Talk:WrestleMania 34

Page locked

The page is now locked for 96 hours due to the constant back and forth on the page. [1] very clearly states its AJ Styles vs Shinsuke Nakamura. [2] clearly states Alexa Bliss or Charlotte Flair will face Asuka. Champions are always subject to change, just like they did leading up to Survivor Series (2017). Therefore I ask CrickleBoy or Soap Price to provide a source that TBA makes more sense than the announced participants. - Galatz^Talk 19:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a mistake that needs to be fixed. For the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal competitors, Kurt Angle is in the list yet that hasn't been announced in any media form Danlfc99 (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

After the lock expires.

After the lock expires please don't edit the page unless you have legitimate info from legitimate sources, right now there is no need to edit the page any further. SSGeorgie (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Per [3] the Universal Title will be defended by Brock Lesnar vs winner of the elimination chamber match. That should be added as well. - Galatz^Talk 01:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Wrestle Mania Theme (So Far)

Kid Rock - New Orleans - Rock N Roll Jesus (from the Countdown Promo from Royal Rumble 2018) Ajs1090 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This requires a WP:RS that states its the theme song and not just a song in a promo video. - Galatz^Talk 02:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed Wrestlemania theme

It was announced by WWE.com that "New Orleans" by Kid Rock and "Let the Good Times Roll" by Freddie King are the official themes for Wrestlemania. Per [4].Daboyle250 (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Is let it roll by flo rida confirmed theme song? If so give the source AnoopMathew (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 January 2018

Cruiserweight Championship Tournament Gydnar (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2018 (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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There needs to be a third match added to the match card as of today - On the most recent edition of 205 Live, new GM Drake Maverick, formerly known as Rockstar Spud, announced a 16 man elimination tournament to crown a new WWE Cruiserweight Champion, which he said would culminate with the tournament final at Wrestlemania 34 Mrbbx33 (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, the match should be TBD vs TBD for the vacant WWE Cruiserweight Championship. Bduddy (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Additionally under the matches section we should transclude this section WWE tournaments#WWE Cruiserweight Championship Tournament (2018). - Galatz^Talk 14:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Tickets

Can someone copy-paste the tickets and travel packages info in the article:

"Tickets went on sale on November 17, 2017, with individual tickets costing $35 to $2,000. On October 30, 2017, traveling packages with accommodation ranging from $1,150 to $8,525 per person were sold."

Nickag989^talk 08:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I'll do it myself once the expiry is over. Nickag989^talk 13:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

References

TBDs ?

Whats up with the tbds The reaper of lost souls (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The TBDs are self explanatory. "To be determined" as no one knows who will be the champions going in to WrestleMania, or who the cruiserweight tournament finalists will be, or who will face Brock Lesar. We cannot replace the TBDs until WWE officially confirm the participants in those matches. Once Elimination Chamber and Fastlane are over, then we will have an idea of who the TBDs will be. On this site, we cannot base anything on rumours or speculation. Facts only and confirmation by WWE.

Protect

Protect the Page Thefanofwwe (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

From what? There hasn't been any form of vandalism yet. Nickag989^talk 12:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018

Wrestlemania tickets range from $35 to $4,500, not $2,000 Eaglesflight1 (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Source? Nickag989^talk 14:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Andre the giant memorial battle royal

Can you please put the Andre the giant memorial battle royal as the match stipulation there is going to be one in wrestlemania 34 This Guy 99 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:RS that supports what you want included. - Galatz^Talk 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz the Andre the giant memorial battle royal takes place at wrestlemania This Guy 99 (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You are not a WP:RS. Please provide a WP:RS that states it is taking place at THIS YEAR'S and who will be in it. - Galatz^Talk 21:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz do you think there going to skip the Andre the giant memorial battle royal in wrestlemania 34 This Guy 99 (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

What I think has no bearing on what is included in Wikipedia. Everything must be supported by a WP:RS. - Galatz^Talk 21:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz more sport in WWE planing Goldberg to win the Andre the giant battle royal at wrestlemania 34 plus ignore the Goldberg part for now This Guy 99 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean More Sport This Guy 99 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Undertaker vs John Cena

Undertaker vs John Cena Wrestlemania 34 singles match This Guy 99 (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:RS that supports what you want included. - Galatz^Talk 21:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Match Not Announced/Confirmed (Depends on Fastlane Main Event Results and if it gets set up) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajs1090 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

John Cena is confirmed to face The Undertaker at Wrestlemania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefanofmariobros. (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Source? - Galatz^Talk 19:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Did Undertaker even accept the challenge yet or hes still retired? BusriderSF2015 (talk) 6:13PM. 12 March 2018 (PT)

John Cena put out the challenge, Undertaker hasn't accepted yet. He hasn't officially retired. --JDC808 ♫ 02:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know this match is not yet official but I think we should add little information about the storyline about it ending with the statement that match is not set official. We know Cena will be there in crowd and Undertaker can make his appearance also. So we need to add about this later also. सुमित सिंह (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Undertaker is almost certainly gonna be there; but we can't add it yet until it happens. Also P.S Undertaker never retired Hypnobrai (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Match speculation

Matches and participants in matches must not be included unless a reliable source can be provided. This includes matches involving championships, where it is believed the current champion will be defending. Inclusion of any speculated or believed matches is a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. This includes Brock Lesnar as the Universal Champion, and Aj Styles and the WWE Champion, even after the Fastlane PPV. It must be confirmed with reliable sources after the final PPV's before Wrestlemania have taken place, who the participants in the matches are and what the match types are. Inclusion of speculation will be removed, and editors adding such content and re-adding such content in a way which is edit warring will be reported to the appropriate noticeboards. This may also lead to the page being protected from editing for a period of time. Sport and politics (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You are incorrect. You say It must be confirmed with reliable sources after the final PPV's before Wrestlemania is just plain laughable. What about title changes on Raw or SmackDown? What about title changes at house shows like what happened last year with AJ Styles. Based on your logic, until the day of the PPV all title match must say TBD. If it is officially billed as something it is not WP:CRYSTAL. - Galatz^Talk 12:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue is it is not officially billed. There is nothing yet officially billed for Wrestlemania other than the final of the Crusierweight tournament taking place at the event and the two Royal Rumble winners receiving title shots. I welcome the presentation of sources which are reliable and confirm the Wrestlemania card. Without that it is pure crystal balling. Sport and politics (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is. When the WWE officially announced the elimination chamber match, they said the winner will face Brock Lesnar. See so for yourself [5]. Just like how they are officially billing AJ Styles [6]. - Galatz^Talk 15:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I heard it's going to be Ronda Rousey and Kurt Angle VS. Triple H and Stephanie for Ronda's WrestleMania match. 72.184.23.194 (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Although that's probably true, as a lot of sources are reporting it, and that seems to be the direction their headed with the recent segments, we can't add it until it's official. All we can add is that Rousey will have a match as that's all that's been confirmed. --JDC808 ♫ 07:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Sasha Banks Vs Bayley

Sasha Banks is going to fight Bayley at wrestlemania 34 The Clan 87 (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Any sources for that info? Nickag989^talk 21:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In SESCOOPS it says Sasha Banks vs Bayley The Clan 87 (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to this article? Which clearly says the match up is a rumor. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Alexa bliss defeated Nia jax? SAVAGE LOGAN (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Rhonda rousey and the rock vs Stephanie McMahon Triple H

Rousey and the rock will face triple h and McMahon in a mixed tag team match Im A Person 42 (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that confirms this. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Im A Person 42: Stop with all this nonsensical rumors. Nickag989^talk 10:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What if the rumors happen Im A Person 42 (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Mixed tag team match could happen but it won't involve The Rock at all, because of his status as a part-timer. Kurt Angle, however... Nickag989^talk 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Not so much his status as a part-timer, but rather insurance issues with film production companies. If it weren't for that, he would have probably done the match. Regardless, we now know the match is Angle/Rousey vs. HHH/Stephanie. Also, Im A Person 42, if the rumors do in fact happen, then we add it. Pretty simple. However, we don't add rumors until they actually happen, if they even do happen. In this case, it did not happen. If we can get verifiable sources on why The Rock could not do the match, we can add that to the background section similar to Big Show vs. Shaq at WrestleMania 33. --JDC808 ♫ 05:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Unclear Opponent for Asuka Companionship match

Despite Cole saying Asuka would face Alexia bliss for WWE RAW Women Championship, still have wait until after WWE Fastlane (2018) to be sure..as David Meztler stated the plans were Asuka would face Charlotte Flair for WWE Smackdown Women Championship at Wrestlemania 34. BusriderSF2015 (talk) 8:00PM, 5 March 2018 (PT)

Okay? Unless someone changed it and I missed it, the match description hasn't changed in that regards; it still reflects that she hasn't made a choice yet. Tonight Cole said "might" face her. --JDC808 ♫ 05:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 34 Match : Charoltte (c) vs Asuka for WWE Smackdown Women Championship

@JDC808: As it follow David Meztler sources, Asuka will face WWE Smackdown Women Champion Charoltte for WWE Smackdown Women Championship. BusriderSF2015 02:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

He is not a WP:RS - Galatz^Talk 02:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer* BusriderSF2015 02:56, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Although Meltzer is right a lot of the times, it is completely based on what he heard, and it can't really be confirmed until something happens on TV to confirm that it's going to happen (at that point is when we add it). Also, what he says doesn't always happen. --JDC808 ♫ 03:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you only need to listen to one episode of Bruce Prichard's podcast to know why he cannot be used. - Galatz^Talk 03:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@JDC808: Dave Meltzer, Well hes right again and he even got a Wikapedia page BusriderSF2015 03:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz: Fake news..

So? Having a wikipedia page has nothing to do with reliability. Also you've been told before to properly sign your posts, yet you still dont. Stop manually entering the information and put ~~~~ after it - Galatz^Talk 13:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz: This guy has high chance of being right, Dave Meltzer sources was correct. While Asuka would face Smackdown Women Champion, Nia Jax will face Aliex Bliss for RAW Women Championship. It is what it is.BusriderSF2015 (talk) 7:00PM. 12 March 2018 (PT)

It doesn't matter if he "has a high chance of being right". The fact is, he is not always right and what he says is completely based on word of mouth that we cannot confirm until WWE themselves confirm it. --JDC808 ♫ 04:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Nor should we report it. WP is not a rumour mill. It reports what has happened. And unless a match has been officially scheduled, no match-making has happened. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Complete

Matches following the sources.

• Edit Changes was made to complete this matches for Asuka vs Charoltte for WWE Smackdown Women Championship  Done
• Edit Changes was made to complete the matches for Nia Jax vs Aliexa Bliss for WWE RAW Women Championship  Done

🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing the theme songs

The 3 theme songs of WM should be added. Please request access to edit. AnoopMathew (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Source? - Galatz^Talk 16:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Source in the sense?

AnoopMathew (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Kid Rock's New Orleans is the first theme Freddie King's Let The Good Times Roll is the second one Kid Rock's Celebrate is the third theme AnoopMathew (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Please allow me to edit the theme songs only AnoopMathew (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is still unsourced. Everything must have a WP:RS - Galatz^Talk 20:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) (c) vs. Braun Strowman for WWE RAW Tag Team Championship

As you notice during RAW Taping, Braun Strowman said "HES" (not "WE") entering the Raw Battle Royal and win it for a shot for the RAW Tag Team Championship at Wretlemania 34 . So it will remain The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) vs Braun Strowman (Not Cesaro and Sheamus) vs Braun Strowman and TBA or TBD Table should be like there *RAW Tag Team Championship

The Wrestlemania 34 Matches Sandbox Table

No.	Results	Stipulations

🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No such tag team title match appears on the Wrestlemania page on WWE.com nor has a match been scheduled. All we have is the events of the most recent RAW: The bar asked for a decision on their opponents, Kurt Angle scheduled a tag team battle royal. Then Braun inserted himself into that match and came out on top. But as the ending of Raw suggests, there are many questions unanswered: could Braun actually participate in that match? If so, can he by his unconventional win earn a tag team title shot? (Or will he simply get another match at WM34?) If he gets the title shot, can he go it alone or does he have to take a partner? It is up for WWE - in kayfabe: Raw's commissioner or GM - to decide that, not for us to proclaim what we think is the answer.

To place a "TBA" on the match type is silly. If that pairing were to stand, it would obviously be a handicap match. But everything about that whole match is "TBD".Str1977 ^(talk) 00:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The battle royal was to determine who would face Cesaro and Sheamus for the titles at WrestleMania. Strowman won said battle royal. That in turn means he's the number one contender by the stipulation of the match. Of course there are many unanswered questions, but the fact is, Strowman won the battle royal to determine the number one contender(s) for the Raw Tag Team Championship. That's what we know and it is sourced. TBA or TBD, regardless of what term is used, one should be used as we don't know what the match itself will be. What we do know is that Cesaro and Sheamus are defending the titles. We can't just remove Strowman because he might get removed as you implied. That would be speculation and even WP:OR. What is there is what has been presented to us. Come Monday's Raw, we should be getting the answers. --JDC808 ♫ 03:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Simple question: where is the source for a Cesaro & Sheamus vs. Braun Strowman match? You haven't provided one hence the entire match should be struck.

All we have, all you say, is that a TAG TEAM battle royal was scheduled to provide a challenger for The Bar (NB: no word of a number-one contender) and that Braun won that battle royal. That he won it is a bit more official as the bell rung after Braun eliminated Carl Anderson and Braun was declared the winner. Braun also shouted "I'm going to Wrestlemania!" But if you watch the minutes of Raw, you will hear no confirmation that he will face The Bar, either alone or with a partner. What you will are a lot of questions like "no one man can challenge for the tag team titles" and "is this even legal" and "Kurt Angle has some work to do".

That means: a decision about which opponent The Bar will have, which match Braun will have is still out there "TBD", not just the "match type". If what you present as clear-cut actually were clear, the match type would clear too. It would be a handicap match.

Hence, I'm removing the entire match from the card. And since you voiced no specific concerns for my avoiding your 20 occurences of "announce" I'm reverting that too. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's take an example from wrestling history to illustrate my point: In 1994, the Royal Rumble was secheduled with the winner receiving a title shot at Wrestlemania X. The Rumble was controversially won by Bret Hart and Lex Luger collectively. Now, a fictional 1994-JDC808 edits a fictional 1994 Wikipedia article to say that Yokozuna will defend his title against Bret and Lex and only the match type is unclear. (Maybe, if triple threats had been invented back then he would have claimed that it would be a triple threat match.) And his edit would have been unfounded. He would have had to wait until Jack Tunney made decision to have two title matches, to have a coin toss to decide the sequence. So in 2018 you should wait for the decision by Kurt "Tunney" Angle. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, in principle, and regarding this specific case: Can't we just wait until we have official confirmation? It's Sunday and tomorrow's Raw will undoubtedly shed further light on the consequences of the battle royal. Waiting these few more hours is not too hard for you, I hope! Str1977 ^(talk) 13:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Str1977:@JDC808: The match going still happen according Dave Meltzer, its going be The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) vs Braun Strowman (or Braun Strowman and a Partner). So it be better to just leave as The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) vs TBD and Notes TBA Match for WWE Raw Tag Team Championship. Also recent Raw Show confirms. 🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A battle royal to determine who faces Cesaro and Sheamus is the same thing as determining the number one contender. You're really getting caught up on the term "number one contender" here. Braun winning that battle royal is sourced. Once again, that is why the match type was TBA. We don't know what their decision will be. I'm just repeating myself here, but again, what we do know is Cesaro and Sheamus are defending the titles and Strowman won the battle royal to determine their challenger at WrestleMania. That little example would have been a completely different case. And 20 occurrences of announced? Okay, that can be fixed without removing the information you did (like informing readers who Dave Maverick was before coming to WWE). --JDC808 ♫ 20:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The term "number one contender" is just a side issue but I do think it shouldn't be used here unless it is used on WWE shows (where they already use it more often than necessary). "what we do know is Cesaro and Sheamus are defending the titles and Strowman won the battle royal to determine their challenger at WrestleMania." Yes, that's what we know. We don't know what WWE will make of that. Regretfully, I think that it will be probably one of Busrider's alternatives. But neither what he, or I or you think will happen matters to the article.

This is the article on Wrestlemania 34 and should contain only the information relevant to that event, not everything that happend on WWE shows or might be noteworthy on them. And I don't think "who Dave Maverick was before coming to WWE" is relevant to the Wrestlemania 34 article. His article is linked however. That's enough. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Str1977:@JDC808: Just leave as Cesaro and Sheamus (c) vs. TBD or something until the next we get some more details on the next Monday Night Raw shows

You forgot to sign your post, and that doesn't make sense. --JDC808 ♫ 05:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@JDC808: Unclear opponent(s) for WWE Raw Tag Team Championship Match at Wrestlemania 34. Wait for more details regarding that match.

🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Opponent is not so much unclear as the match is. More editors agree, or are fine with having it as it is right now (if they weren't, they'd change it or chime in here). Only one person has tried to change it, which was Str1977, but he's been reverted by more than one editor. --JDC808 ♫ 06:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Everything is unclear right now. Just wait the few hours until things are cleared up.

It might be useless, but let me spelled it out for you again: it is unclear if Braun will face The Bar; if he does, it is unclear if he will do it alone or with a yet-to-be-chosen partner. (There's even the possibility that the battle royal win will be revoked.) You keep on posting your speculations as if they were facts.

And your version is also illogical: if the pairing were confirmed then the match type wouldn't be unclear or TBD. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

PS. It is also an issue of sourcing. This supposed match is the only one that has no reference pointing to the WWE page; the source referenced doesn't include any definite answer. Whatever happened to the principle, stated by someone not so long ago, that "we can't add it until it's official". Str1977 ^(talk) 09:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In regards to "we can't add it until it's official", that's already been explained, but for TL;DR, Cesaro and Sheamus were confirmed to have a match at WM by way of the battle royal, which Strowman won, and why the match type said TBA. Regardless now, Angle has announced that Strowman is getting the match as long as he finds a partner. --JDC808 ♫ 23:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the subsequent decision shows exactly that it was not merely the match type that was unclear. If Strowman would have been allowed to challenge alone (as your preferred pairing implied), it would have ipso facto been a handicap match (hence: the pairing was unclear, not just the match type), but if - as it turned out to be - he was forced to choose a partner, your preferred pairing (The Bar vs. Strowman) would have been wrong. It was always the pairing that was unclear - the match type was merely a consequence of this.

Waiting for official sources - which you haven't followed on this - has the advantage that we won't post such wrong pairings. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: Why do you feel a need to post an entire chart to get this point across? It does nothing but fill up space. Additionally you have been told before that Dave Meltzer is not a WP:RS so he can say whatever he wants, but it does not belong on WP. As for the match we have no confirmation that Braun will even be in the match. He entered himself into the tournament. Assuming he was not officially allowed in the tournament, whoever he eliminated last technically gets the title shot. They could also decide to just redo the entire thing tonight similar to when Carmela won MITB. There are too many variables to know what is going to happen. Until there is a RS that discusses it, there is no confirmation a match is happening and therefore it should not be included. - Galatz^Talk 17:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Table is fully necessary to show demonstration . :@Galatz: Carmela is not in the Raw Tag Team Championship Match nor her Money in the Bank Briefcase. Dave Meltzer or not, The proof already there by watching last RAW Its follows whoever wins the WWE Raw Tag Team Chanpionship #1 Contender Battle Royal will be facing The Bar for the Raw Tag Championships. Strowman enter himself in and he won...ring announcer announces him winning the #1 Contender match.

So it best to edit the tables as these options are correct...as optional edits.

Cesaro and Sheamus (c) vs. TBD

or

Cesaro and Sheamus (c) vs. Braun Strowman

or

Don`t even add until we get more details

[[🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) . 19:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)User:BusriderSF2015|🥇BUS rider2015]] (talk) .

@BusriderSF2015: You have been told countless times not to edit other people's posts, yet you keep doing it, why?

I dont think you understand how comparison's work. Just use some simple thought and then reread what you wrote. Its a very simple concept that has apparently gone right over your head. - Galatz^Talk 19:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See the options i posted above.

🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) . 19:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that states any of those are correct? - Galatz^Talk 19:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/2017-03-19#full-detail-40039676 Those are correct, why dont you just for the details as i repeatedly said . 🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) . 19:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You really aren't very smart are you? You say I don't have the details, and then send a link that specifically backs up exactly what I said. Your "source" states Even though he doesn’t have a tag team partner, Braun Strowman shockingly won the Tag Team Battle Royal this past Monday night, meaning that he technically earned the right to challenge Cesaro & Sheamus for the Raw Tag Team Championship at WrestleMania 34 in New Orleans. However, given the fact that The Monster Among Men is a solo Superstar, and since he originally wasn’t scheduled to compete in the over-the-top-rope bout, the victory comes with no small amount of controversy. Now I again ask, do you have anything that backs up what you claim, since you just supported my stance. - Galatz^Talk 19:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It is what it is. Additionally wait for the upcoming raw to further support my details. Peace i am out or else i bring WikiLeon or NeilN to address this again. 🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) . 19:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you think that because you want something in the article that you believe will be announced tonight, but has not been announced, you want to bring an admin in? What exactly do you expect to accomplish? I asked you for a source and you either mention a person who is proven to be unreliable and not a WP:RS, as you can see at WP:PW/RS or you provide something that supports what I said, that nothing is confirmed. What exactly do you expect WikiLeon or NeilN to do? Do you think that an admin is going to say "Well because he is so confident it will happen tonight its fine to put it in the article"? Anything that is not supported by a WP:RS especially something like what you want, which is WP:CRYSTAL, does not belong on wikipedia, plain and simple. - Galatz^Talk 19:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done 🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) . 19:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you have once again added nothing to the conversation. - Galatz^Talk 20:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Its correct..cause the edit regarding the The Bar WM34 Raw Tag Team Championship Match is not complete...so i put Not Done until more details come in as i been saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: Can you please learn how to format your responses in discussions? It is very hard to read through this thread following Galatz response at 17:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC) because you don't know how to indent your responses. Also, don't make a subsection that says "complete", "resolved", "not done", etc., until there's an actual consensus. You alone are not the one who decides if a consensus has been met. That is decided by everyone involved in the discussion. Also, mentioned it above, but Angle has announced that Strowman will get the tag title match as long as he finds a partner. --JDC808 ♫ 23:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@JDC808: Watch the Show and get the details, and you add details. BusriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

So your solution is to contribute nothing and have us do the work? --JDC808 ♫ 01:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Pretty Much cause guys always question my edits 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen tonight's show yet, but if I understand what you said correctly, no match is still confirmed. If he doesn't find a partner do we have a Raw Tag Team Championship match? If that answer was not given nothing should be listed yet - Galatz^Talk 01:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

let just see what happens 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) l 01:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: just because your edits are questioned, that doesn't mean you have to stop contributing. @Galatz: It has been confirmed. Angle announced that Braun would get the match if he found a partner. Braun said he didn't need one, but he would find one. WWE has listed it as a match. --JDC808 ♫ 02:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@JDC808: It has been confirmed, but with a condition. What if that condition is not met? Then we do not have a match, do we? Unless that answer is confirmed then there is no confirmation of the match. The source given in the article clearly states The Monster Among Men will challenge The Bar for their titles at The Show of Shows, under one condition. - Galatz^Talk 13:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And Strowman said he would have a partner. --JDC808 ♫ 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So? John Cena said he would win the WWE Champinship at Fastlane. Just because he said he will have it, it doesn't mean he will. Perhaps the story line is that since he has been causing so much distribution he is unable to get a partner causing him to create more damage like when he was removed from the Universal Title match. - Galatz^Talk 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

WWE have confirmed the match, which is sourced. If something happens and this particular match-up doesn't happen, then so be it, but saying it might not happen, essentially a "what if" scenario, is basically WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps you are right, but at this moment, we have nothing to confirm your "what if" scenario. --JDC808 ♫ 22:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If that was the case why does the source say it is not confirmed. Provide a source that says it happens no matter what. You can't because they don't exist. That is why including it is WP:CRYSTAL because including it assumes the match will occur, while not including it is based on the fact that he has not met the conditions. Its not WP:CRYSTAL because it current available information only. - Galatz^Talk 13:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to this response by Str1977. It's more CRYSTAL to say that the match might not happen. Your bases is a complete "what if" scenario. WWE have listed the match for the event. If your "what if" scenario comes true and WWE delists the match, then we delist it too. --JDC808 ♫ 00:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

So your source that the match is confirmed is another talk page comment on wikipedia? You cannot produce a source that says the match is 100% happening for a reason. - Galatz^Talk 01:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't a source and was not even meant to be. His comment said all that was needed to be said, but that obviously was not enough for you. You know, I really don't understand you. You're all about RS's (which isn't a bad thing), but the RS here has listed the match and you're against it because of a "what if" scenario that you cannot prove. By your logic, there's not a way to actually say any of these matches are 100% happening, so I guess we should just remove them all because there are a whole bunch of "what if" scenarios that could keep any of these matches from happening. --JDC808 ♫ 06:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

But thats the thing, READ THE SOURCE. The source clearly states its conditional. Watch the video included in the source, Kurt Angel says he must meet one condition in order to get the match. It does not say its a lock. The article is using a source that says it isnt confirmed to say the match is confirmed! - Galatz^Talk 12:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read the source, but that does not take away from the fact that WWE has listed the match for the event, something that you can't seem to grasp. --JDC808 ♫ 22:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

But their "listing" links to the article that says its conditional. I again ask you to provide a source that says its confirmed. But yet you continue to not because you cannot. - Galatz^Talk 00:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you not understand about WWE listing the match and promoting it for the event? You're getting yourself way too caught up on this "conditional" issue because of a CRYSTAL "what if" scenario that there's just no point in arguing this anymore. Everyone else agrees that the match should be listed for the reasons I've stated. --JDC808 ♫ 01:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you go read what you are referencing. It states "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate." That sounds EXACTLY what you are doing. Please show me what from there is what I am doing? I am looking at the current facts, something you have been unable to dispute, that all conditions for the match have no occurred. Assuming they will be is WP:CRYSTAL, plain and simple. - Galatz^Talk 01:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

But it's not original research. Your "what if" scenario on the other hand is. What is presented in the article is based on the information we have from the RS. We can't present anymore than that, nor can we present a hypothetical "what if" scenario. --JDC808 ♫ 02:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the source supports there are other options. If it says he has to meet certain conditions, then the source says there is a chance it wont happen. It involves no OR or anything else. Including it in the article misleads the reader into thinking the match has no conditions and will 100% happen no matter what. - Galatz^Talk 13:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's why in the paragraph about this match on this article, it says that he has to find a partner, to which Strowman responded that he would. --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Colin Cassady is expected to be Braun Strowman partner according to my sources since he cleared for in ring action. 🔮 Crystal Ball example below with Obvious storyline directions 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs)

That's the first I've heard of that, but that would be interesting. We'll see who he picks. --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Braun Strowman would team up with Collin Cassady

The Bar vs Braun Strowman and Collin Cassady Wrestlemania 34

No.	Results	Stipulations

later to be defeated by Tucker Knight and Otis Dozovic who will get called from NXT.

Braun Strowman and Collin Cassady vs Heavy Machinery

No.	Matches*	Stipulations
1	Otis Dozovic and Tucker Knight defeated. Braun Strowman and Colin Cassady (c)	Tag team match for the WWE Raw Tag Team Championship
(c)  – the champion(s) heading into the match *Card subject to change

🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit Finalization

 Not done

Let see what details are there once Wrestlemania 34 hits. 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Why did you put "Not Done"? --JDC808 ♫ 03:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Because the edit regarding this "The Bar vs Strowman" is not done.

What do you mean it's "not done"? It is done. It's Cesaro and Sheamus (c) vs. Braun Strowman and TBA, because that is what has been announced. And you're signature goes at the end of your post, not before it. --JDC808 ♫ 05:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

its not done...until we fully know who his partner is...is not done. As the Current UFC Featherweight Champion Max Holloway says "it is what it is"

🚪 Out. 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well guess what? WWE have confirmed the match is happening, so as it stands, it is Cesaro and Sheamus (c) vs. Braun Strowman and TBA. That is what it is. And please don't line break for your signature unless you correctly indent it as well (I fixed it for you). --JDC808 ♫ 09:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that the match has been confirmed - and only the identity of the partner is unclear, he match has been rightfully added. Sure, one could say that "if Strowman doesn't find a partner, he will get no match" but a. this is wrestling and we know he'll find a partner. b. For the moment, under that condition, the match is confirmed. One could say "conditionally confirmed". But confirmed nevertheless. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done The Edit has been completed finally. Barun Strowman tag team champion is a WWE Fan and is absurd. 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 03:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

We know. You didn't have to post this... --JDC808 ♫ 06:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

2601:88:401:E06:D506:9A13:6E49:F90E (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2018 (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. qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 19:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2018

Girl331 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

John Cena vs The Undertaker Singles match i Not Sure it

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Where did Orton vs Roode go?

I can see that Orton vs Roode was removed. Why? Was it not official, after Roode said he invoked the rematch clause at 'Mania? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BroderTuc (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Because thus far the match, if has been scheduled by now, is lacking an official source that confirms this. Speaking in kayfabe terms: simply "invoking the rematch clause" doesn't make the match. (PS. You don't say you invole the rematch clause, invoking is the act of saying that.) Str1977 ^(talk) 23:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2018

Add "Raw Tag Team Title Match". The Bar (Sheamus & Cesaro) vs. Braun Strowman & TBA to matches 12.197.255.114 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Match is not yet confirmed until Strowman has a partner - Galatz^Talk 19:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The match is now confirmed (with the partner slot still TBD) and hence it has been added. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Placeholders for number of wrestlers

Somebody put "TBA/D men/women" before the match type of the battle royals. While it was at first totally unclear what these placeholders were supposed to mean, I have since realised that they are meant to stand for the numbers of competitors in each match. I personally think that is completely unnecessary - we can add the numbers once we know but it doesn't hurt to not indicate these unknown numbers. But if we put in placeholders, it should be clear to everyone what they mean. Hence I added "number".

Any other opinions on whether we need the placeholders here? Str1977 ^(talk) 01:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That includes you, User:JDC808 Str1977 ^(talk) 02:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with clarifying that the TBD refers to the number. --JDC808 ♫ 02:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. In any case, it's only temporary. But I was really confused what the TBAs were supposed to mean. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Various issus

While it is true that Cena is a free agent, it is not necessary to point that out every time. Cena played a minor role in various storylines and he could only appear in all these because he's a free agant. But it's not relevant to any storyline but his own. We do not add RAW-wrestler or SD-wrestler to all the other wrestlers. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

How is Orton's Grand Slam Championship - a pretty diluted and strange assortment - relevant to his WM freud or match? Str1977 ^(talk) 02:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me restate another thing: "appeared/came out and attacked" is unnecessary wordy. If someone attacks, it is understood that he somehow got there. And if the sentence said that Cena called out Taker and Kane then attacked, it is more than clear that Kane (who was never mentioned before) attacked in response. We do not have to spell out everything for the reader. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Raw/SmackDown wrestlers are understood by way of the title and show mentioned in the paragraph. Cena on the other hand is a different case. Lesnar vs Reigns over the Universal Championship is Raw; Cena was part of the chamber match at their Elimination Chamber PPV. Styles vs Nakamura over the WWE Championship is SmackDown; Cena was part of the six-pack challenge at their Fastlane PPV. An uninformed reader isn't going to know why Cena was able to be in both (without reading the Cena/Undertaker match description, which is still hidden, but after it's unhidden, it will be after these two paragraphs anyways). Putting "free agent" clarifies that.

It was another accomplishment that he attained in winning the U.S. title. I see no harm in adding it, especially since this match probably won't have much more added to its description.

Although true, the way it was presented just sounded very odd. I have changed it to say "As Cena urged Undertaker to come out, he instead got Undertaker's (kayfabe) brother Kane, who attacked Cena with a chokeslam." --JDC808 ♫ 02:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think all these "free agents" are unnecessary but they don't take up much space either.

Orton's obscure achievement however really distracts from the actual storyline. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't mention it here, but to clarify Charlotte Flair, using her last name kept it consistent with everyone else (except the McMahons, which is intentional because there's more than one). --JDC808 ♫ 02:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot. I'm all for consistency, only of a different kind. The female wrestlers are much more commonly referred to by their first names, even the ones that have a last name (or aquired one). And if you allow an exception for the McMahons, you cannot then insist on using family names only for others. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Storylines section

It is currently almost 2,500 words which is 2.5 times the limit our style guide recommends, see WP:PW/PPVG. There is a ton of fluff that needs to be cut, any help would be appreciated. - Galatz^Talk 13:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

"appeared/came out and ..." seems superfluous to me. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The cruiserweight tournament could be severely cut as the details are covered in the brackets. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the amount of fluff is impressive. Many times these articles just become "xxx came out and power bombed yyy, the next week yyy kicked xxx". That's why we have the word count limit and say not to include week by week results. - Galatz^Talk 15:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagreement

WP:PW/PPVG not valid during Wrestlemania.

@Str1977:@Galatz: Wrestlemania is WWE Biggest event every year, so it more like have details over 2500 words or even 5000 words anyways.

I'm not as insistent on an actual word count but the section is nevertheless taking verbosity to new levels. And no, there is no Wrestlemania exception. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no such concept, there is a guide for a reason, plain and simple. - Galatz^Talk 20:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Wrestlemania 34 (Article) is expected on most section to pass the set limit from the WP:PW/PPVG Guidance, cause of Wrestlemania 34 being a big event and going have large amount details inserted each section. It includes the 11+ Matches at Wrestlemania 34, and aftermath

🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thats all well and good but there are no exceptions. There is plenty of stuff that does not need to be included. Just because it happens, it doesn't mean it needs to be on wikipedia. - Galatz^Talk 22:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreeance with Busrider here. Unlike the B-level PPVS (and even the other three of the Big Four), which generally only have about a months worth of story going into them (some do have more), WrestleMania on the other hand has up to a year or more. And some people like to take these guidelines as the gospel. They're not. They're guidelines, not set-in-stone rules. Because they're guidelines, yes, exceptions can be made. If I remember correctly from that somewhat recent discussion, other editors agreed that WrestleMania would go beyond the "recommended" limit because of what I just mentioned. --JDC808 ♫ 23:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

- Talk page happen to be bigger than those sections in the Wrestlemania 34 Wikapedia Article. (WM34 Wikipage - 50,101 bytes - WM34 Talkpage -63,583 bytes) 🚪I am Out. 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you, then you go and make this comment? How big a talk page is literally has no bearing on the topic here. --JDC808 ♫ 00:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes but that same conversation also said that if things such as thing came about we don't need to go into detail on every match and focus on the bigger ones. - Galatz^Talk 00:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

In that case, your recent revert took the focus off of the bigger ones. --JDC808 ♫ 01:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Even after removal of information it was still 1,800 words but good try. We don't need every single piece of anything having to do with the wrestlers. We can just say they faught over multiple months without listing each match and every person in the match. We don't need to know that Brock with without an opponent because Shin chose AJ, thats obvious. Your revert adds back useless information that absolutely doesn't belong no matter how long the section should be. So if you are going to add anything back, WP:BABY applies and it needs to have good reason to be added back, otherwise you are adding useless information for the sake of just reverting. - Galatz^Talk 01:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That's the thing though, every single bit of information, like you make it out to be, is not there. As I said in my recent edit summary, it appears that you didn't even read what I did in my last revision and just assumed I added everything back before this "Storyline issues" discussion began. You brought up the point of Brock not having an opponent and called it "obvious". Is it really obvious to someone who doesn't know how Brock's contract works? No. They may assume that he wrestles at every PPV, but that's not the case. It also provides a better transition and is more engaging than a cut-and-dry "this match happened, then this one." What I added back in the recent revision encompass more than what happened in the past month because they go beyond that. And if you had actually read what I had done, I made very small changes here and there to everything else that had gotten trimmed back. I made three "big" add backs (as a couple of them go back further than the past month), and a fourth that provided a little more insight into the feud. Everything else was practically minor and mainly clarity (i.e., it wasn't even mentioned what tag titles Cesaro and Sheamus have, and speaking of that particular paragraph, your revert made the very first sentence of it an incomplete sentence, and that's among some other mistakes that your revert restored). --JDC808 ♫ 06:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Shin chosing to face AJ has absolutely nothing to do with Brock not having a match. He didn't have a match at Elimination Chamber but we don't go into detail as to why he didn't, why do we need to go into it here? Why cant it just say "Kurt Angel said whoever wins the Elimination Chamber match faces Brock at WM". Done, simple and accurate. We don't need a paragraph of other stuff. - Galatz^Talk 12:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you not know how the Royal Rumble works? Shin choosing AJ is exactly why they had the Elimination Chamber match, and it was mentioned that Kurt scheduled it to determine Brock's opponent, but that got trimmed down. --JDC808 ♫ 22:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

But we go into who he chose in the section for the WWE Championship match. If the two paragraphs were reversed it would be obvious. Its absolutely retarded to go into who won the Royal Rumble and what he chose to do two paragraphs in a row. - Galatz^Talk 00:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not true that WM deserves special treatment because storylines develop over longer time. A feud culminating at a B-level PPV does not start only after the preceding PPV - they quite often span longer periods of time and transcend individual PPVs. The issue is always the same: the storyline section should cover what the reader needs to understand the feud. It should NOT cover every match or every event in the feud. WM might be special because in recent years it has become absurdly longish and includes more matches and more wrestlers, hence potentially involving more storylines. But that's the challenge for us: to include everything that's needed and still stay within a resonable size. It's about chosing the right information and it's about condensing it. That's not always easy but the first step is omitting all the unncessary things: unnecessary because they are not needed to understand the storyline or unnecessary because they contain no information at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

PS. What we definitely do not need is statements that "there were no special stipulations", that a tournament started "promptly", that Brock's victories were "decisive" (which also paints a wrong picture of his title reign) or phrases like "issued a challenge". Str1977 ^(talk) 12:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, "there were no special stipulations" is so readers know she isn't getting special treatment, such as Brock. Not sure how saying his defenses were decisive paints a wrong picture of his reign. He's been undefeated since he won the title. Sure, he doesn't wrestle often, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he's retained his title in every defense and all were by pinfall (hence using the word decisive). As to "A feud culminating at a B-level PPV does not start only after the preceding PPV", reread what I said in regards to this (I said generally are only a month's build, though some are more). --JDC808 ♫ 22:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Given we have to cover a lot of storyline in a limited space of article, we have to trim somewhere. And explanations that everything is normal with Ronda Rousey are the first things to go.

As for Brock: we do NOT need to characterise his title defenses at all. You might think his reign impressive but others disagree.

Your objection to my observation about feuds doesn't change the validity of what I wrote. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree that that has to be the "first to go". My opinion of his reign had no bearing on the inclusion of the statement, merely a statement of fact. And what exactly are you referring in your last point? --JDC808 ♫ 18:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

My last point referred to your "As to "A feud culminating at a B-level PPV does not start only after the preceding PPV", reread what I said in regards to this (I said generally are only a month's build, though some are more)." - It really makes no difference if you retricted your statement to "generally" as I was arguing gainst your point that WM somehow gets special rules because storylines extend longer. Even if that were true (which I pointed out, is not the case) WM still doesn't get special rules. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't retract a previous statement. That is what I said in my original statement that I guess you overlooked. Regardless, and this doesn't exclusively apply to WrestleMania, but there are articles where exceptions can be made. --JDC808 ♫ 20:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That typo should read "restricted". Maybe you now get what I was trying to say. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 34 Women Battle Royal Trophy

I think there should be a section for WM34 Women Battle Royal Trophy to be added and a new Wikipedia page for that trophy just like Mens Battle Royal.🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 01:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: There is. See WrestleMania Women's Battle Royal. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Moolah controversy

Should there be a large section on this article regarding the Moolah controversy? This is already mentioned with due weight in the Storylines section and expanded at length at WrestleMania Women's Battle Royal and The Fabulous Moolah.LM2000 (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It really depends on if we keep the battle royal article. If it's kept, then no, we don't need all that information here, but if it's not kept, then it should be here. --JDC808 ♫ 04:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Let's keep it in for the time being. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Since no one has proposed an AfD, its safe to assume the article will stay. Even if it was nominated, I believe an merge or redirect would be the end result. There really is not a need to include the same information in both places, as long as we link to it. We could at the very least include much less info here. - Galatz^Talk 14:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018

Trevor gonsalves 2 (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan & Shane McMahon vs. Kevin Owens & Sami Zayn Wrestlemania 34

http://www.wwe.com/videos/daniel-bryan-issues-a-wrestlemania-challenge-to-kevin-owens-sami-zayn-smackdown-live-march-27-2018 Shane McMahon is injured and recovering from a infection. Bryan stated during Smackdown Live show he "might" be teaming up with Shane in Tag Team match in story line, but if Shane cant recover from the health issues.. Bryan will team up with another partner as he said. In the match table it should be like this. 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggested Edit

No.	Results	Stipulations

References

You do not have to transclude the table here, ever. You can just say what's in the table in your sentence. For example, you could have said "In the match table it should be like this: Daniel Bryan and (Shane McMahon or TBA) vs. Kevin Owens and Sami Zayn". See how much simpler that is? In regards to the "suggested edit" though, I'd say keep it as is but with a note by Shane's name. --JDC808 ♫ 05:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If his partner is not set it should say Daniel Bryan and TBA. The body of the article already explains the criteria as to why. - Galatz^Talk 13:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Nvm Shane going complete, hes mostly likely going put off the surgery according to PWINsider Wresting Observer 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC) Edit remains  Done

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

Kurt Angle should be mentioned as the Raw General Manager, as well as being linked as it's the first time mentioning him, in the Lesnar-Reigns section 2A02:C7D:2588:7000:800B:AB7:F7BE:E932 (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Already done He is already mentioned as the Raw General Manager and linked in the first instance.

...Rollins pinned Miz. Afterwards, Raw General Manager Kurt Angle scheduled The Miz to defend the Intercontinental Championship against Bálor... I'm unsure what you mean by the Lesnar-Reigns section. — IVORK _Discuss 21:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have further content to add, please specifically state the text you want added and where in a replace x with y format. — IVORK _Discuss 21:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Daniel Byran tall Picture + Info on Wrestlemania 34 Article Wikapedia page

@Galatz: Why undo changes, i was adjusting Wikipedia codes to fix Tall Daniel Bryan Picture+ Caption on left side (the picture was making the Matches Table move right on different view Mobile or Screen res)

@Donnowin1: Any latest on why the info was add back to Daniel Byran picture on left side, because it was meant to fix format issues causing the table go right? (As i explained the Wm34 Edit History>Edit Reason and No explanation lately too from UFC 223 Wikipedia page and UFC 226 Wikipedia page also..

Other : Who that other user keep adding that dot...repeatedly...possible intentional Vandalism . WP:HTSV WP:RVANWP:WARNVAND

🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, 100px was way too small for the image, and the caption is a brief summary of Bryan's situation; gives context to why we're actually including an image of him here. Also, there's still the Cena/Undertaker paragraph to add (it's currently hidden, but come Monday's Raw, it will probably be confirmed). Even if that match doesn't happen, there's a whole other section that's gonna be added before that table, the Event section which will talk about how each match went on the show. That in itself will fix the image issue you're having. Granted, that section won't be added until the night of WM34, but you won't have this issue for too long. --JDC808 ♫ 05:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't try to adjust "Wikipedia codes to fix Tall Daniel Bryan Picture+ Caption on left side". You put a useless hidden code in telling someone else to do it. Thats not where that stuff goes. - Galatz^Talk 13:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Prepare to adjust the code cause someone keep adding the dot the match table (edit conflict) when is not needed.i was fixing that first, and Why Twinkle? That was Temporary Wikipedia comment and was about get removed if the edit conflict did not happen to complete the changes,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Hidden_text

• Instructing others how to edit a page that may be difficult to edit
• Providing information to assist other editors in preventing a common mistake. For example, if there is a reference which is known to be wrong, it may be appropriate to let other editors know about the error to prevent a likely re-insertion of the error.

These are to points.

🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz: yeae i dont feel like editing wrestling that much anymore, i going move to focus on UFC Wikapedia pages, have a nice day fixing edits remain🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection request on 30 March 2018

Someone consonantly adding the dot to the match table WM34 at random times causing edit conflicts (Owens Zayn...not needed) and other. 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

until 9 days (Pacific/Eastern Time) after Wrestlemania 34 is over...

That "dot" is called a "period", which go at the end of sentences. --JDC808 ♫ 21:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In many case that dot or period (same thing) is not needed in Wikipedia Pages match 11 on table Stipulations ...but someone keeps adding it. (When it been removed so many times)

The Temporarily Blue Lock

@JDC808: WP:BLUELOCK is needed temporarily until 9 days after Wrestlemania 34 is over making sure info Wrestlemania 34 page is edited in even if this Blue Lock would prevent me from Editing the page is good enough...it will allow those users to ensure quality info/correction to be edited in the Wrestle mania 34 Wikipedia Article page. There are edit conflict at random , its unclear if the issue was intentional or not on the Wrestlemnaia 34 page.

🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015:If you want to the page put under WP:30/500 protection, you'll have to make a request at WP:RPP not here. This template is for making edits to the page, it doesn't gain admin attention. — IVORK _Discuss 00:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Its because there random times confirmed users are add (edit) matches that are not even part of the event and was no confirmed...also suspect those people are using Multiple accounts to do it.

We got people adding backor editing matches like

• Undertaker vs John Cena
• Baruan Strowman Partner
• Random Opnents matches
• Battle Royal Entrant
• If Owens and Zayn win, they will be rehired to SmackDown (adding a period when is not needed for this case)

A Short Term Blue Lock should be in place. 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 07:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015:, as you have been told here already, WP:RFPP is the place to request an increase in protection level. Iffy★Chat -- 11:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

Because the Lesnar-Reigns storyline is the first storyline mentioned, Kurt Angle should be linked in that section. It currently reads "That episode, Reigns appeared, despite his suspension, to confront Lesnar, so Angle had him handcuffed by U.S. Marshals" but it should say "Raw General Manager Kurt Angle had him handcuffed" because if people are reading this article, if it just says Angle, it is not clear who the article is referring to. Also Seth Rollins needs to be linked in his section about the storyline with Miz and Balor as he hasn't been yet. Part of this is because Seth was mentioned in the Lesnar-Reigns section but has since been removed, therefore he needs to be linked as he is now been mentioned for the first time. 2A02:C7D:2588:7000:791C:AFF:EFAC:D999 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2018

Angle has now been linked in the first section, therefore he doesn't need to be linked again in the IC title storyline. 2A02:C7D:2588:7000:791C:AFF:EFAC:D999 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2018 (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. -- Dane ^talk 03:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018

88.185.130.168 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2018 (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. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

I Want to keep track on the page to keep an eye out. if there is John Cena vs.The Undertaker i will remove it 24.91.22.69 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Background of WrestleMania

I'm not a fan of the guy but was it neccesary to write all that negativity about Roman Reigns on the background section? It's too childish to take your hate on the guy on a Wikipedia article to lead everybody to feel the same way as you. Be responsible with the information and keep your feelings and opinions to yourself. Just write a professional article. Thank you for your time on the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.243.114 (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. It's been one of the biggest talking points about this WrestleMania over the past year, and should definitely be mentioned. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And to note, it is presented in a professional manner. --JDC808 ♫ 19:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello folks I apologize if I offended the writer of the article, it was not correct from me to talk like that. But I still see this article, even if it is presented in a professional manner, intentionally leading the readers to hate on the wrestler Roman Reigns. The whole comment is negative to the person and it should be presented on a different way. Also I agree that if that is such a big deal like JTP said it should be mentioned, that's true, but it should be presented maybe on story lines, and not as the background of the event itself. The background should be all about the Event and not about an individual or a match. Just my opinion and thank you for your observations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.243.114 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree. I am tired of seeing hate on Roman Reigns on every article where he's even mentioned. It has literally nothing to do with the background of WrestleMania 34. How is Reigns being voted most hated wrestler even somewhat relevant? I'll answer, it's not. It's childish hate and a large portion of it is completely based around rumors and whatever Dave Meltzer says. There is absolutely no need to talk about how people hate Roman in the background section of this page. None whatsoever. Yet, the majority of people despise Reigns so it will probably stay. Because of course it will... Goku4Star (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed that irrelevant bullshit. It belongs at the article criticizing Roman Reigns and on the Reigns article itself. The only part of it that belongs is the fact that Meltzer reported the long term plans of using Reigns to go over Lesnar, which I kept. The rest is totally irrelevant non-background. This article, and specifically that section are to discuss the plans for WrestleMania 34 and events leading up to it and not some garbage about how since 2014 he's been booed. I don't care how professionally it was presented or how relevant some sect of wrestling fans think of its importance. The reality is that most of that had nothing to do with the background of this event and it belongs on its relevant article. — Moe Epsilon 10:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that background section is not doing justice with the main event of wrestlemania 34. We know most story lines are scripted in WWE but how can we say that a match is fully scripted or fixed especially when it is a Wrestlemania Main Event until we have official statement or any proof. What if Lesner win at Wrestlemania 34.सुमित सिंह (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Fabulous Moolah Controversy section

This section is completely overblown. This was not a highly publicized incident. It wasn't on front headlines on CNN or Fox news. There is no need for it to be there. People outside of the wrestling world probably know nothing about this. PaulG524 (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

What's worse is that it's already heavily detailed in two other articles and the controversy is already briefly mentioned in the storyline section. Shit needs to go. It can come back if WrestleMania Women's Battle Royal is ever merged back here.LM2000 (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This reminds me of the "negative reception of roman reigns person" page. WWE fans will make a page out of anything. PaulG524 (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• persona PaulG524 (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You could have just edited your previous post to fix your typo....it's funny that people on Facebook also don't realize that in the comments. I digress. In regards to the Moolah section, it's been mentioned before, but no one has done anything. I know I had mentioned about waiting to see if we keep the battle royal article, which appears that we are. --JDC808 ♫ 05:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed this before but got reverted. Let's see what happens this time.LM2000 (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to edit my typo but for some reason my mobile site is acting up. Nobody is going to let anyone remove that section. When stuff like this happens, editors have a habit of sabotaging articles. PaulG524 (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

IC title time

@Bsems: Any reason you're reverting sourced content? You can be blocked for this. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I want an explanation as well. BerleT (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

because im right, okurr

That's not a proper explaination. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Recommend a block if he changes it again. BerleT (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Who is Nicholas?

We've had a couple of editors claim that Braun Strowman's tag team partner was one of Shane McMahon's three sons. None of them are named Nicholas - not that it's a restriction necessarily - and more importantly it needs a reliable source. BerleT (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As per the sources I have got. He is son of Raw brand referee John Cone. See sources [[7]]. No doubt it was part of story line and not the random pick by Strowman. We need to create article on Nicholas as he became notable now and also the youngest champion ever. सुमित सिंह (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that source is reliable. BerleT (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This source or Twitter source is more accurate (more original and clear) with the use of WP:COMMONSENSE its obvious , that is John Cone son who is now one half of WWE Raw Tag Team Champion.🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless you get it confirmed by multiple reliable sources, I would halt adding any identifiable information about a minor. WP:BLP makes it very clear that you need to be very careful in such situations. — Moe Epsilon 08:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Not only that, Twitter is not a reliable source unless it is an official source (eg WWE) and Bodyslam.net is listed at WP:PW as unreliable. BerleT (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct. It's not as troublesome since it is a lighthearted subject, but in the cases such as these, you want to be 100% certain you are identifying the correct person and not misidentifying/leaking personal information of unrelated people. — Moe Epsilon 08:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That source is accurate. The Wikipedia Minor BLP Policy is already followed, because i only used John Cone Son, and there no last name display nothing else. Its more likely to be his a Ring Name or Nickname, so identification of the Celebrity Referee Son (a Minor) is more likely around the internet since he went on TV WWE (a Popular Company and Well Known Company) 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 08:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand, I am only concerned with other editors potentially adding incorrect information (hence why this section was started), and was not accusing you of anything. Related articles such as the tag team title articles and champions articles are now getting edits adding incorrect last names and no sources which need to be monitored and reverted. For now, leaving it as just "Nicholas" without any other identifying last name or such is fine unless that becomes public knowledge backed with reliable sources. It's just that Twitter and anything considered by WP:PW as unreliable won't do for identification. Please go over WP:PW/RS to see which sources we consider reliable for adding any other names other than just "Nicholas". Also, with the digital age, there are also people who may know this child and attempt to add his information as well. It's just a sensitive situation that needs to be handled with care. By the way, make use of the preview button please, I've been trying to talk to you for some time now. — Moe Epsilon 08:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup that why i put very vague info when it comes to a minor, but evenutlly more deeper info going be public knowledge cause his Referee is basically a celbright?

That is not always the case. We may never hear of Nicholas again after tomorrow night's Raw. There's no real way to tell. If WWE identify him as Cone's son then that's fine, but that doesn't mean he's now a celebrity or that we need to identify him by his real name (whether his real name is Nicholas or not). — Moe Epsilon 09:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: Bodyslam dot net is not accurate as it has been deemed unreliable. At present the claim must be regarded as a rumour only and can not be added to the article. BerleT (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Now he relinquished the title voluntarily. and I don't think so that he can be a part of Wikipedia Article. I saw recently few of the articles have been deleted especially Team PCB (Paige, Charlotte, Becky Lynch) as per checking because that article was unauthentic.CK (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Undertaker's Career

Users please stop adding word RETIRE RETIRED or RETIREMENT regarding undertaker's career because according to wwe.com he is still listed as current roster but as free agent. Roman Reigns said he would retire Undertaker but that doesn't mean we add such things here. so please stop adding "Presumed to be retired at wrestlemania 33" at all. CK (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand the meaning behind the statement clearly. Yes, of course he's still listed on the active roster. No one is talking about the present. No one is saying at this very moment he is retired. It's a statement clarifying that everyone "presumed" he was retired. Please google the word "presumed" if you don't know what it means. It wasn't just the fans either. WWE superstars, management, #ThankYouTaker. Everyone thought he had retired. At WrestleMania 33, not 34, i.e the previous WM. A big part of the John Cena storyline was if he would come out of retirement for a match against Cena. The statement has nothing to do with just Roman Reigns' promo. It is worth a mention. Please stop removing it. Goku4Star (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is a summary of the most important parts of the article. To say that people speculated something happened the year before is the most important part of the article, I suggest you reread the content of the article. To go sourced in the body with the read of the content, maybe, but the lead, definitely not. - Galatz^Talk 18:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz: I get it but another way i suggest you if you want to prove. say "presumed by hashtag ThankYouTaker" and whatever way you want to include. as I felt that it is a propaganda to blame company that they did joke with fans. public want to blame WWE for that act. that's what I felt. I don't even understand what is happening. In real life I'm trying to convince people that STOP DOING THIS if they were about to do this by imposing rumors and spreading propagandas which I totally against that. even via social media. I even read WrestleMania 33 talk page too for some assistance. now It's your turn what you do. I did the same thing at the time of Neville's indefinite leave last year. I try to protect wikipedia from unasusual rumors also. CK (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Asuka's undefeated streak and its detractors

I'd like to question this detracting of Asuka's undefeated streak. Though WWE certainly overpromoted it (as they usually do, which however usually does not stop WP editors from parroting all the promotion language), I don't think that calling her hitherto undefeated is actually wrong. Much is made of two "losses", one in a battle royal [8] in January 2016, another in a fatal fourway [https://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/nxt-sebring-fl-live-results-nxt-womens-title-fatal-four-way-2083669 in February. Even if we take both as losses, that is a streak of over two years (February 2016 to April 2018). But IMO not winning a battle royal is not actually a loss nor is not winning a multi-person non-elimination match, unless the person is pinned, countedout, DQed or has submitted. (Note also, that saying "she wasn't submitted" is not grammatically correct English.)

Also note: it is an "undefeated streak", not a winning streak.

If these two non-wins need to be mentioned at all, it should be in a footnote. The whole issue should be absent from the intro. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What do others think? Str1977 ^(talk) 13:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really see how it's relevant to the reader what her actual win/loss record is Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

When Mr. Perfect lost during his undefeated streak we do mention it on his page Curt Hennig#Undefeated streak (1988–1990), I see nothing wrong with mentioning it similarly on Asuka's page. We don't need that level of detail here though. - Galatz^Talk 14:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's hardly the point here since this is not the Asuka article. We have to note the "streak" (which is indeed understood as "undefeated streak") since it is part of the storyline. We should note the holes is that claim but we mustn't use OR to deny that a streak existed. 14:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's actually exactly the point. I said it belongs in her article, not here. This article is about the event itself, not the flaws in the story telling. Its valid to include on WP, this just is not the place for it. - Galatz^Talk 15:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood you. Thanks for clarifying. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Str1977 - you are arguing that Asuka has an undefeated streak of February 2016 to April 2018 (fact based on current info), but what WWE is presenting is that she has been undefeated since she joined in 2015 (false even within storyline/kayfabe). If you want to pick and choose, Cedric Alexander has a TV undefeated streak since December 2017. Brock Lesnar has an undefeated streak since February 2017. But we don't say Cedric and Lesnar have "undefeated streaks". We have a responsibility to readers to present accurate information. We should not, in Wikipedia's voice, merely state she has an undefeated streak without clarifying the time period. The truth is that Asuka's real streak is that she has never been pinned or submitted in WWE. We can frame the information that Charlotte is the first one to submit Asuka in WWE. That is a fact. starship.paint ~ KO 04:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying two things:

1. that WWE promoted an "undefeated since arrival" streak and that this undefeated streak (not some other accomplishment like never being pinned, never having submitted or having won every match) played a major role in the feud.

2. that an actual undefeated streak existed. The length of that streak depends on how one views what your counterexamples (which, BTW, are all thus far OR). Of these only the tag team loss (her team lost, though her partner was pinned) constitutes an actual loss for her, not the Battle Royal, not the Fatal Fourway. But I'm not advocating putting this or that opinion into the article but want to keep the article's focus shifting from the event and its relevant storylines to an argument about how long the streak actually was.
The topic is raised in the Asuka article and could also be raised in a footnote in this article. A footnote you first created and then deleted. I restored the footnote but after the discussion with Galatz deleted it again. I would happily restore it IF we can find a good place where to put it.

I'm all for accurate information: hence we have to write that an "undefeated streak" (as per point 1) a focus of the storyline. Your rewordings are not doing this. Your "Asuka's real streak" is both OR (as you are the only one raising that issue) and POV.

Streaks of other wrestlers don't concern the issue as they were not raised in storylines. I'm actually pretty dismissive of streaks in general and thought the Undertaker streak one of the lamest elements of Wrestlemanias a few years back.

Finally, "Charlotte is the first one to submit Asuka in WWE" is not a grammatically correct sentence. Submit to what? Actually, Charlotte made her submit.

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There's three kinds of outcomes. Win, lose or draw. If only one person wins a battle royale, the others lose. If one person wins a fatal four way match, the others lose. Reliable sources are clear: Carmella won the battle royale, Bayley won the fatal four way. You're trying to say these aren't actual losses which is weird. You shouldn't use the actual shorter undefeated streak to justify the promoted longer undefeated streak. Wherever the promoted streak is mentioned there should be a footnote to qualify it. Whether in the body or the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that saying that Asuka lost the battle royal would paint a false picture. Actually nobody talks like that, nobody says that 29 wrestlers lost the Rpyal Rumble but that one won it. When you call on Reliable Source, do you have any for your position that Asuka lost that battle royal (not just that Carmella won, but that Asuka lost).

No, I'm not saying that losses are not losses in the article. I'm saying when wording the holes in the streak, we should be careful. And I'm also saying that we still have to relate the items of the storyline, not rephrase them into something that was not talked about.

Suggestion: we restore the footnote as we last had it and restore your linking to every occurence of "undefeated streak" (as you once had it). But we keep the wording "undefeated streak".

Alternative suggestion: we give the explanation from that footnote in the article body, in the storyline section. That has the advantage of not having a footnote but we can then only note the problem in one place.

Would you be content with one of these suggestions? Str1977 ^(talk) 06:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• It is entirely possible to lose in a battle royale as reliable sources have noted: [9] Andre lost in a battle royal / [10] He had never lost a battle royal until one in 1972 / [11] Joe lost a battle royal
• However in the interests of compromise, the first suggestion can be applied with the following tweak; see my edits. starship.paint ~ KO 00:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that these can be seen as losses but say that they are normally not considered such (again, the tag team match is a different matter).

I was first confused by the formatting of your edit but it appears that it needs to be done like this. However, in the interest of being concise I still prefer the more encompassing wording "came up short in ... and ..." I also don't see that the exact dates are relevant here. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I present another alternative to your review. I shortened the details in the footnote (to just "battle royal on TV and two non-televised multi-person matches") and moved the details (what kind of matches) over to Asuka's article, the relevant section of which I also linked in the footnote. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Str1977: - I find "multi-person match" very vague. It's not standard lingo we would hear from wrestling shows. Plus, the battle royal is also a multi-person match. If I heard "multi-person match" I would be scratching my head, maybe you mean a triple threat but a tag team match wouldn't really come to mind. Versus simply saying "one tag team match and one fatal four way match". The latest date is relevant for the 'real' undefeated streak. starship.paint ~ KO 04:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with naming the date, hence I kept/restored it.

Regarding the vague terminology: indeed "multi-person match" is a rather new term and only appears regarding women. But the equivalent "multi-man match" is heard frequently as an umbrella term for all these triple threats, fatal fourways, sixpack challenges and ninefold nonsense.

However, I don't see that "never heard at a wrestling show" is a good argument. You hear a lot of strange wordings in wrestling, especially WWE, and we do not parrot it (or at least, we shouldn't). But I see your point about being understood. My intention is to refrain from a detailed listing of every match Asuka has "lost". Can you think of another way to avoid this?

That the Battle Royal is also, strictly speaking, a multi-person match, is IMO not a problem as we say "at battle royal on TV and two non-televised multi-person matches. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

if there are like five non-TV matches then yeah it would be too much detail. But 2 is not too much. Furthermore you consider a tag match a multi-person match. Which is the problem IMO starship.paint ~ KO 04:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not introduce that term to begin with but only used what was already there (at the Asuka article) when I switched between the two articles: more detail there, less detail here. And yes, even if it's only three matches, I consider mentioning every match Asuka "lost" too much detail. What can we do? Str1977 ^(talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Daniel Bryan October 2016 (crop).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Results section request on 17 November 2023.

Hello, I was looking at the results section and noticed that the results table wasn't build correctly. So, I fixed it but upon further review I noticed a lot of incorrect information on the page. I noticed non-existant matches being listed on the page and was wondering if we can revert it back to the revision as of 00:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC) by MaterialScientist, as that is the correct version of the table. Aiden4Real (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)