Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of WWE Champions

List of WWE Champions

The List is fully sourced and well formatted. Any changes can be made during the process. It's main problem (in my mind) is its short lead, but FLs rarely have extended leads and if anyone has any suggestions on how to expand it, I'd be more than willing to listen. -- Scorpion 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think it's a rather comprehensive list, and well cited. I'm only curious if something can be done to the table. The large cells where more information is written about one wrestler can be a bit distracting, but other than that (which is just personal opinion), I think it's pretty good. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Someone can look at the page, check a statistic quickly and check the reference to confirm its accuracy. Informative and viewer-friendly. Suriel1981 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've improved the list somewhat. There are a couple cities that are still wikilinked twice, now easily spotable since you can sort by location, which still need to be fixed. I'd also like some sort of WWE titles template at the bottom to easily access other title belt lists, if someone wants to make one. I'd also like to see the lead expanded somewhat. I'm leaning towards support pending these changes. VegaDark 07:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need a seperate ref for all 81 title changes? Some are needed specifially, but why not just link most of them to 1 ref (the main WWE Title history at wwe.com [1]. TJ Spyke 09:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this myself. On reflection though, being as WWE.com has individual mini-articles fleshing out the seperate title changes/reigns the seperate refs do make for extensive research material that is necessary for this to achieve FA. Suriel1981 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support the table should be fully sortable. All the "vacant" and "held up" entry needs to be adjusted for that.Circeus 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it need to be sortable? -- Scorpion 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I made it sortable, but it was reverted for some reason. VegaDark 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because whenever you sorted one of the double columns, the table got all screwy. -- Scorpion 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which is why I said some work (not too much) was necessary for it to work properly.Circeus 14:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm curious, where in the FL criteria does it say that FLs need to be sortable? -- Scorpion 15:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Extremely well-referenced, comprehensive, covers all the title reigns. My only wish would be perhaps one or two more pictures (if any such photos are available); if not, not a huge deal. Anthony Hit me up... 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per previous comments. Very useful for anyone curious about a particular reign, as well as the full history of the title. I also don't think it's necessary for this to be sortable, as it's designed to be a historical reference, and sorting by name, location, etc. doesn't seem very practical. MarcK 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]