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

• John Zandig, Drake Younger and Nick Gage all have multiple links in the lead.
  • Fixed.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Table note: "later on the same day as Zandig defeated him to win it." → "later in the same day that Zandig defeated him to win it."
  • Fixed.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Another table note: "Zandig won the championship at a Irish Whip Wrestling event." Change "a" to "an".
  • Fixed.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• List of combined reigns: Decapitalize Of Reigns and Days in the headings.
  • Fixed.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Combined Days column isn't sorting properly.
  • Fixed.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes Online World of Wrestling.com a reliable source? Giants2008 (17-14) 22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website is still in question. I removed it, it was only in to help establish notability a bit more during its DYK nomination.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you needed to split this one. The main article is barely start-class, yet it's expanded as much as it could. I highly suggest merging this table with the main article and nominate again. --Crzycheetah 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The main artice can be expanded more. I just didn't look for alot of information. The main article should be about the championship, not the wrestlers who held the championship in my opinion.--WillC 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What else can you add? All the info that is currently mentioned in the main article is needed here, as well. See Calder Memorial Trophy for an example, where there's the lead section and the History section that explains everything a reader needs to know. The way you're using, a reader needs to go back and forth between this list and the main article. That's why I believe we need to merge this list into the main article to make things more comfortable for readers.--Crzycheetah 01:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no limit of characters at GAN so with third party sites added to the CZW Title it could become a GA. This list also passes the criteria for a stand alone list. Plus this list is long enough as is, and WP:PW agreed that a list of champions can be broken off at 10 champions, as long as the main championship article is expanded, which it has.--WillC 01:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I consider the main article a stub really, so the table would help.--Crzycheetah 02:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well that is a matter of opinion. I consider Calder Memorial Trophy a bit long, but I'm not asking for it to be broken off. Most championship histories are broken off into their own lists though when coming to pro wrestling.--WillC 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're right, this is a matter of opinion or taste. I am going to leave my "oppose" though, the FL director can disregard it if he shares your opinion.--Crzycheetah 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well I understand you oppose. And you are welcome to your vote.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(→)*Comments I am going to comment on this list anyway

• • Why is there a subsection "Reigns"? I don't see any other subsections or any text after the "title history" section. Maybe you meant "List of combined reigns" to be a subsection instead?
    • I usually have a names section but since this title had no other names mentioned in the sources I didn't have one. I left the subsection in there just to give a quick directory to where the list is at. I'll remove it if you wish?--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Numbers in bold indicate that a reign is current and changes daily" - I don't see any bold numbers
    • My bad, I use the same key over and over. I just noticed that. Fixed.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please consider WP:98WIDE, the width of the table should be no higher than 98%.
    • Fixed.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The names should be left-aligned rather than centered.
    • It was suggested on a previous FLC of mine that they should be centered since everything else is centered.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually, text should be left-aligned and numbers centered. I don't know what you last nom. was, but I just checked 3 pro wrestling WP:FL's and all have their names left-aligned.--Crzycheetah 03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Check User:Wrestlinglover/Awards and Accomplishments. Most of the FLs are out of date. The most recent ones have been by me and another user. Some are done by preference. I use to do mine based on the other FLs but was told differently and grown foundly of this format. So I guess it is my preference now.--WillC 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think preference matters in this case. We all follow the preference of professional writing. In professional writing, text is always left aligned at all times. You can check any newspaper or magazine that is respectable. Centered text is for the fan sites. Last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a fansite.--Crzycheetah 05:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, but is there a rule about it? I don't think it should be changed since I feel with them centered, it looks better.--WillC 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Centered text may look beautiful and pretty, but it hurts readability. With centered text, your eyes always work to find the starting point of the word. After a while headaches start coming and going. There's a reason why whenever you type a word in Excel, the deafault alignment is left.--Crzycheetah 06:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've never had a problem come up about the center text till now. Maybe once before but I believe that was "why is everything centered" but that was someone's perfence to have one of the columns right aligned. Didn't stop them from feeling it passed the criteria though. Maybe it is just you in all honesty.--WillC 07:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "wrestlers" column is too wide, while the "location" column is too narrow.
    • Fixed.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "N/A" under "Events" for # 17 and 18, but at the same time in the "notes" column it's mentioned that the event was the Irish Whip Wrestling event. It's very confusing.
    • Not sure if this was just a plain house show, a tv show, a PPV, etc. Just did N/A instead of doing OR and just saying it was a house show.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the citation #2 and 3 for? I can easily check the info from the general references. Am I missing some thing here?
    • To show notability. Third party sites were requested in a DYK. Also in previous FLCs third party sites were asked for.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Crzycheetah 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

• The first paragraph is way too short. Suggest you expand about the history of the championship.
  • Well seeing as the list should only summary the history of the belt, I placed all the important information in. The rest belongs in the main article.--WillC 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just really think the first paragraph looks, well, kind of unprofessional, fully because of the length, but ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would also like it to be longer but I have someone watching me I believe and watchlisting all articles I edit, so it seems they are watching my edits. I would expand it but there was a discussion about length already and it will just start an edit war probably.--WillC 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uhh...leave that to others? How about solving it now? I'm 100% sure writing a better Wikipedia article is better than being obeying the wikihound. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was meaning proving he is watching me. But I'll add more info to the lead.--WillC 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Expansion is complete.--WillC 03:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure it wouldn't, since if someone is wikihounding you, then they could be blocked for harassment. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the info but I have no proof at the moment. Just that when it comes to championships this user removes everything he doesn't agree with though it could have a source. I would rather not get involved in politics anyway. Best to leave that to others.--WillC 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove the "Key" title, as I think it's pretty obvious that it is the key.
  • Fixed.--WillC 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There has never been a vacated reign, so there's no need to explain what — is.
  • Fixed.--WillC 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read people's boxes on the top of their talk pages, as I'm trying my best to not get any comments on my talk page that are "reminders", since I always watch the FLCs I comment on. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The titles of the shows should be in italics or alternately in quotation marks as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)

• Well this wasn't a tv show, this was a event. Similar to a PPV which we aren't supposed to have in italics.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why shouldn't it be? I'd say it falls under one of the following categories listed on the page "Feature-length films and documentaries"/"Multi-episode television serials"/"Plays"/"Television series" - So why should wrestling shows not be? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well all you mentioned above are available on free television at some point or another. Now a PPV may at some point but I've never heard one ever being shown in full length on free television nor have I heard of a live event sold on DVD aired on free tv.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You're using an argument that's irrelevant, it doesn't matter if it's on "free tv" or not, the italics rules do not even mention that at all. It falls under the same general sort of product as I listed and thus should be italizied just like they are, PPVs should actually ALSO be italizied according to WP:ITALICS. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That was one thing I had to say. That wasn't the reason. You asked why, that was the first thing that popped in my mind. I wrote that at 3 or 4 am since I can't sleep. So I'm not all here. None you said does live events or ppvs fall under. TV series, the closest one that events may fall under. They aren't films, they aren't documentaries, they aren't plays though that is somewhat arguable, and they aren't tv series; I somewhat said how they aren't tv series.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't all the shows link to "House Shows"? they happen to be taped for DVD but they're not a specific television show, PPV or large annual event are they?

• That would be overlinking.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So you underlink?? and "overlinking" does not apply to a sortable table. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought you meant for prose, plus the house show link isn't really proper. The event isn't seen just by those in attendance. So I wasn't sure if it works to link the event title. Your opinion a bit more on why. I'm willing to do it, just unsure.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• True the house show definition is not totally fitting, I guess there isn't really one definition that fits at the moment. Leave it unliked then. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, though if you wish, since this is why I like to discuss all things first, I'll add event after each one and link it to house show? I agree with using the link, just thought it wasn't fitting.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - why are so many columns centered? that's inconsistent with any other Wrestling FL not done by you. I agree with User:Crzycheetah, it's not the standard way for text in tables.

• I was told it makes it better to see the text. Check the ROH Champions FLC. Plus I tend to like it better.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Addition: I've checked several recent FLs on other subjects, they do not have centered text - in other words from what I can see your format falls outside both the pro wrestling MOS and the way 99% of FLs are. It should be changed to left align.MPJ-DK (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well all lists tend to be different. Most of the project's FLs are either out of date or done by preference. I did mine like all the others until I was told center would be better. Changed it and grown fond of this format.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Makes it better to see the text" - I disagree with that. Yes one person said "Center it", now at least 3 people, the wrestling MOS and general rules on writing say the opposite, that person seems outvoted. "I like it", cannot take that seriously, it's not consistent with the Featured Lists on wrestling nor it's MOS. Comment & oppose of the format still stands. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to tell you, but most of the wrestling MoS was not written on consensus. The current version I know of was written mostly by Truco and I don't remember a discussion done on sorting, lists, etc. Plus I like it nor I don't like it wouldn't be a deal break on either end. You don't like it is an opinion and I like it is an opinion. I don't know if there is a rule on which to do. So I'm not sure what to do here. If there was a rule against it, I would change it. But otherwise I put alot of effort in the change of format plus I tend to still like it so I would rather not change it. Opinion?--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Unindet for easier readability) I know perfectly well that WP:PW generally can't come to agreement on most anything, but what everyone who's ever produced a championship list (and you infact up until recently) have agreed on is that the text is left aligned - it's consistent and there has not been any good argument made to change it. I did not say "I didn't like it", I said "it's harder to read", "It's not consistent with other FLs", "It's not consistent with title lists" and "it's not in the MOS". You keep countering with "but I like it", fine - you like it, I get it. No wonder no consensus can be reached when "I like it" is your reason for not following the generally accepted standard. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem a bit pissed. Anyway, I'm stating my stance on why I do not wish to change it. There are also other reasons. Most of the other lists are not sorted fully, are poorly sourced, the format is wrong, and do not pass the current FL criteria. Saying well this one is not the same as those are is like saying after and before. The standard on tables is to go left and no one thought to change it so that was the consensus. It was never considered if that format was better or not; that I know of. Consensus can also change. I'm willing to change it, just for you to know. But I don't see the reason why. Changing to an out of date format is not what I believe is best for the article.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are there specific citations for champions #23 and #25 only? Are they not covered by the general references? I also personally think that the annual show archive should not be under general but cited in the line it's referenced. It is after all not a source for the general page, just for the events that take place that one year.

• To establish notability. Nothing more. Third party sources. General refs are cleaner than inline.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Establish notability? You randomly source two title changes by linking it to show recaps to establish notability? That just verifies dates of change. It's just so random that it stands out like a sore thumb but alright. You miss the point, they're not "general sources", they're specific sources for a limited section of the article.MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never read the MoS, AAD kind of stops me from getting passed one page and even that is hard. Plus those two are the only ones I found that the title changed at from PWTorch and Slam didn't have a one I found, though I may have missed one or two on both sites, maybe even more.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Unindent) So... general sources for something that cites something very specific because of AAD?? MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have ADD so I've never read the MoS. I don't know the point of the general and specific sections because of that. I follow other's advice, so my info may be wrong and it may be correct half the time. It took me a year before I got an opinion on what may be right and what may be wrong.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no source for what CZW considers a "Heavyweight" or even if they have a weightlimit defined for the title.

Not stating they have one. Just stating what a heavyweight usually is in wrestling. An interesting note.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• An interesting note that states a very specific rule, one that has not ever been relevant to heavyweight titles in pro wrestling like ever and a very specific weight limit that again I have not officially seen stated. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The claim of who is under the weightlimit is supported by a source that does not mention it at all, nor does it mention the weight of the champion.

• I'll remove it again, I did not have it in but it was asked for more info.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Solie.org - I was under the impression it was only reliable if they state that the "Pro Wrestling Title Histories" book was one of their sources, this one does not state that and most of the reigns happen after the last "Pro Wrestling Title Histories" was published.

• Check their main title page.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You tell me what makes it reliable, all the page states are the names of the people who compile the list, not how they're compiled, fact checked etc. It may as well say "List complied by MPJ-DK" but that doesn't confirm whether I'm a reliable source or not. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It should state how they compile their champions articles. I'm never sure how to prove fact checking. Not my thing. Mostly people tell me what is reliable and I go along or I find it used in other FLs and use it. Sorry I can't answer this. I believe there is something about getting info from the companies and dvds or something along those lines in there. I started reading it and never got through it. Probably should have.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it should state how they're compiled, "Mr. X sent it in" does not state how Mr. X compiled it though, there is no defined editorial process in place, heck it sounds like the site just takes the submissions in good faith. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We do the same is all I have to say besides it is used in other FLs. I don't know if it is reliable or not. It seems that it has been agreed upon that it is reliable enough to use.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not really pleased with how many primary sources are used, only 3 non-primary sources are listed, one I'm not convinced is reliable and the other two mention a specific title change, 2 out of 30. I would think Feature Lists would need to be better sourced than that.

• Well I stated about why I have two PWTorch links. Plus the company site is always the best site to use here.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the "company site always best to use"?? I'd think on the contrary, the company site should only be used as a last resort - it's biased and being a wrestling company not above "working" fans. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'd just like to see more 3rd party sources on Featured Lists. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it is a primary source it is best to source something they own. I agree it is not the most truthful since all companies want to rewrite their history. But this is still an indy company and third party sources are hard to come by. With PWTorch in there and Slam Sports, etc having other reports, just none that regard any events this title changed at. If cagematch.net was proven reliable, I would use it.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (unindent) primary sources are allowed on wikipedia, they don't have to be removed as such but it's not a good thing when the overwhelming majority of the sources are primary it becomes a bit of a problem. You even admit that the company is not the most reliable source. Your argument is "I can use an unreliable source for FL because no reliable sources exist", my counter is "If there are no reliable sources then it cannot be a Featured List". MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying it is an unreliable source. All sources have a bit of incorrectness within them. I'm saying that promotion's tend to rewrite history. I don't like using multiple primary sources and I've talked about this before.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting

• Super Dragon should not sort by Dragon but by Super - it's not a proper name with first and last name

• Fixed.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Justice Pain sort by Justice, not Pain

• Fixed.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• the Messiah - sort by Messiah, not the.

• Fixed.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combined reigns

• Key to explain "+" is missing

• It is in the first key.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes but you use it again on a different table. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The first table is supposed to tell what everything means from now on.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• then you need to add the two keys from the second table if that's the logic you're going with. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would but what would be the point if they aren't going to be used until the second section. All in the first table are used in the first section while only one is used again later. It seems mentioning it twice is redundant.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorting as above.

Sorry can't support just yet. (You don't have to drop me a comment, I'm watching this page) MPJ-DK (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All are replied too/fixed.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Cannot say that the replies convinced me that this is FL quality yet.MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what my replies would have to do with anything. It is mainly if it passes the criteria, which I only see it violates maybe two at most of. Most of the problems are debatable IMO. But these are your observations so I'm willing to continue. I await your replies -Will.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well considering you don't seem willing to change the format of the show titles in face of policy, the formatting of text in cells for no other reason that like, the specific sources put as general, that I'm not convinced solie.org is reliable and you think it's okay for over 90% of the sources to be primary sources, your replies have everything to do with my opposition I'm afraid. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]