Talk:Over the Edge (1999)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Over the Edge (1999) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2009.
WikiProject Professional wrestling (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Over the Edge (1999) 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Since the event is known most for Owen Hart's death, perhaps there should be a "Death of Owen Hart" section. -- Scorpion0422 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Like Under the event section?--TrUCo9311 03:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and everything about Owen in the article could be moved there. -- Scorpion0422 03:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, idk because the announcement of his death was during "the event", and that may sound sloppy moving everything there.

"if you're confused about what I meant before..this is what I mean..

====Death of Owen Hart====
TrUCo9311 03:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I have failed the the GA nomination, for the reasons listed below.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    There are some minor errors and a few awkward sentences that should be easy to fix with a copy edit.
    B. MoS compliance:
    Passed, although the lead will look different based on some of the changes that need to be made.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    The article does not sufficiently cover the death of Owen Hart.
    B. Focused:
    Passed, although I think that the article could benefit from a minor trimming of the Background section.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    This, along with 3a, is the reason I have failed the article without placing it on hold. I nearly quick-failed it due to the treatment of Owen Hart's death, but I decided that the NPOV violations were not obvious enough for a quick fail. As stated above, coverage of Hart's death does not receive due weight within the article. His death should probably have its own section (or, perhaps, a subsection within the Event section). Additionally, the controversy over whether or not the event should have been stopped due to Hart's death is not discussed, with the exception of one sentence.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    The fair use rationale for the promotional poster does not say if the image is replaceable.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article needs to be re-written to properly reflect coverage of Owen Hart's death. When this is done, you may re-nominate the article. Good luck with the re-write!

Is there any chance it can be put on hold for a week to correct the problems. Pro-wrestling articles obviously take very long to get reviewed, and if we can correct the problems in a weeks time, can it be put on hold? King iMatthew 2008 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already been taken to GA reassessment. I suggest that you work on it while it is there. If the editors participating in the GA reassessment see the improvements, there's a good chance the article will pass GA. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The (1999) as part of the title[edit]

Re this edit. Since (1999) is not part of the actual title of this event (either in the image used or in the prose later in the article, I don't think it needs to be in the lead, and if it is kept in the lead, it shouldn't be bolded. The 1999 appears to be a disambiguating phrase, not part of the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the guideline for all wrestling PPV articles. If you think it should be changed, that is something that would need to be discussed by the whole project. If you think that should be changed then feel free to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. As for my edit, I go by current guidelines and policies, whether I agree with them or not (although I do agree with this one). TJ Spyke 01:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't find it in the wrestling style guide. Where is the guideline? -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't plainly say it, but in this section: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Event. It's also a default consensus as this is how PPV names have been written as for years. TJ Spyke 03:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it in that section either. And please don't tell editors new to the wrestling space that it's the guidelines when it's just the default consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I just realized I could be being ambiguous here. I'm not disagreeing with the title of the Wikipedia article, which definitely needs a disambiguating phrase like (1999). I'm disagreeing with the inclusion of that disambiguating phrase in the title of the event in the article's lede. The bolded " (1999)" can (and should) be dropped from the lede with no loss of clarity or information to a reader who has reached this article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe when one of the project's other PPV articles was nominated for featured article status, one reviewer stated that that article name, the infobox name and the name in the first line of the lead need to be the same. Not sure if that was only their suggestion though. I viewed it as actual policy, though admittedly I never checked. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think there is no such need. The title, lede, and infobox name should each be correct, but needn't be identical to each other. Any number of people articles are named through WP:COMMONNAME but use the fullest name known in the lede. And disambiguating phrases must be used in the title to avoid title collisions; there is no such need in the lede. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - have removed the 1999 from the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted since their were two OTE events. D.M.N. (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

...mostly remembered...[edit]

"...the wrestling industry mostly remembered the show for the accidental death of wrestler Owen Hart..." Why, what else was it remembered for? Does this sentence seem a bit out-of-place to anyone else? Lugnuts (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It was remembered for that rather than for the matches that actually occurred on the PPV, which is what wrestling fans remember most PPVs for. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the event has never been released on VHS or DVD (or aired on WWE's TV or online video services) helps make sure that people won't remember other events from the PPV. They retired the PPV name because of it. I know no one wants a event to be remembered because a tragedy but it does happen (like most people remember the 1972 Summer Olympics because of the massacre of Jewish athletes and not the actual competitions). TJ Spyke 14:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, how do you know what people remember events for? Maybe some people remember Over The Edge 1999 for the lame finish to Austin-Undertaker. And if someone you cared about won gold (or any medal come to think of it) at Munich 1972, that's what you would remember it for. I'm pretty sure Brazil remember World Cup 1994 for their ending their long losing streak and winning the World Cup, and not for the Escobar tragedy. I think it is wrong to say that this or that event is "mostly remembered for...." There can not possibly be any way to have a reliable source/citation for such a statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that any report on the PPV is focused on the Owen Hart situation and how often that has been discussed seems to support it being what the event is most remembered for. I did not say it is the only thing everyone remembers it for, but I don't think there is any doubt that it is what the event is most remembered for. TJ Spyke 21:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wish I shared your Superpowers as a mindreader. It must be great being all-knowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's beyond common sense that the event is mostly remembered for Owen Hart's death. It should be added. (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Vince Russo[edit]

This incident happened in May 1999 Vince Russo started working for WCW in October 1999 so he was a scriptwriter for WWF at the time of Hart's death not WCW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Broadcast[edit]

It is well known that no actual footage of Owen Hart falling exists. But has any footage of the Spanish dub of the show been preserved. Where is the proof of the clearly audible thud of Owen landing? Homer saves presidents (talkcontribs) 07:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

From various Google results, there seems to be a considerable amount of forum postings "confirming" the contents of the Spanish language version. Nonetheless, I think that since this purported video cannot seemingly be found anywhere today (the last trace of it appears to be this deleted YouTube video), the line pertaining to it should be removed as per WP:V and WP:OR. I've gone ahead and done that, but if the video does ever turn up (which isn't impossible, considering the ease of saving material from YouTube), then it should be added back—possibly with a link to a more secure downloadable location. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I went back and did a search for all postings regarding the accident in 1999, specifying the search results to that year and I did find one post on what appears to be a music site where a person says that several people who ordered the first airing of the PPV DID see the fall, so the part of the article that suggests it wasn't seen is disputed. Also, regarding the first post in this section, what is well known isn't that "no actual footage exists", but that the footage is in the WWE vault. Claims that the footage was destroyed are baseless and unlikely, since for legal reasons McMahon could not do that. Tampering with evidence is a crime in itself, and it is evidence. Some Hart family members were paid off in settlements but it's a big family and anyone could file suit. Seeing as how this Spanish video was pulled down, I believe the footage exists and it will surface sooner or later, probably in a foreign language under the "Blue Blazer" moniker. At the very least, no statements should be made about the absolute certainty of the video's nonexistence as it's not a fact. (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Blue Blazer Vs The Godfather[edit]

Should their match be included in the result section ruled as a no contest (WorldSeriesOfPoker500 (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC))

For it to be ruled a "no contest" the match would have needed to be started. Since it never did, it can't be ruled. Canceled is word that would be proper, or not having it in the results section period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to include it in the results section with the result of 'Cancelled'. Doing otherwise implies that the match was never intended to take place, which simply is incorrect. There is such a thing as declaring the partial results of an event as 'cancelled' regardless of why (and why doesn't have to BE in that section. It's obvious from the rest of the article). I could even argue that not including this in the results is vaguely disrespectful - again, because the implication is that it was never intended to take place or simply ceased to exist after the fact because of circumstances. Skybunny (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It should certainly be included, as it was an advertised bout for a title. Adding it. (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


What was the problem with the CNN link? GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Gary. Assuming you're referring to this edit of mine, I think you may have misread the diff. I didn't remove the CNN link, it's still in the article; I removed a link to a YouTube video of the event, not uploaded by WWE, and therefore a copyright violation. NiciVampireHeart 18:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. Thanks for removing the YouTube video. I need to get more sleep. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
No worries. NiciVampireHeart 12:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)