Talk:WrestleMania XXVIII/Archive 1

The Rock vs John Cena

Is this official yet, if so where's the source? Juggalo Dan 420 (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Rock challeng Cena and him accepting on Raw... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The Rock Vs Cena

The match was agreed upon for less than 365 days from when the next Wrestlemania would take place; this marks it as less than year. Please unlock the article so the lie can be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from AMslimfordy, 12 April 2011

Requested addition: WrestleMania XXVIII > Scheduled Matches > Match #1 (The Rock vs. John Cena) will be a Singles Match and, if John Cena is the reigning WWE Champion as of 1 Apr, 2012, the match will be for the WWE Championship. This stipulation was announced on the 11 Apr episode of WWE Monday Night RAW. Current source is < http://www.wrestlingnewssource.com/feed_news-18982-WWE_RAW_Results_%28411%29%3A.php >.

AMslimfordy (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done by someone else, check the history tab for editors involved. Woody (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This was not done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMslimfordy (talk • contribs)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Bility (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

WWE title on the line?

Will the WWE Championship be on the line at WrestleMania XXVIII, or is that just a rumor? Juggalo Dan 420 (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

its just a rumor--SteamIron 01:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not that its just a rumor as per John Cena's statements towards The Rock regarding the WWE Championship's potential involvement in the match. The simple determining factor when it comes to whether or not the match will listed within this article as a WWE Championship match is WP:CRYSTAL, which reads "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It is due to this that the match cannot be listed as being a WWE Championship match at this time. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that Cena actually did say the match is for the title.

Please fix this lying article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Actually, it was IF John Cena still is the champion by Wrestlemania, it would be for the WWE championship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.80.207.18 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Except Cena himself said different. Are you actually saying that what was said at the Raw was a lie? If so, I suggest you stop trying to troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

First time a year in an advance?

If I remember though it may not of happened, Mr Kennedy arranged his Money in the Bank brief case to be cashed in the night of Wrestlemania 24. I feel it could be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.2.123 (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

As of right now the match is going to happen if that changes we will remove it.--SteamIron 00:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The information about the Cena/Rock match is 100% wrong.

Cena stated he would wrestle The Rock for the title at the next Wrestlmania for the Championship; it was never once said by either Cena or The Rock it would only happen "if Cena was the champion". Please fix the lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 00:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as the match wont take place for another 11 months Cena vary well may not have the Championship when this match takes place if it takes place at all.--SteamIron 01:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the IP mistakenly interpreted the article to read that the match would only take place if Cena remained the WWE Champion. What the article actually does is only make note of Cena's statement that the match would be for the WWE Championship should he remain the WWE Champion by WrestleMania. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The page claims:

John Cena told him that their match will also be for the WWE Championship should Cena still be champion at that time.

Quite frankly... that is a disgrace. I have seen the entire episode myself a few times and not once did Cena mention any condition of him being the champion. The article is both wrong and the current version of the entry is a blatant lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

see here and here (from the 4/11/11 edition of Raw or 2nd Raw after WrestleMania XXVII) and here (from the 5/2/11 edition of Raw) ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. The match has been said it will be for the title and not "if I'm the champion". Cena said he will keep the title.

Why has the page not be changed from the former lie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Because Cena might not be champion by that time next year.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

True but the lie is indeed still there. I do not recall (not will anyone who watched the clip) John Cena saying what is claimed in the lies on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So you want us to change it to John Cena (c) vs. The Rock, Singles match for the WWE Championship?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, edit out the lie that says Cena said things he did not say. And secondly, yes, the match (so far) is for the title. Should it change (via a GM announement, Cena losing the title or maybe Dwayne not wanting to wrestle, then obviously we will update it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Better?--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

While not 100% correct (personally, I'd have added a small * that explains that Cena said he would have to get the title from him). It did remove the lies, so thank you for finally reverting the lies. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeaaaah... unfortunately I had to revert the changes you requested. First and foremost its not a lie and if you have a problem with it, go write a blog complaining about it. Secondly, wikipedia has policies and guidelines to which all content has to adhere by... particularly, WP:CRYSTAL notes that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." What this simply means is that, because of the lack of certainty that Cena will remain the WWE Champion by WrestleMania XXVIII, we cannot include text indicating that the match between Cena and The Rock will be for the WWE Championship at this time.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing that lie mentioned "John Cena told him that their match will also be for the WWE Championship should Cena still be champion at that time" in the link that was given here... Perhaps you can link me to a video of Cena saying otherwise? You know well Cena said (had you actually bothered to watch the video) it would be for the title. I understand how you think (and you are right... to an extent) except this time Cena did not say that disgusting lie (and it is a lie) in the article. Why are you not fixing the lie? Why did you revert it to a lie? Tell me where John Cena told him that their match will also be for the WWE Championship should Cena still be champion at that time. Please tell me because in the Raw episode dedicated to the Rock's Birthday... Cena said something different to what was written in the article. Furthermore, there are links even provided here in this discussion and yet you somehow want to say they... wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know its just so damn disgusting...eeww, ugh, yuck! I'm gonna go out on a limb here and call WP:TROLL.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are refusing to watch the RAW video and notice what Cena says and are instead ignoring it?

I did ask you to tell me where Cena said the lie; if you do not prove to me where he said was is claimed in the article, I will go beyond you and ask an admin to look at it. I'm not asking for the matches to be changed (I understand that is a "expectation" based on what Cena has said). However, he in now way did say what is written in that... "article". And I do not find your trolling comments to be entertaining either; nor do I find you trying to make me out to be a troll entertaining either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to entertain your argument for a second. Say I just won, oh what the bugger do you all like in Dublin... Gaelic football! Say I just won the Gaelic football championship or whatever... and in my post-game interview I declare that next year I'm going to win the cup again. You think we here on Wikipedia or going to simply type my name up as the Gaelic football champion for the following year? No. As I mentioned above, Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines that pretty thoroughly dictates how content is to be handled within articles. One such policy is WP:CRYSTAL, which I mentioned above. It is due to this that my name cannot be mentioned as the forthcoming Gaelic football champion (sigh)... and that we cannot note the stipulation of the match at WrestleMania at this time.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, explain why you think Cena said the match will be for the title if he's the champion and stop trying to troll. Personally, I've seen the episode a good few times and I have noticed that Cena says the same thing each time. Link to the video where he says the wording (exactly the wording) that is quoted in the article otherwise, I'm calling you a vandal and reporting you since you obviously won't look at the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Call me what you want, but policy is policy. I'll attempt to clarify the situation once again. On the April 4 edition of WWE Raw, the night after WrestleMania XXVII (27), John Cena challenges The Rock to a match at next year's WrestleMania XXVIII (28). The Rock accepts and the match becomes officially announced as noted by WWE.com. [1] A week later on April 11, John Cena declares the match should be for the WWE Championship and thus promises to challenge the WWE Champion at the time The Miz and win the title. 3:49 - 5:25 On May 2, having defeated The Miz for the WWE Championship on May 1 at the WWE Extreme Rules event, John Cena confronts The Rock and declares his intention to keep the title until WreslteMania XXVIII (28). [2] Did I miss anything? If so or not, proceed with your intent to seek a 3rd party to review your case... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see where John claimed anything that even infers "should Cena still be champion at that time". But the more important factor is that the article in Wikipedia claims John said infered it.

I still ask for you to give me some sort of link that shows it. If you cannot, you are denying Wikipedia users the right to publish facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh is that what you're moaning about? The wording? That's fine. And I'll correct you on one thing, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia in which anyone can contribute, provided such contributions follow the policies and guidelines set in place by the Wikipedia community. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Give me a link where he says the words. I am well aware of what Wikipedia is; it is not a place for you to say what others have not said.

Give me a link from WWE.com that lists the match at WrestleMania XXVIII as being for the WWE Championship per WP:BURDEN.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand why you want that. The lies is what John said... what is said on Wikipedia is not what was said by John. The match matters not. The fact is, you claim one thing, links provided prove your "facts" as an opinion and as such, it should be corrected but you refuse to do so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok now you're just trolling.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 00:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you or can you not provide the segement where said what is claimed in the current article? Do not call me a troll or try to throw this discussion onto a different sport as you have done so. Just answer what I have asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There's no need for that since the article is already cited by WP:RS. It is now your turn to provide a source from WWE.com that lists the match as so.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The link has be given. The saying has not changed. The lies still exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The content is already cited. And do not forget to sign your comments. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:30, 17 June 2011

(UTC)

Stop. Stop, right now, please? You are wrong. If you view The Rock's Birthday Bash, you would see where the lie is made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough of your trolling. You will have no more responses from me on the matter. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you or can you not provide a direct quote where John said different (as in an actual official source) on the matter? I do not believe you can; it is impossible. The "quote" is not a quote and I want it removed (as I have asked several times now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a Reliable source to back up the changes that you would like to see happen. Have a wonderful day.--SteamIron 02:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbeul94-duw

That is a link and that shows what John said. It shows that the current article is a lie. Please fix this ugly lie soon, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You tube is not a Reliable source plus us listing it as for the WWE championship violates WP:CRYSTAL. You need to provide a source that stats that Cena will still have the title come next year. Tell then it says the way it is. Have a wonderful day.--SteamIron 03:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you already edited it to reflect my changes! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But no mention of the promise? Why not? Also, I know you are both ganging up on me to discredit me... which you are fine to do. But neither of you seem to want to remove the the lies that "was said by Mr. John Cena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Guys, Other Stuff Exists you do realize that don't you? This pointless discussion has gone on long enough. Other Stuff Exists people.--Voices in my Head WWE 16:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Request to update the background

As you may know by now, I have contacted the website known as: http://www.wrestlingnewssource.com and I have successfully shown the editor of the article: http://www.wrestlingnewssource.com/feed_results-380-WWE_RAW_Results_%2852%29.php the error (where he claimed Cena would only wrestle Rock for the title); the change has yet not been reflected in Wikipedia and yet still claims the article as a source. Please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Rock Vs Cena

So the sources fixed the error but Wikipedia won't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

/* Scheduled matches */ Reverting possible vandalism (there was no mention of an Austin Vs CM Punk match),

I need help with this; I'm unable to seperate the matches from the Reference section so I left it as it was before I edited it. Can someone please fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.20.87 (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2011

If Bryan's cash-in is not 100%, then neither is Rock-Cena!

I added back in the Bryan cash-in this morning, and see that an earlier removal of it said "the match is not 100%". The fact is that the match is no less "announced" than Rock-Cena. So if we're going to remove that, then we must remove Rock-Cena as well! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcade (talk • contribs) 08:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually Rock V cena is certain. The rock V cena match is been mentioned on the wwe travel packages advertisements. Do you not remember when Ken Anderson said he was going to cash in the case he won at one years wrestle mania. Two things happened there 1 he lost the case to Edge. So how do we even know bryan will have the case come WM28 and 2 ken was not even with the company by that time.

So for all we know bryan could not even by with the company by then or even have the case. There is too many variables for it to pass wp:crystal so would be a breach of policy to add the bryan match (Ruth-2013 (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC))

On what grounds is Rock-Cena certain and Bryan-??? not? Rock could get injured training/in a movie, Cena could get Syracused by a bunch of angry CM Punk fans and be out for a year. Once Bryan said "I'm cashing for a Mania XXVIII title shot.", that match became as announced as Rock-Cena. So we have both, or we have neither. My point is, if we have one announced match, we now have two. If the second match is "not announced", neither is the first. And as for the travel packages, you have heard of the concept of "Card Subject to Change", have you not? --Starcade (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ADDITIONALLY to Ruth-2013: If you're going to source the Mania XXVIII travel package ads as absolute confirmation of Rock-Cena (even controverting "Card Subject to Change", which I can damned well guarantee is probably on all such advertisements!), then we need that sourcing in the travel package advertisements here, please. --Starcade (talk) 01:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not true the WWE themselves have confirmed rock Vcena they have not confirmed bryans match, as the case contains to many issues it breaches wp:crystal to add this which is wikipedia policy, whereas cenaVrock has been confirmed by wwe in there many advertisements for wm28 it does not. There is already a sentence in the article that states bryans intention to cash in at wm28, however at the minute thats all it is. There could be a change of storyline between now and then, they could do a storyline in 2 months for all we know where the champ is at his weakest and he cash in early. As rock,cena has featured in advertisements from wwe is highly correct to add it here, whereas daniel bryans match has not and there is too many variables which makes it a breach of WP: crystal. However a sentence or two saying his intentions to cash in is needed in the article, this is however no by no means a confirmed match yet (Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC))

Frankly, baloney. Let's call it for what it is: You almost seem like what Bryan himself believed the WWE was trying to do to him in NXT I -- it's as if you KNOW he's not going to be in the match. At least come out and admit you believe he's going to get the briefcase yanked from him (a la another WWE-rejected star, Mr. Kennedy/Anderson, shortly before his departure). The fact is that the WWE itself announced that Daniel Bryan stated on the 7/22 Smackdown that he was going to cash in his case at Mania XXVIII. At that moment, and with the source-material of the 7/22 results, that match went on the Mania card, whether you (or Vince McMahon) likes it or not! They haven't even had time to (within the timeline) put it in "advertising" or what have you, but the fact is that the moment he said "I'm cashing in for my shot at Wrestlemania XXVIII" (or words similar), that match became as announced as Rock-Cena. Neither match may happen -- I could openly see Rock getting injured in training or a bunch of CM Punk fans literally punking Cena out of the WWE for the next 12 months.

We can change these designations later, if it changes (one of the charms of Wikipedia) -- but we can no more or less believe that match won't be on the card as me saying that the Rock-Cena match (seemingly in stone, but where's the contract-signing angle, etc.?) won't be either. You're being disingenuous, frankly, and I do not like this whatsoever. The information we presently have and can encyclopedic-ly verify is that we either have two matches on the card so far (Rock-Cena and Bryan-whomever) or NEITHER match can be considered on the card. --Starcade (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Starcade, what does your point have to do with anything?--Voices in my Head WWE 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Answer to your question: Do you believe the Cena-Rock match is signed for Mania XXVIII? If your answer is yes, then justify how Bryan's cash-in is not, as of this time, signed (without basically showing a Vince-like bias against Daniel Bryan -- for what it's worth, he either cashes the case at Mania XXVIII or he's not in WWE by then!) --Starcade (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just been looking and there is a lot of websites with the travel package info so this can be used to source what I am saying. So that part is clear. Now onto bryan match its happened in the past wrestler says cash in is at wrestlemania then it dont happen. I will remind you that all edits at wikipedia must be verifiable. How can the bryan match come under verifiable with two many variables that could happen. Because of the variables the Bryan match don't pass wp:crystal which I will remind you is wikipedia policy which states wikipedia should not become a crystal ball. As such it needs to be left out till it is set in stone or a cash in happens. So in the case your information you want adding is incorrect because it does not meet wikipedias policy that all edits are verifiable because of the variables unlike rockVcena which has plenty of internet based sources and wwe have announced it on there advertisements. The Bryan Match dont pass WP:Crystal either so far you have not based any of your arguments on wikipedia policy and mine has been(Ruth-2013 (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

If you've watched wrestling for FIVE MINUTES, you know the concept of "Card Subject to Change". I, in fact, HAD sourced Bryan-??? with the 7/22 Smackdown results. My point is this: Since Bryan announced that he was cashing at Mania, he holds (in storyline) the unilateral right to make that declaration. Therefore, no agreement was needed, such as the one in the Rock-Cena promo.

Hence, you have two choices, include both matches, or declare both matches violations of WP:Crystal (which also was invoked on the WWE Championship page when we put the next title reign in the chart as either Mysterio or The Miz) and remove them. As of the moment (and CSTC), either both matches are on the card, or they're both "crystal ball" effects. --Starcade (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

From WP:Crystal, Ruth:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.

Bryan's cash-in would qualify under wrestling concepts as notable, and, at least within the current-known storyline, is certain to take place unless he loses the briefcase, is injured, something tragic, etc. The "speculation" about the event is documented in the 7/22 Smackdown results. Ergo, I do not believe, by Wikipedia's own definition of WP:Crystal, that it applies here.

I am now tempted to state that your action is not in good faith, in that you believe (as many WWE fans probably do) that Vince McMahon will not have enough faith in Bryan not to take the briefcase from him and remove him from the company in fairly short order. (Basically, that he's a 192-pound Vegan with zero personality and a wrestler in a promotion attempting to distance itself from wrestling, and has no place ever sniffing the title!) If he has the briefcase removed, we can remove it later. As things stand now, it's NOT WP:Crystal, or Cena-Rock is as well. Again, "CARD SUBJECT TO CHANGE". --Starcade (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no breach of good faith here, the rock cena match has been announced by official sources and on sites detailing the travel packages info that is fact. The fictional television show smackdown if your only source for a bryan match, this does not meat wikipedia policy of been verifiable. There is too many things that could change with that brief case which makes it fail the policy of been verifiable. There has already been an example of someone not been able to cash in after saying he would do so at a past wrestlemania. I have already suggested that is should mentioned in the article in a few sentences but lets call a spade a spade its just a potential match because its not been officially announced yet however it should not be in the tables till we know for a fact it will go ahead. You can say all you want that advertisements say subject to change but however as rock V cena is already on those advertisements it makes it appropriate to be listed in the table. The Daniel bryan match just needs more official sources before its added which at the minute is don't have. Wrestling dirt sheets are not classed as official either because they tend to write about storyline. See rock cena is on travel packages so that is 100% official, wwe smackdown is scripted which makes it fail WP:crystal and the policy of edits been verifiable. I am also 100% certain when other members see this discussion they will see that I am right on this one. As a failed WM cash in has happened before this also means its not dead cert to happen which also breached wp:crystal and it seams your the only one who can not see that. Can I ask did you put this info that breached the policy in the article in the first place? Is that why your defensive about it(Ruth-2013 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

Unless you continue to wish to rewrite the storyline for your own benefit and against the likes of people you don't want to see main-eventing a brand's Wrestlemania efforts, you are wrong. You are, as of now, factually wrong about a whole bunch of things. First, the whole wrestling paradigm is "fictional" and scripted -- using WP:Crystal to deny that means we should remove every future wrestling event from Wikipedia, since they ALL fail WP:Crystal by your argument just above. Ergo, even the announcement of Rock-Cena is on as "fictional" a program as last Friday's Smackdown. Second, the moment he said, "I'm cashing for Mania" (or words similar), that match was announced. One of the beauties of Wikipedia is that we can change it later if the situation requires. Third, if you are sourcing travel packages, etc., we need those links in the Rock-Cena part of the article, and you still openly disregard what has to be in every last one of those packages -- "CARD SUBJECT TO CHANGE". I believe there is no more nor less probability that Rock-Cena occurs than Bryan-WHC.

I'm "defensive about it" for three reasons: 1) I did put it on there at least once after it was removed. 2) It is, frankly, discriminatory on the basis of the stature of the performers involved to keep Rock-Cena (two legends) and deny Bryan (a guy you probably don't even want in the WWE right now -- that's a very common view in the WWE Universe!). 3) Bluntly, I believe that you not only believe that WWE will deny Bryan the shot, but that they should deny him the shot, and you're attempting to impose that on this page. That's why I believe this has failed "good faith", until and unless he loses the case.

I am no more or less "dead cert(ain)" of the Bryan-WHC match than I am Rock-Cena. Hell, we want to go there? You remember Mania VIII, I believe it was, and how it was "supposed to be" Hogan-Flair? Both matches go up, or neither goes up. If Bryan fails WP:Crystal, then come back to me circa Royal Rumble 2012 and the like before I will even give consideration that Rock-Cena does not fail WP:Crystal for the same reason. --Starcade (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Another thought on this, rock cena is separate because of been advertised on the travel packages to the bryan match so will only speak about that, the only way I can see the bryan match been able to be added safely in the manor you wish is if it mentioned on the table the match goes ahead if he has the case. Under neath the table bold text is temporally added to say card subject to changes and the text at the top of the the page stay at been one match on the card but also add a sentence to say there is also a potential second match on the card or something to that effect. Then if anyone removes the changes to the above restore it and direct editor to talk page discussion in reverting edit description. That is the only way I could say its safe to put it in because then its clear that the match may not go ahead. And I would be going out on a limb with the above suggestion as the match just is not verifiable. But would be prepared to accept it added under only these circumstances so it would be widely known it may not go ahead. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

The Bryan match fails WP:Crystal no matter what as its not officially announced by WWE to take place plus there also isn't any main stream media coverage, there's also no way it can be added as what you said Ruth is classified as Original research--Dcheagle 02:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Then what the Hell do you call what Bryan did Friday night? Good grief, are you guys that dense not to understand what he announced in that promo? Or is it simply that you don't want a 192-pound Vegan with no personality and miles of wrestling experience on the Wrestlemania XXVIII card, or even in WWE when Mania XXVIII occurs? --Starcade (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Dcheagle, Like I said I was going out on a limb here. Most of my arguments where based on policy however I will be honest I have read every wiki policy but wp:or which I have now read since you posted. As the bryan match don't meat policy it should not be added at all. I know I was correct with my original posts however I was attempting a compromise. But as it would be classed as a breach of wp:or the compromise is moot. The bryan match should not be added as there is just too many breaches of policy on it. These are wp:or and wp:crystal (Ruth-2013 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

I am going to way one thing and one thing alone, I have not vandalized this article as you have accused me of in your edit descriptions. I have based my arguments on the policy here which you have clearly shown you do not understand. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

I'm doing something over on WWE Championship and the champions' list to make a point. If what you believe I am proposing here with Daniel Bryan is WP:Crystal, then the entire current WWE Championship scenario is also WP:Crystal, and we don't even have a verified idea as to who is WWE Champion is or what the valid lineage is at all. For the same reason, is the "vacation" and tournament similarly WP:Crystal, especially given some very real storyline questions which were never really addressed? This is why you default back to what I stated when I quoted you Wikipedia's own "not a crystal ball" situation. Under your guise of WP:Crystal, not only do you reverse any mention of Miz/Mysterio, you must also reverse everything which was announced on the 7/18 RAW, including the title strippage! But then is CM Punk even the champion at all, given several factors in the storyline going back to the "worked shoot" promo? If you want to open a WP:Crystal can of worms, then pro wrestling is a very bad place to be following announced events here on Wikipedia! You would basically have to accuse me openly of being unable to read simple English to come to any other conclusion! --Starcade (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not getting into this with you. The bryan match is a breach against policy, for one thing there is no opponent, 2 the match has not been officially announced other than a few scripted comments from bryan that dont count unlike your example which has been advertised to take place next week on by the wwe in tv advertisements. SO bryan is clearly still a breach if wp:crystal and wp:or. Me and another user have explained the policy ample time to you but you don't wish to listen. I am not going to post on here anymore as you clearly don't understand policy here. However any attempt to add the bryan match will be met with the appropriate edit warnings and reverts of page, per wikipedia policy which you clearly dont understand at all(Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

WRONG, WRONG, and WRONG again. His opponent is the World Heavyweight Champion at the time, as a previous edit actually had in the chart! If that's a violation of WP:OR, then so is EVERY WWE-SOURCED STATEMENT ON WWE CONTENT. Don't open that can of worms unless you want pro wrestling to be irrevocably altered on Wikipedia! If it's WP:Crystal, then see my argument on the current Raw title situation. This is going to end up in front of the Admins -- there's no way around it. You're probably going to have to have me blocked from at least this page. If "I don't understand policy here" because I refuse to bend over and kiss your entire ass, then "I don't understand policy here" and you had better get somebody to me who does. --Starcade (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It makes no real sense to add the Bryan match right now. In addition to all that's been said here, we don't know anything about the nature of the match, who's to say the Royal Rumble winner might also compete for the World Title, making it a Triple Threat? Who's to say that Bryan might not change his mind (in story of course)? The only thing KNOWN at this point is the character of Daniel Bryan, in story, has announced his INTENTION to cash in at Wrestlemania 28. The difference with Rock-Cena, is that the WWE itself has announced the intention to have Rock-Cena happen at this event, OUT OF STORY and that is the difference

here.--Evil Maldini (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And that's where you get into the whole WP:Crystal argument, which I can't even get an acceptable answer with on the help desk. I am not going to have someone else's reality enforced upon me, on Wikipedia or anyplace else. If that's a problem, have me blocked or banned and do it quickly! The character of Daniel Bryan, the moment he declared intention, put that match on the card. If that intention (see Kennedy-Edge) changes, WE CAN REMOVE IT LATER! The only reason the WWE announced Rock-Cena, and you still need to source "out of story" announcement in that regard, is because the character of The Rock and the character of John Cena stated the very same level of intention to face each other at Wrestlemania. Or is it the fact that you (collectively) believe Daniel Bryan is scum and that the position of The Rock and Cena as legends gives them the right to impose that reality that Bryan has not and will never have earned? And, as for the Triple Threat option -- very correct -- same thing, WE CAN CHANGE IT LATER WHEN IT HAPPENS. Another option already proposed is that the Royal Rumble winner would face the WHC, and THEN Bryan cashes in. But what level of intention breaks WP:Crystal?

As I said, I'm probably going to have to be blocked from editing at least this page in very short order, since I do not accept your decisions and you do not accept mine. --Starcade (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia also works on consensus and the current consensus is not to add the match. Two users say its a breach of policy. If we based this on consensus and put the policies to one side it would still be a 3 to 1 for not adding the match. However the match breaches WP:crystal and wp:or which are wikipedia policies. I am not adding anymore to this now because you clearly have no understanding on policy (Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

I'm going to explain this as simple as I can, No match has been officially announced by the WWE between Bryan and who ever holds the WHC as such if the match is added again I and many others will remove it as it fails WP:Cyrstal--Dcheagle 00:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Dcheagle above. Dayewalker (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Rock just mentioned that he will be "kicking Cena's ass" on Survivor Series, so the match might not be at Wrestlemania. He tweeted it though, however since he works for the WWE as a nonperformer should we take his word?66.65.84.141 (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We would need to see. It could very well be possible that the Rock could interfere in one of Cena's matches and "kick his ass" without there being a match between them at that time. We should leave the match as it unless there is an official announcement that the match was moved to Survivor Series.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 02:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Guys, Other Stuff Exists you do realize that don't you? This pointless discussion has gone on long enough. Other Stuff Exists people.--Voices in my Head WWE 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan

Should Daniel Bryan's supposed title match be on here. He has now tried to cash in his briefcase twice before Wrestlemania. There is no reason to believe he will wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.37.127 (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 23 November 2011

<Jimmy Hard Nails vs The Undertaker><To end the streak>

82.36.34.56 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CTJF83 16:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011

please change "2 matches" to "1 match" the matter has been discussed before

The Mizzzzz (My Talkkkkk) 05:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ive made the changes.--Dcheagle 08:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011

30 November 2010

16 April 2012 Thearticleupdater20 (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Daniel Bryan's match should be removed, this has been discussed before and conclusions have been reached, no need to bring the matter up again. Also this page should be fully protected for awhile.

The Mizzzzz (My Talkkkkk) 04:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of "Charlie" in the article. This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - ie, I don't know what you want me to change.  Chzz  ►  07:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Daniel Bryan vs. TBC

Listing this was clutching at straws to begin with, as there's not even a match. The version of this article driven by its enthusiasts pushes an angle where "Bryan declared he would cash in his Money in the Bank briefcase at WrestleMania XXVIII", completely ignoring the fact he tried to cash it in on Mark Henry and confirmed that cashing in at WM is no longer his plan on the November 29 edition of Raw. There, Michael Cole interviewed Bryan, calling him a "hypocrite". Bryan responded by saying, "I had big plans for this [the briefcase], I had planned to main event WrestleMania, but guess what? Plans change, and my plans changed when Mark Henry tried to induct me into his hall of pain. He tried to end my career, and that's when I realised that this doesn't guarantee me anything." This really is a no-brainer, but people seem to be intent on rigging the article to reflect two confirmed, scheduled and advertised matches, and waving around an entirely weightless claim of "project consensus" as the grounds for doing so. Wwewrestlingmadman (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

What you're missing is that WWE still lists the match for WrestleMania as of this morning. Something could change but until WWE removes the match from their WrestleMania card we have to acknowledge it. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Outdated websites carry little weight. If a dead pop singer's site still lists tour dates, does that mean they're still alive? A little common sense would be useful. Wwewrestlingmadman (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about a dead celebrity though, we're talking about a fixed storyline, the storyline is ongoing and the latest information suggest the match will still happen at Mania. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we semi act like adults here Wwewrestlingmadaman do you have a link that states that the match wont take place at WW.--Dcheagle 22:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

CR no offense but WWE isn't as predictable as this website makes it seem like. If anything WWE is more like Kim Kardashians marrige (not black and white). And before you say I'm crystallballing here, let me remind yall Christian was supposed to take part in Survivor Series but an injury has him out for the next couple of months.--Voices in my Head WWE 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

So? He was confirmed for the match up til the moment he was injured. Your argument makes no sense. By that logic, let's delete the TLC article, someone might be injured before the PPV. You argument is flawed in the sense that what is announced will happen unless something happens. Sure Bryan could be injured, but we don't go by that until something happens other wise it would crystal balling. Here's point I'm trying to make, just because something can go wrong doesn't mean it will and until something does we go by what the sources say, the sources say at this point the match will happen. Please quit speculating. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 23:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, as long as WWE is still advertising the match on WWE.com, we must report it as so. Sure, Bryan did attempt to cash it in, but now that he has received the briefcase back, he can cash it any time he wants to and Bryan did not say explicitly say that he was not cashing it in at Mania. Likewise, WWE also did not announce that Bryan is not cashing in at Mania because the match is still advertised at WWE.com. If you want to go by the terribly flawed argument that "injuries / shit can happen... look at Christian at Survivor Series" then we might as well not report any match at all for any future event. Injuries can happen to the Rock. Injuries could happen to John Cena. Why are you not pushing for the removal of this other match then? The ring could collapse again before the Royal Rumble. Let's not state on Wikipedia that WWE is advertising a Royal Rumble match. You guys seem to forget that what Wikipedia is doing is reporting what WWE is advertising. We report exactly what they advertise because the most accurate source for the promotion of future WWE matches on PPV is WWE itself. Therefore if they promote a match we should jolly well follow them. Starship.paint (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to write a long paragraph on this trivial matter. This is a common sense issue. It's plainly incompetent for anyone to want to remove Daniel Bryan's match from the article. It might not happen, but we're not interested in "mights". The article is about the PPV and WWE is advertising this as one of the matches. End of discussion. Feedback ^☎ 06:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We're heading towards re-affirming the original consensus. Can't say I'm surprised. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 08:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Outside Comment - In all fairness (though this point will contribute nothing towards the argument for removing or keeping the debated mention), the "card is always subject to change". Just something to keep in mind. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 03:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback can you ever say something that isn't dickish.--Voices in my Head WWE 04:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How was he dickish? Blunt yes, but dickish? How? CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 06:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Truthfully, it was a bit distasteful in its wording and tone from my personal perspective. I will remind User:Feedback that common sense isn't common which is why there is no common sense. I'll also remind all involved parties that the so-called implication of "common sense" is nothing more than the personal perspective of the involved party. Please fully read and understand the policy you are citing before choosing to do so. That said, based on these last few comments posted, I personally believe all involved parties could do with a reading of WP:CIVIL. Perhaps, a reading of WP:DBAD wouldn't hurt as well, all things considered.... ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 06:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah who cares, so what he's dickish? It always gets a chuckle out of me.--Deely talk 05:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm very blunt, and I admit sometimes a little dickish. It's more of an instinctual nature, but I usually apologize if someone is overly offended. I guess I was kind of "dickish" to call someone incompetent, but I have to disagree with Goku's evil son over here because I definitely believe this falls in the realm of commons sense. By the way, common sense is something the common person would consider obvious, it doesn't mean that everybody will agree on it. If everybody did, it wouldn't be common, it would be freaking universal. Anyway, the match is advertised to happen so we put it in the article. As simple as that. If someone doesn't get that, I don't think he's paying enough attention. Feedback ^☎ 07:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the garbage content is gone. Wwewrestlingmadman (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, remember to be civil. There was no need for that comment. It was not "garbage content" as it was official up til last night. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 21:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, a match that was officially promoted by the WWE is not garbage content regardless of the fact that the MITB contract was cashed in earlier anymore than the mentioning the Rock Cena match would be if the match is later cancelled because Cena injured himself next week and was out for seven months.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a previous consensus not to add this content here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WrestleMania_XXVIII/Archive_1#If_Bryan.27s_cash-in_is_not_100.25.2C_then_neither_is_Rock-Cena.21 It really is bad form not to check the archives for previous discussions and if re opening the discussion is the way you still wanted to go it is polite to ask previous participants if they want to contribute here. What was done here was rude and really bad form. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 05:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC))

That was apparently the first consensus before WWE officially started advertising "Bryan vs WHC holder" on WWE.com just like they advertised "Rock vs Cena" at WWE.com, after that, a second consensus was reached to keep the content since WWE was actually promoting the Bryan match. It was probably bad form to not ask the previous participants, but I wasn't really paying attention to the archives and the consensus stuff was posted in the WP:PW portal to alert people to the third (current) discussion. You should check the WP:PW talk page anyway if you are contributing to the project. Starship.paint (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What happened here is pretty simple. At first we have a declaration by Bryant that he would cash the MIBT contract at WrestleMania 28. It was not formally announced at the time so there was a consensus not to include it. Afterwards, the WWE did promote the match as happening at WrestleMania so a new consensus was formed since circumstanced had changed. After Bryant later tried a failed to cash the contract in and failed there was an attempt to remove the match but the consensus was to keep the match here since he still had the contract and the WWE was still promoting the WrestleMania match. Finally, it was removed for good because the contract was cashed and Bryant won the title.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be removed now as Daniel bryan cashed in on the Big show at the 2011 TLC PPV

It was actually removed days ago. The original discussion started before the victory or the BIG Show.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012

The picture for the article is wrong, it is not the official poster.

Ttajb087 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It's the logo in the banner at the top of this page. What's the problem? — Bility (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXVIII Theme Song

The official theme song is "Invincible" by Machine Gun Kelly. This should be noted on here http://www.sescoops.com/wrestling-news/wwe/wm28-theme-song-hbk-at-smackdown-this-week-more/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.135.253 (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2012

|theme = "Invincible" by Machine Gun Kelly

99.252.53.121 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source in the section above doesn't seem reliable. Thanks. Celestra (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2012

CAN I EDIT THIS PAGE PLEASE! Treeear (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 February 2012

Big Show vs. Cody Rhodes (C)

Kane vs. Randy Orton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.104.118 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As always, when the match is confirmed on WWE.com, it can be added to the page. Until then, every such edit will be undone.--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Harryfenwick (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no match between the two booked. – Richard BB 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Primary vs Secondary sources

I would advise all editors of this article to read over WP:PRIMARY very carefully. Secondary sources are always preferred over primary sources, and the notion that only primary sources can be used is pretty ludicrous. You're free to have that change requested through an RFC on the verifiability policy, but I do not think you will be successful. I also question the fact that BleacherReport is not a reliable source. On that note, I will be adding the source back in, as I've sought opinions from others and they too think that it's a reliable source. Refer to the alexa ratings as well, which mean very little, but quite clearly shows that it is a reliable source. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Bleacher Report is an unreliably source per WP:Self-published sources and WP:PW Style guide. I wont remove it yet but you will need to find a more reliable source that is not the Bleacher Report.--Dcheagle 02:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It didn't look like a self published source to me, however I see it is from looking at the article on Bleacher Report, so my bad there. I've added a different source .As for the second aspect, see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The opinions of a WikiProject cannot override site-wide policies, such as verifiability. If a secondary source details something, then it is preferred over a primary source (like WWE.com) and the notion that primary sources only are OK, is very unusual, and against policy. I think common sense applies here. I didn't make it up, I watched SmackDown last night (in Australia) when the match was announced. I really could have cited the episode itself, to be honest, but I picked a secondart source and used that. I rarely edit articles related to wrestling (I rarely edit articles at all, my experience is within dispute resolution) but I think a little good faith is in order here in the future. There's a reason we're losing editors, edit summaries like this smell strongly of OWNership issues. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 05:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the information to be cited here is WWE's advertised WM28 matches... So in my opinion the most reliable source for that would actually be the primary source, WWE.com itself, rather than another secondary source. Surely WWE would be best placed to know what they themselves are advertising? If one would want an additional secondary source one could always go to one of the sources in the WP:PW Style guide, but I feel that the primary source should definitely be cited first in this particular scenario. Starship.paint (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page (in response to Steven), sticking with the primary source in this scenario is preferable. Every day, we have to undo edit after edit of individuals adding matches that are a.) unsourced b.) strictly based on spoilers or c.) speculative based on storyline. In cases a. and c., it's cut and dry -- it's unsourced. In case b., spoilers don't always make it TV, which means a future announced match at the TV taping may not actually happen. I understand your argument that the show aired in Australia, and thus you were reporting from what has already been seen/reported elsewhere. But for the sake of keeping the page from getting completely out of control with speculation and spoilers, sticking with WWE.com as the sole source helps editors maintain verifiability. I also understand that you took issue with my phrasing of my edit, and I will apologize for that. It was simply a matter of frustration over having to undo the same edit about five times already. So while I stand by my reason for the edit, I will apologize that my verbiage could have been less harsh.--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I agree 100% with Starship and Mr. Unicorn. InFlamester20 (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

wrestle mania

are smackdown spoilers gunna b relased as theyre posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.176.105 (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a wrestling message board.--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 20:47 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Edit request on 22 March 2012

insert memory remains by metallica as an official theme song, because it is the official theme song used to promote the undertaker vs triple h match. A reference for this would be that it has been used to promote the Undertaker vs. Triple H match, and has been referred to on multiple occasions, most recently on wwe superstars on 03/29/2012, as an offical wrestlemania theme song.

Mentions on television do not count as verifiable sources. It must be written and verified via an official WWE statement/article, such as WWE.com.--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thekingwikigod (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done do you have a source?--Dcheagle 08:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Match 9

Could someone put on the triple threat tag title match that it's a dark match airing on Youtube? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amack17 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Lazy. I bet you get food stamps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees317 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Match times

Shouldn't the times of the matches be included as well? This has been done in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees317 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that a couple of match times have been left empty. The time for Orton/Kane is 10:56 and Rhodes/Show 5:18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.64.100 (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Big Show

he wins — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGrayzz (talk • contribs) 23:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

we know Jeremyeyork (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

hindu

get this indian, hindu propagandha out of here!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.237.220 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Metallica & Madonna songs

Metallica should be before Madonna since it was announced as the "4th" theme song about a week before hers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.190.182 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Event

When are we going to add to the page what happen at Wrestlemania 28. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

True, I wonder why they did not do it for a couple past PPVs like Vengeance of 2011.Attention, if you like writing out each match of every PPV , here's your list:

Vengeance (2011)
Hell in a Cell (2011)
Night of Champions (2011)
WWE Capital Punishment
Over the Limit (2011)
Elimination Chamber (2011)
Royal Rumble (2011)
TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2010)
Hell in a Cell (2010)
Night of Champions (2010)
SummerSlam (2010)
Money in the Bank (2010)
Extreme Rules (2010)

All in 2010-2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan123235 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well one, there are hardly any editors active anymore and to expand a PPV is hard and takes alot of work. Finding the sources, the correct information, keeping it in line with guides such as Jargon, In universe, fiction, etc.--WillC 20:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2012

Undertaker pinned Triple H. There was no submission as listed in the results. My Source: LOL! watching it on pay per view at a buddies house (twice)

68.105.233.94 (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC) :That is correct. The source for the submission is actually covering the match the two had Wrestlemania 27 which was a no holds barred match and not a Hell in a Cell match as was the case here. I`ll also include a source from WWE.COM to show that the victory came from a pin after a tombstone and not a submission. [[3]]. It needs to be changed.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind what I wrote before the background part was regarding the previous Wrestlemania. Though I do see that the other change was made.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Already done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 April 2012

Please change the description of the events of the Undertaker/Triple H match in the match summary.

Undertaker defeated Triple H via pinfall, NOT submission.

Source: wwe.com

Darkranger17 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done I will go changed it. It was listed as via pinfall dont know who changed it.--Dcheagle 02:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The title of the next event is Extreme Rules (2012) and not WWE Extreme Rules (2012). This user ignored the protection and created other pages with different titles. 177.119.116.170 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done link has been changed--Dcheagle 22:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2012

The title of the next event is Extreme Rules (2012) and not WWE Extreme Rules 2012. This user ignored the protection and created other page with different title. 177.119.114.109 (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So what to change? it's a redirect... and don't post at two pages the same request! mabdul 08:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

problem solved. Starship.paint (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The Rock vs Cena and Triple H vs The Undertaker were the best matches, CM Punk vs Chris Jericho was also great, — Preceding unsigned comment added by HKK1991 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012

Can someone please update the buyrate from 1.3 million buys to 1.21 million buys now that more accurate numbers have come out? one source: http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2012/0524/552900/

Done --Six words (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 July 2012

Another update on the buyrate. WWE is now saying the had 1.14 million buys for the show. Can the following please be changed:

WrestleMania XXVIII set new records for pay-per-view buys and gross sales, garnering 1.21 million buys, making it the most bought wrestling event in history

to:

WrestleMania XXVIII set new records for gross sales, garnering 1.14 million buys, making it the second most bought wrestling event in history

Source: http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1341167944

 Done, My wording was a little different is all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 May 2012

Can someone please change the caption under the picture of Sun Life Stadium from "An attendance record setting 78,363 fans at Sun Life Stadium for WrestleMania XXVIII" to something like "78,363 fans at Sun Life Stadium for WrestleMania XXVIII" ?

It wasn't a record, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_BCS_National_Championship_Game

As a side note, it's impossible for the WWE to have even come close to the number they announced since the stage takes up so much of the seats. Nothing to update here. I know it's accepted that they inflate their numbers just to try to make a new record each time, and that a lot of other promoters do it too, but it still irks me. Just had to say that. lol

 Done Yer wish is my command. Egg Centric 00:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Results

Guys, look at the Results section. It looks like someone thought it would be funny to change the name of The Rock to "The Cock". lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.163.219 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 28 wasn't the most purchased event,it was Wrestlemania 23

http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1353181055 It says "To update on a previous report by SNL.com and The Wrestling Observer Newsletter, it turns out Wrestlemania 28 was not the most purchased Pay Per View of all time based on updated figures for the show. It is now No. 2 with 1,219,000 buys worldwide (broken down as 715,000 domestic and 504,000 international). While this is up 5.3% domestic and 10.5% internationally from last year, it remains below Wrestlemania 23 back in 2007 featuring Donald Trump that drew 1,250,000 buys (825,000 domestic and 425,000 international). The updated estimate of 1,253,000 buys back in late October was prior to the company releasing third quarter results" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.228.195.43 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The definitive buyrate is 1253000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.55.220.254 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Match lengths

Could someone edit the time for the Hell in a Cell match between Undertaker and Triple H? I'd do it myself but the article is locked. The match didn't last 54 minutes, it lasted 30:50 according to this source: http://www.profightdb.com/cards/wwe/wrestlemania-xxviii-15479.html If you watch the match for yourself you'll find it was nowhere near 54 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.74.96.94 (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks – Richard BB 10:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)