Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of WCW Hardcore Champions

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 promoted 13:13, 24 March 2008.

List of WCW Hardcore Champions

I think this article should be nominated for Featured List status because it is well sourced and written, and meets the FL criteria.--TrU Co -X 02:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

Shouldn't this be retitled "List of WCW Hardcore Championship champions" or "List of WCW Hardcore Championship winners"?
- No, because of all of WP:PW FL, we go by List of (insert title name here) Champions, because it is a list of champions, the Hardcore Champions of WCW.--TrU Co -X 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explainations of jargon term "ring name"
- That is why it is wikilinked.--TrU Co -X 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PCR A single sentence would not harm any. Users don't usually want to navigate away from one page to read up on a single jargony word, and then navigate back. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's redundant, ring name is read literally, name used in ring. Its a simple wikilink that well explains the term, no sentence is needed.--TrU Co -X 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The WCW Hardcore Championship is a former professional wrestling title" → "The WCW Hardcore Championship was a professional wrestling title"
- Done--TrU Co -X 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the list itself is pretty small and finite (meaning it's not ever going to get any bigger) the lead should be expanded. How about including information of what preceeded the belt, if anything?
- Done--TrU Co -X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The championship has been know as: WCW Hardcore Championship (November, 1999 - March 2001)" is redundant.
- Not really, because it is how every other list of champions article is written as, and its info that is needed as the title could have had another name.--TrU Co -X 04:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's that guideline somewhere that basically says "just because one article has it, doesn't mean this one should, too." If it had been known by two or three names I'd still suggest it be removed, only in that case turn it into prose. I really think it should be removed. And who's to say that tomorrow someone won't go and turn all that into prose on each article? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done--TrU Co -X 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fine, It is removed.
The table is confusing
- The wrestler's names should be sortable
  - Done--TrU Co -X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now every entry needs wikilinking because those that are don't all appear first. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done--TrU Co -X 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "Times" mean? is this the number of times the wrestler won the title? If so, each instance should be given it's own entry
  - Reworded to Reign #--TrU Co -X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's still a little clumsy. Can anything else be used? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is that clumsy? Then for NFL Draft articles, "pick #" would sound clumsy, reign # literally means the number of times the wrestler has reigned as champion.--TrU Co -X 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Date should be sortable
  - Done--TrU Co -X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "Location" the place the match took place, or where the wrestler is from?
  - Explained more clearly.--TrU Co -X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Location should be sortable, and also wikilink every entry.
  - Its is now sortable, however, not every place should be wikilinked because they are already wikilinked in the section,per WP:Mos#Wikilinks.--TrU Co -X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to sortable tables. And I know for sure other reviewers are going to request the same. -- Matthew | talk |Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well that would be redundant, this is a small list, the section is not long so everything being wikilinked wouldn't follow WP:MoS, if this was a problem then it would have been pointed out in previous FLC nominations for other championships.--TrU Co -X 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Respectfully, you've got to be kidding? This is the list being nominated, not any other, nor is any other up for re-review. Things change over time, that is why we have Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates; for those that were at one point excellent and have now fallen by the wayside, or simply do not meet current requirements. Just because some other lists don't have it is not a reason not to include it here. And just because it wasn't included in other wrestling lists' noms, could simply mean the reviewers who reviewed just overlooked or didn't notice it. Take a look at all the other FLC right now, and you'll see that other reviewers as well as myself have said to wikilink repeated entries in sortable tables. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Done--TrU Co -X 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of "Notes", why not put a column for "Event", and then a column for "ref(s)"?
  - No because as I said earlier other WP:PW FL's are formatted like they are here, which is the example I followed, and the table should tell all of the title's history.--TrU Co -X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Vacated" and "Retired" should be removed from the table and addressed in prose. Also explain better what "vacated means"
- Addressed in prose, but not removed from table because of above reason. No explanation is needed, vacated literally means unoccupied.--TrU Co -X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And those 4 words can't be included in the article? I don't think the Wikipedia:SIZE police will care! :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done--TrU Co -X 05:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there no WCW navigation template or something to put at the bottom of the page?
- No there is none created.--TrU Co -X 04:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now all of the things noted out are completed/fixed.--TrU Co -X 18:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. And I apologise if I came across as being snappy yesterday. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. Will you give your opinion on the article?--TrU Co -X 10:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tend to do that until others have reviewed and their comments addressed. They may find things I missed, is all. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Image caption for the belt is a fragment so doesn't need the full stop.
- Fixed.--TrU Co -X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"by ring name" - I'd opt to make this a separate sentence as it's a little confusing where it is right now.
- I made it a separate sentence, is that better?TrU Co -X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
" title was vacated (unoccupied) " - I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain further, either to me here or in the article?!
- The guy above said that vacated would not be understandable, so he said explain it better, and he said unoccupied would fit. In these terms, vacated means, that the champion who held the title was either injured and was forced to relinquish the championship, thus making the title vacated (unoccupied). Is that well explained?TrU Co -X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"World Wrestling Federation (WWF)'s" - yuck, stick with "...Federation's (WWF)"

Fixed.--TrU Co -X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the colons in the headings of the table.
- Done--TrU Co -X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some work needed on the table...
- Sort by date doesn't work - you need to use the {{dts2}} template.
  - Fixed--TrU Co -X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the four colspan'd cells, you get curious effects when re-ordering by reign # for example. It seems to have four distinct orders where you'd normally expect two!
  - What do you mean you only expect two? When you click the sortable tab, all four sortable columns sort, which is the effect you should get, is there something wrong with that? (Why would you expect two?)TrU Co -X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See what happens when you click on the Reign heading. It should sort it one way or the other. You can actually get four different orders by clicking on it four times which isn't right. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fixed.--TrU Co -X 17:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reign # should be explained, that it relates to the individual(s) in question's number of titles up until that point.
- "Won title on Nitro" - what does that mean?
  - It means that he won the title on WCW Nitro, a television show for WCW.TrU Co -X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thunder, Nitro etc all need to be wikilinking every time in table because its sortable and there's no guarantee you see the wikilinked version first.
  - Done.TrU Co -X 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Four external links seems a little excessive - which really relate to WCW Hardcore champions explicitly?
- I removed two, is that better?

So some work to do before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all my concerns rapidly and accurately addressed. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, The Rambling Man honestly addressed any concerns I had. I feel that this article goes beyond the FL criteria. iMat thew 20 08 18:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my issues were addressed a long time ago. I was just waiting to see if anyone had found anything that I missed. These have all been addressed, too. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the interests of disclosure, I am a member of WP:PW. This list fits the criteria of a featured list, as it is fully referenced with reliable sources, is complete, and is a useful list. The article complies with the Manual of Style as well as most WP:PW guidelines. For cases in which the list differs from WP:PW guidelines, this is due to useful suggestions from reviewers that I feel should be adopted by WP:PW. I had minor concerns with the article, but I addressed them myself. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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