Talk:Money in the Bank ladder match

Qualifying Matches/Organization

Does anyone else think that we should organize the Money In The Bank Qualifying matches sort of how we organize Royal Rumble Qualifying matches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Dagon (talk • contribs) 13:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, as long as it is kept on this page. Lemon Demon (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Cash-in match

Does it need to be mentioned that when Edge cashed in against the Undertaker, Undertaker had just had a match. Bam123456789 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why we should add it. –LAX 11:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Here are some things that can get this article to C or even B-Class:

• Sourcing the information that isn't already sourced.
• I added a fact tag to the info about Jeff Hardy being suspended for violating the Wellness Policy b/c of WP:BLP. You might want to try SLAM! Wrestling...I think they had a story about that. In any event, that shouldn't be too hard to source.
  • Done, got it from WWE.com. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
• Pro-Wrestling Edge hasn't been proven reliable yet, so it might be a good idea to replace those refs with some other source—SLAM!, WWE.com, PWTorch.
  • That Pro-Wrestling Edge website has been replaced with WWE.com, WrestleView.com, and SLAM! Sports. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I did some copyediting and added a free use image of Punk with the brief case. Let me know if you want me to have another look at the article or reassess the class. Nikki311 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jumping the gun on MITB participants?

According to this source: http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/wwe/1296.html the final two qualifiers for the 2009 Money in the Bank match are Christian and Finlay. I am not sure of the policy on adding information that hasn't aired on TV, i.e. title changes or heel/face turns. Therefore, for the time being, I am adding Christian and Finlay as the final two participants, unless it is wrong to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.231.69 (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

KANE?

this MITB of 2009 have not happen yet, the last part says that kane won, wrestlemania is this sunday, please sombody correct that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.1.201.251 (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

THE CONTRACT

Somebody know if you can change the briefcase the same night at WRESTLEMANIA??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.60.0 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the commentary for Wrestlemania XXIV, it can be cashed in at Wrestlemania, yes. --Jameboy (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

HELP!

Someone has put up false info in the match history section, and I don't know how to multi-undo. Can someone undo this mess?--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Money in the Bank PPV

Why is there a Money in the Bank ladder match listed in the Match history section as there being a Money in the Bank ladder match at the Moeny in the Bank PPV? The Money in the Bank PPV isen't even scheduled to be on PPV until after WrestleMania XXVI, Extreme Rules, Over the Limit, and Fatal Four Way. After the Fatal Four Way PPV's matches have been announced and the PPV has taken place, only then will we know if there will be a Money in the Bank ladder match at the Money in the Bank PPV.

I think that it is safe to assume that a PPV called Money in the Bank will have a Money in a Bank ladder match, but we won't know until the WWE announces the match and it is not right to go ahead and add the match to the Match history section with no source, yet. Until then, I think that the Money in the Bank ladder match listed in the Match history section as being held at the Money in the Bank PPV, should be deleted until the WWE confirms otherwise. I will go ahead and delete that match from the Match history. Gibsonj338 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who made the MITB match for the Money in the Bank PPV on the Match History section. I was wrong of doing that, but I had a problem making it invisible. I'm sorry for what I've done and I will never do it again.--Yugiohmike2001 (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Money in the Bank Ladder Match at WrestleMania XXVI

Does anyone know how long the Money in the Bank Ladder Match at WrestleMana XXVI took? If anyone knows, can it be added to the list? Thanks. Gibsonj338 (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

13:44^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Days held Money in the Bank Contract before cashed in?

Would it be a good idea to calculate how long each WWE Superstar held onto the Money in the Bank Contract before cashing it in and adding it to the article? I would be all for it, and would add the information to the article, but don't know where to put the information in the article and before I did that, would like for people to give their opinion as to weather this information should even be in the article. Thanks. Gibsonj338 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. If it can be properly cited then yes. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Age in days can take care of that easily.--WillC 06:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Take out MITB PPV from this page

This page here is about the MITB match at WrestleMania. Not the MITB macth at the MITB ppv. Can we just take those out since they are not a part of the WrestleMania MITB?--Nascarking (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this page is for all MitB matches, including ones outside WrestleMania. No need for a "Money in the Bank" Money in the bank ladder matches page.--Mikeymike2001 (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sidenote

Shouldn't be noted that Edge has been involved in every single Cashing in of the MITB Briefcase. He cashed in the 1st on John Cena. He Speared Cena which allowed Rob Van Dam to win the WWE Championship. He won a match against Mr. Kennedy that had the MITB contract from WrestleMania 23 on the line, which he cashed in on The Undertaker. He then was on the receiving end of the MITB contract cashing in when a pissed of Batista beat the living Hell out of him, which then a couple of seconds later CM Punk would show up to cash in his MITB Briefcase from WrestleMania XXIV. 11 Months later, Jeff Hardy would beat Edge in a Hell of a Ladder Match, in a couple of seconds later CM Punk showed up with his MITB Briefcase from WrestleMania XXV. Jeff Hardy didn't stand a chance due to the ladder match with Edge, that was also a record for the shortest World Heavyweight Championship Reign in history a 2 minutes. And then last but not least. Edge speared an injured Chris Jericho. Then Jack Swagger knocks out Edge with his MITB Briefcase from WrestleMania XXVI and then proceeds to the ring to give Jericho the Gutwrench Powerbomb and win the World Heavyweight Championship. I guess you can say if Edge isn't involved in the cashing in of the contract, then he won't do it right then.--Nascarking (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nascarking, I had added that. But, someone deleted it.--Thenodrin —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC).

WWE/fcw Diva's MITB & TNA Feast or Fired.

Havent the FCW divas competed in a couple MITB matches. Even if they are not Ladder Matches, maybe it should still be pointed out.

& also a similar format for TNA, even if the matches have been retired.

24.24.221.54 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC) CobraMorph

"I changed my mind" cash-ins

Hmm. I could have sworn that at one point, in addition to including the ultimate result of each briefcase's final cash-in, this page also included examples of each Mr. MITB's "never mind" moments: When he came down to make an attempted cash-in, only to be foiled or change his mind before the match became official. Off the top of my head I can think of Del Rio getting kicked in the head by CM Punk right after Punk beat Cena for the title; Swagger trying to cash in on Cena but getting thrown around and deciding Cena wasn't beaten down enough to attempt a cash-in, and I'm sure there are a couple more.

Did we decide as a community to no longer include those on the page, or were they removed unilaterally? I think they bear mentioning here, perhaps in a separate section so as not to overly clutter the current table. ekedolphin (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Redundant

I think the list of cash-ins is redundant, as the match break-down contains that same info, plus much more detail.

I think instead we should have a break down of the varios types of MITB matches. WM version that can be cashed in on any title from 2007-2010, the brand specific versions 2005,2010-11, & now the title specific versions 2012,13. Example being Sandow has competed in both for the WHC-MITB, yet never a WWE title version. Jericho competed in three MITBs that could be cashed in on RAW's specific title, one that could be used on any of the then three world titles. etc

24.24.231.104 (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

MITB versions

I think there should have a break down of the various types of MITB matches. WM version that can be cashed in on any title from 2007-2010, the brand specific versions 2005,2010-11, & now the title specific versions 2012,13. Example being Sandow has competed in both for the WHC-MITB, yet never a WWE title version. Jericho competed in three MITBs that could be cashed in on RAW's specific title, & one that could be used on any of the then three world titles. etc

24.24.231.104 (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Roman Reigns

In the 2013 Money In The Bank ladder match for the world heavyweight championship, Roman Reigns appeared to help Dean Ambrose, does this count as an appearance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.178.140.107 (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Results table

Between winner and 'other competitors' I think we should have a narrow column for putting the number of competitors for an easy visual comparison, since the number of men in the ladder match has varied. Agree or disagree? 174.92.134.248 (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move

This article is all about the Money in the Bank Contract, not the ladder match itself. It covers everything from winning the match through cashing it in. I propose we move the page from Money in the Bank ladder match to Money in the Bank Contract. Does anyone have any objections to this? - Galatz^Talk 01:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Issue

The introductory paragraph doesn't mention what the MITB briefcase does and is for, specifically it fails to mention that it is for a championship match that can be cashed in at any time (and maybe we should mention how successful it has been in the past to result in a new champion, and how Rollins used it to insert himself into an existing championship match). I think the introductory paragraph should mention all this for the layperson, thoughts? Iokerapid (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Carmella's "Victory"

So I'm sure we're all aware of the 'controversy' over the original Woman's MITB match and it's result. However, shouldn't it still count as both an appearance AND a victory for "Carmella"? The suitcase/title was stripped from her yes, but that still solidifies that it was a win. Generally, no WWE official reversed the match and the dialogue in successive events indicate that she was indeed the winner. (Even if it was James Ellsworth who announced it.) No one disputed the fact that she won. Danielson stripping her of the contract doesn't negate that she won the MATCH, which is what the table is counting. retched (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Exactly! Just like how Finn won the Universal Championship but was forced to relinquish it! or How Naomi won the Women's title but was force to relinquish it because of her injury. Carmella won it the 1st and 2nd time. HulaHoopWWE (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, Carmella didn't won a match if the result was reversed. Same thing happened in 2000, when Jericho won the WWE Title but the decision was reversed, so there's that. Nickag989^talk 07:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No it wasn't! When Jericho fought Triple H for the title, Earl Hebner reversed his original decision and because of that the result wasn't final. In this case, Daniels never said that he was touching the original result but rather he's not going to let it happen like that. Carmella was announced as the winner and he ordered the rematch for the briefcase. Stop trying to bring up Jericho/HHH for the WWF/WWE title when it doesn't apply here. retched (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nickag989: On the June 20th episode of Smackdown LIVE Daniel only stated: "There is nothing in the rulebook that says that you can't have somebody else climb the ladder and unhook the briefcase." That statement alone confirms Carmella's original MITB victory. Everything else after that point goes towards NOT reversing the decision of the match but stripping the briefcase away from Carmella to hold it up again for the second match. As HulaHoopWWE mentioned above, the same happened days after with the WWE Universal title and Finn Balor winning it. The win stayed on the record even though he had to forfeit it away and was stripped of the belt. There is no reason to say "let's remove Finn's name off the title history." At the end of the day, Carmella's name was called out TWICE as the winner. There is no need for a footnote on any of the victories list..." retched (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

At Balor is a totally different story, since he himself vacated the title due to injury. Nickag989^talk 08:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Also to put this to rest one final time, the June 27th edition of Talking Smack had Carmella come out acknowledge that she is the first female to win two Money in the Bank matches. Daniel Bryan was RIGHT next to her and didn't say a thing to counter it. If he wanted to, he could've easily shut her down. But as I said, he confirmed the win but stripped the briefcase. retched (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Definetely not, because according to her bio at WWE.com https://web.archive.org/web/20170627103340/http://www.wwe.com/superstars/carmella, Carmella was never listed as MITB winner. Nickag989^talk 13:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you look at what it says currently "For, in the first-ever Women’s Money in the Bank Ladder Match, James Ellsworth helped The Princess of Staten Island steal the victory against Charlotte Flair, Becky Lynch, Natalya and Tamina to claim a contract good for a SmackDown Women's Title Match any time she wishes in the next year. Though she was stripped of the contract at first, Carmella survived another Money in the Bank Ladder Match to claim a contract that could guarantee she becomes SmackDown Women's Champion." you can see it clearly says she stole the victory and was then stripped. It means she won it. - Galatz^Talk 13:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That's because it was updated following her win on SmackDown. It means that the first one was revoked, but she won it the second time. The archived link, which includes Carmella's bio from yesterday doesn't include her MITB win. Nickag989^talk 13:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Just because it wasn't updated yesterday, it doesnt mean that it wasn't a victory. If you read how its worded its very clear. She won the first ever match with Ellsworth help, thats pretty clear which match they are talking about. It then says she was stripped of contract, it doesn't say the matches result was reversed. - Galatz^Talk 13:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm about to have this page protected for vandalism and disruptive edits. No one stripped her of the win. They only stripped her of the contract. No one reversed the decision or made any mention of the win not counting. Daniel Bryan only took back the contract and held a rematch. He decided and I even quoted that above: Carmella won the match. However, he didn't want to have the contract won in that manner and so, much like a title that was won under dubious circumstances... Bryan stripped Carmella of that contract and held a rematch. Similar happenings have happened various times in professional wrestling where the match result was upheld but the title was stripped. Please stop going back and adding in the footnote and reducing her win. retched (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Carmella won the match but was stripped of the briefcase. The win is still a win. Bakilas (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Carmella won a match, that's true, she won the match. However, her prize (the briefcase) was revoked. Yesterday, before the second money in the bank, she isn't listed as Money in the Bank Winner. WWE revered the decision, something common (like Kofi Kingston winning a tournament for the IC Title) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, she won the match. Her briefcase was revoked. But WWE didn't reverse the decision of the match. They simply said, no... you are not Ms. Money in the Bank anymore and stripped her of the suitcase. Similar to someone winning a match then the title being stripped and held up for a rematch. You don't say "well you're not the champ anymore, so you lost the match", it's treated as "well you won, but we're not letting you keep the belt". The latter happened here. WWE removing the line of "Money in the Bank winner" does mean they reversed the decision. Especially when you have Daniel Bryan exclaim "Well it happened and there is nothing in the rulebook saying you can't win that way." By making the statement that I quote earlier on the original thread, Daniel is acknowledging that she is the winner. But he goes on to say, he doesn't want it to end up like that and thus removed the contract from her. We can't take that to mean "Hey so this match never happened." Which is why I say the win stays as 2-2. Daniel didn't dispute Carmella's claim on the Talking Smack show and that counts just as much as a statement on WWE.com. retched (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes' it does. WWE.com didn't recogniz her win before the second match. She won the match, fair. But she is a one time money in the bank, not two. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see, that's not what the table is supposed to be counting. The table is supposed to be counting the times someone has appeared and won the match. The outcomes tables states the result of the match and the disposition of the case. Both of which are now correct: Carmella won both matches, was stripped of the first, won the rematch, and won both appearances. There isn't any need for footnotes, asterisks, or any of the such since we're not here to count how many times she was declared "Ms. Money in the Bank" but rather how many times did she fight in and win the match. The outcomes table already indicates that the rematch happened because she was stripped of the suitcase. Her Wikipedia page should still say "Winner, Money in the Bank -- 2 times" Because she was still declared the winner of the Money of the Bank twice. Anything besides this and we might as well open up the can of worms that is The Rock's Royal Rumble win over The Big Show in 2000. Similar situation, result never officially changed but Rock won the match. A rematch happened between Big Show and The Rock when it was discovered that The Rock went over first. So should we not count Rock's win even though there was a decision in the original Rumble match? retched (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Retched has made plenty fair points to keep Carmella's victory as 2 instead of 1, I don't know why we're still arguing about it. There have been MANY Title strips the next day or in this case 2 days because of a controversial finish or just managers stripping the title. In the end they were still counted as victories even if it was for 1 or 2 days. Just like Carmella was STRIPPED of the Briefcase not the match being reversed. There are plenty of titles that get stripped and a new match for the title is scheduled for next episode or the same night, yet the original title holder that had it before they were stripped of it was still counted for the win. Therefor Carmella is and STILL a 2 time Women's MITB winner. HulaHoopWWE (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Also like Retched said she DID claim she is the 2 time winner of the MITB contract and Daniel didn't object. As seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69qlQ_kZiGo HulaHoopWWE (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"She did claim she is the 2 time winner", because this is what WWE wants you to think she is. Nickag989^talk 08:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

She is a 2 time Money In The Bank Ladder Match winner. Bottom line. She's also the first person to ever have the briefcase stripped from them. Doesn't erase the fact that she won it the first time. If a wrestler is stripped of a championship, it doesn't mean their title win never happened. Daniel Bryan beat Randy Orton for the World Title at Night Of Champions 2013 and had the belt stripped from him the next day due to a controversial finish. Yet that still counts as a title win for him. There really is no argument here. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No. WWE decides to recognize Bryan's reign. It's not the same case. Carmella won the first match, it's a fact. However, the briefcase was revoked. Just like when Daniel Bryan defeated Mark Henry and Teddy Long said "it's not fair". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Henry vs. Daniels, Theodore Long cancelled the results of the match and reversed it. He negated it in such a way that it did not happen and he spelled it out that it did not happen. WWE.com reflected that and so did their title records. Carmella won her match but was stripped of the title due to dubious circumstances. WWE.com removed her line likely to reflect that she didn't get to keep the title. However, the records will still show that she won her match. Which is again I believe we're counting. You can win the match but not keep the title. Case in point, Mr. Kennedy's loss of the briefcase. Yes he gambled it away to Edge but we still recognize Kennedy as a one-time holder of the case even though Edge got it. Same can be used here. Carmella (before the Smackdown of this week) won the match, was a holder of the case, but didn't get to keep it because it was taken away. retched (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not the same than Mr Kennedy, he won the briefcase and he lost it. Bryan take the briefcase from her and WWE.com didn't show her as a MITB holder before the second match. That means, WWE didn't recognize her "reign". According to WWE, Carmella's MITB posession started on SmackDown, her first briefcase doesn't count (like Kingston IC or Jericho WWF). She won TWO Money in the Bank matches (it's a fact, the first match happened), but just one Briefcase because WWE wants. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Kind of not the point I wanted to make, but she is still a two-time winner of the match. But shouldn't she should still be accredited as "Money in the Bank winner, 2 times" regardless of what happened to the suitcase? I bring back the same point of Rock vs. Big Show of the rumble. WWE forced the rematch and held up the prize until then. retched (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but WWE still didn't remove this accomplishment from their website (partly due to Bryan's second reign as WWE Champion). However, before the second MITB, Carmella wasn't listed as Money in the Bank winner, so that was indeed reverted. (https://web.archive.org/web/20170627103340/http://www.wwe.com/superstars/carmella) Following the second win, the site mentions "Though she was stripped of the contract at first, Carmella survived another Money in the Bank Ladder Match to claim a contract that could guarantee she becomes SmackDown Women's Champion.", which is weird. Nickag989^talk 17:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You guys are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. She won the Money In The Bank match at the PPV. With help or without help, doesn't matter, her name is in the record books as the winner. Daniel Bryan even clarified that on SmackDown. He said there's nothing in the rule book that says someone else can't interfere in the match on your behalf. Therefore her victory at the PPV stands. What he did was "strip" her of the briefcase. Just like when anyone gets stripped of a championship. Their reign isn't expunged from history. They still have that reign, but they no longer have the title/briefcase. It was even acknowledged on Talking Smack that she is now a 2 time MITB winner. The PPV win was not "reverted" or "revoked". She was just stripped of the briefcase, the briefcase was vacated, and she won back the vacant briefcase. That's all. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

All of this mainly. retched (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

One more time. Before the second MITB https://web.archive.org/web/20170627103340/http://www.wwe.com/superstars/carmella Highlights, 0. Now http://www.wwe.com/superstars/carmella Highlights, 1. She wasn't recognized as MITB before the second match. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Are we expecting consistency from WWE or WWE.com? I thought we learned our lesson on that already. retched (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm gonna explain my point. Carmella won TWO MITB ladder matches, that's a fact. However, i'm against she is a TWO times MITB briefcase holder. She is a TWO times winner, but she only holds ONE briefcase because her first briefcase was reversed (source https://web.archive.org/web/20170627103340/http://www.wwe.com/superstars/carmella) For me, the C&A section is for the briefcase, not the match (Edge has the MITB 2007 even he lost the match, because he won the briefcase) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

That she won two matches but one briefcase doesn't seem in dispute. I don't care if we list one or two victories in the column but we should include a note to describe the controversy either way.LM2000 (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree Nowhere in these links that you're posting does it say that the decision of the first MITB was reversed. It says she was stripped. That's a big difference. If it were "reversed" then that's the same as the first match never even happening and the decision was overturned. But by being "stripped" then that means the original ruling stands and she lost the right to cash-in on her first win. The second win is exactly that, her 'second' win. Meaning she won the briefcase twice. Had they simply overturned the decision of the first match(reversed it) then I would agree with you that she's only a 1 time briefcase holder, but that's not what happened. In essence the first MITB ladder match resulted in there being no cash-in, which is the first time in history that a MITB holder was denied a chance to cash it in. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

If WWE "simply" stripped her form the briefcase, in that case she would have a Highlight: Money in the Bank before the second match. She haven't, decision reverted. "Stripped, reversed"... pure words. At the end of the day, WWE decides who is the champion and if the reign is recognized. She won TWO matches, one briefcase. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

You know what, I'm actually fine with that definition. They did treat this as one briefcase all throughout and it seems WWE wants to treat it the same way. We all agree she won the match as is a two time winner of the match but overall she won ONE briefcase. So by doing this, WWE created an anomaly. retched (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

" "Stripped, reversed"... pure words." Absolutely not. Two completely different meanings. Again, "reversed" means that the original finish is invalid and never happened. Like a "Dusty finish". "Stripped" means the original finish is valid and did happen. I'll give you two examples. When Jericho beat Triple H on Raw in April 2000, he was announced as the new WWF Champion, but the ref later "reversed" his decision and Jericho's win never happened, that's why that match doesn't count as a World Title win for Jericho. However, and I used this example before, when Daniel Bryan beat Randy Orton for the WWE Title at Night Of Champions 2013, he was later "stripped" of the title, that's why that counts as a World Title win for Bryan. Had someone else other than Carmella won the second MITB ladder match, it would not have erased the fact that Carmella still won the first MITB match and held that briefcase for 2 days. Based on what you're saying, that first briefcase win was invalid, which is not true because she teased cashing it in later that night during the Naomi-Lana match, and the ref clearly would have allowed it had she chose to do so. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The word have different meaning, but at the end of the day, WWE decides. If WWE say "stripped" but doesn't recognized the reign, it's "reversed", even they said "stripped". WWE rules, Carmella hasn't highlights before the second MOTB match. Also, at the end of the first match, the referees didn't agree if she was the winner and James took the mic. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

While the WWE officials were arguing, they never bothered to take the case from her during the tease of the cash-in on the same night. Daniels comments confirmed that she was the winner. Again: it's not reversed, just stripped and held up. retched (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to keep disputing that, and bringing up how WWE edited their own site: then you need to bring up the original results page marking her as the winner: http://www.wwe.com/shows/moneyinthebank/2017/womens-money-in-the-bank-ladder-match-results retched (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree Exactly. WWE themselves used the word "stripped". Because that's what happened. It wasn't reversed. You're hung up on Carmella's bio page not being updated until after the second MITB. WWE.com's writers aren't always on the ball. A lot of times the left hand doesn't know the right hand is doing when it comes to WWE.com and the creative team. It's most likely that they were waiting to see how everything played out before they updated her page. I'm sure if Becky or Natty or someone else won the second briefcase that they still would have updated Carmella's page anyway. But it's all a moot point right now because that link that retched just posted shows that WWE.com did recognize the first win. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I find it funny that this has almost gone on for a whole week after she won it twice lol HulaHoopWWE (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Combined Participation List

Should there be a combined list for the matches? there all the same match, there isn't separate lists for woman holding a man's title and vice versa. Slimdog45 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, there is no need to have a list for the woman's match. Both are Money in the Bank matches and are referred to the same. retched (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. One list is for men's participant lists, the other is for women. We can't combine them if they are separate matches, with the same rules. Nickag989^talk 07:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Should I

Can I go ahead and update the times that a superstar was in a match VWilliamsWWE (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Not until the match happens. Because a lot can happen between then and now and that superstar might not be cleared to compete or otherwise removed.retched (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Ambrose cash in Explain

Below is what is currently in the article: "Ambrose was the third winner to announce that he would cash in the contract in advance, albeit without a set date and before he had won the ladder match to collect the contract."

What exactly did he say and are there any sources that say he gave advanced notice? Mobile mundo (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Protect The Page

I think we should have protection on this page. Just until the trolls die out after a week, seems people still dont get that Carmella won Twice SSGeorgie (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll submit a request for protection. retched (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop deleting accurate history in the Matches section

Such as Ambrose being the second to cash in on the same night. Stop removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:300:195B:79E5:3099:8245:F83 (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It's trivia. Stop adding it. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

5 years later, you didn't answer my question still. How do you feel, hypocrite? 12.88.104.2 (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

But trivia was also added in prior matches, such as RVD being the first to give the opponent prior notice or Kane being the first to cash in. How is adding similar information any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.152.0 (talk) 06:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Can’t answer my question? Yeah, I didn’t think so. Hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.153.168 (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 19:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

New "Wildcard Rule" ramifications

On the May 20th, 2019 edition of Monday Night RAW, the announcers mentioned that because of the new Wildcard Rule (where four superstars of RAW can appear as a guest on Smackdown and vice versa), the Money in the Bank contract can be used on either champion (WWE or Universal). Should the passage about the 2019 be edited to reflect this? (Before it gets disputed, it seems to be a recurring angle mentioned by them throughout the night.) retched (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

MITB 2020 tapings

Where is the proof the ladder matches were taped in April 2020? --Evil Yugi (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a couple articles by WhatCulture and PWInsider that mentioned it was taped weeks ago, but I cannot find any with the exact date. retched (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Asuka Cash in

Hi. I have removed Asuka from the Cash in table. The table before that says Asuka didn't cash in the briefcase and it was no match. There is no point to include her in a table named Cash in matches. Like the WrestleMania matches in the Royal Rumble article, we don't include Flair nor Triple H because that matches were for the title itself. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Including reversed cash-ins

The cash-in match table currently has The Miz's reversed cash-in in it with no number, which I think is good since it was an actual cash-in, but it doesn't include Daniel Bryan's reversed cash-in on Mark Henry. It should include neither or both to be consistent, as well as any other reversed cash-ins. I'm okay with including them all or excluding them all, but it seems wrong to only have 1.Shinra07 (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)