Talk:WrestleMania III

message: We need to come up with a better term than "report" and change it on all articles that use this section name.  It just sounds bad. Although, I honestly don't see the need for this supersection anyway.  I took it out but it was replaced with the reasoning that it had been used in other articles. --Naha|(talk) 16:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really think of a better term than report. Maybe bring it up at WP:PW and see what others think. Davnel03 17:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah either can I, which is why I didn't suggest one....I was hoping someone else could.  Something about the term "report" just seems wrong for the scope of an encyclopedia article.  It makes it sound more like a "listing" or a "news report" than an article. --Naha|(talk) 19:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report 

message: Please see this article; Danvel really outdid himself with this PPV article. I think we should base the report on this article after D2D. We have to make Wrestlemania III as good as this article. Lex94 Talk  Contributions  Signatures 21:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the compliment! Right, looking at the page the Background section looks complete, but the Event section needs A LOT of work doing to it to achieve GA status. So does the aftermath at little (look at ONS 2005 and 2006 for an idea on how to write these sections. Davnel03 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Your using it as the model article, yet you're saying that D2D is in-universe? Davnel03 08:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[December to Dismember (2006)]] 

message: Well, I think I have edited the Background section to its prime, so I think I'm gonna take a break today. I may go later on and edit the Event section. Please, point out errors or add information to the Background section, as I will greatly appreciate it. Also, it is full of references, but if you find a reference for anything unreferenced, I will also GREATLY appreciate it. I am trying to get this article up-and-running to become a GA. Thanks, Lex94 Talk  Contributions  Signatures 23:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: I have now written the event section. I find it pretty good. If there's anything you find wrong with it... well you're just a click away. :P Cheers, Lex94 Talk  Contributions  Signatures 09:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Event

message: I think nicknames and articles should be included in the wikilinks. Someone changed them, and I have no problem, but I think that they look better the other way (ex. "Mean" Gean Okerlund instead of "Mean" Gene Okerlund; The British Bulldogs instead of The British Bulldogs. Lex94 Talk  Contributions  Signatures 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I like how that looks better. FamicomJL 01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Since I did it, i'll explain why. Basically, it says the same info with less writing (instead of basically writing the same thing twice just to add "The" or a nickname to the link) and helps keep the length of the article (in bytes) down. It's not a big deal to me either way though. TJ Spyke 01:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicknames and Articles

message: Well, I can't review this article, because I wrote most of it, so I just want ideas for this article and someone to answer the question above. Thanks, Lex94 Talk  Contributions  Signatures 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything, and I mean everything, needs to be sourced by reliable sources. Also, the sentence structure presently is short and choppy....so that also needs to be fixed. Nikki311 17:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of the event and background info you added does not have sources. Practically every sentence should be sourced. If you check the history, you will see that prior to your additions,  practically every sentence was sourced. Furthermore, the sentences are all made up of only one clause, which reads awkwardly. Good writing is usually composed of a variety of sentences with a variety of clauses. Instead of "I have a dog. I walked my dog. My dog's name is Sally. We went to the zoo.", a better sentence would read "I have a dog, Sally, who I took on a walk to the zoo." Also, all of the transitions are the same: "In this match" or "In the next match of the night". Using different transitions would be better. I've already fixed some of it. I'll try and fix some more of it later. Please trust me on this. I've passed seven Good Articles, so I know what it takes for an article to be one. Nikki311 18:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You can use the wiki template for sourcing multiple sentences with one reference. Add <ref name= > with a title after the equals sign instead of just <ref>. Then, for all the subsequent sentences using the same reference, use . You can look through the article and see how I did it. Plus, every sentence that comes from a source needs to be attributed to that source, or else it is plagiarism. It has to be 100% clear that you got it from somewhere. Nikki311 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Nikki. I didnt know about that template. Lex94 Talk  Contributions Signatures 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this article need to become a GA?

message: In the "Event" section, I'm confused by the description of the Savage-Steamboat match. Based on how it's currently written, it sounds like the two came to the ring, Savage attacked Steamboat before the bell and Steamboat was immediately taken to the hospital. If this is the case, how did the match take place? GaryColemanFan 22:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should really be in the background section. That happened on an episode of Superstars of Wrestling, and is what led to the match at WrestleMania in the first place. FamicomJL 22:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll move it to the background section. Nikki311 02:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area of confusion 

message: This article has gone through major improvements. Do you think it's ready for a GA nomination?
*Also added a Andre/Hogan picture I found on some site. 
Lex94 Talk  Contributions Signatures 23:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't. I strongly oppose nominating an article for a GA review with an untrue statement in the fair use rationale for one of the images. The Steamboat-Savage picture is not used on "various websites." It is used only on the WWE website. Ignoring the issue won't make it go away. GaryColemanFan 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, as I understand it, all of the images are too large for Fair Use to apply. They would have to be reduced in size (the guideline is 300x300, in order to ensure that they do not exceed 100,000 pixels). GaryColemanFan 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture/Improvements 

message: As cleared by on the project talk page, I have been allowed to nominate the article for GA status. This is an extremely well-written and excellent article which will easily make GA. Commments and criticism is welcomed. Cheers, Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 01:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In reality, Haynes and Hernandez had reignited a feud that went back through every federation the two were ever in together.[citation needed]  You'd best fix that if you want GA. Tromboneguy0186 21:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I got rid of the sentence, because I didn't know if it was true. I got the exact sentence from Billy Jack Haynes. Lex94 Talk  Contributions Guest Book 23:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: WWE.com calls it a Full Nelson Challenge (). This () makes it sound like the match could only be won by the Full Nelson. I will change it. TJ Spyke 04:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nomination

message: someone removed my line of text saying that WM 3 had the legendary main event Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant for the WWF Championship. That match is a legcy! Why cant I put it? --Harvey "Two-Face" Dent   (Muhaha!!) 14:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say that that was the main event, but words like "legendary", "notable", and "legacy" are POV. See WP:PEACOCK for more information about why words like that have no place in an encyclopedia. Thanks. Nikki♥311 17:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hogan vs Andre 

message: There was a dark match that took place at Wrestlemania III. I can't remember who the participants were at the moment, although it may come to me. Someone must know. It should be included in this article, as it was still part of Wrestlemania III. It just wasn't televised.Mk5384 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source? None of the sources I have seen mention any dark match happening at this event (and the sites I check always mention the dark matches for PPV's). TJ Spyke 01:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand corrected on this one. It was Wrestlemania VI. All of this time I was thinking of the wrestlers coming to the ring on the motorised carts, and that's what threw me, as the same method was used at Wrestlemania III.Mk5384 (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Match 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on WrestleMania III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011023332/http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/top21 to http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/top21
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCO/is_6_4/ai_98249762
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCO/is_4_4/ai_94123536
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030220921/http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm3/results/ to http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm3/results/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051129090811/http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldtagteam/30445413212221 to http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldtagteam/30445413212221
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051123030942/http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm3/celebrities/ to http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm3/celebrities/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023051826/http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm3/ to http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm3/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060116004246/http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm3/mainevent/ to http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/history/wm3/mainevent/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "In 2014, Mad Magazine published an article about WrestleMania's 29-year history[46] which made joking reference to the disputed claims: “When the immortal Hulk Hogan become the first man ever to bodyslam the 7-foot-4, 520-pound Andre the Giant before 93,173 fans to hand the big man the first loss of his career, it set the all-time record for indoor attendance in North America at the time.”" - there is no "joking reference" in that, it is simply a statement of fact -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mad 

message: /  Firstly, you're continuing to edit while blocked, which is actionable. I thought it best I create this thread for you as you have so far refused to discuss the issue on this talk page. 
There is a consensus to display what independent sources say about attendance figures. Your belief that there is no consensus is mistaken: only one person opposed, and that was you. Consensus does not require unanimous agreement. With that in mind, if you want to make a case for the incorrect figure being listed in the infobox, you'll need to do so here. — Czello (music) 07:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss here rather than edit warring. — Czello (music) 07:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigboss9893  

message: This week, Brandon Thurston of Wrestlenomics posted an article about the attendance of WrestleMania III. He went to the effort of counting seats from later photos of the Pontiac Silverdome and concluded that contrary to its official football capacity of 80K fans, the Silverdome actually only held about 72K, and that along with the floor seating, 78,000 is an appropriate number for WrestleMania III attendance. https://wrestlenomics.com/2023/08/26/estimating-wrestlemania-iiis-true-attendance-seat-by-seat/
In my view, Thurston is one of the most reliable wrestling media sources there are, but because I am the person who suggested he be added as a reliable source there may be a conflict of interest. My concern is this: coming to a number so wildly different from the official stadium capacity would mean that, if he is wrong, a better estimate for the show would be 85K. This number would be more in line with the David Bixenspan estimate, which was also laboriously calculated. https://babyfacevheel.substack.com/p/wrestlemania-iii-attendance-redux
I hate to reopen one of Wikipedia's lamest editing wars, but since All In 2023 is going to create a new one, let's discuss this. I don't think this is solid enough to change from 78K, but should we put a range of attendances on this article?
Semicorrect (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If Thurston says 78k and Bixenspan says 85k, a more neutral presentation of the numbers would be "78,000-85,000" with a note that it's uncertain. That said, we should go with what the wider variety of independent sources say if possible, even if it settles on a mote specific number. — Czello (music) 22:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Meltzer (via Zane Bresloff) and Thurston both say 78K and apparently WWE also said so at the turn of the century I'm inclined to keep it that way. Semicorrect (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thurston does not say 78K total attendance, read the article, he estimates over 84,000 in attendance. The point of over it is proving 78,000 isnt correct. Total attendance is reported at events (comps included); 'Paid' attendance, seems to something that only matters in this article and no where else.  RamshackleMan (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bixenspan and Wrestlenomics reports 

message: I understand this is an old topic, but the attendance being 78,000 is ridiculous. Firstly, it’s never going to be flatly an even number, there will be a few stragglers. Secondly the only basis for this is claims by Dave Meltzer, claims which have no basis in reality or corroboration from other parties. He himself admits that he does not have any primary sources remaining, all of them having been conveniently lost.
To be clear, I am not advocating the 93,000 number. That was a worked number, and we all know it. But the 78,000 number, for the reasons outlined in this Deadspin article "How Many People Were Actually At WrestleMania III? A Deadspin Investigation", is equally ludicrous. The attendance could not have been lower than the attendance number for the football games, which was 82,000. Most likely, it was closer to the mid 80,000s, 85-87,000.
Therefore, it would be my suggestion to either put the football attendance figure for the football games or list a range between the two numbers and mark it as disputed.  TheKAT94 (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and @TheKAT94 you didn't need to make a seperate section on the same discussion, eitherways @User:Czello and others main consensus here is to use a range, 78000 is arbitary and we can't based everything on Me3ltz3er, its WP:Recentism, and NYT  article is the most reliable and world wine recognized compared to Meltzer's dirtshsheet, we also saw his AEW bias last year when he inflated AEW figure but it was put down, he isn't that reliable and so many people asked for a range, anyway there is a consensus here to use a range, but I won't change on my own.... Dilbaggg (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Meltzer didn't inflate any figure. He reported the AEW figure until the true number was discovered. As discussed multiple times, the Wikiproject considers him a very reliable source. — Czello (music) 10:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

text: 78000 is clearly arbitary rounded figure and only has Meltzer backing it. Time and time again Dave Meltzer has been proven wrong he was wrong about 2014 Punk return, he was wrong about 2023 AEW event being the most attended in history which showed he was biased as later it was proven All Out had less than 80,000 people, now he was wrong about Seth/Cody and Rock/Roman as its Cody/Roman at WM 40, yet WP:PW worships him, NYT which is far reliable said 93000+ people, Meltzer is an unreliable dirtsheet writer yet his words are taken as gospel, he should be classified as unreliable in WP:PW/RS which he is and we should at least use range instead of relying on Meltzer and his dirtsheet! Dilbaggg (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway i see a lot of support for the larger figure and range figure, let the concensus decide, i won't be available for a while after today tho. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 78,000 is ridiculous, far more so than the widely reported 93,173 (in recognized news publications). Going off a dirtsheet that Meltzer wrote in the 1990s off a few comments and a rounded figure made by a competitor's employee at the time is very very inaccurate. Perhaps that rounded figure came from an estimate of advanced sales Breszlov had. That's all. RamshackleMan (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately Meltzer is a reliable source, while WWE is not. The 93k figures are re-reporting WWE's number. We don't prioritise them over independent sources. — Czello (music) 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrestlemania III Attendance Figure