Talk:WrestleMania 25

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Professional wrestling Mid‑importance WrestleMania 25 is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This professional wrestling article is a frequent target for editors to add a week-by-week synopsis of storyline events, unconfirmed information, rumors, and other content inappropriate to an encyclopedic article. Please make sure to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is not, and consider whether your additions to this article will serve to make the article larger and harder to edit for style, clarity, and grammar.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Ric Flair#Retirement and beyond|retirement from active competition]] The anchor (#Retirement and beyond) has been deleted by other users before. [[Professional wrestling#Disqualification|disqualifying]] The anchor (#Disqualification) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I have a question. Why in the divas battle royal table you put the brand if the brand can be reconocided buy the colour grey, blue and red?? --81.36.175.63 (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Red = Raw which is the color on their logo, Blue = Smackdown which is also on their logo, Gray = Past divas for some reason and purple = ECW for some reason. SuperSilver901 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ECW logo used to be purple, that's probably why. TJ Spyke 21:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means why list the name of the brand if the colours tell you them. My answer would be because I'm colour defective and barely able to distinguish the difference. Tony2Times (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you are right. We have to think of users with disabilities. Someone who is color blind should be able to tell what brand they were on. TJ Spyke 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the ECW divas should be in gray or a variation of black, as that is their color which they are represented by.--Truco 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you don't understand me. I say that in top of the table, you say that the divas in blue are of SD, the divas in grey are in ECW and the divas in red are in RAW. I say that is ridiculous write in the table Brand, between Diva and Order of elimination, because we know the brand seeing the colour. --81.36.175.63 (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TJ just answered that...some people can't SEE colors or have a hard time seeing them, so they make a legend of what each color means, and not everyone will know red means Raw (sounds ridiculous but I'm sure there's someone out there)--Lord Dagon (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Sorry, I don't understand him. Thanks for your time. --81.36.175.63 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support this page. It is and was the 25th anniversary of Wrestlemania who cares if it does not add up. Technically speaking the first WrestleMania was in celebration of everything WWE had accomplished at the time. This is the same as if people are married. When you have been married 25 years you don't say that this is your 24th anniversary lol you say it is your 25th. I say we all drop it and let it be. Glenn83e (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have agreed to drop it and keep it as Wrestlemania XXV. This is the overwhelming consensus. Firestorm ^Talk 18:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to Mshake. I know that you believe that it is "officially" known as the 25th anniversary etc. The fact is, there's no press release that says that's the official title. Most RS primarily used XXV, such as the ones I linked to above. If you wish to keep edit warring, then please provide your justification on this page. We must obtain consensus before changing it, following the "bold, revert, discuss" format. I am restoring it to the previous version, but I will adhere to WP:1RR from this point on. Firestorm ^Talk 18:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official WWE press releases here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Mshake3 (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "officially" you mean it that WWE only called it by that name, when it used more than 1 name. The most commonly used names were WrestleMania XXV and 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania, which is what is denoted in the article. There is no official title.--Truco 20:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If WWE is the one calling that, then that is the official name. No nicknames folks. Mshake3 (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're done here... and have been for quite some time.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 20:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a page showing the history of who became Miss WrestleMania just like all of the title belts in the WWE both past and present as well as other title belts past and present from other professional wrestling compaines. Why is the Miss WrestleMania page deleated and redirected to WrestleMania XXV? Gibsonj338 (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is kept as a redirect because at the moment the Miss WrestleMania Crown is not known to be a notable yearly occurence. There just isn't any notable information about the subject right now. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be mentioned in the article that May Young was the special guest timekeeper? my source is that they said that at The event.--JereMerr 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I saw the talk page discussion, and the change seems to be totally spurious and randomly enforced. Much like an episode of a TV show, the characters are named as they are in-show and then links are provided to the appropriate character page (in this situation, the wrestler). It's especially confusing when a in-ring name is used as the wikilnk with the real name as the display text. I get the feeling that edits made to wrestling articles talk WAY down to readers who may not know much about wrestling...often stepping outside what is generally considered good form for an article. If a reader wants to read past CM Punk landing the Go To Sleep on Edge for the championship...let them dig down further. Otherwise you're just flooding them with WAY too much info that they may not really care about. Such as full on descriptions of move names...followed by a wiki link to an article that basically repeats what's already printed in the parent. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 07:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how well known the wrestler is. If a wrestler is not well known (like Ricky Ortiz) or if they are well known by more than one ring name (like Billy Gunn/Kip James), we list their real name. There are lots of example of people that we don't use their real names in TV articles (in a article on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, we would just write "Ice-T" instead of his real name "Tracy Marrow" for the same reason). I don't think we should list their real name at all (unless it's a situation like The Undertaker vs. the fake Undertaker at SummerSlam 1994), but the general consensus is to do it in the situations I mentioned. TJ Spyke 20:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's "consensus"...but can somebody PLEASE explain to me why it seems like the wrestling related articles are the only ones where consensus generally breaks Wikistyle? I mean, if you're going to include the wrestler's real name in every article that references them....and then include descriptions for moves in every article that references...what's the point of having wikilinks? That's the problem I have with the "consensus" being built in these articles. Especially when you note that the article is tagged for needing cleanup. Yet every change made in an attempt to do so is reverted. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This project has 4140 articles in total. 186 of them are either FL, FA, or GA. Out of those 186 half are probably poorly written, badly sourced, etc and the project only has a handful of editors working on expanding them or fixing the already finished ones. The rest pop in for PPVs and to do small things. This article like many others is not being expanded. This article does not follow guidelines such as Jargon, Fiction, etc. The reason not all articles follow the correct format is alot don't like saying wrestling is fake so they don't follow it and trying to change that format will just result is a big argument which will get us no where because we someone trying to improve the article, users just whine. The descriptions are supposed to be cut down. But noone has done that. When they do, they either remove them entirely and keep a poorly worded sentence instead. So sometimes they are reverted, though I don't watch this page much so I can't give an instance. It is laziness which is causing things to not be correct. No one taking it under their own power to improve things to the agreed format. I would improve this article myself like I planned, but work is stopping me from doing that.--WillC 13:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this? None of the other battle royals at Wrestlemania have a table like this. Thebookofaustin3:16 (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good, useful chart. Charts like that should be added to the other articles, not removed from this one.--Josh (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Phoenix eliminated Maryse in the 25 Diva Battle Royal, not Santina Marella ! watch the match on dailymotion or youtube and see for yourself ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeakFreak24 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the promotional info I've seen on the event have used roman numerals. Therefore, I would suggest a name change to "WrestleMania 25" with WrestleMania XXV redirecting to it.--Josh (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above and the archives as to why its at its current name, there lengthy and numerous discussions over this.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion involved a change from "WrestleMania XXV" to "the 25th Anniversary of WrestleMania", which was most of the debate, where I am only recommending a change from "XXV" to "25".--Josh (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Wikipedia elite" are far too up their own arses to listen to you. Don't waste your time, honestly. What do you think this is? An encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Oh, wait... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.67.15 (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be noted somewhere in the article? I mean, it was a pretty major event in the middle of the show. You know, where Steve Austin drank beer in-ring for 5 straight minutes, lol. You can't miss it :P If nothing is written, I think you could just lift the section from Steve Austin's wikipedia page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.47.74 (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that notable, so what if he hasn't appeared in 9 months? Even if he were to die before he ever appeared on WWE programming again, I still don't think it would be worth nothing (at least here). TJ Spyke 15:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could it not be notable, anything with Stone Cold is always notable. Is Stone Cold coming in to the ring with a Zamboni not notable, is Stone Cold filling up Vince's car with cement not notable, is Stone Cold breaking the law by dressing up as a doctor to attack Vince in the hospital not notable, is Stone Cold driving a Beer Truck into the ring not notable,is Stone Cold along with the Big Show destroying a TitanTron not notable, is Stone Cold destroying the DX Express not notable, is his match in the 6 man Hell in a Cell match at Armageddon not notable, is all his matches with The Rock at WrestleMania not notable,was his induction into the WWE Hall of Fame by Vince McMahon (Vincent Kennedy McMahon, the Chairman of World Wrestling Entertainment) not notable, or is his appearance as guest host of Monday Night RAW on March 16th, 2010 not notable TJ Spyke?! Cause if his last appearance at WrestleMania ever wasen't epic or even notable then how was anything else that the guy who made the greatest era in wrestling ever even notable?! Answer me that TJ!--Nascarking (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that was originally noted/discussed on the WM25 page when it first went up, and I think it should remain in some form. The "25th anniversary" of Wrestlmania took place on March 31, 2010, which is 25 years to the date after the first Wrestlemania on March 21, 1985.

Wrestlemania 25, which took place on April 5, 2009, is roughly twenty-FOUR years after the original Wrestlemania took place - roughly one week after the 24th anniversary.

While one can't argue against the fact that WWE did, in fact, use "the 25th anniversary of Wrestlemania" in their marketing for Wrestlemania 25, that doesn't change the fact that the event took place a year before said anniversary.

Btw, for those of you out there that don't understand the math issue at hand: if you get married on June 1, 2000, when is your 10th wedding anniversary? If you said anything other than June 1, 2010, you're wrong. WWE was essentially passing off June 1, 2009 as the date in question because it made their poster look cooler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.18 (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well for your information, we do understand the math issue at hand. The problem is the entire issue is simply not notable. Promotional material in various genres will often use "anniversary" in the same manner WWE has. (Super Bowl, Grammy Awards, etc.) The entire thing is trivial and per WP:TRIVIA doesn't need to be noted. Simply let it go. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official website for the Grammys says "50th annual" and not "50th anniversary." They got it right, FYI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.89.0.18 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We know this already, but it's still not notable in any way. Simon^KSK 19:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, though.76.226.120.12 (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no its not its trivia... ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 09:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this section is not neutral and uses language that is suspect. examples: Orton's 'twisted' visions of the future, and his shock at seeing the McMahon's with HHH, and Cena 'fittingly' being attacked by Edge and Bigshow, before Bigshow getting his 'just deserts'. what the hell? this whole section needs to be redone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 06:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard rumours that the cameraman who squashed by Undertaker's suicide dive was Sim Snuka. Is this true? FlapjackStantz (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While that would be an interesting detail, there looks to be little coverage on the subject. It seems it may be just that, a rumor. It doesn't seem relevant enough to be in the article.Cstam716 (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't part of the conversation 11 years ago when the topic of whether or not to title this event "25th Anniversary of WrestleMania" or "WrestleMania XXV" came up. At the time, it was decided to keep it as "XXV", because the roman numerals were more or less a standard. What I don't understand is why wasn't "WrestleMania 25" an option for a title back then. Today, looking back, it's silly to call this event "WrestleMania XXV" when no roman numerals were used at all during this PPV. If you look at how every WrestleMania is titled on WP, we only use roman numerals in the titles when they were used during the event itself. Like Mania III, IV, V, etc. Now in the case of events that didn't use roman numerals during the event, like Mania 31, 32, 33, etc. we don't use roman numerals in the titles. So why should Mania 25 be given the roman numeral treatment when it's no different than WrestleMania 2, 13, 21, 22, 23, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36? Nowhere during the PPV are the letters XXV seen or shown anywhere. No graphics at all depict this. The only time I can recall seeing this event marketed as Mania XXV was a year earlier at Mania XXIV when they played the hype video announcing this show for the following year. WWE eventually changed all advertising, many months before Mania 25 took place, to remove the roman numeral graphics and rebrand the show as “WrestleMania: 25th Anniversary". The same thing happened with Mania 22. When they first showed the hype video a year earlier at Mania 21, the graphics showed "WrestleMania XXII". Eventually they changed the advertising and removed the roman numerals there too. And we list it as "WrestleMania 22" not "XXII". So, I ask again, why is Mania 25 getting special treatment compared to other similar Manias? I think it's time we rename this to the proper "WrestleMania 25" title. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question comes down to what its called in WP:RS more than what WWE's official name is. I looked through the first 10 pages of google results for RS. [8] [9] [10] [11] support your name. [12] does not. Therefore I believe more use 25, than XXV. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. And I can also find a bunch more that use 25 instead of XXV. Here’s PWInsider’s original coverage on the day of the show [13] and the issue of the Wrestling Observer that covered the event that week [14]. Also remember, a lot of places, including WWE themselves sometimes, use WP as a reference point. So some places will use XXV simply because it’s been listed that way on WP for a long time. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is several sources calling it 25, we can change the name. Even if WWE.com writes sometimes WM XXV, the name of the event it's 25 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just waiting to see if anyone objects to the move, which I can't see why they would. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@OldSkool01: After a 10 days discussion, I think you can change the name of the article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: I tried to move the page, but needed to make a technical request first. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]