept that you were wrong can you? at first it really seemed like you were doing it in good faith, but after being proven that it wasn't the way you wanted it, you just didn't accept it, you started doing it just to piss off the editors, right? What a shame, your action is being very childish, but it's not worth talking about it anymore, I won't answer you here anymore. StrangerMan123 (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked yet? 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:55FC:68B5:64D0:A3EC (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Why cannot the simple acknowledgement that we don't know the extent of his creative involvement be left? 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:55FC:68B5:64D0:A3EC (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@2604:3D09:6A85:6000:55FC:68B5:64D0:A3EC we go off of reliable sources. The sources state that Vince does not have involvement in creative. End of case, unless you can provide a reliable source that shows evidence that Vince has involvement. To even suggest that he might have input "behind the scenes" without reliable sourcing is speculation and original research. JDC808 ♫ 23:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

He deserved to be blocked for one week. I think this needs to be semi-protected again. GodofDemonwars (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Triple H has full creative control and is stated as such. McMahon came back as executive chairman in January. How is the article enhanced in any way by saying Vince has no creative control? 198.161.203.11 (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The source in the background section says otherwise, just stop removing it, simple. StrangerMan123 (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you prove with a source that Vince McMahon will be involved in booking the event? If not, then that's it, we're going to keep removing it, simple. StrangerMan123 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

This is proving to be wasting my time, as well, as I am busy improving the article NXT TakeOver: Portland by adding the remaining storylines and an addition to it's "Aftermath" section. GodofDemonwars (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, there's no point in explaining this anymore, by the way, thanks for improving the pages, you're helping a lot man. StrangerMan123 (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

And I will continue too. Do you think you are the only one that can be obstinate? This definitive and redundant statement of saying McMahon has no involvement. Leave it that HHH has full control, why add something about McMahon's unknowable presence? 198.161.203.11 (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I am sick of you, and this will only end when you are indefinitely blocked. GodofDemonwars (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Let the hate flow through you... 198.161.203.11 (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not that you're not obstinate, you're someone who thinks you're right, but you're not, you random ips think you are in charge here, but no, you're not, you're wrong, stop, you're acting like a child, so stop. StrangerMan123 (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@198.161.203.11 why keep continuing this though? If you want the info removed so badly, provide a reliable source that proves Vince has some kind of involvement. If you cannot do that, then please, stop. All you're doing is making the article unstable, and you're making yourself look bad and hard to work with if you were to ever want to actually become an editor here. All you're doing is speculating without a reliable source to back your claim, which is called original research. Do you not understand that? JDC808 ♫ 00:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

All that had to be written was that the extent of McMahon's creative involvement was unknown. This would not have affected the article in any way, and would serve as a reminder that we are not omnipresent to all the backstage goings on. Instead foolish behaviour was undertaken to target diverging editorial suggestions.

Now here are links proving that things cannot be known for certain, and that by being stubbornly insistent on McMahon having no creative involvement is simply an unknown. Even if it is minimum and HHH maintains control (something which was never disputed) to definitively say that McMahon had no involvement is simply not knowable and factually incorrect.

PHOTO: Vince McMahon’s name listed in WWE WrestleMania advertisement - Wrestling News | WWE and AEW Results, Spoilers, Rumors & Scoops

Vince McMahon Has Creative Input On Major WWE Storyline – TJR Wrestling

Report: Vince McMahon ‘Has Input’ On Sami Zayn/Roman Reigns WWE Plans - WrestleTalk 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:8939:E00A:F25C:A67B (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

More info.

Vince McMahon Allegedly Back In WWE Creative | 411MANIA 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:2040:2231:81EC:B115 (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@2604:3D09:6A85:6000:2040:2231:81EC:B115 that's literally just speculation though. As I said in an earlier post, Vince might give suggestions to Triple H, but at the end of the day, he officially has no actual say. And yes, it does affect the article because that just opens a can of worms for more speculation. JDC808 ♫ 08:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

But the insistence on saying he has "NO INVOVLEMENT" what is the point of this?

A simple phrase that "the extent of his involvement is unknown" while still acknowledging HHH has control does not diminish the article.

I cannot wait for you all to eat humble pie for your actions regarding this matter. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:1D5:4997:ED57:DE4B (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@2604:3D09:6A85:6000:1D5:4997:ED57:DE4B the point is to nip it for people who still think he is involved. Saying "unknown" suggests there's a possibility. Do you not understand what speculation means? And there's nothing to be humbled about. If a source comes out that proves he legitimately has involvement, then that's fine and it can be updated to reflect that, but all that's happened recently is speculation. JDC808 ♫ 21:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

But there may not be a definitive source, that does not mean he ultimately did not suggest something. So maintaining that HHH has control, with McMahon having an unknown say is not speculation. Regardless there is obvious disagreement here, so just leave it at that. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:3441:5F74:4A3F:B97D (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@2604:3D09:6A85:6000:3441:5F74:4A3F:B97D to try and resolve all issues involved in this discussion, I've made a compromise that says that McMahon's return did not affect Triple H's position. It removes the ambiguity of "unknown" that you're arguing for, and still maintains that Triple H has the final say. JDC808 ♫ 22:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

This is good 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:3441:5F74:4A3F:B97D (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Sami Zayn

There is a double standard by not putting Sami Zayn but putting “Elimination Chamber Winner” in another match. 216.113.24.76 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

We report whatever reliable sources are saying. Currently they're saying it's Reigns vs Cody and Bianca vs the EC winner. — Czello 22:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Good luck reasoning with these people. They insist on saying Vince McMahon has no input without knowing for certain. Instead of acknowledging the fact, they block and censor. 64.141.54.166 (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The block was for edit warring. No one is censoring you. Get a grip. — Czello 12:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If a comprehensive 5 year ban (from another IP) on the entirety of Wikipedia (not just wrestling articles) is not censorship.... 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:790A:9773:F225:719 (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Being blocked for disrupting Wikipedia isn't censorship. The user had the opportunity to make his point above and the community disagreed with him, and he went on to break our rules on edit warring. No part of this is "censorship", a concept which seemingly few people on the internet seem to understand. — Czello 17:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment. In my view the article is factually incorrect, and all over a simple few words. Too bad. 2604:3D09:6A85:6000:790A:9773:F225:719 (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@2604:3D09:6A85:6000:790A:9773:F225:719 factually incorrect how? The information is based on reliable sources, and while the sources can be wrong, we would need additional reliable sources to prove that. Otherwise, you're going off of purely speculation. JDC808 ♫ 08:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@64.141.54.166 More like good luck reasoning with a random IP who does not understand how the information is determined. The information was based on reliable sources but the random IP kept insisting on their own speculation instead of providing any kind of reliable source. JDC808 ♫ 08:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Seth Rollins vs Logan Paul

Has Rollins vs Logan Paul been confirmed for Night 1, April 1st? If so, what is the reliable source for this? Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kvwiki1234 it's in the Storyline section about the match. JDC808 ♫ 08:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Showcase matches

The Men’s and Women’s showcase matches have been confirmed to be on the kickoff show for Night 1 and 2 respectively Craterous00 (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2023

Add to reception to the finish of Night 2's main event. It has been criticized for Cody Rhodes losing the match. 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:41B5:B2D6:67CB:D353 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Czello 14:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like an addition was made to the first section about the main event finish being "pointless and unnecessary" with no source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:873F:899F:58B:9401:5430:5E50 (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Should Dom Vs Rey and Miz Vs McAfee be considered “pinfalls-and-submissions only”?

I ask because of the actions that occurred in the matches. Rey was hitting dom with a belt and angie slapped dom with the ref seeing it and not DQing it. With Miz; George Kittle tackled in the Ref’s sight which would normally be a DQ. This reminds me of sting vs Triple H, which wasn’t announced as no-DQ in advance but ultimately was. Should we consider them pinballs-and-submissions only based on what happened and was in storyline sanctioned in the match? DrewieStewie (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Not unless a source explicitly says it. Commentators have occasionally said in the past that refs have the discretion to ignore DQs (as well as count outs) if it would bring an unsatisfying ending to a match. — Czello 17:00, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Out of curiosity, since I was attending in person and wasn’t listening to commentary; did they say that on this broadcast? Just out of curiosity while we’re on the subject. DrewieStewie (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think they addressed it. I just mean that's the reason that's occasionally been given before. — Czello 18:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Add hosts in other on-screen personnels column

Please add The Miz and Snoop Dogg as hosts of Wrestlemania 39 in mentioned column. DKS240 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)