Template:Did you know nominations/2008 TNA World X Cup Tournament
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
2008 TNA World X Cup Tournament
edit- ... that Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) held a World X Cup Tournament in 2008 featuring wrestlers from around the world?
- Reviewed: Rare Replay
5x expanded by Wrestlinglover (talk). Self-nominated at 01:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC).
- Comment: the hook is not interesting at all. A world cup tournament would of course have participants from around the world. A better hook should be featured on the Main Page.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- The issue here is this is a very very rare event in wrestling. WWE does not have tournaments consisting of wrestlers from other promotions. This was only the third one ever to happen and had travel issues involved. I find it very interesting since it doesn't happen much.--WillC 20:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Skr15081997: - Can I suggest that we take your point and point it up - this will need a ref adding - Japan the USA and Mexico were 75% of the contestants Victuallers (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- (alt1) ... that the World X Cup Tournament in 2008 had wrestlers in four teams, Japan, Mexico, USA and the rest of the world?
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wrestlinglover, I'm not sure why you haven't proposed a hook based on the facts that "WWE does not have tournaments consisting of wrestlers from other promotions. This was only the third one ever to happen", as you stated above. That does seem interesting, even to someone like me who has no particular interest in wrestling. It seems more interesting than the fact that wrestlers from different countries participated in the tournament, since I know enough about wrestling to be aware that wrestlers from one country frequently compete in others. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- @GrammarFascist: I don't have a source in relation to that and this tournament so it would be reaching to say something regarding it. It is more just known and stated then truly discussed. I figured the cross promotion was interesting enough. This was basically like a wrestling version of the Olympics which we all know why that is special. I'd like to mention the WWE stuff but I just don't have a source explicitly stating it that is also reliable.--WillC 00:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- That's a shame, Wrestlinglover; it would have made an interesting hook. Still, are there maybe sources saying that wrestlers from different federations participated in the event? I would expect that information to have been mentioned in at least some of the coverage. Would you be able to support a hook like "... that wrestlers from Acme Wrestling Federation, Bob's Wrestling League and California All-Star Wrestling participated in the cross-federation World Cup X Tournament?" (with the real names, obviously)? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 18:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- @GrammarFascist: Yeah I got plenty of references to cover where people are from. If I need to I can find one for Team Mexico coming from CMLL but I got this source that says some from New Japan and from Dragon Gate appeared. So an alternative hook would be "that wrestlers from New Japan Pro Wrestling and Dragon Gate participated in the 2008 TNA World X Cup?--WillC 21:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wrestlinglover, that's great news on the sources. I do think you need to identify New Japan Pro Wrestling and Dragon Gate as being "from competing leagues" (or something to that effect) in the hook; I certainly wouldn't know, or even assume, that they weren't just part of the same franchise. I know it can be hard to imagine how things come across to someone not an expert in one of one's own favorite topic areas, so I'm doing my best to provide that perspective for you. Also, was it just those two leagues other than TNA itself? From what I can tell it looks like Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) wrestlers also participated. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Alternately (since it would take some doing to get all elements of a hook about it having been a cross-franchise event cited in the article) what do you think of:
- ALT2 ... that Team Mexico's entry into the United States was delayed, causing them to be late to the 2008 TNA World X Cup? —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @GrammarFascist: Works for me.--WillC 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Great, Wrestlinglover. Unfortunately another editor will now have to review the nomination, since I contributed the hook you want to go with, and DYK rules don't allow anyone to evaluate a hook they wrote. But I'm sure someone will pick it up in time. 
—GrammarFascist contribstalk 08:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
New enough, long enough. Hook short enough and sourced. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found. QPQ done and image properly licensed. However, a number of the paragraphs in Tournament don't have references. (Although none of the lede has any references, it isn't supposed to anyway because it's supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, therefore please remove the citation needed tags.)--Launchballer 11:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Launchballer, there are two exceptions noted in WP:LEADCITE: you have to cite all quotes, and you should cite any controversial material, even if the quotes and material are cited in the body of the article. So those "citation needed" tags need to stay where they are until the citations are supplied, and the article should not pass DYK so long as those quotes are uncited. Indeed, each sentence that contains a quote in that lead needs a cite, and I have added tags accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Everything in that section that needs a source, has a source.--WillC 22:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Wrestlinglover, as a general rule there should be a minimum of one citation per paragraph in the body of an article. The scoring at the ends of each round, in particular, does indeed definitely need to be cited. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- The reason I disagree is because that is already sourced in the section. The sources that cover the events in the match cover how much a victory in the round is worth. So me sourcing the same content a second time after stating it at the beginning of the paragraph is rather arbitrary. Take the below. It is all covered by refs 10 and 14.
- "Round one of the 2008 TNA World X Cup Tournament was strictly Tag Team matches between each of the participating groups, with each victory being worth one point. Two matches were held during round one.
- The first match was between Team TNA and Team International on the June 19 episode of Impact!. The Motor City Machine Guns represented Team TNA in the contest while the team of Tyson Dux and Daivari fought for Team International. The Motor City Machine Guns won the encounter by pinfall at 13 minutes when Shelley forced Daivari head-first into the mat with his signature Sliced Bread #2 maneuver."
- @GrammarFascist: Not to be a pain but most of that seems unnecessary and seems more like an issue for the upcoming GA review than for getting a did you know.--WillC 08:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wrestlinglover, I'm afraid the DYK rules are clear in calling for a minimum of "one inline citation per paragraph" — see Wikipedia:Did you know/Citation. This is entirely in line with, for example, the official guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources, which notes that a citation ought to be "added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph". And just in general, DYK-nominated articles are required to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability (and other core policies), which is the underlying reason why citations are required. It's perfectly acceptable to simply cite two successive paragraphs to the same source, by the way; you don't need to find new sources to cite, just clarify which of the already-cited sources readers can examine to verify the information in the presently-uncited paragraphs. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 10:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @GrammarFascist: I completely understand the citation guidelines, I've been active for nearly 8 years. My issue is that it is information that has already been sourced and is already verified. I only have 2 lines not sourced there which is me copy and pasting the refs that are mentioned literally on the previous sentence that cover the same information. To me it seems to be nit-picking, those lines are their to conclude what happened in the round. Certainly when the very policy you are citing says "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." Content already sourced in the section is excluded from the issue you are bringing up. If you are going to cite the policy then realize what you are quoting and look at the article to make sure they are in line with each other. With all due respect, the article is passing the guidelines as is.--WillC 10:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- The issue Launchballer raised and I (talk page stalker)-ishly chimed in to agree with has now been resolved. It concerns me, however, Wrestlinglover, that despite your long standing as an editor and claim to know the relevant policies, you have argued against them, and used edit summaries like "Seriously people, calm it down" in response to being reminded that citations are needed for any quotations, and "for the hell of it" referring to the addition of needed citations to previously uncited paragraphs. Just because you knew which source the end-of-round scores come from doesn't mean readers would have been able to intuit that. If you still don't understand when, where and why citations are needed after seven years of editing Wikipedia, I'm not sure what else to tell you. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Well it concerns me more @GrammarFascist: that you are still standing by your stance despite me showing that yes, I knew the relevant policies and that you were citing a clause that took me a short look to find and quote. Instead of following up with simply saying "Yes, I see I must have missed that part." You have instead taken it to argue against my credibility and knowledge. I posted those summaries completely aware because a large portion of these concerns were nitpicking that in the end I still handled. The relevant policies mentioned report that plot summaries, intros, and other sourced content do not need to be sourced per the policies you have listed. The two concerns that use the edit summaries you have mentioned do not go along with that very policy. So respectfully I say to you, don't come at me as if I do not understand the policies when obviously the concerns raised did not even go along with the policies to begin with. This entire situation has lasted long enough as is. I nominated this nearly 2 months ago and the only concerns so far have been dealing with already sourced content in the body and already sourced content in the lead, both of which I fixed. Also that the hook was not interesting enough which is arguable. For you to reply in the manner you have just done is offensive to me. It is basically trying to call me out because I have shown you the very policy you just cited said you were wrong and you kept that stance. I conceded to amend the article despite wishing not too. I only hope you could do the same and see that you also erred because so far I amended the article twice and amended the hook. I made some edit summaries that I normally make. Go look around, no different from anything else. The least you could have done was be respectful and not resort to trying to call me out and say I do not understand the sourcing policies when I've expanded close to 60 GAs, FAs, and FLs among other articles.--WillC 11:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Can I just say that I take nominations and articles at face value. I tend not to pay any attention to what sort of editor I'm dealing with. It was my understanding that although Wikipedia:Citing sources says a rule of thumb is one reference per paragraph DYK requires at least one reference per paragraph, though I now see that it repeats the phrase 'rule of thumb'. (I love a bit of ambiguity.) In any event, the issue has been resolved, and I see no further outstanding issues.
Good to go.--Launchballer 13:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. I like constructive criticism, even when I seem like I don't. Thank you for the approval @Launchballer:.--WillC 19:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- I do not want to argue further about what the policy is or who has behaved inappropriately. I do want to point out that "I accomplished X, Y and Z, therefore I must be right about A" is a fallacious argument and can only weaken one's position. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 06:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your input. I like constructive criticism, even when I seem like I don't. Thank you for the approval @Launchballer:.--WillC 19:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Can I just say that I take nominations and articles at face value. I tend not to pay any attention to what sort of editor I'm dealing with. It was my understanding that although Wikipedia:Citing sources says a rule of thumb is one reference per paragraph DYK requires at least one reference per paragraph, though I now see that it repeats the phrase 'rule of thumb'. (I love a bit of ambiguity.) In any event, the issue has been resolved, and I see no further outstanding issues.
- Well it concerns me more @GrammarFascist: that you are still standing by your stance despite me showing that yes, I knew the relevant policies and that you were citing a clause that took me a short look to find and quote. Instead of following up with simply saying "Yes, I see I must have missed that part." You have instead taken it to argue against my credibility and knowledge. I posted those summaries completely aware because a large portion of these concerns were nitpicking that in the end I still handled. The relevant policies mentioned report that plot summaries, intros, and other sourced content do not need to be sourced per the policies you have listed. The two concerns that use the edit summaries you have mentioned do not go along with that very policy. So respectfully I say to you, don't come at me as if I do not understand the policies when obviously the concerns raised did not even go along with the policies to begin with. This entire situation has lasted long enough as is. I nominated this nearly 2 months ago and the only concerns so far have been dealing with already sourced content in the body and already sourced content in the lead, both of which I fixed. Also that the hook was not interesting enough which is arguable. For you to reply in the manner you have just done is offensive to me. It is basically trying to call me out because I have shown you the very policy you just cited said you were wrong and you kept that stance. I conceded to amend the article despite wishing not too. I only hope you could do the same and see that you also erred because so far I amended the article twice and amended the hook. I made some edit summaries that I normally make. Go look around, no different from anything else. The least you could have done was be respectful and not resort to trying to call me out and say I do not understand the sourcing policies when I've expanded close to 60 GAs, FAs, and FLs among other articles.--WillC 11:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- The issue Launchballer raised and I (talk page stalker)-ishly chimed in to agree with has now been resolved. It concerns me, however, Wrestlinglover, that despite your long standing as an editor and claim to know the relevant policies, you have argued against them, and used edit summaries like "Seriously people, calm it down" in response to being reminded that citations are needed for any quotations, and "for the hell of it" referring to the addition of needed citations to previously uncited paragraphs. Just because you knew which source the end-of-round scores come from doesn't mean readers would have been able to intuit that. If you still don't understand when, where and why citations are needed after seven years of editing Wikipedia, I'm not sure what else to tell you. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 11:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- @GrammarFascist: I completely understand the citation guidelines, I've been active for nearly 8 years. My issue is that it is information that has already been sourced and is already verified. I only have 2 lines not sourced there which is me copy and pasting the refs that are mentioned literally on the previous sentence that cover the same information. To me it seems to be nit-picking, those lines are their to conclude what happened in the round. Certainly when the very policy you are citing says "A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content." Content already sourced in the section is excluded from the issue you are bringing up. If you are going to cite the policy then realize what you are quoting and look at the article to make sure they are in line with each other. With all due respect, the article is passing the guidelines as is.--WillC 10:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- Wrestlinglover, I'm afraid the DYK rules are clear in calling for a minimum of "one inline citation per paragraph" — see Wikipedia:Did you know/Citation. This is entirely in line with, for example, the official guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources, which notes that a citation ought to be "added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph". And just in general, DYK-nominated articles are required to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability (and other core policies), which is the underlying reason why citations are required. It's perfectly acceptable to simply cite two successive paragraphs to the same source, by the way; you don't need to find new sources to cite, just clarify which of the already-cited sources readers can examine to verify the information in the presently-uncited paragraphs. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 10:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
- The reason I disagree is because that is already sourced in the section. The sources that cover the events in the match cover how much a victory in the round is worth. So me sourcing the same content a second time after stating it at the beginning of the paragraph is rather arbitrary. Take the below. It is all covered by refs 10 and 14.
