Jump to content

Talk:WrestleMania 23/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Regarding local commercials revealing Spoilers

This is a big issue that seems to attract a lot of vandalism to upcoming wrestling event articles. The problem being that random people deliberately add matches to the upcoming event's card that have supposedly been announced on commercials aired during RAW, Smackdown!, or ECW. Once these people are confronted about their additions of these spoilers, they tend to use the commercials as their source. The problem is that they do not seem to realize that these promos shown when a WWE broadcast goes off the air during commercials are actually only airing on specific local areas and are NOT in fact being shown nation wide. WWE (at times) unintentionally releases commercials and promos on future events, spoiling matches and sometimes even their outcomes, to the specific local media outlet. This is stupidly done to attract interest from fans in that local area and increase possible attendance and buyrate figures for the upcoming event. The most recent case being the Vengeance DX promo notable for being released in some areas roughly two months before the actual event took place. Only when matches are announced on-screen by talent or during the actual WWE broadcast and NOT during commercials can this sort of information NOT be considered a spoiler. Some may argue, "So what if they aren't shown nation wide, they were still released by World Wrestling Entertainment which means they are legit and therefore all matches spoiled have a right to be added to articles!" Now the problem with that simply is this... It is unencyclopedic. You see, what these people fail to realize is that Wikipedia is NOT, I repeat, NOT a Wrestling News site. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore cannot provide spoilers on future history or events that have yet to be. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, in other words, it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you honestly feel the need to be an Internet Troll and add content spoiling what has yet to occur (in this case about wrestling), then please do so elsewhere such as... oh wow! ...a Wrestling News site! As best stated on Wikipedia Policy... "Before adding any sort of content, ask yourself what would a reader expect to find in an encyclopedia." ...and I highly doubt that you would be expecting to find out who will be in the main event at WrestleMania 100, even if you do happen to find a promo somewhere right now announcing it to be Hulk Hogan vs. Vince McMahon's grandson. Content such as spoilers, rumors, and other nonsense will be removed on the spot for the reasons just explained. This content simply does not comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines and the addition of it is considered vandalism. Once again, please do NOT add any sort of content that even you would know is a spoiler (spoiling future history and events that have yet to be} and unencyclopedic. If you do in fact feel the need to be an Internet Troll, please do so elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. Thank you for reading and I honestly do hope that this clears up any confusion over spoilers and why they are being removed. Thank you. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... I'm pretty sure they won't be giving a rat's ass any time soon. But at least they're out of excuses this time. They know that what they're doing is against policy which means if they persist, they are officially blatant vandals. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Considering Wikipedia has its own spoilers template spoilers are not out of place here. The Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy refers to speculation, not verified facts. Anything with a source from the WWE itself is more than appropriate to be included. It's even less encyclopedic to stick to kayfabe, since that is in effect adhereing to a make-believe world and disregarding known and proven facts. Tomtyke 10:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hair Vs Hair

why hasnt any of u fools aded that booby will also have his ecw on the line at wrestlemania and umunga will have IC belt online —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.6.130.129 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

'Cause its speculation fool... -- bulletproof 3:16 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

ECW Brand Involvement

Hey, does anyone know if the new ECW brand is going to be involved in Wrestlemania now that they're a part of WWE? GunFactor007

It is WAY too early to even begin speculating whether or not the ECW brand will be part of WrestleMania 23. On a side note, speculation is not allowed on Wikipedia.3bulletproof16 03:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
WWE.com has confirmed that ECW will be involved with Wrestlemania 23.michaelgcuk 03:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Well cite your source with a link then.--

3bulletproof16 02:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The SummerSlam and Survivor Series PPVs have already involved ECW. Choronically, the Royal Rumble and WrestleMania should involve ECW. 63.3.21.1 06:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't assume that though, you know what happens when you assume? TJ Spyke
I don't know if this helps, but I found an old Paul Heyman interview (before SummerSlam) saying that ECW would be participating at the major four events. Considering he was right for three of them so far, is this enough proof? --  oakster  TALK  11:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In the ALL GROWN UP commercial (http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/specialty_clips/wrestlemania/wm23allgrownup) for WrestleMania 23, it shows ECW Extremists, plus, during the WrestleMania Fan Axxess Tour, ECW Extremists were involved. 99.9% chance that the ECW brand is involved. Plus, why would the WWE exclude one of their brands (even if it is ECW) out of their biggest event ever, WrestleMania?!?!?!? I'm not trying to yell or be mean. 72.38.234.177 03:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt ECW would not be involved in Wrestlemania, though it probably will have about the same representation that it had at Summerslam (meaning, ECW World Championship match will be only ECW match) As for your TNA comment...no comment. Anakinjmt 04:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I never made a TNA comment, but, OH WELL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.234.177 (talk • contribs)

You did, but it was removed since it was nonsense. TJ Spyke 00:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh. Now I remember! :) 72.38.234.177 02:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a new version of the WM 23 Logo on wwe.com [[1]].

Yeah... I put the white logo on the article because it looks better, and of course it got changed. I'm getting fed up with everything I do getting changed/removed. -- FPAtl (holla) 02:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not post matches that are not confirmed

Wrestlemania is still a long time away and the rumored Batista/Undertaker match does not belong here as it is not confirmed (and in my opinion it is a false rumor. Also, Big Show/Hulk Hogan is more likely since it has been talked about numerous times, but since not even that is confirmed, do not post it here. Only post confirmed matchups.

big-shows retired now so the match might not happen anyway (god i hope not its obvious that big show will domnate till hogen hulks up and body slams him jr:"oh my god")sailor cuteness-ready for love 23:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He's not retired, he said he's taking some time off to heal. TJ Spyke 00:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the rumored matches section. Mr. Papaya 16:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Big Show, last I heard, was scheduled for time off to heal, but decided on permanent retirement. Judging by otehr rumors/last week's raw, it seems Khali will take his place, although that is also unconfirmed and thus should not be added.

As for Batista/Taker being a false rumor, this week's SmackDown indicates otherwise ;) :P. Koberulz 07:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Camn we put up Batista v Undertaker and John Cena v Shawn Michaels, both confirmed on RAW 2-5-06 (lex diamonds)

Edge vs Randy Orton is not confirmed and should be removed. (Annonymous)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.120.141 (talk • contribs)

In WWE.com it said that vince mcmahon was challenging donald trump—Preceding unsigned comment added by Naota23 (talk • contribs)

See the talk page of WWE Armageddon for how we list matches. TJ Spyke 00:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Billionares- Umaga (Representing Mr. McMahon) vs Bobby Lashley (Representing Donald Trump) with Stone Cold Steve Austin as special guest referee. Losers representative gets their head shaved.

Running Time

WWE.com has a wallpaper up saying the event will start at 7pm. Is this the first since XX to go over three hours, or have they all been at least 4 since then? Asking because I saw the running time mentioned for WrestleMania XX in it's article and figured if this one is running past 3hrs, it would be worth a mention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.85.160 (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Last year was 4 hours as well because they had HEAT start at 6PM, i'm pretty sure WM 21 was 4 hours long as well. TJ Spyke 07:21, 5 January 2007 (Ui
Every 'Mania since 2000 has run over 3 hrs. XX was the longest at just under 5. X-Seven, X8, XIX, 21 and 22 all were around 4. Mania 23 should also be 4 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.140.93 (talk • contribs)

Older logos for the event

Is it worth adding lniks/images showing earlier versions of the logo for the event? I've seen links/images on other Wikipedia pages for Wrestlemanias that show older/alternate logos. Would they have a place here too? Gothekain 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I serously recommend we block this page, this is getting out of hand. Iv'e warned User:Eddie619 twice today. I could use some help please. Killswitch Engage

Semi-protecting will just stop IP'S and accounts less than 3 days old. The best way to deal this Eddie guy is to continue giving warnings, and to report him if he keeps it up. TJ Spyke 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess wat someone just replaced the entire page with Fart!Someone has to stop this!Party29 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Are You guys serious? Come on Stop being women!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.96.202.201 (talk • contribs)

Vandalism isn't tolerated here. If you want to make good edits, feel free to register. TJ Spyke 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for VandalProof

Seems like everyone wants to go ahead and start the vandels on this article. I've had to fix four vandals within a 10-minute time span. --Raderick 03:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I second this idea because all everyone is going to this article after Taker won at Royal Rumble.User:Demonspawn:Demonspawn

Undertaker vs. TBA

I really think this should be added (like I had it and was removed). As of now, The Undertaker is CONFRIMED to wrestle at WrestleMania against an unnamed opponent (either the WHC, WWE Championship or ECW Championship holder) unless he loses his spot via a match (see: Rey Mysterio). --Raderick 04:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not totally sure one way or another. I suppose I could accept "TBA vs. The Undertaker" (since the champ is always listed first). There is no guarantee Batista will still be the champ or that 'taker won't choose the WWE or ECW titles. TJ Spyke 04:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well then, I guess we will go with that then. Killswitch
Maybe I'm being pedantic (it wouldn't be a first) but how is this any different from my comment here about the defending champion in the Royal Rumble World Title match? --Dave. 21:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:WrestleMania 23#Regarding local commercials revealing Spoilers. thank you. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

How is saying The Undertaker vs. TBA a spolier? We know he's wrestling for a championship of one form or another by virture of winning the Royal Rumble. I'll give you one big recent example. PRIDE FC announced that Wanderlei Silva is going to fight at the PRIDE 33 show, but no opponent was announced for weeks. --Raderick 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Though it's not proven, it would probably be a safe bet that the Undertaker will win either way. Since I doubt they would give him a loss this far into his career at Wrestlemania. Only way I can see him not winning the title is if he wins by DQ or somehow loses his title shot in a match with that as a stipulation.

I'm gonna agree with Raderick here. It's not a spoiler if we know at least one of the participents in the match. As of right now, it is The Undertaker vs. TBA for an undetermined World Title. Killswitch

I can understand that the Undertaker is confirmed, but there are too many variables to fully confirm the match, let alone what the match actually is, and who it's against. For now, I feel that a line in the main heading can state that the Undertaker is to participate in the main event as a result of his victory at the Royal Rumble. Gothekain 02:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I added this up top, it seems to be getting ignored, so: SPOILERS ARE PERMITTED ON WIKIPEDIA. Removing verified information instead of using correct spoiler tags is against WP:Spoiler. Even the tag about maintaining kayfabe isn't applicable since the information is coming from an official source. Tomtyke 02:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Only when matches are announced on-screen by talent or during the actual WWE broadcast and NOT during commercials can this sort of information NOT be considered a spoiler. It is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is NOT, I repeat, NOT a Wrestling News site. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore cannot provide spoilers on future history or events that have yet to be. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, in other words, it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you honestly feel the need to be an Internet Troll and add content spoiling what has yet to occur (in this case about wrestling), then please do so elsewhere such as... oh wow! ...a Wrestling News site! Content such as spoilers, rumors, and other nonsense will be removed on the spot for the reasons just explained. This content simply does not comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines and the addition of it is considered vandalism. Once again, please do NOT add any sort of content that even you would know is a spoiler (spoiling future history and events that have yet to be} and unencyclopedic. If you do in fact feel the need to be an Internet Troll, please do so elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- bulletproof 3:16 02:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the crystal ball policy. That refers to speculation, as opposed to verified facts. These are from official sources. Feel free to browse WP:SPOILER. Tomtyke 02:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunantly, I now have an external link to back me up. Theodore long states that Taker will challenge for the World Heavyweight Championship. If this is removed after my link, and WWE.com can't be trusted, then what can? Killswitch

The World Heavyweight Championship and the WWE Championship are two SEPERATE championships. Teddy Long clearly says World Heavyweight Championship. Killswitch

On the Raw broadcast Undertaker appeared so he probably is going after the WWE Title User:Demonspawn

Or he will be appearing on all 3 programs until he announces his decision. -- The Hybrid 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Officially The Undertaker has not chosen. JR is speculating he will choose RAW. Long says SD (and they have put some tension between 'taker and Batista. We should leave all 3 belts up until it is official. TJ Spyke 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
What Hybrid said. TJ Spyke 04:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no matches announced at http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/ I went ahead and deleted the matches section until there are actually matches to write about. Eenu (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That he has a match is decided, that needs to stay. «»bd(talk stalk) 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Dave, Time is one reason, the RR was only 2 weeks away at the time. WrestleMania 23 is over 2 months away (and SD has another PPV before it). TJ Spyke 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

why can't we just use a bit of common sense?? yes the undertaker will be in the main event at wrestlemania and yes we dont know which title he'll be going for, so why dont we leave it blank until it becomes more clear??? Cradle666 13:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Last year we had the same arguement with Rey Mysterio, and we just decided to take it off the page. Undertaker, although it's highly unlikely, still could get injured, fired or even just removed from the main event. Davnel03 16:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It should stay, at this current moment in time undertaker has his spot at wrestlemania against a champion of his choice, whether he will lose it or not ia different matter as for now he has the right.

At this moment in time The Undertaker WILL be appearing in the main event, and can be taken as fact. Speculating that he might not be is against the crystal ball policy. Tomtyke 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, assuming that he won't loose it is against the crystal ball policy. -- The Hybrid 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see your logic. SPECULATING isn't assuming. At this moment in time Undertaker is in the main event. Disregarding any future events (speculating) that is a fact. Tomtyke 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculation isn't encyclopedic. Wikipedia deals in verifiable facts, not speculation, so this admitted speculation doesn’t belong in the article. -- The Hybrid 03:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What admitted speculation? Speculating over whether he will lose his shot? WWE.com says Taker is going to Wrestlemania. There's your verifiable fact. If you fail to see how wondering whether he could lose it constitutes speculation there's no point continuing this. Tomtyke 12:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a matches section of this article until there have been some matches announced. TBA vs. The Undertaker is not a match. I think that until The Undertaker has an opponent and a title that he is going for, any information about his Royal Rumble win should stay in the main text of the article. As evidence to support my claim I'd like to point out that the WrestleMania 22 article did not add a scheduled matches section until there had been matches with more than one person in them.[2]. I am not going to revert the article anymore, but I would like to get your guy's response to this. Thanks. Eenu (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert the "Matches" section without citations from reliable sources (such as the WWE's Wrestlemania site). Also, claiming to revert vandalism with the edit summary "rvv" or using the undo link in what is essentially a content dispute is not helpful. There's no rush to get info into the article, so let's see what citations we have and then discuss adding it into the article. How's that sound? ChazBeckett 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

These are my thoughts exactly. WM is still 2 months away, and as soon as the individual matches are confirmed on TV or wwe.com we can add them, anything else is just speculation. Eenu (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Any random person browsing the article should be made aware that as of this moment in time, according to both kayfabe and official sources, The Undertaker has a title shot in the main event. Sure, do away with the pointless TBC Vs Taker match section, but keep that piece of vital info. Tomtyke 01:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this also, but if it was a choice between having nothing at all about the Undertaker or a TBA vs. Undertaker section I would gladly take nothing at all. Eenu (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that if the Royal Rumble can't be added without WWE.com confirming it, then we shouldn't be allowed to add this. Lets have a little consistency with how we handle PPVs. -- The Hybrid 02:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the choice down to having Undertaker Vs TBA or nothing at all? Surely there's a decent compromise. Something like "the road to Wrestlemania started, as is tradition, with the Royal Rumble in January where the Undertaker claimed a main event title shot". Tomtyke 15:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's now a moot point, there is finally a citation for the obvious, that has been promoted and mentioned on WWE TV since the Royal Rumble. --Raderick 04:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been confirmed on raw that undertaker is facing batista so now it can be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondspydo (talk • contribs)

It already was. TJ Spyke 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

okay it wasn't when i posted that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamondspydo (talk • contribs)

You can now add WWE Title match: John Cena (c) v Shawn Michaels (lexdiamonds) 2-6-07—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.87.217 (talk • contribs)

It was added last night. TJ Spyke 23:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did someone put Randy Orton vs Edge on Wikipedia/WrestleMania 23. There has been no hype towards it, and even if there was, it hasn't been confirmed! Why is it up there? 72.38.234.177 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, it happens with every WWE PPV article. It was removed a few hours ago. TJ Spyke 03:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I AM NOW A HAPPY BOY! :) 72.38.234.177 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

request for protection

There are WAY to many fake matches and ssumptions being made i say this page should be protected —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrestlinglover420 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I filed an RfP. Hopefully it will be semi-protected soon. -- The Hybrid 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish we could gave ONE WWE PPV where vandals don't force us to have the page semi-protected. TJ Spyke 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy if one of us were an admin so we wouldn't have to wait every time. -- The Hybrid 00:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Its protected now. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 00:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23 Tagline Change

The tagline that was originally used to advertise WM was Detroit Will Never Be The Same. During this year's Royal Rumble, they showed a new ad with a brand new tagline: WrestleMania: All Grown Up. It seems that WWE is sticking with the All Grown Up tagline. WWEShop.com recently posted the official jerseys for the show, and each one contains the tagline in the description. I don't know if it should be changed or not on the WM23 page, but it seems like WWE has ditched the original line. Patriot174 06:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest keeping it for now. In the future it can be changed (if they continue to use that new one only) or have both (if they use the first one as well). TJ Spyke 07:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be inclined to say that if by next week's RAW (2/16), they are still playing the All Grown Up WrestleMania commercials with no mention of Detroit Will Never Be The Same Again, it's safe to go ahead and make the change. Eenu (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The Detroit one was used, so it should still be mentioned. I know they used a commerical, but where have they said "All Grown Up" was actually a tagline? TJ Spyke 01:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We won't know for sure if "All Grown Up" will be the actual tagline until they use it on Posters or the Video cover. Just like the past two years with "WrestleMania Goes Hollywood" being used on the posters and the DVD cover for WM21, and "Big Time" being used posters and Video covers for WM22. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You should check out the WrestleMania X-Seven page. I don't recall ever seeing "Houston...We Have a Problem" anywhere. Can you verify if that was an actual tagline used by WWE? TJ Spyke 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
DVD cover and Poster ad (scroll down till you get to the X-Seven section). -- bulletproof 3:16 05:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I never bought the DVD (I rented it), and WWE usually doesn't refer to the taglines during the actual PPV (although they have for some PPV's). TJ Spyke 06:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is only one official tagline. I changed it to show that the original tagline was used to promote ticket sales. ThatsHowIRoll 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

'All Grown Up' is used on the poster, I'd say it's been changed. Koberulz 08:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

They still use "Detroit Will Never be the Same" as well, so I would say both are official. TJ Spyke 09:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Where exactly have you seen them still using "Detroit Will Never Be the Same"? Granted, because they used it before, I think it should stay, but where recently have they used it? Anakinjmt 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all there is no poster, that I've seen, that uses "All grown up" as the tag line. Second, I just got a WrestleMania 23 promotional E-mail from WWE.com that still uses the "Detroit will never be the same..." tagline. -- bulletproof 3:16 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[3] I know its small but it only says "All Grown Up." ThatsHowIRoll 00:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
could you find a clearer on? -- bulletproof 3:16 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
How about this? [4] ThatsHowIRoll 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice, Good find BTW.-- bulletproof 3:16 00:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. ThatsHowIRoll 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Number One Contender

I'm fed up with every arguing about the undertaker match. So i added a subtitle number one contender at least saying who's fight until taker makes his decision.--- Kings bibby win 03:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't even get the right article. "Mark Calaway" was moved to "The Undertaker" months ago. TJ Spyke 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, although you could've said it a bit nicer.-- Kings bibby win 23:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was tired when I typed that. TJ Spyke 23:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Undertaker vs. TBD?

I know that Undertaker will challenge for the World Heavyweight Championship, but shouldn't it be Undertaker vs. TBD until we know the result of the Kennedy/Batista match for the WHC on Smackdown? Or, at least, make some sort of note. Just until we know the result. Anakinjmt 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

WWE.com lists it as Batista vs. Undertaker. IF Kennedy wins the title (which I would love since he is one of my favorites, but it won't happen), WWE will change it and so would we. TJ Spyke 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

money in the bank

does any one know if its going to happen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1993 lol (talk • contribs) 09:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Probably, but it hasn't been announce or hinted by WWE yet. TJ Spyke 09:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
If memory serves, we haven't heard about Money in the Bank matches until after No Way Out. So, once the next PPV is in fact Wrestlemania, we'll probably see qualifying matches for the Money in the Bank match. Anakinjmt 14:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the place for asking this type of question. Wikipedia isn't a message board for wrestling. RobJ1981 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think he's asking if it will be so it can be added. Until the match itself is announced and we know at least one particant, it won't be up. Again, odds are they will, but better safe than sorry. Anakinjmt 19:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not even a gurantee there will be one. If you remember, the first two years of New Year's Revolution had a Hell in a Cell match and everyone thought that would coninue this year. TJ Spyke 05:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahem, ahem, you mean Elimination Chamber right? -- bulletproof 3:16 06:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant. I was just watching the Mankind/Undertaker HIAC match, and must have been thinking about that match while typing. I still made my point though, no MITB shouls be listed unless it is announced by WWE. TJ Spyke 06:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with TJ. Once again I bring up consistency. If the Royal Rumble couldn't be added until it was announced... -- The Hybrid 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The first qualifying match for it is on RAW tomorrow night. It's back! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.137.91.3 (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Edge and either CM Punk or Johnny Nitro are in MITB! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwe1tna (talk • contribs)
Maybe, although we should wait till its confirmed or else its just speculation. BTW, Edge is already in the match. -- Kings bibby win 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

King Booker is now confirmed to compete in MITB after beating Kane booker hasn't won yet, has he??????o yea and king mystery is coming back today!!!!!

Jeff Hardy has been confirmed as the 4th man in the 8-man Money in the Bank match. Yes, 8 man, for the inclusion of ECW or something, I'm not sure. But Jim Ross said it's supersized, so hey...

"Battle of the Billionaires"

To end the back and forth over the "Battle of the Billionaires" tagline:

"B of the B" should be left in quotes because WWE is using this line to promote the match. However the match itself is a standard hair vs hair match where the loser gets his head shaved.

This type of match is common in Mexico, and quite a number of them have been held in the States as well.

But leave the "B of the B" line in the match listing because WWE itself is using it.Ohgltxg 09:37 16 February, 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's not a match type. TJ Spyke 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I think I've got the solution. First of all, remember back with Cyber Sunday? The whole Champion of Champions Triple Threat Match debate? Whether to call it that? We decided that it would be called Champion of Champions Triple Threat Match, but it would link to triple threat match. So, I propose we do the same thing. Call it "Battle of the Billionaires Hair vs. Hair match" but have the whole thing link to hair vs hair. Seems only fitting that we do that here. Anakinjmt 23:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like the most fitting solution to me. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That was different in that it was for an actual title (the winner would be considered the Champion of Champions). This is more like when WWE kept calling Shawn Michaels vs. Hulk Hogan as "Icon vs. Icon" or when TNA called Kurt Angle vs. Samoa Joe "Match of the Decade". It's just a tagline. TJ Spyke 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
They did that for The Rock vs. Hulk Hogan Icon vs. Icon as well. -- Kings bibby win 03:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The official match name stays. An edit war (like what happened at Cyber Sunday) doesn't need to happen here. It's not a tagline in this case, it's the match name (along with hair vs hair). Because you hate it or whatever, doesn't justify it being removed. RobJ1981 23:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I never said I hated it. I provided examples of why it doesn't belong. It's a tagline, no title/championship/accomplishment is on the line. TJ Spyke 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a precedent established on the Booker T article saying that Champion of Champions was not an actual title to be won. I'm going to check WWE.com real quick to see if it is in his title history like King of the Ring in Bobby Lashley's. If so I will agree with TJ, but otherwise I'll agree with Anakin. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, not Lashley's history. Anyway, no it isn't in his title history, so it was nothing but a tag line for Cyber Sunday as well. I agree with Anakin. -- The Hybrid 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Except it is mentioned on Booker's profile and they still call him that from time to time. I provided the best reason for it not to be included in that it's a tagline, and nothing more. There has been no arguement stated for keeping it. TJ Spyke 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I have put in a compromise, although I see no reason for BOTB to be there at all. TJ Spyke 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Works for me, though that does feel akward. I'm going to play with the wording a little bit, but I won't add it to the link again. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 23:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hair Vs. Hair?

The match isn't being billed as a "Hair Vs. Hair match" and therefore shouldn't be listed as so. It's billing is "Battle of the Billionaires." So stop reverting it back, please. Stating that the loser's manager will have his head shaved is sufficient. Besides, isn't listing a match as something it is not "un-encyclopedic?" Tj terrorible1

It's a Hair vs. Hair match and you don't think that shouls be listed? See the above discussions. TJ Spyke 01:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But it's un-encyclopedic. It's not being billed as "Hair vs. Hair" and shouldn't be listed as such. The match's title is "Battle of the Billionaires." That's it. Period. If it were being billed as "Hair vs. Hair" I wouldn't have a problem. But it's not. Like I said before, saying the loser's manager's head will be shaved is sufficient. Tj terrorible1

The point of the page is to describe the match, not what it's billed as. If WWE called it the "Mega Battle for the control of the media", we wouldn't call it that. The match type is a Hair vs. Hair match, so that is what we list it as. TJ Spyke 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
TJ, you raised the same points back with Cyber Sunday, but ultimately you were outvoted. Cyber Sunday was Champion of Champions Triple Threat Match; WM 23 is Battle of the Billionaires Hair vs. Hair. I seriously don't see why you can't accept the proposed solution, as both sides win. Anakinjmt 14:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not a big deal to me, but I liked the compromise that was made. Listed BOTB as a note on the bottom rather than acting like its a match type. Lrrr IV 08:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm really getting sick of this. The EXACT same argument came up with Cyber Sunday, and look what happened there. Why do we have to debate the exact same topic for every freaking little match? Honestly. Cyber Sunday it was billed Champion of Champions; WrestleMania is billed Battle of the Billionaires. What's the difference? Anakinjmt 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't go by what WWE bills something. Look at all other PPV articles. They are all listed by the type of match a bout is. Unless the match is actually different from other matches, then it can be considered another type of match. For example, the money in the bank ladder match as officially just a six way ladder match. It wasn't until a new stipulation was added (a world title contract) and held more than one time that it made the match unique from all the other usual ladder matches. Therefore it was considered a new type of match. Here is another example Wikipedia does not go by what WWE bills. WWE bills all events taking place from the Allstate Arena from Chicago Illinois, despite the arena actually being in Rosemont, Illinois. Becuase we go by what actually happens and not by what WWE bills, all articles on wrestling events taking place at the Allstate Arena are listed as being held in Rosemont and not Chicago. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


I agree with bulletproof. The only reason Cyber Sunday has the COC part is because it was an unofficial title to the winner, both King Booker and the announcer continued (and occasionaly still do) to refer to him as the Champion of Champions. Even his wwe.com profile calls him that. Lrrr IV 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The difference is for Cyber Sunday it was agreed BY A VOTE to have the main event be called Champion of Champions Triple Threat Match. I would have thought we didn't need a vote for this because of precedence; however, apparently I was mistaken. So, I'm going to start a vote for this. I hope this doesn't mean we need to vote every time for something this trivial. Anakinjmt 20:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You have been given plenty of proof that it is not the same. I can see a compromise was offered and YOU are the only one that won't accept it. Face it, you are wrong. Lrrr IV 20:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, what compromise? There's ZERO mention of it anywhere. If there was a note, no problem. But, there's not even a note! I feel it should be called Battle of the Billionaires Hair vs. Hair, but I don't have a problem with it if there's a note saying "Billed as Battle of the Billionaires". As for "won't accept it", you're right, I won't accept the fact that it should be mentioned SOMEWHERE what it's billed as. I get it's just a standard hair vs hair match, but that people are saying it shouldn't even be MENTIONED it was billed as Battle of the Billionaires...that's what I won't accept. Listing what it was billed as is the most encyclopediac. Anakinjmt 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Define what you think encyclopedic is and I'll tell you what Wikipedia states encyclopedic is. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For your information, Anakinjmt, the poll at ended with a No Consensus. Remember that Polls in Wikipedia are NOT Votes. They are an attempt to build a consensus. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The only spot I see a no consensus is a vote to move the page. Now, unless I'm missing something here...realize, I am NOT trying to get on people's nerves, and I apologize sincerly if I am. I'm just not understanding some people's reasons here. Anakinjmt 20:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No consensus is when no one agrees on anything. remember polls are attempts to build a consensus.-- bulletproof 3:16 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a comment not to add Battle of the Billionaires to the match type until a consensus has been reached. I am willing to wait for the result of the vote to add it in. I do believe it should be at least a note saying it was billed as B of B. Anakinjmt 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with it being mentioned below the match listing. -- bulletproof 3:16 21:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

When I said compromoise, I meant the one from a couple of days ago (which listed it being billed as a BOTB below the match). Lrrr IV 21:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania tops $5 million in ticket sales

http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/50848/WrestleMania-23-Tops-$5-Million-In-Ticket-Sales.htm

According to specific sources, WrestleMania has now topped $5 million in ticket sales already selling 60,000 tickets. I say we mention this as it is the highest selling WrestleMania in WWE history.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.240.187 (talk • contribs)

It already is mentioned, and using a far more reliable site (WWE's corporate website). TJ Spyke 03:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was oppose listing a match by what it is billed. Consensus is the same for other event articles under WP:PW -- bulletproof 3:16 01:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

VOTE: Battle of the Billionaires

Vote "Support" or "Oppose" on whether the Hair vs. Hair match should be called Battle of the Billionaires Hair vs. Hair match OR a note should be made stating it was billed Battle of the Billionaires, and state your reasons:

  • Support : Same reasons as Cyber Sunday Champion of Champions match. Anakinjmt 20:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose : Not an official match type. Per Wikipedia policy, WP:PW goes by what actually happens and not by what WWE bills. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Note - as it serves the same purpose as adding BoB to the title while still not confusing those unfamiliar with wrestling by implying that it is an official match type. -- The Hybrid 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Listing it below the match is the best choice for now (although possible removing it altogether in the future if WWE starts emphasizing it less). It is not a match type, and there is no need to list every tagline for every match. Lrrr IV 21:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose it being listed before the match type, but Support it being noted below. ThatsHowIRoll 21:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Oppose Note It's not a match type in itself. Match type is (unless announced otherwise) one-on-one with valets. We didn't use "A McMahon in every corner" as part of the match title for the Main Event at WrestleMania 2000 (even though it was billed as such on WWF TV and at the actual event) because it's self-evident. The same is the case here - it's self-evident that it a battle of billionaires. Stipulation is Hair vs. Hair, so we bill it as that (a la Judgment Day 2002). --Dave. 22:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I actually agree, I am only willing to accept the note as a compromise. I prefer not to mention it at all. Lrrr IV 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support-On WWE Raw they constently refer to it as BOTB, therefore it should be listed as it. -- Kings bibby win 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It's a tagline though, not a match type. They kept calling Shawn Michaels vs. Hulk Hogan "Icon vs. Icon" (it even appears on one of the promo posters), but we don't include that. Lrrr IV 03:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply Technically, I believe Hogan/HBK was Legend vs. Icon. Rock/Hogan was Icon vs. Icon. At least, that's what the DVD calls it. Not that it matters. Anakinjmt 14:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Bottom Line is WWE calls it that we go by WWE I dont care about taglines cause this is different, but if WWE calls it that we should go by it. -- Kings bibby win 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a match type, maybe as a note below the match. I don't see how this is like CS, where at least there was a "title"/accomplishment at stake. TJ Spyke 21:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Oppose Not a match type, though I'm fine with mentioned that it's a BOTB as a note. --Raderick 03:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: at Cyber Sunday, the "Champion of Champions" label was justifiable: all WWE world champions on the ring, with one world title on the line. This case is totally similar to Hogan-Michaels at SummerSlam 2005 or Angle-Joe at Genesis 2006: it was just a label given by the promoter to made interest the match. And also, I've just put this in this terms: this match is about who's got more money: McMahon or Trump? No. It's a Hair vs. Hair match. If we got this precedent, should we call all the Gates-Jobs, Jobs-Dell, or any billionaire vs. billionaire who clash in any field (not just wrestling, but stock trades, annual balances, or any personal issue) a Battle of the Billionaire? Men, made some sense. Xbox6 14:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: Look, it is NOT a hair vs. hair match. A hair match involves the WRESTLERS putting their hair on the line. The wrestlers involved don't stand to lose their hair. It's a regular match with that added stipulation. Besides, calling it a hair match is going to be stupid if Trump's representative turns out to be Lashley. VelvetKevorkian 04:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is a Hair vs. Hair match since the wrestlers are REPRESENTING Trump and McMahon. TJ Spyke 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If someone looks up "hair vs. hair match" on Wikipedia, they'll read "the loser of the match gets his head shaved," which is not the case. The argument here is that it has to be easily understandable to a non-wrestling fan, or someone who hasn't been following WWE. And, again, with one of the (supposed) wrestlers in the match being bald to begin with, calling it a hair vs. hair match makes even less sense. VelvetKevorkian 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Umaga and whoever Trump picks are representing them, meaning that it's Trump/McMahon's hair on the line. The line below the match makes it clear who will lost their hair. TJ Spyke 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You said it yourself, Trump and McMahon have their hair on the line, NOT the participants in the match, which is what a hair vs. hair match is. It's like calling Hell in a Cell a "cage match." It's essentially the same, but just different enough to be called something else. VelvetKevorkian 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a Hair vs. Hair match. Think of this way, it's like when Randy Orton represented Booker T in his Best of 7 series with Chris Benoit. If Orton lost the series, it would have been the same as if Booker lost. The wrestlers are just representing Trump and McMahon. TJ Spyke 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Dusty Rhodes

I was wondering, should we mention that Dusty Rhodes (and other other soon-to-be named inductees) will make an appearance due to being inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame? -- Scorpion 06:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I would say not yet. After the show (while results are being added), then sure. It's not a guarantee they will be at WrestleMania, very likely but not guaranteed. Lrrr IV 09:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
So somebody should remove that Dusty Rhodes note since it hasn't been confirmed that the HOF's will be at WM. Lrrr IV 09:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I did it. I agree that he shouldn't be added yet, as it hasn't been announced. Consistency people, we need consistency. 声援 -- The Hybrid 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

MITB Ladder Match

Someone add the Money in The Bank match as WWE.com has annouced a qualifying match on RAW between Edge and RVD.--24.184.169.37 06:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's already been added (maybe you should have checked the page first). TJ Spyke 06:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
perhaps it wasnt added when the comment was made TJCradle666 09:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The match was added about 30 minutes before he made the comment. TJ Spyke 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
let me guess, you added it???? Cradle666 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No, someone else did (just so you know, you can check the edit history of a page by clicking the History tab at the top of a page). TJ Spyke 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Spyke you dont have to explain to himif you did or didn't. If you edited ityou got to it first. No biggie. -- Kings bibby win 00:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
He's just being polite. 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take King Booker out, as the match has not appeared on tv or WWE.com 75.19.115.227 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody add CM Punk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.71.148 (talk • contribs)

For **** sake, check the damn page. I try to be polite, but this was added yesterday when Punk won the match and this is like the 4th time this week tis has happened. TJ Spyke 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, TJSpyke you sure critisize a lot of people about this. And I can't believe I'm saying this to you but please be Polite per Wikipedia's Talk Page policy. -- Kings bibby win 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

King Booker is in the MITB because he beat Kane

Again, not announced on WWE.com or US TV, not added. Why people feel like they should be the first to add things is beyond me. It's not like you get any special recognition for it. Anakinjmt 06:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

24wrestling.com says that this match will have eight contenders. However, I will leave the main page alone as wwe.com still has six listed.

A match for a spot in the match between Shelton Benjamin and Jeff Hardy was announced on WWE.com

Umaga

Umaga is mr mcmahans choice at wrestlemania, its on wwe.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.132.30 (talk • contribs)

Sigh, I wish people would check the article first. He was added in several hours ago, like 10 seconds after it was announced. TJ Spyke 06:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
hes just saying TJ, no need to be rude about it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cradle666 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
I don't think I was being rude, I just said I wish people woul check an article first. TJ Spyke 22:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
And, this isn't the place to comment about things like that. Wikipedia is not a message board; making an entire section of the talkpage just to state Umaga is Vince's choice at WM is not the purpose of the article. Anakinjmt 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lashley/Austin

It was announced by E! on Feb. 20 that Donald Trump will be represented by Bobby Lashley, and Stone Cold Steve Austin will be the special guest referee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.95.11 (talk • contribs)

1)Actual source? and 2)That is not official since Trump's rep won't be announced until next Monday. TJ Spyke 03:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
On WrestleZone.com, they posted a screenshot of a show on E! called "Daily 10" that showed Lashley, Trump, Austin in a referee shirt, McMahon, and Umaga taking promo shots for the WM match. It's pretty much confirmed, but shouldn't be posted until Raw when it's officially announced. Patriot174 03:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't mean the match will happen though. TJ Spyke 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
no they just did the shoot for the hell of it. Cradle666 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ever heard of photoshop? Koberulz 08:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

Do not add spoilers to the article. Spoilers are future events, and therefore violate WP:CRYSTAL. If you add future events or suspected matched that have not been announced they will be removed. Thank you for your cooperation ahead of time. 声援 -- The Hybrid 22:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki has a clear no spoiler policy. Please adhere to it. Thank You. Ohgltxg 22:31 21 February, 2007 (UTC)

Hey dont you think any of u wiki guys and chicks should add spoliers because it is wrestlemania and people will be more intrested and want to watch raw,smackdown and ecw more to see if its true .It will be good for the ratings..—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.132.164.30 (talk • contribs)

Absolutely, because you know... our only goal here at Wikipedia is to increase ratings for pro wrestling shows... ...sigh... -- bulletproof 3:16 04:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a wrestling news/rumor site. People can check here if they want official and confirmed info, they can go elsewhere for rumors (like that joke Meltzer). TJ Spyke 04:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
We aren't allowed to add them, as it violates policy. We aren't allowed to make those kinds of calls. However, we are allowed to be sarcastic in our responses to this type of question if we choose to be, or link to random types of fruit. PAPAYA, 声援 -- The Hybrid 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

UNCONFIRMED SPOILERS REMOVED - 声援 -- The Hybrid

And, again, no proof. Seriously...why can't people just be patient and, I don't know, NOT spoil things for fans? It's like ruining 24 or LOST: it's just not right. Anakinjmt 20:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that no - UNCONFIRMED SPOILER REMOVED BY THE HYBRID - match was announced. Lrrr IV 22:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I suggest removing any more spoilers, and I hope that my editing of your comments wasn't taken offensively. Let's take a real stand against spoilers for once. 声援 -- The Hybrid 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers are permitted on Wikipedia. WP:SPOILER. That said, I realise professional wrestling articles differ slightly. However, I must insist that any media produced by the WWE (icluding commercials) stands as a verified source. Likewise any comments made by Trump, even off air, should be noted in the article. Tomtyke 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

They aren't confirmed for the match though, it's just speculation. Nowhere have they said "Trump's wrestler will be ....", and in Trump's radio interview he said "Lindsey". TJ Spyke 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Full Protection?

I was wondering if it would be worth getting this page fully protected for a little while, since people can't seem to read the warnings not to add spoilers. -- 00:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Some users who have been on Wikipedia are still doing vandalisms. I'd say go for it. --Raderick 02:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Smackdown airs tomorrow, so after that, we won't have to worry about people adding Booker anymore. I say we request protection after Smackdown, so then we can go until Monday without having any vandalism. -- Scorpion 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We have no admins in WP:PW. Without an admin even we wouldn't be able to edit this page. We would have no way to keep the article up to date without filing formal requests and going through a ton of work. Full protection would be nice for the vandalism factor, but it would severely cripple the article. 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

SPOILER REMOVED 声援 -- The Hybrid

You have a source? It hasn't been confirmed by the WWE, so no, they are not in MitB. --Raderick 03:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Windsor Press Conference

Why was this note deleted? The first press conference is listed on this page, why shouldn't that one? As far as sourcing goes, I was there, I'm a source. Kyle C Haight 04:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't list yourself. Do you have a source (like a website) that a press conferance happened in Windsor? I don't think it really matters though because the note about the first PC will prbably be deleted after WM. Lrrr IV 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hair vs Hair match

Ok, seriously, I'm pissed now. Just because you saw a pic of Vince, Donald, Umaga, Lashley and Stone Cold as a ref DOES NOT MEAN that it will happen. You ever heard of photoshopping? Its not difficult to do. So wait until WWE announces it. Sorry for the angry tone, but this has got to stop. User:Killswitch Engage

The match is most definitely going to happen. The photo was also not photoshopped, I watched the E! program "Daily 10" to see waht everyone was talking about. The photo is a screenshot of the program where they showed a small clip of video from a Wrestlemania promotional photo shoot. It was a video not a photo, so photoshop is ruled out. Neither Lashley or Stone Cold's roles should be added on the page till they're announced either on WWE.com or on WWE TV in the US.--24.184.173.132 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Think about it though. Lashley is the ECW champion. You seriously think the ECW champion is going to be in a match at WM and have it NOT be for the ECW championship? It's one of the top belts in WWE; no way are they going to have that happen. Mark my words, unless Lashley drops the title before WM, this match will not happen with Lashley in it. I can see it being announced and then Umage coming in on ECW during a title match with Lashley and costing him the title, but I fully believe that Lashley will not be in this match unless he drops the title. However, that is speculation, as this entire thing is, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Since WWE has not announced it, it is not official, no matter WHAT E! says. Anakinjmt 04:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't tell me you think that Vince seriously gives a damn about the ECW Belt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.137.91.3 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
One of the three major titles in WWE, check. Revived ECW as a brand, check. Gives ECW two pay-per-views, check. Yeah, he revived ECW and the ECW championship for no reason. Yep. You're definitely right. Anakinjmt 18:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Vince wants to push Lashley. Putting him in a high-profile match like this one makes more sense than having him defend against some repackaged jobber. Mr. Papaya 17:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Never minding the fact it hasn't been OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED yet, and we wait until it's officially announced. I seriously hope Trump picks someone else, just to show people that you have to wait until it's officially announced to put stuff up. Anakinjmt 19:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hall Of Fame

The HAll Of Fame Induction Should be included on the Wrestlmania 23 page. So far, "The American Dream" Dusty Rhodes and "Mr. Perfect" Curt Hennig have been announced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Linny 456 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Except we don't know yet if they'll appear at WM. Odds are they will, but better safe than sorry. Besides, we don't announce the Rumble or MITB until officially announced; wait until WWE says that HoF will appear at WM. Anakinjmt 06:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there's no way Curt Hennig will appear at WM, so it would definitely be incorrect to put that. Koberulz 05:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, they would have a representitive of Hennig appear like they did Eddie Guerrero (R.I.P).

User:Killswitch Engage

Doesn't change the fact that Hennig will not appear. Koberulz 17:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The POINT is that we don't know if the Hall of Fame will appear at WM, not if Curt Hennig will appear or not. If the HoF does appear, whoever accepts the award on Hennig's behalf will most likely be there, but without knowing for sure if the HoF will show, we don't add it in. Anakinjmt 18:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

8 Man Money in the Bank Ladder Match

I heard on a wrestling news website that the Money in the Bank Ladder match this years is gonna have eight men. [5] Trmptboy2007 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing gets put on the page until it has officially been announced on WWE TV or on the official website. -- Scorpion 20:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea but why does it say three TBAs?

Because until WWE officially confirms it, it's assumed to be six like the previous two. --  oakster  TALK  22:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't believe these BS sites and their rumors. There may end up being more, but officially there are 6 spots. TJ Spyke 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It was confirmed as 8 spots tonight, on the screen there were the 4 people already qualified with 4 spare slots underneath them 87.127.234.98 02:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only that, but as that image was on the screen one of the commentators (I forgot whether it was JR or King) said they've "super-sized it this year, we're gonna have 8 competitors". So eight slots for this match have been officially confirmed. Bmg916 Speak to Me 02:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "not only that"? That is EXACTLY what the anon IP just said. TJ Spyke 02:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The anon described the image, Bmg quoted JR. 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but he was still just repeating the confirmation. TJ Spyke 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Eh, probably a good thing. Too many of us have the nasty habit of ignoring unregistered users. 声援 -- The Hybrid 02:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WrestleMania_23/Archive_1&oldid=1136223227"