Talk:WrestleMania III

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article WrestleMania III has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject Professional wrestling
Professional wrestling
Portal
WrestleMania III 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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WrestleMania III article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article was the professional wrestling collaboration of the week between October 14 and October 20 2007
Please help to continue to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling article.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Biased Reporting of the attendance figure

This event was at least nearly 90,000. In 1982 the 49rs Bengals Superbowl was reported to be 81,270. This figure was reported in several news articles of that time, and I was at both events. My family lived in Detroit between 1977 and 1990. There were easily 10,000 more at Wrestlemania III since they totally packed the grounds that day, even the field. I can remember my Grandfather hoping to get parked and complaining bitterly. That figure of 78,000 is laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.8.177 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or your family saw. The current attendance has six sources backing it up. –LAX 23:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Report

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)

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)
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)

How about HISTORY? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

or RECAP? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December to Dismember (2006)

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)

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)

Hey. I just came to my computer. Well, I was working on the Background section last night, and hopefully, tonight I am going to work on Event. Like I said, I have been using your article (D2D) as the MODEL ARTICLE. It has been working great. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your using it as the model article, yet you're saying that D2D is in-universe? Davnel03 08:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

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)

PS. Thanks User:Nikki311 for the fixes. I forgot to Preview first. :S

  • I got all the information from other articles here on wikipedia (Hercules, Billy Jack Haynes, Hulk Hogan, Andre the Giant, George Steele, etc.

[edit] Event

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)

[edit] Nicknames and Articles

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)

I agree, I like how that looks better. FamicomJL 01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] What does this article need to become a GA?

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)

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)

It is sourced by reliable sources. A lot of this info is from wwe.com. And please explain the "short and choppy"? Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 17:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

When I leave a sentence without a reference, it is because the reference next to the next sentence, qualifies for both. I am not going to be redundant and write the same reference multiple times. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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 <ref name= />. 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)
Thanks, Nikki. I didnt know about that template. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Area of confusion

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)

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)

Got rid of the sentence. When I re-wrote the article, the sentence was there. I didnt know if it was true or not, but because it was referenced, I left it. I just opened the reference to find that the link didnt say anything about Steamboat going to the hospital. Lex94 Talk Contributions Signatures 22:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Picture/Improvements

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)

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)
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)

[edit] GA Nomination

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)

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)
Y Done - 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)

Also, from that section: It's been a while since I've watched it, but I am 99.99% sure that Haynes/Hernandez was not a chain match. Someone may want to check on that. I would, but the WWE website is not kind to my computer. MookieZ 04:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WWE.com calls it a Full Nelson Challenge ([1]). This ([2]) 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)

[edit] GA review

The article looks good and is certainly up to the standards of some other PPV articles, but there a few things that need clearing up.

  1. Could a better image of the Andre/Hogan match be used? Perhaps one of the two facing off at the beginning of the match, which has become somewhat iconic. The image right now is just a screenshot of a generic moment in their match.
Is this a legitimate concern? Lex T/C Guest Book 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because per the fair use policy, images have to illustrate something talked about in the match, and while the match is discussed, the image right now is just a screenshot of a random moment.
Excuse my ignorance, but I have never heard of such policy. May you please cite where in WP:FU it says so. Lex T/C Guest Book 20:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, no other image can be found of the Hogan-Andre match. But, any image is better than none. Lex T/C Guest Book 20:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Some parts are confusing and need clearing up, such as "On January 26, 1987, the British Bulldogs lost the WWF Tag Team Championship to The Hart Foundation in a match that saw the Dynamite Kid so debilitated that he was carried to the ring by Davey Boy Smith and did not see much physical action." Was he was injured during the match? If so, why did Davey Boy have to carry him to the ring?
He was injured before getting into the match. It clearly states he was debilitated, Davey carried him to the ring, and did not see much physical action. What is so confusing?
Because the wording ("a match that saw the Dynamite Kid so debilitated") insinuates that he was injured during the match.
It does not insinuate that he was injured during the match. However, it does not specify how he got debilitated, so I will reword it. You could have changed such a small concern as this one by yourself. Lex T/C Guest Book 20:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Could there be a bit more about the legacy event? Even after 20 other Manias, it's still considered one of the best, so it would be nice to see a larger section.
WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL states that we cannot do so. Lex T/C Guest Book 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
What? Please point out a policy that says that there can't be a sourced reception section. I've seen plenty of FAs with reception/influence sections.
If I write: "Wrestlemania III is considered one of the best sport events in history", it would violate WP:WEASEL, even if I add sources from different websites. WP:NPOV also states that articles should be written in a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW; meaning anyone who hated the PPV must be comfortable reading the article. Lex T/C Guest Book 20:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Lex, Scorpion does have a point. Yeah, I agree, writing "This was the best PPV ever" would obviously violate NPOV. However, with the FA December to Dismember (2006), I have a little bit in the Aftermath part about the reception. I obviously haven't put "this was the crappiest event ever", but what I have done is put that many people thought the PPV was bad. If you could do something like that for this; possibly say "Many wrestling writers have stated that this is one of the best PPV's ever", and give five or six references after (with quotes), there is no reason to remove it. Davnel03 15:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but using the word "many" violates WP:WEASEL. Lex T/C Guest Book 01:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. It was also released on DVD on it`s own and you can find a review of that here.
I don't think some guy named "MATT MACKINDER" who works for Canoe is notable enough to use his review. Lex T/C Guest Book 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Canadian Online Explorer is an extremely reliable source and is used on many of the other PPV articles. In fact, you use John Powell's review and it's from the same website, so what makes his opinion more notable than Matt Mackinders? You're replies are coming off as being a tad hostile, calm down, all I did was review the article. --
I'd feel more comfortable writing in a review of Rotten tomatoes or IMDB, but I will add the DVD release soon. If my comments seem hostile, I apologize; it was not intentional; I'm just a little wikistressed. Lex T/C Guest Book 20:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Scorpion0422 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Once these concerns are addressed, I will promote the article. -- Scorpion0422 17:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There used to be an image in this article of the two of them facing off, but it's gone now. Once you add info about the DVD release, I'll consider all of my concerns addressed. -- Scorpion0422 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been a week since the review, but since it's the holidays and it's over a small thing, I'll give you a few more days to work on it. -- Scorpion0422 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We must remember that lack of images is not a rationale for failing a nomination, I recon that finding free images will be quite hard seeing that we are dealing with WWE here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you misread my statement. I said that we have to use fair use images, so why not use one that illustrates a key part of the ppv, like Hogan and Andre facing off at the beginning, which has become somewhat of an iconic image. -- Scorpion0422 04:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that Hogan slamming Andre is probably the most iconic moment in the event, that way the rationale for its use can claim that its a "historic event" imposible to replicate due to the death of one of the participants. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Either way, the image right now is just of a random moment in the match, so I'd like to see it switched to something like Hogan and Andre facing off or Hogan slamming Andre. -- Scorpion0422 04:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replace the Hogan/Andre image. Please tell me if you think the image is better. However, I still don't think the DVD release is notable, and eitherway, because it is a re-release of the VHS sold in 1987-1988, not much sources have reviewed the DVD. Lex T/C Guest Book 13:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The image is a bit better, and I guess you're right about the DVD, but could you at least add a few more sentences about the legacy of the event? As long as it's sourced and you avoid a few choice words it wouldn't be too weaselly. -- Scorpion0422 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The DVD release is not a just a re-release of the VHS one. It includes a bonus disc that features: a second version of the event that features pop up bubbles with different facts (like the what VH1 used to do with music videos on "Pop-Up Video"), interviews that different wrestlers did at the time of the event, the full contract signing of Andre-Hogan and a 20 man battle royal from SNME. TJ Spyke 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
All re-releases include something extra, but in this case, it's not something so extreme that it deserves it's own section in the article. (No other PPV articles include DVD sections) Lex T/C Guest Book 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be its own section, it could just be a sentence or two in the Aftermath section. As well, this sentence: "Because of the success of WrestleMania III and to capitalize on the feud between Hogan and André, the Survivor Series event was created" needs a source. -- Scorpion0422 05:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I shall find a source momentaraly; also, I added another image, so please review it. 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Roggio (talk • contribs)
I have added a source. Lex T/C Guest Book 05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Better Hogan-Andre Image Y Done
DVD information Y Done
Source for Survivor Series statement Y Done

The above concerns have been addressed. Any more concerns? Lex T/C Guest Book 05:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the images is from YouTube, which is a big no-no since linking to sites that violate copyrights (which YouTube does by illegally hosting WWE video) is not allowed. The image is of Brutus Beefcake. TJ Spyke 06:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I just checked and BOTH images are from YouTube. I don't know if that would stop it from becoming a GA, but I know it will never become a FA that way. TJ Spyke 06:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter to me where the images came from. All of my concerns have been addressed, so I am pleased to grant this article GA status. -- Scorpion0422 06:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Two of the pictures are from a source that is not acceptable. I hope it does become a true GA eventually, but with the two current pics I do not feel it qualfies and will soon start the process to have it de-listed. TJ Spyke 06:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Your argument might actually be credible if it wasn't for this. -- Scorpion0422 06:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a big difference. The person who uploaded that video to YouTube owned the copyright and thuse gave YouTube permission. WWE (the copyright owner of WrestleMania III) never gave permission for their stuff to be uploaded to YouTube and has had their videos taken down in the past. So the example you gave is allowed, anything from WWE on YouTube is not allowed since it is a copyright violation. TJ Spyke 06:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why the image has a Fair Use Rationale. Lex T/C Guest Book 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

FUR only covers whether the image can be used or not, not whether the source of the images ia acceptable (which it is not in this case since they are copyright violations). TJ Spyke 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What's a better source for the televised match, than a video of the match itself? Lex T/C Guest Book 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is YouTube since that is where you got the image from, you yourself said so when you uploaded it. YouTube does not have permission to host WWE video, so they are illegally providing it. This is a pretty clear copyright violation. TJ Spyke 23:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Until the video is taken down, we can't 100% deem it a copyright violation. So, until WWE takes down the video (like it has done in the past with other copyright violations), the image should stay. Lex T/C Guest Book 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me the burden of proof is on people claiming that the copyright violations are allowed by WWE. TJ Spyke 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
That isn't like but not impossible.Lex T/C Guest Book 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And anyway, basically, a picture of the defining match in professional wrestling history would better the article. Which WP:IGNORE and WP:IAR? state that if a rule stops you from improving an article, then you should ignore it. Lex T/C Guest Book 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not stopping you though. I already said how you can get the exact same images LEGIT. Just rent or buy one of the two WrestleMania III DVDs ("WrestleMania Anthology Volume I" or "WrestleMania III Championship Edition") and take a screen cap (on your computer). Thus you can get the same images without sourcing to a copyright violation. TJ Spyke 00:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
But the images won't be different. I'd be taking out this image, to put the exact same image back (because the image is a screen cap of the match on DVD). I don't see any difference of me taking out the picture, and uploading the same one again stating that I rented the DVD. Lex T/C Guest Book 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've already said this multiple times: it's not the IMAGES that is the problem, it's the SOURCE of them. If you take a screencap of the event, that is far different than linking to a source that is illegally hosting video of the event. TJ Spyke 00:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine. I'll change the source to the DVD. It's not lying; it is a screencap of the DVD. Lex T/C Guest Book 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't plan to just change the edit summary of the images to say it's the DVD, because that would be lying since that is not where you got the pics from. TJ Spyke 00:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
You didn't note the sarchasm? Lex T/C Guest Book 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ha, no. Sarcasm is sometimes hard to detect online though. TJ Spyke 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)