Talk:WrestleMania (1985)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WrestleMania (1985) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part 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, you can visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Requested move

WrestleMania was not suffixed by Roman numerals until the 3rd WrestleMania, when it became clear that it would be an annual event - the first two WrestleMania just had numbers after their name, not numerals. This is from the official guide to WrestleMania published by World Wrestling Entertainment. — McPhail 22:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Support. – AxSkov (☏) 09:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose WWE.com's Wrestlemania history page is showing Roman numerals for this event--JB 05:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it to WrestleMania (1985) as the name of it was not suffixed by any numeral. This is, of course, open to discussion but I do think it works best. violet/riga (t) 09:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Kong Bundy v SD Jones

I was just watching the match. I timed it also. My timer says 22.58Seconds and the Ring Anouncer says the match was finished in 9 seconds!! heh. (should both times be noted?) Govvy 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The discrepency is already noted. TJ Spyke 22:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

KK, I was just watched it, it did officially say 23 seconds in the event. So I shaved a second off. Govvy 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image alignment in this article

The alignment of the images needs fixing. Govvy 13:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I took care of it, got rid of the space caused by how close the first two pics were to each other. TJ Spyke 22:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this one [[Image:WMsantana.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Tito Santana vs. The Executioner]] has to be right under the ==Results== header. Now the bottom one needs fixing. Govvy 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit created a huge white speace between the section heading and the first match result. I'm guessing you use Firefox since I have IE and the current version of the page is fine, everything is alligned fine (I have noticed in the past that Firefox users have problems with Wikipedia). TJ Spyke 23:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

ye, I have been experiencing problems, I thought I try an edit and view both. Seems to work better when they are all under the results header. Govvy 23:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the alignment for better view in both firefox and Internet Explorer. It should look good now.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The way you did it Govvy looks horrible for me. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL you made it look much worse for me in IE and Firefox!! I got major whitespace!! Govvy 23:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit made all of the images line up at the very top of the results section for me man. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

and the whitespace? Govvy 23:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

what version of IE are you using? Try upgrading it, see if it'll work. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the latest versions of Firefox and IE! Govvy 23:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No way man, I have the latest version of both too and the article looks fine to me w/o any white spaces. Maybe it has something to do with the resolution of your screen. I have mine set to default. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have 1024 by 768 what do you have? Govvy 23:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I also have the latest version of IE. I don't use Firefox, I tried it but didn't care for it. My resolution is 1280x800 (the default, I have a widescreen monitor). TJ Spyke 23:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have same as TJ's on this comp and 1024 by 768 on my other one. Both look fine to me so I don't know whats up with yours Govvy.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)