Talk:WrestleMania 29

Classes

Class=future is allowed for Professional wrestling, but not for NJ, NY or NYC.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar

A deal has been made with Brock Lesnar where he gets a main event spot at wrestlemania 29. Should the added. I know this info to be true. Should there be a table for scheduled matched and it say "Brock Lesnar vs. ?" Just askin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.224.250 (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No, there shouldn't be. Nothing has been announced by WWE, and the PPV is a full year away.--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Zack Ryder vs. Dolph Ziggler for the Internet Championship

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geNP6Nq9N-4 Ryder and Ziggler confirm a match for WM29. WWE members have tweeted about it but obviously it's not 100% official yet. I was just wondering if there should at least be some mention of it on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.128.73 (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The PPV articles go with the official pages of the ppvs and there isn´t mentioned any match yet--Nakurio (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Theme Song

The official theme song is NYC by Kevin Rudolph. Could someone please find the article on the WWE website that names the theme song? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17akm17 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Arabic numerals being used again

WWE seems to be shying away from the Roman numeral for the upcoming event. Their websites and text alerts regarding ticket sale information are referring to the event with the Arabic numeral "29" now rather than XXIX. Might want to change that on the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patriot174 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, it seems that this year, this is WrestleMania 29 not XXIX. Some admin should change it.Bright Darkness (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You got a source for the change--Dcheagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 23:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

[1] "WrestleMania 29" is cited like seven times in this official page, whileas I can't see any allusion to a potential Roman XXIX numeral. I have other sources, as this, this or this. It seems like WWE has dropped Roman numerals for this edition. The last edition where Arabic numerals were used is WrestleMania 23. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

All of these sources are from the WWE got any secondary sources not connected to WWE.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. However, I still believe that WWE is still the most reliable source for such information. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

They seem to be going back and forth with how they're referring to it; the official WM website has it listed as "29" but refer to it as "XXIX" on some alerts (Facebook, text, etc.). Might as well wait for the event to get closer before any more switches are made on this article. Patriot174 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with changing the name to WrestleMania 29. It seems to be what WWE is going with right now. Yeah, there are still some mentions of "XXIX" on their site, but pretty much anything recent is "29", and January is where the build to WrestleMania kicks off, so it would seem like they should have their mind made up. It would be much easier to judge if the official logo had numbers, but that's another thing that I doubt will change at this point. I don't really know if non-WWE sources should be the deciding matter in what the name is; most of the press on WrestleMania is going to be from wrestling-focused sites where the author's personal preference will usually determine whether they use Arabic or Roman numerals. I remember the whole discussion about WM XXV and whether the article should be "The 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" or "WrestleMania 25" or "WrestleMania XXV" or "WrestleMania: 25th Anniversary" and all of that nonsense. (Even WWE now refers to it as XXV on their own site now). This is probably about as trivial, but it seems like WWE has chosed 29 at this point. I'll eat my hat if they change it back, no worries. But I think that's very unlikely. Part of me feels like they're going to try to avoid using XXX for the next one, and XXIX might just be close enough to get someone worried. AKKIfokkusu^TaLk 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about WrestleMania XXX. That sure doesn't look family-friendly. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I've removed the speedy tag as this appears to be a well-established MOS issue. Every other article uses Roman numerals. This might be a great discussion to get going but it must be done across the board to ensure a new precedent is set. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not every WrestleMania article uses roman numerals ex. WrestleMania 2, WrestleMania 23, WrestleMania 22. No need for precedent it just needs to be the same as the other articles and be actually listed as advertised. The consensus for this article seems to be to move it which would be the right choice as seen above it is WM 29 not XXIX. STATic message me! 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with STATic message me!. Heck, we have a WrestleMania X-Seven for crying out loud. Srsrox (talk) 00:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I like how everyone jumped the gun and went right ahead with moving the page... New Mania promo and graphics use roman numerals. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

---

WrestleMania XXIX → WrestleMania 29 – It seems that WrestleMania 29 is going to be the name of the event this year but seeing as this is a hot topic issue lets get this ball rolling and see where we end up. --Dcheagle • talk • contribs 02:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. See comments in above section. STATic message me! 04:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly, if you look at WWE's website, they are calling it that too (unlike other Wrestlemanias). Source: http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania . Srsrox (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I've already given explanations and provided sources on the above sections. Bright Darkness (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support The above section is pretty convincing. Primary sources aren't always the best, but in cases like this, only WWE can decide their show's title. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support We can't assume roman numerals. There's not even any numbers in the logo. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 22:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

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

John Cena/WWE Title

I think we're assuming too quickly that the match will be a singles match. I've heard a lot of rumor it could be a triple threat match. In any case, I want to know how people know it's a single match because I can't find any proof on that, only that Cena will go for the WWE title. Srsrox (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd like to remove the whole "matches" section until there's a citation on the WWE website. However, if it has to stay, it should stay as a singles match as there's no reason to think otherwise. – Richard BB 20:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Cena said he will challenge the WWE Champion, not the WWE Champion and others. That's what the page currently reads. If the situation changes, we can change the page, it's not set in stone. Tony2Times (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great and all, but without sources, you'd not be able to convince anyone Tony2Times. Either way, I guess we can assume a singles match since most WrestleMania main events are single matches. Srsrox (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I answer- It`s official.John Cena vs The Rock,Singles match for wwe championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alireza 92472 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2013

Put Dolph Ziggler vs. Zack Ryder for Internet Championship in the matches Cjhubbard17 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the stated changes.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Official Theme Song?

Why are there no reliable sources for the official theme song(s) for WrestleMania 29? JuggaloDan2013 (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013

The Rock VS who ever wins 2/25/13 Raw. CM Punk vs John Cena Angel121992 (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. This is a statement, not a specific request to edit the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 March 2013

TRIPLE H DEFEATED BROCK LESNAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.178.214 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

At elimination chamber the Rock defeated CM Punk. (Explaination: At Elimination Chamber CM Punk was the champion going into the match. The article says the Rock Defended. In this case, CM Punk was defending but was defeated by the Rock, who claimed the title.) 76.84.40.234 (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The Rock was champion going into the match and did defend the title. Rock won the title at Royal Rumble (2013). STATic message me! 03:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013

change wrestlemania 29. The shield vs ryback,sheamus,and randy orton

Dvilla727 (talk) 05:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Got a citation for this? – Richard BB 07:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Triple H vs. Brock Lesner

Even though the stipulation hasn't been named, should Triple H and Brock Lesner's match be added onto the list of matches? Jedi Striker (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It has not been confirmed here and in kayfabe the contract has not been signed yet. STATic message me! 04:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Trips Vs Brock's been confirmed, it will be No Holds Barred with Triple H's career on the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoktorMonster (talk • contribs) 03:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ryback vs. Mark Henry

It's official! On Raw tonight, Managing Supervisor Vickie Guerrero took Ryback out of the 6 man tag match with The Shield, Sheamus, and Randy Orton.

It has been confirmed [7]

Armonisready (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done I added it to the matches section. STATic message me! 01:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request WWE Tag Team Champions Team Hell No vs. Dolph Ziggler & Big E Langston

It has been announced on WWE's official site that AJ will be accompanying Dolph and Big E to the ring, so it's best that you add her to the card as their manager/valet. [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyhero (talk • contribs) 05:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Antonio Cesaro (c) vs Sin Cara

Antonio Cesaro (c) vs Sin Cara |Singles match for the WWE Intercontinental Championship

This Should Be

Antonio Cesaro (c) vs Sin Cara |Singles match for the United States Championship Sonianx (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

According to what reliable source that this match is even real? STATic message me! 00:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Once in a Lifetime

Quite notable that Cena vs Rock is a rematch of a "Once in a Lifetime" match, a mere year later, so I'd noted it. It was removed, so I added a source. If anyone feels differently, please say why here, instead of something vague like "unnecessary" in an edit summary. Thank you. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that mention of this is completely WP:UNDUE and comes across as a criticism of the WWE, with is not neutral. I don't think we need any mention of this — let the reader make their own mind up. – Richard BB 10:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, as per WP:BRD, let's discuss this and achieve a consensus before we get into an edit war. – Richard BB 10:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Anyway, undue would be nitpicking in Earl Hebner's article about his poor calls (screwed many more than Bret), or noting all of Tony Schiavone's lies. Here, we're dealing with the main event of WrestleMania. Nothing "bigger" in wrestling. And 28's main event was hyped more than any ever was. For a whole year, this match was built (in WWE world and Hollywood), and a huge part of that build was the "Once in a Lifetime" gimmick. Look at the poster: The phrase literally headlines the headliner of the "grandest stage of them all".

Given all that, it's reasonable to assume readers may wonder "What the hell?". The source we had addressed that question, even offering a helpful official timeline of events leading to the rematch. So it's fairly clear that WWE anticipated this question. Omitting their available explanation and letting readers jump to conclusions is less neutral, and withholding relevant information is just bad encyclopedia business. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that WrestleMania as a whole is UNDUE — I'm saying that picking out this one, pedantic point is undue. Yes, WM is the biggest wrestling event of the year, and yes, the main event is by definition the biggest match of the year — but it's not our duty to point out that the same match took place a year later despite taglines. We're not "withholding" information at all: the information is there for everyone to see. This article says what the main event is, the last WM article says the same, the last WM article says the tagline, and the WrestleMania page shows all of it. If anyone wants to draw a conclusion they are free to. It's not in any way less neutral for us to let readers jump to conclusions — that's up to them and we're not responsible for that. We would, however, be responsible if they reached the conclusion that we at Wikipedia are criticising WWE for billing the same match twice by pointing out that they did this "despite" last year's tagline. If a reader wonders "what the hell?" because of the same match twice, that's their interpretation. It's not our job to make them wonder "what the hell?" – Richard BB 16:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If I was just pulling this out of my ass, I could see your point. But this contradiction has been pointed out in several sources. It's our "duty" to relay significant and relevant info. Significant because this was a major selling point of the first match, and relevant because that match led here. If it's criticism, it's extremely mild, and there's no rule against sourced criticism. If there was, we'd delete the Reception sections in all PPV articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you'd also like to discuss the WrestleMania 28 part here. That one's much simpler. If someone reads "Once in a Lifetime", they may reasonably assume this was the only time they've wrestled. Clearly not true for long, and should be clarified. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, criticism should be displayed (in a reception section, not in the lead) if there has been a sufficient amount. However, I have yet to see a backlash or outrage cited because of this rematch. The two sources you cited both point out that this is a rematch, sure — but only the second is really criticising the decision (in the form of satire); the first isn't making a criticism. In order for us to include this we'd need to adequately demonstrate that there has been a substantial (and above all else, notable) amount of criticism for this decision. – Richard BB 18:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, re: WM28 — it's not our job to assume what a person's conclusions are and to then set them right. They can see by looking at the WM 29 article that there was a rematch. – Richard BB 18:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

We seem to be stuck on this "criticism" thing. Would it help if you considered this a straight fact? Like you say, that's the way the first source presents it. That's how I intended it. I didn't say "WWE lied to us all, the bastards!" (not even paraphrased). Just wanted to relay a simple fact. If the word "despite" seems critical to you, can you think of a better way to word it? I can't.

And yes, WrestleMania XXVIII readers could check to see if Cena and Rock wrestled again next year, but why would they even think to if they didn't know? By that logic, we can remove the "rematch" fact from this article, since readers could just check WM28. And we wouldn't mention Rock retaining at Elimination Chamber, since readers could check themselves. Much of this (unsourced) stuff is available elsewhere on Wiki. But we keep it because it's also relevant to WM29. Same deal, except I had sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've changed "setting up a rematch of his match with The Rock" to "setting up a rematch of his "Once in a Lifetime" match with The Rock". Notice there's no "despite", it's not in the lead, has no hint of criticism and is clearly sourced. Acceptable? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 March 2013

76.189.153.1 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Intercontinental Championship Wade Barrett vs The Miz

Added by another editor here. STATic message me! 22:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Main event should be on the bottom

It usually is.192.249.47.202 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It is in the order of announcement until the event, as we do not know what the main event will be. STATic message me! 21:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd bet my mother on Rock vs Cena. But yeah, it'd be technically speculation. And then we'd have to guess which would go first, which is much harder. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Update match order faster?

This is probably really nitpicky, but we've known for at least 5-10 minutes that the next match is Del Rio vs Swagger. So can someone edit the match order like by the entrances? Not put winner, but like add the number and put the match in the next spot on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.72.99 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of background info

Could you delete the background info of the Tons of Funk vs Rhodes Scholars match as it didn't take place tonight. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.160.102 (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Scholars & Bellas vs Tons & Funkadactyls

This match was on the card, what happened to it? I thought it got pushed to the post-show but it didn't even show up on that either. Even if it didn't happen, I think it's essential that we mention that WWE promoted this mixed tag match and then did not deliver it to us. Ranze (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

They removed it due to time constraints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.215.170 (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes it was removed here is the source source --Cs california (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't need 'reliable sources' to show a match didn't happen, the default assumption is that unless there is evidence the match occurred, it didn't. We do know that is was promoted though. Everyone who saw the event knows it didn't happen, WWE.com didn't report it happening at many (and removed evidence that they promoted it). Furthermore we know it happened the following night on Monday Night Raw. It is worth mentioning that WWE advertises advents to sell WrestleMania and then doesn't deliver on them. "Card subject to change" could theoretically be an escape clause for cancelling any match (even Punk v Taker) but we should report on it, so I'm restoring the section. Ranze (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Worth a mention, but not a three-paragraph subsection. Especially considering that's more than we give any of the matches that did happen. And considering the section repeats the background section. I've removed it. If there's any notable info missing, please add it to the Background paragraph instead, or the Aftermath section. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Mixed reviews?

We say the event received them, but then we show one review with a B grade, and another 6/10. Maybe I'm just an underachiever, but isn't a B grade pretty positive? I see that and think around 75% success. 6/10 isn't as good, but is still on the "pass" side. So it looks like two positive reviews to me. Am I wrong? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Event

Let's wirte aabout the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Undertaker vs. CM Punk

This match needs to be shortened. Too much detail. Jedi Striker (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I trimmed a chunk, but only for wordiness, not actual events. Not every move is a highspot, but what's important in a match is much more subjective than which words are useless. Give it a go, though. If nobody objects, it wasn't important. If someone does, it might be. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)