This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WrestleMania XXVI article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Professional wrestling Unassessed Mid‑importance

	WrestleMania XXVI 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Too early

It is WAY too early for this article to exist. It is at least 13 months away (maybe 13 1/2 if WWE holds it in early April). All that is known is that it expected to be in Glendale. No date, no logo, no information. It should go back to a redirect to WrestleMania until at least the day after WrestleMania XXV. I support changing it back to a redirect. TJ Spyke 03:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, one month really doesn't effect anything. Usually, WWE will release the logo at the press conference. Various sources have reported it so its not that bad. Next years Super Bowl already had an article way before this year's Super Bowl.--TRU CO 03:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least with the Super Bowl they have plenty of other information though. This article will pretty much stay like it currently is for at least several more months, nothing more than a stub. It's the same reason we don't have articles for SummerSlam 2009 (which is only 7 months away) even though we know more about that PPV than we do this one. TJ Spyke 03:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl XLIV just has more wording about the selection process but is only verified by 2 refs, its practically the same as this article.--TRU CO 04:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has a lot more info. Stuff like being the first on digital TV, the Pro Bowl being played before the Super Bowl for the first time, info on it being a national security event, among others. My suggestion is to do what we always do, wait until after WrestleMania XXV. I know not much will change by then though. TJ Spyke 04:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--If not much is going to change by then, what's the point in redirecting it now, and recreating it then? Why not just leave it now? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be all for keeping it a redirect even longer. The article will only get the date and logo added, then nothing for several months when WWE announces the ticket date (if past years are any indication). TJ Spyke 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would remain a stub though no less. I mean regardless of whether we wait until WrestleMania 25 or tomorrow how much difference do you think a day or a month would make for something that is a year away? Now take another thing into consideration: IPs and one-time edit users. With the subject already being covered by news organizations, giving these IPs and users self-justification, do you realize how many times we would be reverting and page-watching, and page-protecting, and possibly even blocking? It’s just best to avoid this problem, as we should with any conflicts.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But under that logic, why not add in rumored matches to PPV articles ahead of time to avoid having to revert IP's all the time. Keeping a stub article that will not be expanded for like 5 months just because IPs's and some users might try creating it over and over is not the best idea IMO. TJ Spyke

That's not the logic at all, because for rumored matches and all the nonsense that IWC organizations report there is no reliable source covering the subject. IWC sites are not news organizations. In this case however, we have reputable news orgs covering the subject. That is what I was referring to.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All events with the notability of this caliber should be able to maintain a stub article until info is added. Although the SB article has a bit more info (since its broadcast on television), it is still a stub neither-the-less. Take all that info out, you're just left with the selection process. Same as this event.--TRU CO 12:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagline

Since Wrestleview is only considered reliable for TV and PPV results, sooner or later it needs to be replaced with a more reliable source for the tagline. TJ Spyke 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it will once more information is released by reliable sources. For now, WrestleView is best for it since their "work" is from the official WrestleMania XXVI Press Conference.--TRU CO 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but there is no way to verify it since it was not a public press conference. For now I suppose it's OK, until another source is found. TJ Spyke 21:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24

Since people are saying WM25 is really WM23 should this be WM24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 14:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]