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, 12 September 2009 [1].

IWGP Tag Team Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): WillC 14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I feel it passes the criteria. Was an FL once before, but was removed. Any comments will be addressed quickly as well. Though FLC is short on reviewers, I will be reviewing a few more than usually to not cause a problem.--WillC 14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • How many of these lists are you churning out?
    • As many as I can do. There are plenty of championship lists left and soon there will only be around two users expanding them for FLC so alot. Eventually I'll run out.--WillC 23:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The letters "IWGP" in the championship's name stands for the initials or acronym of NJPW's governing body the International Wrestling Grand Prix (IWGP)" Needlessly wordy. Try "IWGP" is the acronym of the NJPW's governing body, the International Wrestling Grand Prix".
  • "The IWGP Tag Team Championship is not the only tag team title contested for in NJPW, the" Comma should be a semicolon.
  • "for in United States-based promotions World Championship Wrestling (WCW) (now defunct) in the early 1990s and currently in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) since April 2009."
  • "non–NJPW" Hyphen, not en dash.
  • "NJPW–promoted" Same comment.
  • "Inoki striped Chono and Tenzan of " Is "striped" a typo?
    • Fixed, yes.--WillC 15:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On July 2, 2006, a provisional tag team title is created" "is"-->was
  • "which is the most " Remove "which is" (multiple occurences)
  • "Mutoh's and Koshinaka's only reign is the shortest" Comma after here.
  • Numbers under 10 should be spelled out.
  • "There are eleven reigns shared between ten teams that are tied for the least" "ten" and "eleven" should be 10 and 11.
  • "The British Invasion/The World Elite" Spaced slash per MOS:SLASH.
  • "match in-which the objective is to force your opponent(s) through a table"-->match in which the objective is to force opponent(s) through a table
  • "Afterwards, NJPW released a statement announcing they" Insert "that" before "they".
  • "On August 10, 2009, NJPW issued another press release this time proclaiming they were now recognizing The British Invasion of Brutus Magnus"-->On August 10, 2009, NJPW issued another press release stating that they were now recognizing The British Invasion of Brutus Magnus
  • Why does N/A sort before everything else? It should be the other way around.
  • "Junji Hirata used the ring name Super Strong Machine during his first two reigns; one reign was with George Takano, while the second was with Hiro Saito." "while"-->and Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. I trust that WrestleView is not being used for anything controversial. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 16:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "which is fought over by teams made up by wrestlers...". Change "by" to "of"?
  • "The IWGP Tag Team Championship has been defended not only in NJPW, but was also contested for in...". Long, winding, awkward sentence. The "not only, but" structure can often lead to this. You could try some variant of "In addition to NJPW, the IWGP Tag Team Championship...".
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I am sure I have it fixed now. I must have been mistaken last time around.--WillC 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see "a NJPW live event" and "an NJPW live event" in the lead. Best to pick one and stick to it.
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I am sure I have it fixed now. I must have been mistaken last time around.--WillC 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple of items should be in past tense: "when Chono and Tenzan show signs of inactivity" and "after Chono and Tenzan cease teaming. More in the next sentence.
  • "At 7 reigns, Kensuke Sasaki, who also won the championship twice under his 'Power Warrior' name, has the second highest." Total?
  • "add up to 1010" Days? Also, comma needed in the number.
  • "Tenzan and Chono's first and third reign". Last word should be plural.
  • Note for entry 52: "NJPW does not sanction the title defense nor lost." Switch last word to "loss". Same for the next note.
  • Footnote 2: "apart" should be two words. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – After concluding my review, I waited a while for subsequent reviews to be completed. In addition, I cleaned up a few more prose issues and fixed sorting in a couple places. Meets standards, though I do wish the lead wasn't as long in comparison to the new History section. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Note Tenzan's and Satoshi Kojima's second reign and Junji Hirata's and Shinya Hashimoto's only reign are tied for second

Satoshi Kojima is red-linked when it shouldn't be. --Numyht (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from MPJ-DK
  • Preliminary review started, I will finish up later.
  • The date format in the citations is not the same as in the text, it all needs to be the same format.
  • Why include a bunch of "general references" when they're basically repeated by sources 13 through 62??
  • The general refs are the selected pages, the others are direct links that are from the title history page. I was thinking, the more refs the better.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on what is considered the same reference. Same links or different links. They all have different links.--WillC 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not actually, they all have different urls.--WillC 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "#Reign2" to the end does not make it a different URL, just a different point on the page.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any change in code makes the url different. Different urls here. I'm willing to remove the extra refs, I just feel general refs and exact refs are more helpful than just one by itself. Maybe we should get a third opinion?--WillC 03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but "/Index.html" and "/Index.html#Bookmark" is not a different url, it's the same page one just jumps down a little.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  04:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of debating about it forever, I just went ahead and removed some of them, but not all of them. Because the ones I have left are used twice, are used for vacant reigns, or are used for special situations. I feel that is an ok compromise.--WillC 07:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Team title lists do not sort on the name of the team / wrestler.
  • All names sort on the second word of each name, however the team names do not use the sort template.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? That is one of the requirements, is for the list to be sortable.--WillC 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never been pointed out here, and I've brought numberous lists, with 4 of them being tag teams.--WillC 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, alrighty.
Okay, I know you are just trying to help. But considering a requirment is sorting and this problem has never come up before, I would rather not do something risky for no reason.--WillC 03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to put (1) next to someone's name, the "reign" colum covers that, in fact it's only added if the individuals total does not match the team's total ex. reign five, Maeda should be listed as (2) while Takada shouldn't have (1) next to him at all.
  • To make sure everything is clear. This way people do not wonder if that is a mistake or not. Besides, only editors know what you just said.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says the standard is correct?--WillC 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard can change/be updated.--WillC 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says?--WillC 03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will please don't be intentionally obtuse, who says the standard hasn't changed? Seriously? You think that because you did something ONE time in ONE article because you like it the standard is changed? Well I guess I can't change your mind here, I'll just leave it at that.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  04:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to be stubborn or difficult, but I feel doing it for all reigns helps more than it hurts. And could be the beginning of a change. I don't see how it hurts.--WillC 07:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Event names should be in italics
  • Where is the rule for this? Only tv shows among other things should be like that. Never heard of plain event titles be like that.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same way TV show names are in italics.
  • But this is not a tv show.--WillC 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's not just tv shows that are in italics, it's titles in general (not wrestling titles but book titles etc.). But whatever, I'm not going to argue with you, said my piece and I'm leaving it at that.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, just trying to be correct. It mentioned nothing about regular event titles the last time I looked.--WillC 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't, but I was speaking of events period. sports, plays, etc. Any type of event.--WillC 03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) on Italics - for certain categories of titles. I'm sure you'll argue that it doesn't say "wrestling events" but it does say the following "Feature-length films and documentaries / Multi-episode television serials" which is where wrestling PPVs falls IMO.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  08:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just mentioned it at WT:PW. Get a group opinion, since this effects all articles.--WillC 08:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Unindent) Not resolved despite being put into the "resolved box", but not enough of an issue for me to oppose on this by itself.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crufty "Successful defenses" colum makes the name colums too narrow and hard to read.
  • Probably fixed.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cloumn is now at 23% instead of 18. I changed it too 26 to see if that makes anymore of a difference--WillC 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reign 48, the note is not really relevant to the actual reign.
  • Actually it does since they are supposedly no longer seen as the undisputed world tag champs. Now there are two titles. It is also mentioned on New Japan's site under their reign.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reign 49 - the date should be the date they're recognized as champions, not "interim champions", it's not the "IWGP Interrim Tag Team Champioship" list after all.
  • They won the titles on that date. To be correct the date should be the day they began their reign then noted what day they are recognized as the official champions.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they did not win the title on that date, they won the "Interrim" title on that date, not the same thing.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should take this to WT:PW to see which is better to do.--WillC 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do that.
  • Regin 52 & 53 - No need to repeat large parts of the note back to back, I think we all got it the first time it was mentioned.
  • It effects both reigns though. Removed anyway, it is just redundant.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reign 52, is "unofficially" 198 days long, indicate official length too please
  • New Japan recognize them losing it on July 21, 2009. Everything is official there.
  • Reign 53 is "Unofficially" 35 days long, indicate official length too please
  • Above note. They recognize them winning on July 21.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Successful reigns sort with — between 0 and 1, that's not right.
  • The same way it has always been done. I don't know why to change it.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it's always been wrong in your lists, never been a problem in mine.
  • I took that format from other FLs. Not sure why it doesn't work or how to fix it.--WillC 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the problem you sort — as a "00", just like "0" sorts as "00" and thus it ends up listing the number before the character as both are "00", if you sort — by say "z" or something it should clear the problem up for you.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  15:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, done.--WillC 15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something is odd with this sentence "NJPW does not recognize nor sanction the title defense nor lost;" - they can't "reconize the lost".
  • The championship indicator in the combiend reigns should be next to the "British Invasion" not their names, it goes on the top line.
  • Think you got that sentence backwards, "it should be next to their names, not the team name".--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference five does not support any kind of weightlimit for the Junior Heavyweight title unless my translator is broken.
  • Translation must be broken.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What joke? Please don't be a dick today MPJ. Mine mentioned one. Anyway, fixed.--WillC 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no support for NJPW listing the Tag titles as "Heavyweight" division from what I can see.
  • Heavyweight class, like it says. I didn't say division.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes then it's okay it's "class" not division. Come on Will don't be intentionally obtuse, there is nothing to support the "Heavyweight" part.
  • It clearly says "IWGP Heavy Weight Class" in the bar above the image of the titles on the history page. This article doesn't say division or only fought for by heavyweights. It allows the reader to decide what they think from it.--WillC 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title has also been defended in CMLL in Mexico, should be mentioned for completeness.
  • Got any proof? I didn't find any for that statement.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I do.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got three sources for you, 2 online sources that may not meet the "Reliable source" requirement and a magazine source that definitly does.
1) luchablog.com, referenced to CMLL Pages that no longer exists
2) CageMatch.net Super Viernes September 30, 2005
3) SuperLuchas staff (January 3, 2006). "2005 Lo Mejor de la Lucha Mexicana". SuperLuchas (in Spanish). p. 20–21. issue 140. - a "Year in review" lucha magazine that mentions the IWRG title being defended in Mexico.
  • repeated mentions of "at a NJPW Live event" is repetitive and pointless - it's been stated that it only took place at a Non-NJPW event once, no need to mention which event it was unless it was a named marquee event.
  • I mentioned NJPW event twice in the whole article I see. I removed one.--WillC 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lengths add up to 1566" 1566 what? also should be 1,566.
  • "Those seven reigns tally up to 816 days, however this is the third highest. " however is not really appropriate here.
  • For a lead that summarizes the list you don't need to mention all 11 reigns, that's what the list is for. Over the top.
    • I'm trying to get it big enough for a DYK. I lack around 135 characters to 900 to pass the 5x mark.--WillC 14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, article quality is more important than trying to meet a certain mark so you can put a list up for DYK. T:TDYK isn't lacking in nominations. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I was going to remove some characters but then remembered that once The British Invasion lose the titles, the last paragraph will be removed completely, which will cut it down quite a bit. Is that okay?--WillC 11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I removed some info that was not needed. After the Brits lose the belts, the final section will be cut. So is that okay for now?--WillC 06:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)
Comments
  • In the final table a number of wrestlers have two entries. Additionally Takashi Iizuka and Takayuki Iizuka look to be the same person but there's entries under both names in the final table and both spellings are used in earlier tables. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.--WillC 03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Takashi and Takayuki are both still used in earlier tables, stick with one throughout. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • He has two ring names. As such both should be used because he has won the title under both names.--WillC 07:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above change the lead sentence "Overall, there have been 53 reigns shared between 54 wrestlers." need changing.
  • Masahiro Chono has six reigns according to the final table, but the second table lists five with Hiroyoshi Tenzan and two with Keiji Mutoh. If seven is correct the lead needs slight alterations. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The move towards a history section means that not all first mentions of a wrestler are in full form (first name) and linked.
  • "Tenzan's combined eight reign lengths add up to 1566" as this is the first mention of reign lengths it seems wise to include a measurement (days).
  • "11 reigns shared between 10 teams that are tied for the least, with 0" Numbers under 10 should be written out.
  • "Tenzan's and Chono's" I think (no English expert) the first wrestler in this situation shouldn't have the apostrophe s. There's a few more of these.
  • "NJPW publishes a list of successful championship defenses (victories against challengers for the championship) for all champions on their official website for unknown reasons" unknown reasons? I don't understand. Listing details of successful defences doesn't seem odd to me.
  • On the references the date format isn't consistent, e.g. 2009-04-19 and August 10, 2009. Also both WrestleView.com and WrestleView are used as sources, can these be consistent?

--Jpeeling (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed by Dabomb87.--WillC 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all comments resolved. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better now?--WillC 05:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, you didn't do what I requested. I said move the history to it's own section, and make the lead a summary of the article. I didn't say remove information from it... iMatthew talk at 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't like the idea of a history section, but I went ahead and did one.--WillC 03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the lead is still too long. The information in the lead needs to be shortened to a summary of the championship, and a summary of it's history, and maybe a summary of it's appearance. The rest of the information up there should be moved to the history section or removed if it's not notable enough to be moved. iMatthew talk at 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I cut the lead down to match other Featured Lists of this kind. I hope and believe that should be enough to change your mind seeing as this has pretty much been the unspoken consensus on format with titles.--WillC 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the second paragraph seems unappealing to readers in terms of length. Split it into two paragraphs or re/move more information. iMatthew talk at 23:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about now?--WillC 00:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. You know what? I'll give the article a full review sometime this week. iMatthew talk at 01:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you will be more exact, we can fix this problem now.--WillC 01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs)
Comments:
  • "All title changes usually happen" -> "Title changes usually happen"
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tenzan and Chono's combined five reign lengths add up to 1,010" - 1,010 what?
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the IWGP Tag Team Championship was also contested for in..."
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in United States–based promotions World Championship Wrestling (WCW) (now defunct) in the early 1990s and in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling"
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason for wikilinking "Mexican" when no other countries are wikilinked?
    • I wasn't thinking. Other countries should be linked. I think the only non-linked one was the US.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of the "History" section, it starts by discussing "Tenzan and Chono", but then refers to them as "Chono and Tenzan" for the rest of the paragraph.
  • "Three Way match" - reason for capitalization?
    • Proper name for match type. In most cases should be cap.
      • I'm not sure that it is a proper name. I think it's just a name. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering the normal stylization by a promotion always has the match written as "Three Way match", I would consider it a proper name is special cases.--WillC 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Went ahead and changed it. Fixed--WillC 04:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then–IWGP Provisional Tag Team Champions Manabu" - I'm not sure if this can be fixed, but the words wrap awkwardly on my monitor so that the hyphen is at the beginning of a line of prose.
    • Moved the first part to later in the sentence, while at the sametime fixing the below comment.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then–IWGP Provisional Tag Team Champions Manabu Nakanishi and Takao Ōmori, who defeated Koshinaka and Makabe on July 17, 2006 to become the champions, were recognized as the IWGP Tag Team champions on September 28, 2006 by NJPW." - "champions" used three times in one sentence; as it is currently written, there is also inconsistency in the capitalization of the first and third uses (ie. the third use should be capitalized).
    • See above.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tables match" - reason for capitalization?
  • "a match in which the objective is to force opponent(s) through a table" - this article isn't about the title, not match types; the explanation of a tables match should be specific to how it relates to this championship - either "a match in which the objective was to force an opponent through a table" or "a match in which the objective was to force both opponents through tables"
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As long as you're sure that both team members didn't have to be put through tables. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to be safe I looked up the match on youtube. TNA has it uploaded on their account. It shows the finish being one man going through the table. Check it here.--WillC 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They then continued"
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The event promoted by the respective promotion in which the titles were won" -> "in which the title was won"
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now has a period at the end of a sentence fragment. If I remember, I'll remove it myself.GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Accounts how many defenses the champions had during their reign" - sounds awkward because it begins with "accounts"
    • Fixed, I believe.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still not thrilled with it, but okay. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any ideas on a more suitable description are still welcome.--WillC 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wrestler(s)" this column header should not have "s" in parentheses, as each reign was, in fact, shared by two wrestlers. "Wrestlers" is a more appropriate header.
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but now I notice that both Tag and Team are capitalized below it. Since it's not a proper noun, only the first should be capitalized. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed, if we were talking about "Tag Team match" I would have to disagree, but in this case I agree.--WillC 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in the "Notes" column: some are written in present tense; others are in past tense; some are half and half
    • Be exact please. They all seem fine to me.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any that have verbs in past tense (eg. defeated) are past tense; others, such as "is vacated" or "strips" are in present tense. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, by notes I thought you meant footnotes. Fixed--WillC 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indicates the current champion(s)" - again, it was always two wrestlers -> "...current champions"
    • I use the same format over and over. I just copy and paste these days, so I have them in parenthesis to be universal with all articles, tag, singles, etc. Fixed--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would hope that "Wikipedia's best work" is more than just copying and pasting generic information that doesn't fit the circumstances. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well the disclaimer is meant to be universal. For all articles with no pacific exceptions. The rest of the format is mainly tables, code, etc.--WillC 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reigns with the exact same number"
    • Fixed.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some title changes have specific references while others don't; this isn't a concern for me because they are all covered by the general references. Since there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason for sourcing only a few reigns, I assume that this is because specific third-party references aren't available for every title change. I am wondering, though, if any more specific references could be added from the "Wrestling History" section of http://www.pwi-online.com/pages/wrestlingframe.html (I haven't looked through it, but it mentions the occasional title change.
    • I had refs from New Japan directing straight to each reign but removed most of them because a reviewer felt it was repeative. The ones left have been used more than once so they are useful. I'll see what is mentioned in there and add it. Didn't think to check PWI, I have a seeming hatred for them.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref added to all reigns that are mentioned that I found.--WillC 04:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the standard wrestling disclaimer is given in the lead. I'm not a big fan of its current format, but consensus with WP:PW is currently to include a detailed explanation of wrestling's scripted nature. I question the relevance of the hero/villain distinction to this article, though. What does it add to the reader's understanding of this title? If this is going to remain in the article, I believe that, at the very least, it should include the actual terms to keep it accessible to wrestling fans: "faces (heroes) and heels (villains)".
    • I changed out to one I've created that alot of editors have been using. I changed to the standard one because the second paragraph was a litte short with it. I just merged it with the first now.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's less irrelevant, but it still has some problems. "Being" should be "As", and because it is generic copying and pasting, it says "a wrestler" instead of "wrestlers". GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed to make it a bit more universal.--WillC 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also wondering about the ", or by scripted circumstances" in this disclaimer. Can you point out an explanation of when the title changed hands through scripted circumstances outside of a match? GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The change of disclaimers has fixed this as well.--WillC 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. It rephrased it slightly, but it still says that the title may be awarded "because of a storyline". Has this ever happened? GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well like above the disclaimers are meant to be universal for all articles. Not pacificly regarding the history of one title. It is to show the reader how the titles are used. They are scripted to be lost, they are awarded to wrestlers in some cases, etc.--WillC 02:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, no, no. This is not "Professional Wrestling Championships 101". This is "IWGP Tag Team Championship". If it is relevant to this title, it belongs here. If it is completely irrelevant to this title, it needs to be fixed. The sentence makes it clear that you are describing the history of this title, so saying that it has been awarded because of a storyline is incorrect. Likewise, saying that it is held by either a wrestler or a pair of wrestlers is simply false. Factual inaccuracies have absolutely no place in "Wikipedia's best work", even if it means that people working on articles need to do more than cut and paste. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The title has been awarded to wrestlers. Manabu Nakanishi and Takao Ōmori were provisional champions, who were recognized as the official champions. So they were awarded different titles. That line actually is needed. If "Being" was not changed to "As", then it wouldn't be pacifically referring to this title. It would be referring to titles in general.--WillC 00:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oppose (1) No, they weren't awarded anything. (2) "Being" would not have changed the meaning of the sentence. It just would have been grammatically incorrect. (3) Specifically, not pacifically. (4) This article should not discuss titles in general. (5) I feel like you are arguing for the sake of arguing yet again. If you are not open to feedback, you should not nominate lists or articles. If your idea of productive editing is copying and pasting list after list in pursuit of gold stars despite the fact that you are fully aware that the lists contain errors that you just don't care about fixing, perhaps you should take a break from nominating to ask yourself if you are helping. I'm not willing to engage in pointless arguments just because a nominator feels like being difficult to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Errors are simply not Wikpedia's best work. If you are willing to fix the errors, I am willing to rescind my opposition. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I use the format which was agreed on is what I speak of. The table format. The same format I've used over and over. You are taking my words too literal. I have the ability to discuss changes if I wish. I have removed the scripted terms statement. Now what other changes do you wish change that I have not done? I am in the middle of looking through PWI's website like you asked. Now clam dow Gary, you are not always right.--WillC 02:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All issues resolved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from iMatthew talk
*"As a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match." -> "Like most other professional wrestling championships, the title is won via the result of a scripted match."
    • Done, with a small change.--WillC 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the mean time, while we find an image of the title elsewhere (if possible), make the infobox image 200px instead of 250px. It's too big, IMO. It only needs to be that big if the subject of the picture is hard to see, which is not the case here.
  • "As of September 2009, Tenzan and Chono's fourth reign has the most defenses, with seven." - Same as above. -> "Tenzan and Chono have successfully defended the title more times in one reign than any other team, with seven successful defenses.
    • Sorry, but that reads terriably. Fixed simply.
      • Sure, I re-read my suggestion, and yours seems better. iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are 11 reigns shared between 10 teams that are tied for the least, with zero. " - "There are 11 reigns shared between 10 teams that are tied for the least successful defenses, with zero."
  • "As of September 2009, Hiroyoshi Tenzan holds the record for most reigns by an individual wrestler, with eight. Tenzan's combined eight reign lengths add up to 1566 days, which is the most of any champion. At five reigns, the team of Tenzan and Masahiro Chono hold the record for most by a team. Tenzan and Chono's combined five reign lengths add up to 1,010 days (the most of any team). At 446 days, Tenzan and Chono's fourth reign is the longest in the title's history. Keiji Mutoh and Shiro Koshinaka's only reign is the shortest, at six days. NJPW publishes a list of successful championship defenses for all champions on their official website. As of September 2009, Tenzan and Chono's fourth reign has the most defenses, with seven. There are 11 reigns shared between 10 teams that are tied for the least, with zero. Overall, there have been 53 reigns shared between 51 wrestlers." - None of this is sourced.
    • It is shown later in the article. Not everything in the lead or article must need a source.--WillC 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the key, "The number of defenses the champions had during their reign" - Can you add "successful" in there before "defenses"?
  • Explain why any of the general or specific refs all being in Japanese or Spanish is acceptable for the English Wikipedia, please.
  • "which is fought over by teams made up of wrestlers who must weigh less than a certain weight limit." - What is that weight limit?
    • I can't find a source for it. Supposedly 220 lb, but I can't find a ref for it at the moment.--WillC 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I guess it'll have to be removed then. You can't have uncompleted/unsourced statements like that in Wikipedia's best work. iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering the name is the Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship, it would be safe to say there is a weight limit. Removed anyway.--WillC 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to NJPW's official website, the IWGP Tag Team Championship is considered a "IWGP Heavy Weight Class", while the Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship is listed as a "IWGP Jr. Tag Class"." - This sounds awkward. Change "considered a" and "listed as a" to "considered an" and "listed as an." What is an IWGP Heavy Weight Class and why is it in quotes? I'm not understanding what it is...
    • I don't know either but is notable in its own way. Would rather not blow anything into it and say the title is only contested for by heavyweights. But since NJPW have it listed as such, might as well mention it and let the reader decide. It is in quotes because that is what is directly said. It is an exact quote from New Japan's web site.--WillC 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well since you're saying you just copy and pasted it from a Japanese website, that makes sense. The Japanese language is different from ours, so unless you can phrase it in a way that makes sense to English-speaking readers, it should be removed. iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is in English and it is a freaking graphic. Check the link man.--WillC 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What? I did click the link, and it's a picture of two titles and a bunch of Japanese. However, I guess it makes enough sense (somehow), that I can let it go. iMatthew talk at 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of September 2009, Hiroyoshi Tenzan holds the record for most reigns by an individual wrestler, with eight." Unless you plan on remembering to update this every month, it's hard to keep that kind of wording accurate in articles. Remove "As of September 2009," and insert "currently" between Tenzan and holds. If it changes, it's easier to update the name and number instead of updating the month each month.
    • Yeah, I could update this each month, but done.--WillC 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just fix "current" to "currently." iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Typo fix.
  • As a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match. Title changes usually happen at NJPW-promoted events; the title has only changed hands once at a non-NJPW event." - There's no source for any of that
    • Doesn't need to be a source. It is relatively common enough. Title changes would clearly happen at NJPW events. While the championship statement is for ones who do not know. Just there in case.
      • The first part should be fine, but add a ref to the one time it changed hands at a non-NJPW event. iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NJPW publishes a list of successful championship defenses for all champions on their official website." remove that sentence, it's not a notable fact.
    • Yes it is needed. Only a handful of promotions do that, and defenses in wrestling hardly ever matter. It is usually the length of the wrestler's reign, not the defenses.--WillC 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what? We don't need to write the information a website gives on an encyclopedia... iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine removed instead of arguing.--WillC 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a match in which the objective was to force an opponent through a table." - remove this. That's what wikilinks are for.
    • Per the consensus that was established at WT:PW. Match rules should be included.
      • That's an old consensus that has, as of late, not been followed too much. Wikilinks are there for a reason, so please remove that. iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, rather than argue about it.--WillC 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, you mentioned that it has only changed hands once outside of NJPW. However, you should mention that it was contested outside of NJPW in a few other promotions.
    • Yeah, The Steiners Brothers won the belts in New Japan then defended them in WCW a few times. Team 3D won them in New Japan then did the same and lost them to The Brits. The only time it was ever lost outside of the promotion that I have found evidence of.
      • So that's based on your original research. Please find a source for it like I asked above. Anyway, your missing my point. After you add a source about it only being won once out of NJPW, add a line noting that although it's only been won once out of NJPW, it's been defended multiple times. iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, article information backs in up a little. I have a source for it being defended in TNA already added from the first defense at Lockdown, while information in the table backs up the defenses in WCW.--WillC 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the vacated reigns rows, there should be a dash instead of the N/A's. The information isn't not available, it just doesn't exist, so a dash should be there.
    • Which row are you speaking of? I use N/A in the city and event cloumns. Where they were vacated at is unknown.--WillC 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The title wasn't vacated in any specific city. You can just put a dash all across in each "Vacant" row. iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How can we be sure of that?--WillC 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whatever.
  • Being that this is an article about the championship, have you looked for a free-use picture of the championship? Even a non-free use image should be uploaded if its available as it's only to be used to illustrate the title. I don't like the main image being two people who've held it instead of the title itself. iMatthew talk at 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I looked around and didn't find one before I placed the article in the mainspace. I don't think anyone has uploaded one of Team 3D or The Brits with the titles recently. I just went and looked again on here and on commons. I'll look on Dave Millican's website and see if he has anything. He has given us the ok to use any of the images on his site as all as he is credited for it.--WillC 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you checked their official website? Flickr? Google? iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, ones on their site are to high in resolution to pass fair-use.--WillC 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible more to come once these are all addressed. iMatthew talk at 00:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, thanks for the comments.--WillC 03:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes [2] a reliable source?
    • Solie gets its information from books, magizines, and other promotions. The authors of Solie have several years of wrestling knowledge as well and have been involved in the wrestling industry as well. The current Solie reference gets most of its information from the wrestling titles book by Royal Duncan amd Gary Will.--WillC 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, why can't you source the book instead of a copy of it? iMatthew talk at 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The book only covers through 1999, being published in 2000 it's last title changes are for late 1999.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  14:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, plus the Solie ref mentions the rest of the reigns and notes. I also have the book as a ref, and solie for the rest as a third-party. The more refs the better.--WillC 14:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't tell if the tables are properly sourced. Too much of the information is in Japanese...

iMatthew talk at 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • They are sourced properly. Most of the information comes from the solie ref and the wrestling titles book. I used google translater on the New Japan refs to be sure the content was correct.--WillC 02:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you clarify which columns in the table are covered by those refs?
        • It depends which columns you are speaking of? All the info in the table is covered by Solie, the wrestling titles book covers up till late 99, and the New Japan refs cover everything.--WillC 14:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "By team" and "By wrestler" tables, the column that has all of the team names and wrestler names shouldn't be centered.
    • May I ask why?--WillC 14:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it doesn't need to be centered... iMatthew talk at 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I had been told to center those tables as well for consistency, but screw it. Done.--WillC 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More