Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of WWE Divas 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 18:18, 17 February 2011 [1].

List of WWE Divas Champions

Featured list candidates/List of WWE Divas Champions/archive1

Nominator(s): Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've been through here. I'm nominating this list to prevent our lovely Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions FT from being delisted. It's modeled after the numerous champion list FLs and as always, I'll address any concerns brought forward. Enjoy. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Per WP:ABBR state names should not be abbreviated. Ref 14 does not cover the entire Notes section of Reign 10. Ref 5 does not cover the notes section of Reign 2 and in fact Solie.org claims the championship was won on December 23. Afro (Talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But, WP:ABBR doesn't say anything about lists. All of the ref have been fixed. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is for use in the English Wikipedia if you didn't read the first paragraph which happens to include lists. Specifically in WP:ABBR it says "Current and former postal codes and abbreviations—such as TX for Texas, Calif. for California, Yorks for Yorkshire—should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text." Afro (Talk) 23:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this isn't "normal text", it's a list. Most lists I've seen previously have used abbreviations to save space and make the columns narrower. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth all the draft pick lists I've worked on use full state names, though the CITY, STATE isn't alone in the box (so it rarely determines the size of that column). Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I guess since there's no guideline against it I'll accept it as a personal peeve, I have no objections to the promotion. Afro (Talk) 12:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I did some small fixes, but based on the numerous FL's I've worked on about championships this follows the same formula and checks out in my eyes. Meets WP:WIAFL, good job Scorp nice to another list from ya.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 03:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~What does "as in the Raw brand having the WWE Women's Championship" mean in the context of that sentence? You may want to check that.~~
- I've re-worded to "as a counterpart to the Raw brand's WWE Womens Championship"
~~Don't need to link any of the wrestlers more than once in the lead.~~
- Fixed.
Check the sorting of Combined days in the combined reigns list. The reign with 47+ days isn't sorting correctly for me when going from lowest to highest. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what is wrong with it, but I have no idea how to fix it. The number in question uses wikicode, {{age in days|month1=11|day1=21|year1=2010}}+ gets "5115+". However, the other rows use {{sort|056|56}}. The formula is used because Natalya is the current champion and so that the page doesn't need to be updated every single day. So that's the issue, but I don't know how to fix it (other than just going back to manually updating the number, which I'm against). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should be using {{Age in days nts}}. Afro (Talk) 06:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Images are good, but that lead image is 60% blinds...
Womens Championship should be Women's Championship.
- Fixed.
"alludes to " does it "allude to" or is it simply a reference to?
- Fixed.
"Divas Champion" vs "Diva's Champion" ... consistency.
- Fixed.
Link names in notes as it's a sortable table so not sure which one will come first.
- Done.
Days held =0 deserves a note I think. And why does it sort below the en-dash?
- Done on both.
Presumably when the title wasn't held, it wasn't held for a period? You could add that into the Days held col with a note?
Where is rank 6 in the Combined days table?
- Good question, fixed.
McCool's caption doesn't need a full stop.
- Fixed.
Refs 4, 7 and 11 link WWE but the others don't.
- Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Combined days doesn't sort properly (in Safari, probably because of the +)
- Hmm, I'm not sure what is up with that.
  - It's because the + sign is outside the template and then Safari treats it as alphanumeric text rather than just pure numbers. I'll see if I can fiddle a horrible fix for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No luck for me in a quick attempt I'm afraid, sorting is still broken. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support no flaws against the criteria as far as I can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --WillC 04:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment from Wrestlinglover

Well well well, beat me too it. I had always planned to do this list and kept putting it off. Well I guess I'll try to help best I can with some comments. I haven't been on here in a while, and I decided to get on just to help out here.

I noticed the sorting is off, that is a simple fix. Try List of TNA Women's Knockout Champions box text and format in there. It should fix the problem.
- Could you be more specific? The Knockout article appears to use a broken sort template in the combined section, but I tried it in this one and it didn't work.
  - Interesting, I'll work with it and see if I can get it to work.--WillC 06:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"by submission on July 20, 2008 at WWE's The Great American Bash" How the match was won is not significant. If it was a legit fight I would understand, but not in mock combat.
- Done.
Fox should be sorted by Fox, not her first name.
- It already sorts by her last name.
- Hum, when I checked the other day it didn't. Weird, must have been an error on my part.
"It can only be contested for in WWE's women's division." Don't really have a source for this, and we've seen from history that is not always the case. Remove.
- Actually, no man has ever competed for this title, so I see no reason why it should be removed.
  - Yes, but the statement is still not sourced.
"This was contested in a Fatal 4-Way match that also involved Gail Kim and Maryse." I don't see the significance, the title is contested in multi-person matches all the time, not really something important. If someone other than the champion was pinned to win it, then I guess it would be important, and as such it should be included. If that is not the case, then I'd say remove it. It is cruft in my opinion otherwise.
- Fair enough, but I think that any stipulations that effected the outcome of the match should be mentioned, including match types and extra opponents.
  - Question is, did they effect the match outcome though?
"owned by the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) promotion." change to "owned by the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) professional wrestling promotion.
- It already says " is a professional wrestling women's championship" earlier in the sentence.
  - Further explanation of WWE is also useful. It helps explain it is a wrestling company and not just a company.
    - I've always been against WP:PW's stance that this needs to be re-iterated in every single page. Putting that twice in one sentence is quite unnecessary and I think most people realize what the WWE is. WP:PW is the only project I've ever seen that actually advocates using clunky sentences and unnecessary explanation for pretty basic stuff. For example, using your advice, the opening statemenr for Stanley Cup should be "Stanley Cup (French: La Coupe Stanley) is an ice hockey club trophy, awarded annually to the ice hockey league National Hockey League (NHL) playoffs champion". -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 04:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Never been a problem in the countless FLs I've done. I feel it just adds more to the sentence.
        I say link promotion to professional wrestling promotion.--WillC 04:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'd remove the N/A section as it is not being used. The "As of" parts, as it is pretty much common sense and is updated automatically.**Personally, I think most of the key is rather unnecessary. It seems that whoever added it was following the old stereotype that most wrestling fans are idiots.
As for the references, there are too many WWE to third party. This is the largest wrestling company in the world, and thus the article covering one of its titles should be sourced not entirely by primary sources. I'd like to see one third party reference for each reign added. This should be very easy, as WrestleView, Slam sports, and PWTorch certainly have plenty.
- I've never really understood that line of thinking. Yes, we are encouraged to use third party sourcing, particularily in bios, but I think in a list like this, it's perfectly acceptable. After all, it is the WWE's belt, and the history (unlike, say, the tag team titles) is pretty straightforward and uncontroversial.
  - I understand that idea, but to best cover a subject is to include a wide varity of sources.--WillC 06:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I were a casual reader, I would put a lot more stock in the official website than I would in one I'd never heard of. Besides, links to other histories and sites are also provided. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 04:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It isn't just about the casual reader, it is more about providing a well sourced and documented article. WWE changes its history and stance all the time. It is best to also provide a non-partisan account of the events as well. It isn't that hard to do, certainly with a subject as this.

I hope these all help.--WillC 07:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.

I've removed the statement about only being in the women's division. For the record, I'm not going to act on any of your other suggestions. I feel that they are either unnecessary (adding more refs) or detract from the article (making the opening sentence quite clunky). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so you feel a hyper-link is clunky? You also feel making sure a "Featured Article" is sourced well with a wide varity of sources is unnecessary? And for some reason "As of ???" is important to the article when the article is updated automaticly and it is assumed to be up to date? Now as for the match types thing, nicely an ip included the reason the matches should be included in the article. They actually effect the history as the champion was not pinned in the match.--WillC 08:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

professional wrestling promotion is already linked to in the opening sentence. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 18:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, two left to go. A simple removal of templates, which conflict with common sense and sourcing the article with third-party refs when it is mainly sourced by primary, and it is meant to be an FA.--WillC 19:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on Will's remaining concerns? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think extra refs are needed, links to title histories from other sites are provided, I think adding more citations to the table would simply add clutter, rather than doing any real good. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 03:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter is just an excuse, you just don't want to do the work. This is a featured article, sourced primarily with primary sources. Notice List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions, has two refs per reign and is not cluttered.--WillC 05:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a Featured List candidated, not a featured article. By the way, you can't really compare this with the TNA list, because TNA doesn't have a full title history at their website like the WWE does. Does adding a few citations to a PWT article that barely mentions the relevant change vastly improve the article? Nope. It has nothing to do with laziness, I just don't see adding clutter as an improvement. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 13:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will become a featured article in a since. Both Lists and Articles are featured material. TNA does not add links to each reign like WWE but at times have a title history on their website. However, the WWE links add no more information than a slam or PWTorch ref usually. However, PWTorch refs can add more, with real world events, rather than storyline excuses. Seen from the TNA list, the clutter excuse is non-sense.--WillC 22:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see no issues-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tending towards oppose~~ The "List of combined reigns" section is completely unreferenced. I understand that the combined-reign stats could trivially be obtained by adding up the "Days held" numbers; however, without external sources, there is no justification that such a statistic (i.e. combined reigns) is notable. In other words: arguably any number of statistics can be generated from a given set of data, so what makes combined reigns particularly noteworthy? Minor: it is unclear what Location means in the first table. Could you explain it in the key?—indopug (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a summary table. It tells you all of the winners, their number of reigns and their combined reigns, so all of the important information in the main table. Summary tables are done in many sports-related lists (particularily championships). I'm not sure why you would think that their combined reign length is not notable for inclusion. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a source is not really needed, as we can determine the days with the age in days template. Plus the tables are included due to an agreement at WP:PW, so it is notable to an extent.--WillC 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this a RAW-only title or a WWE-wide title? I ask because the lead says it can now be won on any brand, but the table says it became RAW-exclusive when Maryse was drafted. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but at the end of that paragraph it says "The title is now accessible to both WWE brands and the champion can appear on both shows." It became a WWE-wide title after the unification in the summer of 2010. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nono, I'm talking about that sentence in the lead and then the sentence in the TABLE "The championship became exclusive to the Raw brand on April 13, 2009 when Maryse was drafted.[6]" There is no corresponding sentence in the table describing when it goes WWE-wide. All I can say is it was a little confusing to me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tenth entry says "The WWE Women's Championship was also on the line, meaning the winner would unify the two championships. The title was referred to as the WWE Unified Divas Championship for weeks afterward, and became accessible on both Raw and SmackDown brands." -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can explain it. What the lead sentence refers to is the WWE Draft in 2009 where Maryse was drafted or traded from SmackDown to Raw. Because of that the Divas title became exclusive to that show. It became a World Wide title at SummerSlam (2010) last August. If your still confused contact me.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nono, it makes sense, I just didn't read that 10th entry properly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't see any further issues, and I don't consider the oppose to be actionable. It's merely repeating what's been said in the earlier table. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:06, 11 February 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.