Talk:WrestleMania III

Biased Reporting of the attendance figure

This article still having the worked attendance number is really sad. Wrestling is a carny business - to this day they still announce worked numbers. Even last years Wrestlemania 29 was announced as 80,676 when it was really 78,927(I don't even want to check if that's wrong on Wikipedia also it's too depressing). When all your sources are based on a false number announced by a company which everyone with any knowledge of the industry knows habitual lies about such things they're not much use as sources at all. At the least add something about the figure being disputed without that this page is just disseminating and reaffirming the lie. It's 78,000. Winterborn (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Why Meltzer's number? He has no actual proof. Meltzer's take on Wrestlemania III's number is now continually invalidated by how he pushes AEW's inflated attendance numbers. The attendance number should go back to what WWE said until Meltzer can provide actual proof and not quoting some guy that was working for WCW. HughHoney00 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MELTZER — Czello ^(music) 13:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Because Meltzer is considered reliable. Please see WP:RS; his reliability has been discussed to death, and mentioning AEW does not help your case. — Czello ^(music) 14:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Meltzer is not at all reliable. His 1 and only source for this was a guy that was working for WCW in '94 at the time and the guy died in a car accident 20 years ago so no one can actually confirm it with the guy now as whether that was just him carrying WCW's water and downplaying a WWE thing and what his actual proof was. Secondly Meltzer has no creditability since he pushes AEW's exaggerated attendance numbers now. HughHoney00 (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah. The usual Cry for Meltzer being no reliable because he hates something and loves something or gave Kenny Omega a 7 star match... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, and five of those sources got their info from WWE, which has been known to routinely lie about their attendance figures in the past. This quote from WrestleView should prove otherwise:

OK....this has been debated for so many years, but the number is definitely 78,000. I think Dave Meltzer was the first one to call this to peoples attention. Here's the facts as to why it was 78,000 (I'm writing this with Meltzer as a source). First of all you have to understand that the WWF back in those days routinely lied about attendance numbers on TV to make them bigger than they were. Zane Bresloff was the man whom promoted WrestleMania III for McMahon in Michigan. He and Dave Meltzer had a conversation on the phone years later about WrestleMania III. Bresloff was quoted as saying something to the effect of that the WWF has been quoting that 93,000 attendance number for so long, he thought they were starting to believe it themselves. Meltzer asked him whether or not 93,000 was the real attendance figure, and Bresloff said no. He later sent Meltzer a fax of the official statement from the building from back in 1987. This gave the attendance as being just over 78,000 with 23,000 comps. Meltzer had never even questioned the 93,000 number before, and the actual gate (money made from ticket sales) was the same on the fax as the number given to Meltzer by the WWF back in 1987 when he didn't even question the 93,000. Meltzer also was doing an article on WWE history where he had to research attendance, and officials let him go through records of all of their major shows (all the stadium WrestleManias, SummerSlam '92, etc.) In almost all the cases, the attendance numbers he found on the official records were different from the announced attendance figure on TV. They recently started announcing figures that weren't as inflated and pretty much accurate, starting with their big Royal Rumble at the Alamodome in 1997. Meltzer asked Vince McMahon himself why they used to inflate the numbers, because the shows were sold out themselves and the real number was impressive enough. Why add a few thousand? Vince was quoted as saying what appears on television people should consider for entertainment purposes. This actually isn't exclusive to WWE, as other forms of sports and entertainment often lie about the actual attendance to make it sound impressive. Such companies I could name as examples would be Pride and K-1. So in conclusion, the reason the WWE gave this inflated 93,000 attendance number was because they wanted to proclaim and all time indoor attendance record, and they had to beat an attedance number done by the Pope, while at the same time having an attendance figure that nobody would ever beat.

— WrestleView.com, ASK WV (9/27/03): WM III attendance, Hart/HBK, Sting/4 Horsemen, & More

On that basis, the 78,000 attendance figure is the one that should actually be used in the WMIII infobox, with a note that the 93,173 figure given by WWE was exaggerated by them for the reasons noted. Creativity-II (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. This has been discussed before, and Meltzer's claim (CLAIM, not fact) is already mentioned. There is no proof that the 78,000 number is real. TJ Spyke 15:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because Vince McMahon makes a claim about something (i.e. WrestleMania attendance figures, whether for III or for XXV) does not always mean that it should be taken as gospel. I'll take Meltzer's word over a known "history reviser" like Vince McMahon any day. Creativity-II (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but anyone who drinks Meltzer's coolaid (he has a known bias against WWE and has for years, he also doesn't like American wrestling all that much) needs serious help. Besides, Meltzer offers no proof for his claims. TJ Spyke 15:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The Zane Bresloff figure of 78,000 is the biggest proof against the 93,000 amount...and it's important to know Bresloff left the WWE for WCW in the '90s and quoted the 78,000 while a WCW employee. Gee...why would a WCW employee want to claim a lower amount for Mania III in the Monday Night Wars? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:AB02:E200:39B2:F350:7389:82B (talk) 06:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Where are these people now years later when Meltzer is backing up AEW's inflated attendances? HughHoney00 (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

And WWE offers no proof for their claims. This is somehow OK, huh? Your claim that Meltzer is biased (or is known for being biased) is odd, as his reputation is one of fairness and accuracy. Do you have any proof for that claim? If you don't, it should be withdrawn for BLP reasons. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

First, BLP refers to articles, not comments on talkpages. Second, WWE would have more knowledge of how many people attended their event than some wrestling "journalist" (and I use "journalist" lightly here). The bias I am talking about is, admittedly based on observations, that he doesn't like WWE and strongly prefers Japanese wrestling over American wrestling and even among American wrestling he prefers indy feds over the major promotions. He's like a movie critic or music critic who thinks that indy movies/artists are generally better than those from the major studios. TJ Spyke 16:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This'll be my last comment here, as I don't want to spend a lot of time debating this. 1) It's my understanding that BLP applies to all pages. There is a section of WP:BLP that addresses non-article space, and this shows that at least some people agree with this interpretation. 2) I agree that WWE would have more knowledge about this, however, IMO, they would also have more reason to lie about this. 3) I'm glad that you say that his supposed bias is based on observations, and hope that you'll agree with me that reasonable people can disagree about that. Thanks for your time. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the WWF sold around 78,000 tickets and gave away freebies to blow up the attendance record. What could have happened is that 10,000 had freebies, but that is unlikely. TJ, Meltzer is a serious historian. The WWF shouldn't be a source. They do exaggerate numbers. - Imp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.193.112 (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

They said attendance, they never said paid attendance HughHoney00 (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

TJSpyke, do you have an alternative to Dave Meltzer? For a "journalist", he seems well respected by people like Dana White who let him serve as a judge for a UFC event. Meltzer's coverage of the Survivor Series Screwjob and the steroid trial has had no rival. But the WWE's history, until really recently, had that Bret Hart screwed Bret Hart. But go ahead and read your mark magazines. 76.173.193.112 (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Imp

The standard process now for this type of issues is to go with the officially-quoted figures for events. In sports and entertainment in general, it's commonplace for attendance figures to be exaggerated. But it's also difficult to reliably disprove official figures and it's not our place to be investigative journalists. Therefore, all Wikipedia articles which mention audience attendence levels state the official number. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

or RECAP? Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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. Lex^{94 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. Lex^{94 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)

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, Lex^{94 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.

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, Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 09:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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. Lex^{94 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)

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, Lex^{94 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"? Lex^{94 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. Lex^{94 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. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

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. Lex^{94 Talk Contributions Signatures} 22:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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.

Lex^{94 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)

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, Lex^{94 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)

 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. Lex^{94 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)

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? Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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) Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added a source. Feedback ^☎ 05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Better Hogan-Andre Image	Done
DVD information	Done
Source for Survivor Series statement	Done

The above concerns have been addressed. Any more concerns? Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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? Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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. Feedback ^☎ 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? Feedback ^☎ 00:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha, no. Sarcasm is sometimes hard to detect online though. TJ Spyke 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hogan vs Andre

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)

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)

"Largest paid crowd."

Regardless of whether you believe there were 78,000 or 93,000, this is still flat-out wrong. The World Peace Festival in Pyongyang in 1996 drew 190,000. Admittedly, I can't find out if this was a paying crowd or not, but, even more interesting is the fact Summerslam 1992 in Wembley legitimately outdrew Wrestlemania III. Citing WWE as the source of WMIII being the largest event in wrestling, quite frankly, is a lot like citing Wikipedia. WWE's figures are always going to be inflated and shouldn't be taken as fact. 75.179.3.77 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source stating another event outsold it, the line will stay. And you have no proof WWE's numbers are wrong. Also, the World Peace Festival was in Los Angles in 1996. You are thinking of Kollision in Korea. TJ Spyke 23:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because people in North Korea certainly paid to buy a ticket for an event,

say, are you any any way shape of form even remotely familiar with North Korea actually ? 79.202.242.148 (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

TJ Spyke, it's scary to think Wikipedia is controlled by hacks like you. Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer is a source and a strong one at that. I've been reading the Observer for years. It's no secret Meltzer wasn't a fan of 80's WWF, but I never once saw Meltzer pretend that the WWF wasn't a financial juggernaut. As for "Kollision in Korea", I have read (with no source) that it wasn't a paying audience. There is no way any event would draw such a huge number when North Koreans didn't even know what pro-wrestling was. - Imp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.193.112 (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Saying SS92 outdrew WM3 is ridiculous. Either you believe WWF's numbers, in which case 93k is greater than 80k and WM3 drew more, or you don't believe WWF's numbers, in which case SS92's numbers are no more reliable than WM3's numbers and you can't compare them at all.06:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.116.97 (talk)

Dark Match

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)

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)

The only source I have is my own memory, which is why I haven't included it. Like I said, its participants are on the tip of my tounge, and may come to me yet. I was just hoping that someone would have this information.Mk5384 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Mad

"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)

Bigboss9893

@Bigboss9893: / 2607:fb91:13b9:5bd7:5c41:a3df:533c:3ab2 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)

@68.199.25.221: Please discuss here rather than edit warring. — Czello ^(music) 07:01, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Bixenspan and Wrestlenomics reports

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)

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)

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)

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) RamshackleMan (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Attendance and Meltzer's unreliability

The event happened in 1987 and this article was made back in 2006. At that time 5 years after the fall of WCW and for 17 years WWE had been the undisputed King of Wrestling. Now with the success of AEW's All In (2023) (80,000 + figure which Meltzer doesn't dispute, he only disputes when it comes to WWE cause he is always biased against WWE), people are treating Dave Meltzer as some divine entity and taking his words like gospel. There are some few pro Meltzer sources that say 78,000! But that alone isn't sufficient. WWE's historic claim of 93,000 + attendance stands and it is also supported by numerous, respected, well established and prestegious WP:PW/RS. You guys had the disputed tag when the 93,000 figure was up but removed it when you gave the lower 78,000 fiigure, but it is also a matter of dispute, just because your beloved Meltzer says uou won't add the dispute tag now? Thats double standard. Anyway non WWE independent WP:RS are not exclusive to Meltzer, numerous WWP:RS supports the 93,000+ claimed attendance and have way more credibility than meltzer who has occasionally provied false reports (like CM Punk's alleged WWE return in 2014 [3] ). Some guys claimed it is debunked that 93,173 didn't attend, it waqs never debinked, you are Spanish but learn the difference between debunked and alleged. Meltzer is no scientifiuc researcher, he didn't attend the event nor did he made valid proven research to debunk anything he just made "claims", thats allegations not debunking. Now so many independent well established and respected WP:RS supporting 93,000+ attendance claim: [4], [5], [6], and do you guys HONESTLY think Meltzer is ABOVE the New York Times! [7]. And there are far more Wp:RS but Meltzer loving editors just select those that go with Meltzers! This is pathetic! The old version had at least the dispute tag but the current version doesn't even have that. Also 93,000+ has far more WP:RS backing it, I juist listed a few yet there are many. keeping all in mind I have decided to add a range from 78000-93,173 based on claims by both Meltzer loyalists and WWE loyalists even tho 93,173 is backed by much stronger and wy better independent and WP:neutral WP:RS. So please protect the Neutrality of this article! Dilbaggg (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The change was made without "proper" consensus, I don't want to ew but if there isn't proper response I will add the range someday, but 78,000 claim is way more disputed than 93,173, so at least add dispute tag to it. and adding 78,000-93,173 range seems like the perfect solution at this point! Dilbaggg (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality means going with the sources that are independent and what the Wikiproject deems reliable. The NYT article is from 1987 when the details of the real figure hadn't emerged; it is obviously secondary to someone whose job it is to investigate further. — Czello ^(music) 15:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is pure personal view to deem something like NYT unreliable just because its from 1987, if anything modern sources are more unreliable, check WP:Recentism, amnyway do you agree with the "range" solution, 78,000 itself is a lot more disputed than the previous figure and deserves a disputed tag and all sources i listed are independent WP:RS! Dilbaggg (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Czello anyway been a long day, all things consid3ered I think adding a range is the best thing now, do you agree? Then we can just add the range 78,000-93,173, giving respective sources and making it more WP:Neutral and there won't be disputed issues either! Do you agree? Dilbaggg (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Czello anyway am leaving and won't be back in a while, these days am overburdened with stuff, so I leave the discussion as it is here, I will be grateful if you consider my suggestion about the Range, anyway I am out now, hope I can come back again and we can work together to fix it but while I am away please consider all we discussed today and consider adding Range to preserve WP:Neutral. All the best. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrestlenomics also created a video about the record. [8] [9] --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The only source for 78000 is Meltzer's WON every other WP:RS says 93000+ , Meltzer alone is used to judge everything? Dilbaggg (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

First it's not true to say "every other RS says 93+"; that video above alone shows that. But even then the sources that are saying 93k are just quoting WWE directly. — Czello ^(music) 08:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The venue, the famed but since demolished Pontiac Silverdome, had a capacity of just over 80,000, and that is ALL seated, for NFL football games with an entire field right in the middle. now you look at pictures from Wrestlemania III, the place was packed from every and any angle possible ! And there was no giant entrance set stage at that event which would have taken up a considerable amount of space thereby „costing capacity“ as it would have blocked out seats.

There were no empty sections or empty rows of seats visible anywhere in the entire dome in any section!

You now come forth and do some additional „analysis“ and again explain how the 93k is not actually perfectly logical and reasonable, as for 78,000 as claimed by Meltzer, would have meant that there needed to be larger empty areas, which clearly there were none !

78,000 is outright stupid and ridiculous a claim, especially coming from Meltzer, who seems to have made a personal sport for his own enjoyment to downgrade just about any official WWE figure as he pleases.

You may want to familiarize yourselves with Eric Bischoffs opinion on and about Meltzer, and if you don‘t like Eric, then you may want to listen to „Al Snow“ about Meltzer.

The claims of Meltzer should absolutely NOT be the measuring stick here, and the numbers for the event’s attendance, MUST be the official figure given by WWE! Especially the section in the lead of the article that addresses this, which states „later analyses have found….“ needs to be removed asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.202.242.148 (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC) Wrestlenomics also pointed how WM3 wasn’t packed to the top and, even with aditional seats, hard to believe how wwf made room for 13.000 people. also, wwe is a promotion with his own interest, the number they gave is primary source.-HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

What ? Was your reply supposed to make any sense whatsoever?

Look at the pictures, the entire place was packed everywhere !

are you going to argue with reality now…. 87.157.31.150 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Sources simply parroting WWE's claims can't be taken as gospel. WWE has incentive to inflate their attendances. starship.paint (RUN) 07:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@ starship We should use a range. I have notice Wp:PW's anti WWE stance and bias for indies like TNA and AEW. Using a range This would satisfy both parties hopefully, also Fightful and Meltzer who have always been anti WWE cannot be taken as gospel, 78000 is an approximate, and sources like New Yourk Times are far more --reliable and neutral, more WP:PW/RS support the 93,000+ claim than the two anti wwe sources, keeping both figures maintain Neutrality. Here are some of many vital sources supporting claimed attendance = 93,173. We can even enter a separate field on the info box titled "claimed attendance". Anyway am so bust these days I don't have time for WP:DR but it would be better for both WWE fans and Meltzer fans either adding a range or separate fields of Paid Attendance and Claimed Attendance. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The consensus by a few seems to be that at the very least, the 78,000 number is more incorrect. I completely agree with you on the range. The real number seems to be somewhere in the mid 80s, at least according to the evidence outlined in the Deadspin article: How Many People Were Actually At WrestleMania III? A Deadspin Investigation.

Say what you want about Deadspin, but there is some actual good reporting in that article. They use multiple sources that prove pretty conclusively the 78,000 number is simply not possible.

So I would say a range with a tag acknowledging it is a disputed number is most appropriate. TheKAT94 (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Wrestlemania III Attendance Figure

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)

I agree. I'm a trained historian. If the only secondary source for any piece of information lost the primary sources and had such an obvious bias, no serious historian would take that claim at face value without qualifying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.85.65.218 (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

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 [10] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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) RamshackleMan (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

How is Meltzer a reliable source? Have you listened to his podcasts? You're trading one unreliable source for another in a business built around deceiving people. It's absurd to take someone's word for it when he admitted to losing his only primary source. If the only source for a claim about Nero just happened to be a massive fan of Nero's rival, no trained historian would take what he said at face value with qualifying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.85.65.218 (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MELTZER. — Czello ^(music) 08:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)