Talk:WrestleMania 23

message: Because of the long-standing pattern of disruptive editing against consensus, the anonymous contributor recently contributing as  is now permanently banned from this article and this talkpage. I hope we can implement this without technical protection for the moment, but I'll be ready to semiprotect either page if necessary. In concrete terms, this means that any contribution from this IP, any known IP range of this contributor, or any suspected new sock, if they resume pressing for inclusion of that attendance figure, on either the article or talk page, can be reverted on sight without regard to 3RR. Fellow administrators are welcome to help implement the ban with short-term protections or blocks regardless of having been "involved". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hallejuah! I'll be watching for any return activity. !! Justa Punk !! 09:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruptive IP editor topic-banned 

message: *"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." - WP:V. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's accurate or not. If it has been published by a reliable source (and I have already shown numerous times how Meltzer meets the criteria for a reliable self-published source), it should be included. It has, so it should. That takes nothing away from WWE as a reliable source. In this case, there are simply two reliable sources giving two different numbers, both of which are verifiable and worth of inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *WP:N states that "The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people." Therefore, your notability argument is groundless. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, which the claim clearly meets. Your apparently intentional misunderstanding of the math is irrelevant. How he arrived at the number is irrelevant. It is stated in a reliable source, so whether it is accurate or not, Wikipedia policy (the very first line of WP:V) states that it should be included. It's as simple as that, regardless of how convoluted you try to make it seem. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Another day has passed, and still nobody has quoted a policy or guideline requiring a second source. Since the statement clearly meets the threshold for inclusion per WP:V, shall we add the statement to the article and close this RfC? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: User:GaryColemanFan

message: *WP:V doesn't say that every single thing said by a reliable source should be included.--C23 C23's talk 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Curtis23

message: *Curtis... considering that you've flip flopped positions on this issue at least 3 times, maybe you should stop.  You're arguing against things that you yourself was saying and arguing for earlier, AFTER you had already argued AGAINST those same things even earlier, and now you've flip flopped AGAIN and it's not really helping anyone. That said...  I agree with GCF.  If the information is available through a reliable source it can be included per policy.  It isn't up to us to determine whether it is true or not.  On the other hand, you guys are calling for a second source.  Is there a policy that states that there must be a second source?  If so, where is it?  Most items I see in articles only have one source. Meltzer is a trusted name.  His track record speaks for itself.  The information he used to come to the number is available to everyone to check and verify.  I don't see what was wrong with the original wording of the article (The announced attendance for the vent was whatever, however Dave Meltzer reports that the actual attendance was whatever).  It was neutral, it didn't say Meltzer was right or wrong, it just presented the figures with their various sources or source. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add that there is already a precedent for this type of issue.  On Wrestlemania 3's article, it states that the attendance is in dispute. Of the three sources listed, only one offers up an origin for the dispute.  That origin seems to be Dave Meltzer.  SO, if Wrestlemania 3 can have an attendance dispute listed in its article based on LESS information that given for Wrestlemania 23 (ie, where the number came from), there is no reason this article shouldn't mention similar information given the same source. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, I can provide 8 different sources that are AT LEAST as reliable as the ones listed on Wrestlemania 3's page that state the attendance at Ford Field to have been 74,687.
 Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 8 sources listed above that are just as reliable as the three listed on Wrestlemania 3's article. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Curtis, I didn't say they were reliable.  I said they are AS RELIABLE as the sources listed for Wrestlemania 3.  The Slam Wrestling source is a user review of the event that only says there is a dispute on the attendance, but doesn't give a source for the number given.  The About.com source is another user review and the so-called dispute is written in an opinion paragraph that claims "someone on the inside said the real number was around 75,000" but doesn't go into any more detail other than his own opinion which is based solely on the fact that Wrestlemania 8's attendance was never disputed.  Third one, another from Slam Wrestling, is yet another opinion piece where the author credits the source of his information to Dave Meltzer.  If these three sources can be used for Wrestlemania 3, then the 8 sources (9 if you count the original Meltzer piece) which give just as much information by just as credible people should be able to be used for Wrestlemania 23.  If the sources provided for Wrestlemania 23 aren't reliable for the reasons some have stated above, then the sources for Wrestlemania 3 should be removed for the same reasons. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: User:WWEHurricane1

message: *Curtis, let's not argue with what others are saying in this section. Just put your own view for others to see via the RfC and leave it at that. You too, Hurricane. Let them be the judge, okay? Now my view is that the information should not be included at all. Not only do WWE and Ford Field claim the figure, it has numerous back ups from reliable sources. The Seattle Times, ESPN  , The New York Times, Sports Illustrated, The Detroit News, international sources like The Sun, PrimeraHora , IndianTV, along with LiveDesign, The New York Daily News, MSNBC, FOX News, and even MLB.com. Now, how many reliable sources back up David Meltzer's claim? None. The sourcing of his claim is primary, which comes under WP:SELFPUB. Now if there are no issues or contentions with the information given, particularly as Meltzer has been noted as a reliable source by the Pro Wrestling Project, then no problem. However in this instance there is a problem. Aside from the fact that his information goes against multiple reliable sources, the way he came to the figures he has is in upon itself contentious. I mean - how on earth can you come up with an accurate attendance figure based on merchandise sales? This calculation bases itself on the idea that everyone in attendance is going to buy merchandise. That's ridiculous. So whilst the claim may be verifiable within the primary source, it is not verified by other reliable sources. Along with the fact that Meltzer's view has no independent reliable coverage in general - so ergo, there is no controversy. That's an automatic fail on notability and it's why there should be no mention of it in this article. Meltzer's general reliability becomes irrelevant, and in this case he is clearly unreliable based on his poor mathematics. !! Justa Punk !! 01:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Justa Punk

message: ::Being rude doesn't help your case, Gary. "intentional misunderstanding" "convoluted". Suggest a less attacking approach to state your case. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Podgy Stuffn

message: * I didn't comment at the WT:PW until I could see the tide flowing towards adding a footnote for a primary sourced quote with no real explanation of the methodology. Then I attempted to close the discussion and move it here, as it had reached a dead end at the project. Now the conversation is here (and the IP208 is frozen out) the essentials can be extracted, which are 1) how did Metzler come up with a figure 5,416 less than the WWE gate number (which is not within the margin of error, and which is exact to the last 7 people) and 2)is there a second source which trusts Metzler's number to use it? The how is easy, he took the average spend at WWE events and divided it by attendance to come up with a mythical "average spend". He then sees that the total spend is around 7% less than would be expected if all 80,103 in attendance spent the average spend, he then extrapolates that to the WWE (a publicly traded company who supply all the other figures in the equation) massaging the figure by 7%. He then come up with his figure. But for 2); There is no second source and all requests for a second source either bring up user edited fan sites which repeat the primary source, and while there are no other journalists who are willing to use Metzler's math (derived from WWE numbers, released because they has to, legally) then we should not give him undue weight and include his math problem in this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Darrenhusted

message: This seems to fall under WP:REDFLAG. A surprising argument that is not covered by any mainstream source, and which contradicts multiple, more reliable, sources, and which can't be independently verified. Not a high quality source either. Not written by a recognized authority in measuring audience and showing that official audiences are incorrect. This doesn't need to appear in the article until better coverage of that figure is given. (not even as a footnote) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Weltzer's attendance figure in Wrestlemania 3 is covered by a secondary source: A history of crowds, by Chris Schramm, in SLAM! Wrestling . That's why it's being reported. Weltzer's figure for this event is no covered in any secondary source, that's why it shouldn't be reported here. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Enric Naval

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on WrestleMania 23. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070710095413/http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/1Q2007Presentation_000.pdf to http://corporate.wwe.com/documents/1Q2007Presentation_000.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on WrestleMania 23. 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/20070418144247/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_04_21.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2007/2007_04_21.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203045353/http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_03_17.jsp to http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2002/2002_03_17.jsp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://corporate.wwe.com/company/events.jsp
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) 17:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)