Talk:WrestleMania 23/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Cruft in trivia section

A backstage segment featuring dancing is certainly fancruft that doesn't belong. It being a reunion of sorts (and it being at WM) doesn't make it any more notable at all. The dance segment didn't affect any of the matches and certainly doesn't help the article. RobJ1981 05:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest moving to the notes section. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It's always been in the notes section, that's not the problem here. The problem is: it's a backstage segment. Backstage segments aren't notable, and don't affect the matches or anything... why add this one over others? Just because it was a reunion isn't a good enough reason in my opinion. People certainly could argue the Boogey Man/Trump segment was notable, as it featured the first time the 2 had interaction (or just on the fact Trump appeared). It's fancruft and serves no purpose except that some people might think it's "interesting". That's not enough to keep it on the article. RobJ1981 05:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I didn't see that. Hmmm... let me see what I can do with it... -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should just add them to the other talent section if they aren't there already and not mention the dance. It was pretty pointless, and doesn't seem necessary. Peace, -- The Hybrid 05:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the Boogeyman segment wasn't notable, this segment had the return of Slick (first time in like 15 years) and a bunch of other WWE legends. It being a reunion and at WM does help its case IMO (especially the reunion part). You are saying being a backstage segment is the problem, so you wouldn't be objecting if they had done this on the stage or in the ring? If we mentioned them in the on screen talent section, what would we put down for them so someone else doesn't remove it. It also got covered in most reviews and coverage of the event (coevering the notability part). Being cruft is an opinion; being a reunion featuring over a dozen legends and covered by almost every review makes it worth at least mentioning. TJ Spyke 06:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, the return of Slick is pretty important. I'll change my vote to Weak Support, as I had forgotten about that point. Peace, -- The Hybrid 06:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Covered in almost every review? I find that very hard to believe. Provide some proof. Also: so what if it's covered? The matches are reviewed in the reviews as well: that doesn't mean we will start listing highlights for each match. I also recall there being a guideline on Wikipedia about it not being a democracy: meaning not everything should be determined by a vote. I somehow think if this fancruft was gone: no one would be re-adding except for TJ. From the edit history: it seems like he was the only one re-adding it back. That certainly shows that people don't care about it. A few talk page posts in favor of it: isn't much consensus to keep it on the article. RobJ1981 22:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[1] and [2] among others. Other people have added it back, I just get to it first usually. TJ Spyke 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering OWW is a fansite, only the Slam link is reliable. Anyone can write a review and mention it: fansites aren't a reliable source. I've seen no edit history of anyone else re-adding it back, so I'm still going to believe no one else has (until I see otherwise). If I need to bring an admin into this, I will. Because in my opinion: it's a content dispute between me and TJ, as no one else seems to care much about ONE LITTLE crufty thing. Slick returned for ONE appearance, post it on the Slick article and leave it at that. RobJ1981 22:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I could find more if I tried, that was in a quick 1 minute search. I could flip it and say only you think it should be removed. I don't see the big deal. It's not cruft, it's notable (based on what counts as being notable), and is interesting. TJ Spyke 22:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And some people could think the Boogey Man segment was "interesting", that doesn't make it notable for here. It's cruft only wrestling fans care about. A one-time return is just as notable as Undertaker's streak for these articles: it belongs on the wrestler (in this case, manager) article, not the PPV article. I've removed it, because you are the only one that is strongly for it. RobJ1981 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You are the only one who seems to be against it, so why do you keep on remoing it? TJ Spyke 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You and Hybrid's "weak support" isn't enough to keep it. That's NO consensus, period. RobJ1981 21:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And bulletproof. You seem to be the only one who has a problem with it. I didn't like having to let the Champion of Champions thing stay at Cyber Sunday, and you may not like letting this stay in here. It's also hardly "cruft". TJ Spyke 21:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Previous WM articles (such as WrestleMania 21) have stated non-match things that happen out in the ring or in front of the crowd, but not stuff backstage (Hogan saving Eugene is mentioned, but not the JBL/HHH confrontation), so precedence dictates we do the same. HoF gets mentioned, the dance backstage does not. Anakinjmt 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

JBL/HHH is like the Boogeyman/Trump segment though, nothing interesting or special about it and no reason to really mention it. TJ Spyke 21:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to note which WWE Legends were there and appeared on screen, just as the "celebrities" are all noted. -- Scorpion 21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, the fact that some celebrities were there is less important than the Legends. Someone reading the article to see what happened at Wrestlemania 23 isn't really going to care about celebrity guests. The reappearance of actual former wrestlers would be mor important to a wrestling fan.Gavyn Sykes 22:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No other WM article lists which WWE Legends are present, unless they come out to the ring. Again, the dance was a backstage thing, which doesn't get mentioned. The dance and the Trump/Boogeyman segment both happened back stage, so they do not get mentioned. Precedence, people. It's a beautiful thing. Anakinjmt 22:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Other WM's didn't really do this type of thing. At most their was the minor bump-in like JBL/HHH. If a segment like this had happened, it would be mentioned in that WM's article. I think the current version is good (maybe it should say "with Cryme Tyme and Eugene" at the end, but that is optional). TJ Spyke 22:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care. I still kind of think that we should just list the people in the section where all of the people are listed, but not give any details. I would be OK with listing a thing about the dance, but I really don't care. I'm more neutral than anything else. Peace, -- The Hybrid 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Moooaaannn ----- Let's get talking so that we can get the page unprotected. -- The Hybrid 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather neutral on the whole thing as well. I'd like it to be mentioned but I'm not going to complain if it gets removed. I am leaning towards supporting it but not by much....Gavyn Sykes 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rob and TJ appear to be the ones who actually care, so I would like to see both of them comment ASAP. -- The Hybrid 00:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I already commented, I think the current version is fine. TJ Spyke 00:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Weak support being as it involved legends of the game at the biggest show of the year ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Brief 1 time "returns" of legends aren't that notable. The Slick article and the others can list it: but it certainly shouldn't be listed here. Backstage segments aren't very notable, and this dance isn't an exception. RobJ1981 05:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I was hoping you would accept the consensus so the article can be unlocked. TJ Spyke 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There is always the issue that this could be seen to be setting a precedent, possibly creating many future issues over people wanting to insert backstage segments into PPV articles and subsequent discussions over what consitutes a notable segment. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. If someone thinks something is notable in future PPV, they should seek a consenus on the talk page. In this case, it seems like the consensus it to include it. TJ Spyke 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the legends are more notable than Katie Blair (who is mentioned in the article) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: backstage segments aren't notable. Wrestlemania has celebrities: that's a given, and important. A one time return of Slick and a dance segment isn't important (except to a few people). As I also stated before: put it on the wrestler articles, not here. RobJ1981 07:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Backstage segments aren't notable usually because nothing notable happens within them. The appearance of several legends is notable. Koberulz 07:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's put things in perspective. It was ruled that if it's a non-title match, then it's not worth mentioning that a wrestler is currently holding a title. However, that dance segment is worth keeping? I don't think so. In addition, Slick's appearence is no different that any other legend appearing, and that happens all the time. Just mention them as "other talent" and remove it entirely from the match section. Mshake3 20:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Precedence has already been set in determining if backstage segments get mentioned. The fact there's legends present makes no difference. Besides, it's the big wrestling event of the year. You don't think a lot of legends would be present? Anakinjmt 21:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Where has precendence been set? Anyways, I don't recall any previous WM having this many legends, especially in one segment. TJ Spyke 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that I have come up with a compromise. We list all of them in the Other Talent section with an * next to their names. At the bottom of the section we say:

*Appeared in backstage dance segment.

The note is short enough to include there, and the fact that most of them are legends can speak for itself. Does that work for everyone? -- The Hybrid 23:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I could accept that (although I guess Cryme Tyme, Eugene, and Extreme Exposè would be included as well), although it seems like it would be even longer. TJ Spyke 23:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they should be included with the note. While it may seem like it should be longer it does get the point across. Peace, -- The Hybrid 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Gavyn Sykes 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with just listing them in other on-air talent only. RobJ1981 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Why can't we compromise? -- The Hybrid 04:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The "freaks" segment from WrestleMania 22 wasn't included, and I see it as just as notable as this segment is (ie, not that notable). Mshake3 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point, and that had Mae Young, Fabulous Moolah, and Ted DiBiase, all of whom are legends. Sounds like another case of precedence. Either way, we need to take a vote for consensus so we can get this unlocked. So, here's what I'm thinking: vote whether or not the segment gets mentioned. If it does get mentioned, make another vote of where it goes: notes or in the results area. Anakinjmt 18:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes and notes ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, notes. Gavyn Sykes 18:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was arguing for it it to be in the results section. I think the 3 options people were arguing were 1)not mention it at all, 2)Put it in the notes section (where it currently is), or 3)List them in the other on-screen talent section. Either 2 or 3 are fine with me (although I prefer option 2). TJ Spyke 06:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So I take it keeping it in the notes section is the agreed solution? TJ Spyke 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No that's not the agreed solution. 2 people voted: that's no consensus, stop thinking you have to get your way. Other on-air talent with a * by their name, with one sentence of "in a backstage dance segment" is much better. It doesn't need to be in the notes section, period. You can clearly see that not everyone wants it in the notes section (not just me, so it's not 1 against everyone else in this case at all). Not everyone voted, but by comments you can see it's not a consensus. RobJ1981 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There was 5 days since the proposed solution, and you didn't reply. The page shouldn't stay locked because you don't want to reply. 5 days without any more replies indicates no objection. TJ Spyke 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's no worse than me coming back from vacation to find that you and the other people in the TNA Impact! dispute hadn't spoken for 11 days, but the page was still protected. Anyway, there is no consensus on this issue. 3 people, Suriel1981, Gavyn Sykes, and yourself, have said that they want it in the notes section, Mshake3 and Anakinjmt have said that they don't agree with it being listed at all due to a precedent that we hadn't seen, and RobJ1981 agree that my proposed compromise is the best solution. The previous sentence makes sense; that isn't the problem. 3:2:2 is a no consensus. However, I am curious as to why my compromise was left out of Anakinjmt's vote. You and a few other people had agreed to it, so it seems like the solution most likely to garner consensus. I'm asking everyone again, if we list all of them in the Other Talent section with an * next to their names, and say:

*Appeared in backstage dance segment.

would that be ok? The Hybrid 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am all for it. I still think it should be in the notes section, but in the on-screen talent section is acceptable. TJ Spyke 00:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

While I'd prefer it to be in the notes section, listing them under other talent is fine with me as well. Personally, I just think it would make the article look better if it was in notes. Gavyn Sykes 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that WrestleMania XX lists Vince thanking the fans for 20 years of WM in the match section. Just throwing precidences out there. Mshake3 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a year between WrestleManias. Precedents are created by the consensus at the time, but a year is more that enough time for the consensus to change. New users signing up, old users changing their opinions as they learn, ect. Consensus rules over all but the policies. Peace, The Hybrid 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff/Edge's Ladder Snap

I have a camera shot of this from near where the cameraman was standing (front row seat, yay for me), does it deserve a post up? Cause i'm sure the ladder has NEVER snapped in that way. The fold bars have snapped/broken before (No Mercy 1998), but the actual ladder has never snapped. Tr1ckydr1v3r 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy to allow it to be used then by all means. However, please don't be offended if the photo is scrutinized by admin. We have had an issue recently with a (now-banned) editor claiming WWE-copyright photos were his own and posting them all over the place. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As sson as the edit protection comes off, i'll post it up (if i remember). Oh by the way, am i correct about it never happening before or is that incorrect? Tr1ckydr1v3r 21:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it happen, but then, they've never used a fake wooden ladder before, either. Koberulz 06:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and uploaded it now to see the quality of it. Then when the page is unblocked we can decide whether to use it or not.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to repeat what has already been said, your photo will probably be put under the microscope by an admin. Not only have we had new users running around breaking the law, but it was just discovered that an established user who had retired a couple of months before had been uploading illegal images as well. The admins, and everyone else for that matter, is on very high alert right now. If it is close to where the cameraman was, then you can probably expect to be asked a few questions by an admin. Just don't take it personally, answer the questions politely, and everything will turn out for the best if it really is your picture. Peace, -- The Hybrid 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just watched the vid, and the cameraman i'm talking about had his view shown on the first replay of the accident (whatever we call it). The problem, it literally looks almost the same, only the quality is'nt as good. I think it's 'too close for comfort', and i'd rather not come under fire, so i might not put it up. By the way, aren't the photos on wwe. com free distribution, or am i wrong? (I have no clue about these things...) Tr1ckydr1v3r 13:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, all pictures from WWE are copyrighted by them. From WWE's copuright page: "The textual, photographic, video, audio, and combined audiovisual programs and products resulting from the World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.'s events and television programs, including the material contained in this web site, are protected under U.S. and international laws as copyrighted works. Anyone who displays, reproduces, copies, creates derivative works, or sells our textual, photographic, video or audiovisual programs for commercial or non-commercial purposes without our permission violates the copyright laws and is liable for copyright infringement. " TJ Spyke 22:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We need to add to the Trivia section...

How WM23 is the ten year anniversary to WM13, where Undertaker also won a world title.Tj terrorible1 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't. That has no impact on WM23 the event itself, and it just adds more cruft to the article. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is pretty notable that on the 10th anniversary that Undertaker wins another world title. I just wonder why he isn't wearing it around his waist. Big Boss 0 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In any case, it amounts to Original Research. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 14:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How the hell can you put guidelines on trivia? Trivia is trivia is trivia. You people really are stupid. And it’s not original research. It’s as trivial as John Cena being only the second man to retain a world title at two consecutive WrestleManias (after Hulk Hogan), a trivia I see you guys don’t have in this article.Tj terrorible1 15:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, and especially WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Wikipedia is not a democracy, guidelines and policies are here for a reason. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we don't have it because it just fills the article with fancruft original research. Bmg916^Speak_Sign 15:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering we don't even mention that it's the 20th anniversary of WM 3 the last time WM was in Detroit (which is the reason behind the All Grown Up tagline and was a big basis of marketing and in the opening video), why should we mention it's the 10th anniversary of Undertaker winning the title? Anakinjmt 15:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it original research? Koberulz 10:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It may not be OR, but it's not really that notable. It's mentioned on Undertaker's page for those who want it. TJ Spyke 19:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That's probably the best way to do it. I never debated the notability, I just don't see how it qualifies as OR. Koberulz 14:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivial trivia

A piece of trivia was added about the main event ending in submission three out of the last four years. This is not notable, and constitutes OR. Noting how the main event ended is already listed in the match, and only saying "three out of the last four years" seems odd, why not three out of the last five years or ten years? Darrenhusted 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not really OR, but I agree that it's not very notable. TJ Spyke 21:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I also took out a bit about HHH not competing. Darrenhusted 18:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Poster

I've been looking around at other PPV's, and they list the poster for the PPV, and I noticed that the poster for WM 23 isn't here anymore. So, I'm wondering why that is. Too much space in the article? Clutters the article? Because personally I think the poster should stay here, but I'm just wondering what the general consensus is regarding the poster. Anakinjmt 14:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look at past WM articles, it seems the consensus is to not include the poster for WM articles. If we did add it, we would have to remove at least 1 pic unless we want a huge white space (which would make the article look ugly). TJ Spyke 00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what we have is fine. We have pics of both champions post-match plus the MitB winner, which were argubly the most important matchs on the card. The poster is unecessary. Gavyn Sykes 01:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)