Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:12, 23 March 2011 [1].

List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions

Nominator(s): --WillC 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't nominated a list in a good while so I hope this meets the criteria, because I'm not sure if anything has changed since the IWGP Junior Tag Title passed. Okay, I'll answer all problems as quick as possible. This is a touchy title history, but I've tried to source it well enough to have no problems. Most of all, I'm glad to be back nominating lists. I got all the TNA Title articles to GA, and I have 3 lists already at FL, this is the only existing list to not be FL. If this one passes, I will work on the TV Title to bring it here. If this does well soon, then it will be here sooner than planned.--WillC 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative oppose~~- Kurt Angle wasn't "stripped" of the title, the decision was "reversed". Its very similar to Ted DiBiase and Chris Jericho's WWE title reigns being REVERSED and not stripped. I don't understand why his title reign is counted in the article. I'm sure all reliable sources can point this out. Until that misinformation in the article changes, I don't think it should be a FL. Feedback ^☎ 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback you are completely wrong in this case. As seen from this archived ref straight from TNA themselves, it was not reversed, he was Stripped of the title. The title is even clear with "Angle Stripped Of The TNA World Title". So for you to oppose on those grounds, you will not be judging by the criteria, but by personal opinion when the evidence is clearly presented before you.--WillC 00:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see... Well in that case STRONG OPPOSE... Nah, I'm just kidding, I Support now. Sorry for the mix-up. Feedback ^☎ 04:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I'm sorry if I sounded mean. I just knew this would become an issue, and was putting my game face on as I expected alot of arguments over it.--WillC 05:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't really understand what "TNA used the NWA World Heavyweight Championship as their primary championship due to an agreement with the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA). " means I'm afraid. I'm no expert but I don't get it.
- Okay, well it is pretty clear. It is stating TNA's first title was the NWA Championship and that it was used prior to TNA creating this one.
"Angle ended up becoming .." not good English. Sounds like it happened by chance...
- Done
" Angle ended up becoming the victor of said encounter " in fact, why not "Angle won the match..."?
- Done
"Angle was stripped of the..." could just say "He was..."
- Done
", it is not won legitimately" I'm not sure you need this, I'd just say it's won via a script.
- Done
Ref. -> Ref(s)
- Done

"Afterwards, TNA ceased to recognize Angle's first title reign nor the vacancy" why and citation needed.
- Okay well, we don't know why they don't recognize it anymore. No word has even been told as their reason. Also, TNA's history goes up and down from their website. It was up not long ago, but now the link is dead. I'll see if I can find something, but I doubt it.
  - I looked around. TNA's site has no title history anymore. I check archive.org, and they have nothing as well. I did add "for unknown reasons" if that helps.--WillC 09:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please use {{dagger}} so it's accessible to screen readers.
- I'm not familiar with that template. What exactly would you like me to do?
  - Just use the template as is i.e. {{dagger}} instead of the non-template dagger. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done--WillC 09:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote should be N 1 not just 1.
- Don't know how to change that.
  - Looked around, found no way to do that.--WillC 09:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Suggest that you find another featured list with footnotes and correct it accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any suggested lists? After a quick look found none with that type of notes. I found List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, but it has a near exact format of notes as this one.--WillC 10:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Never found out how to fix it to that way. I just went ahead and changed to format. Hopefully that will be fine.--WillC 05:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.--WillC 23:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"He was stripped of the championship later in the program, citing a problematic finish to the PPV match by Management Director Jim Cornette." Did Angle cite the finish, or did Cornette? If Cornette did, this reads wrong and should be "later in the program; Management Director Jim Cornette cited.." or similar.
- Fixed.--WillC 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Afterward, TNA ceased to recognize Angle's first title reign nor the vacancy for unknown reasons." Should "nor" be "or"?~~
- Personnaly, I think it sounds fine the way it is. But the situation is that neither are recognized now if that helps. Whatever you think would work better I'll do.--WillC 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The info about the inaugural champion in the second paragraph is a repeat of what's in the first paragraph.
- Yeah, mainly since the second is telling of what is in the tables. I do it in every list.--WillC 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But why does it need to be repeated? I don't recall repetition like this in the other featured lists you worked on in the past. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Eh, instead of sorting it all out I just removed the sentence.--WillC 06:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Typo in "Style's". Apostrophe should be after the s.~~
- Fixed.--WillC 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote A: Similar issue with "wrestler's". This apostrophe shouldn't be there at all.
- Fixed.--WillC 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant the second "wrestler's", not the first usage. Now they both look funky. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Crap, rookie mistake. Fixed hopefully.--WillC 06:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Publisher is missing from reference 4. It is from the Internet Archive, but it should say somewhere that it was from the TNA web site.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, put TNA as work.--WillC 06:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thank you for your comments Giant.--WillC 03:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 06:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

What makes [2] a reliable source?

"Overall, there have been 14 reigns shared among eight wrestlers, with two vacancies." Don't switch number formats in mid-sentence.

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial and add the scope col and scope row parameters, as needed.

Colapsing from exhaustion, more tomorrow... Courcelles 07:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote the numbers correctly: One through nine should be written in words and anything above is in numbers. The APA format, the MLA format and most popular ones format their numbers that way. Feedback ^☎ 07:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly correct. Check WP:MOSNUM where it says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then this is a case where policy is WRONG. The encyclopedia should be written in the most professional standard and I have written many professional documents of academic, financial and legal nature and they all were written in either APA or MLA format which are the most respectable ones today. If its commonplace to write numbers one-through-nine in words and 10+ in digits, it should be that way in the encyclopedia. And if the guidelines say otherwise, they should be blatantly ignored. Feedback ^☎ 20:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of consistently ignoring the guideline, then, wouldn't it be easier to have it changed? WT:MOSNUM is thataway. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dabomb87, if you don't like the MOS, then please take it up at the relevant talk page that he has directed you towards. Right now, we comply with MOS, and that means comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures. And for what it's worth, MOS isn't policy, it's a guideline, but compliance with it is part of the FL criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, changed them over.--WillC 15:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to reply to everything stated above here. Solie gets its information from books, tv, etc and is ran by long time wrestling historians if you will who have worked within the business. At least that is what I was told when I started doing lists in 08. Every since that site has been used, wasn't a problem then. While the number format thing doesn't bother me. Whichever policy takes the lead here I'll change it too.--WillC 09:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have we ever had an RSN thread or an investigation at FAC/FLC into its reliability? Because nothing I can find on their website itself inspires confidence in its reliability. Courcelles 17:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of has there been any investigation into it, really I barely know what makes a source reliable. Usually it is just the consensus established through WP:PW and FLs that have passed with it.--WillC 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until some evidence of Solie's reliability is produced, then. I found Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_53#Questions_about_several_professional_wrestling_sources interesting in that even the person who brought it to RSN didn't argue for Solie's general reliability. If multiple FL's are dependent on this source, then you do need to open a real RSN thread. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is a good general primer all editors should read at least once. Courcelles 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think worrying about solie is much of an issue at this time, as there are at least two refs per title reign and solie is just a general ref meant to back up the rest.--WillC 08:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removed, simple.--WillC 08:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.