Talk:WrestleMania 38

Can we lock this page as soon as possible

There will likely be many edits made to this article, as is the case every year, which are incorrect. Can we lock this page to prevent any vandalism and to allow only officially confirmed matches to be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

And it's already started — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized the page by removing the match table. Please restore and lock this page to prevent further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@82.25.151: The page should be Semi Protected and not locked. Chip3004 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Iron Sheik finally makes it to the ring

...

Please refrain from posting useless comments in the talk section. This is for page related suggestions.

This probably should be blanked, but it's a great Bobby Heenan line regardless.LM2000 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Longest-running professional wrestling event in history?

This article says that WrestleMania is "the longest-running professional wrestling event in history", which makes it sound like the first WrestleMania is still going on, 37 years later! I have twice tried adding the word "yearly" to make it, you know, make sense, and someone removed it! The sentence, without the word yearly sounds like it was written by a kindergarten kid. 197.89.19.211 (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@197.89.19.211: I don't think that the word Yearly is Necessary in the sentence "the longest-running professional wrestling event in history" to clearifly the longest-running professional wrestling event in history means that this is the 38th WrestleMania, F.Y.I first WrestleMania already happened back in 1985. Chip3004 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I take it English is not your home language. "Longest-running professional wrestling event", means a single event that is still ongoing. Adding "yearly" clarifies thst it is an annual event, that has lasted longer than any other annual pro wrestling event ever. Without including the word "yearly"...it makes it sound like the WrestleMania event that began in 1985 with Tito Santan vs Executioner is still happening in Madison Square Garden. Literally the exact same show. 197.89.19.211 (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It's redundant to add "yearly" because the sentence already says "annually" (read the very next part in that sentence). There's another half of that sentence there you're ignoring. JDC808 ♫ 22:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not redundant. Read the sentence. It sounds stupid. 197.89.19.211 (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You made it say that it's annual twice in the same sentence. Yes, that's redundant. And no, it doesn't sound like the first event is still happening. That's a misperception on your part. JDC808 ♫ 00:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No. Did you even read it? Is English not your first language? 197.89.19.211 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Please stop questioning other people's ability to understand the English language. We all understand it just fine, and I agree with JDC808 that the sentence is fine as it is. — Czello 08:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Whatever. You want it to make it sound as though the first WrestleMania is still taking place, I guess mob rules here. I was just trying to make the article look like it belonged in an encyclopedia, rather than some middle schooler's website. If three people all insist on that badly worded version,which means something totally different to what you think it means, go for it. "It is the longest-running professional wrestling event in history" can only mean ONE thing.... 197.89.19.211 (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And I'm outta here now. Thanks for showing me the way these articles end up the way they are. It is depressingly enlightening. 197.89.19.211 (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I am sure that the overwhelming majority of people who read that sentence will understand what it means just fine. — Czello 09:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You mean "they will understand what you MEANT to say". 41.13.232.213 (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you know what -- I'm going to compromise and restore your version. I still don't accept there's anything really wrong with the original (I don't think anyone would read it as one ongoing event unless they're being needlessly pedantic), but ultimately I don't see anything wrong with your proposal either and if it does make the sentence a touch clearer, then that can only be good. My only reservation is that it now specifies shows that are annual — but I can't think of any longer-running wrestling shows that aren't annual, either. — Czello 13:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP was just being ridiculously pedantic. It was understood perfectly fine what was being said. Like I said in my second post, it was a misperception on the IP's part that it sounded like the first event was still happening. And it's rather funny they claimed it sounded like a "middle schooler's website" when they were the one who originally introduced a middle school error of redundancy by adding "yearly" when it already said "annually" (it was only after I reverted them for the redundancy did they fix their error but then tried to say it wasn't redundant). JDC808 ♫ 20:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Just a question. It says "It is the longest-running annual professional wrestling event in history", but... CMLL holds Anniversary shows annualy since 1934. (with the exception 1985, since no event took place because an earthquake). Everything said, I see no problem to include or remove the annual word. For example, my father though the Royal Rumble was a monthly event. Also, talking about CMLL, they promote events like Domingos de Arena México on Sunday weekly since 1934 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Champion vs. Champion does not mean Title for Title

WWE have made no official announcement in regards to Brock vs. Roman being for both titles. Yes, Brock won the Royal Rumble and challenged Roman for the Universal Championship and yes, Brock is now WWE Champion but that doesn't mean his title is benig defended in the match. While this may still happen, WWE are only advertising this as a Universal Championship Match. Please leave it this way until WWE themselves make the official annoucement. Anything you hear otherwise is just rumour and speculation. Can someone please provide proof that WWE has made this Winner Take All? Oh, that's right, THEY DIDN'T

Here is the proof it came from WWE Official Twitter account which is Verified. [1] Chip3004 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Chip3004 didn't see this until now, and although it's been confirmed, I just want to note something. Right after Lesnar won the WWE Championship at Elimination Chamber, WWE immediately showed a graphic and announced that the match would be Winner Takes All. JDC808 ♫ 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The title match

Wouldn’t it sound better if it was just called a title unification match? The way it’s put makes it sound more complicated then it needs to be. 107.190.210.178 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Seth Rollins vs TBA

@Mitchelsewbaran: Please do not add Seth Rollins vs TBA again to Wrestlemania 38 since it was confirmed. Chip3004 (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022

Kevin Owens is fighting stone cold Steve Austin 50.86.51.248 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Attendance records

@ItsMarkWbu: Can you explain what you mean by "etiquette" in the context of attendance? It sounds like you're making an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Why would we not include the actual figure? — Czello 15:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Czello Already did so in my edit summary following your initial revision. Such claims are typically addressed with a simple note of a dispute either following the combined attendance figure (as is the case with the two past WM events), or in the case of most single-night Manias, next to the single attendance figure. (Check: WrestleMania 37, WrestleMania 32, SummerSlam (1992), etc.) Once a "Reception" section's been drafted up, attendance claims would customarily be included there. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, though, WP:OTHERSTUFF. The infobox really shouldn't be hosting kayfabe/fake attendance numbers. I'm proposing to change the way we approach attendance records so that we only show the disputed tag if we don't have the real numbers. If we have the real numbers, I see no reason why we wouldn't include them in the infobox. — Czello 16:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue boils down to the fact that WON/DM's claims, regardless of their/his rep and prominence within the industry, aren't technically set in stone as incontestable – simply a disputing proclamation. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The Wikiproject does consider them to be a reliable source. Plus, you mentioned above that the real numbers would be included in the reception section -- meaning that we are, in fact, able to properly establish those numbers. I'm proposing that they are simply moved to the infobox, which is their most appropriate location. — Czello 16:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't designate their claim as indisputable within itself. Both figures (WWE's and WON's) are rightfully addressed as CLAIMED attendance, hence why referring to one as more "real" than the other is perplexing. The matter couldn't possibly be addressed adequately under your suggested course of action, which is why I suggest we abide by the established approach. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Reception

Can Someone Please Put WreslteMania 38’s Actual Reception? It Says S In The Reception Area About Attendance And Stuff, But It Doesn’t State What Critics And Fans Actually Thought About The Event, So Someone Please Add That. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8081:2104:3C27:3962:CF3B:5D90:5A9E (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but no , you need to include an reliable source or it will not be added in without a reliable source. Chip3004 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Wtf do you mean? I asked if someone could add it, but your’re talking shit about reliable sources and I didn’t ask about reliable sources. 2603:8081:2104:3C27:40C5:3650:B7A8:AD73 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

What i meant you have to provide an Reliable Source per WP:RS, or any addition has to be cited. Chip3004 (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I Don’t Know How the fuck I’m supposed to do that? I asked for someone to add it, and you’re acting like I have to do the whole fucking thing myself?! 2603:8081:2104:3C27:9DF0:37AF:11B4:259B (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL — Czello 19:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok forget the whole entire thing 2603:8081:2104:3C27:A030:93E2:B8FA:845D (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)