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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:50, 24 August 2009 [1].

---

List of WWE Hardcore Champions[edit]

Nominator(s): Truco ₅₀₃ and --WillC 07:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured list candidates/List of WWE Hardcore Champions/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Truco ₅₀₃ and myself are nominating this article for FLC after an extensive expansion from what it once was to what it is now. I feel it passes the criteria at the moment, as for him I don't know. He probably does but I would rather not speak for him. Any comments will be handled by either one of us.--WillC 07:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclaimer - I won't be on Wiki from 8/6-8/11.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've read a lot (not all from what Wikipedia would label reliable sources, admittedly) about the way this title was treated, particularly during the 24/7 period. People seem to consider the title a bit of a joke, so I was thinking that covering that sort of reception might be appropriate. For example, one page 201 of The WrestleCrap Book of Lists!, it discussed Terri Runnels holding the belt. Some relevant passages include: "...the WWF Hardcore title was largely a joke throughout its brief history" and "...the Hardcore championship was so prestigious that it was being defended not only in the ring, but at other locations, such as airports, hotel rooms and the local Chuck E. Cheese." This editorial is also a good source covering this aspect of the title. I'm also confused as to why the title changes from the Hardcore Battle Royal aren't included. The title changed hands 10 or 11 times during the match, and each time, someone was announced as the new champion. I realize you're using wwe.com as the source, but I think this is at least worth noting (Solie's lists all of the title changes in the match; do you know if the Will & Duncan Wrestling Title Histories book does?). GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I would add the reception aspect to the article but I feel that is better fit in the main article. As for the hardcore battle royal, I don't have a source that says they were even considered champions in the first place. I would need something that says they were recognized first to even consider adding them. Only Solie includes them, but Solie includes alot of things this time. As for Wrestling Titles, it only goes to late 99.--WillC 10:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking, wasn't the hardcore battle royal just an early version of the Championship Scramble? If so, then maybe they were interim-champions and not actual champions.--WillC 10:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, it was a version of the Scramble and I remember watching that match and the commentators did state that the wrestler last holding the title would be the champion, nothing about the other wrestlers if they won the title during the match. In addition, I also feel that information about reception would be better off in the main article, maybe a note in this article, but further info should go in the main article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I forgot about the article splitting, so the reception is better in the other article. As for the Hardcore Battle Royal, they definitely made it clear that each of the falls during the match was a legitimate title change. From a video on YouTube whose title rhymes with "Trestlemania '00 - Hardcore Battle Royal 1/4", referee Tim White discussed the match beforehand with the participants: "...there could be as many belt changes as there might be within that time frame. It could be one, could be two, could be ten times." Announcer Jim Ross then clarified: "The title can changes hands any number of times, and whomever is the champion at the end of fifteen minutes leaves with the gold." After the first of many falls in the match, the ring announcer stated, "Here is the new Hardcore Champion: Tazz!" This is also supported by the writeup on WWE.com ([2]): "WrestleMania 2000 saw the Hardcore Championship change hands 11 times, as a result of the unique stipulations of the 15-minute Hardcore Battle Royal. At the end of the match, Hardcore Holly was the champion." GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I'll add them in.--WillC 23:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found this article which says the exact rules of the match and is dated around the time of WrestleMania 2000, and it says that only who is champion at the end of the match is important.--WillC 23:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • That article confirms that each of the falls was a legitimate title change. Interestingly, it points out that this will make it difficult for people keeping title lists. I see that John Powell is as prophetic as ever. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess it is a matter of one's own opinion after they read it because "The match will go on for fifteen minutes and although anyone can be pinned for the title, it doesn't matter because whoever is still holding the belt at the end of time limit hangs is the official winner." says to be that the final person to get a pin will be the official champion after the 15 minutes.--WillC 01:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The final person to get a pin will be the official champion at the end of the match, but everyone in between who gets a pin becomes champion. The "it doesn't matter" part would refer to the fact that being reigning champion is more important than being a former champion. However, I'm feeling like having a debate on the content is out of place on the FLC page. Perhaps this is better suited for the WT:PW page? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that probably would be beter. I see them being interim champions, alot like the Scamable. Maybe WWE refs to the interim changes.--WillC 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Consensus seems to have been reached, which states that the reigns should be included in the table as unofficial reigns. They are included as such. However, because they are unofficial by this standard, they should not be counted in the "Reign" column, nor should they be included in the "List of combined reigns" table. At present, the article is factually inaccurate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at WT:PW the section does not read "List of combined official reigns" nor does the column in the main table say "official reigns". We have several sources say they are official and then ones which say they aren't, so at the moment there is nothing inaccurate.--WillC 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one, Wikipedia is not censored or obligated to go by what WWE wants their title histories to read. The fact is that the championship reigns that occurred during the battle royal occurred nevertheless. Which makes them official reigns because the WWF did not specifically state during the battle royal that the reigns would not be official, it was only until the title was retired in 2002 that it was noted as such. Many of my lists had unofficial reigns or reigns that occurred but were not mentioned by the promotion, what I did was added the reign because it actually happened but I denoted that the promotion does not recognize it due to so and so. Same here. --Truco ₅₀₃ 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As have I. With List of TNA X Division Champions I did the same as with here. If it happened and WWE recognized them for even a single second as champion, then the reign is official, even if the promotion does not ever again.--WillC 10:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, what was the purpose of the discussion at WT:PW if you are unwilling to go with the consensus? GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those reigns are "unofficially" recognized by the promotion, but they actually did occur-> we aren't saying they are official or not, we are just counting the reigns as they happened, which is needed for sorting and stats purposes. It is denoted, or it should be, that those reigns aren't recognized by WWE but they did occur or that the "rules were unclear, so they are counted for sorting and statistics purposes only". This is what we do for other lists for unofficial reigns.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The discussion was whether to add them or not, not how to add them. At the moment I see nothing wrong with the article in history stand-point. The reigns occurred so they should be counted. If not counted then what is the point of them being in?--WillC 16:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I was asked to revisit this FLC and update my comments. Since nothing has changed, however, I continue to oppose. As shown in numerous precedents (Antonio Inoki#Early years and The Rockers#Tag team title controversy are good examples), the promotion controls the official title history (hence, Inoki is not recognized as a WWF Heavyweight Champion, and The Rockers are not recognized as WWF Tag Team Champions). This is not a case of censorship; it is simply a fact of life when it comes to a staged sport. Sources indicate the there were numerous "belt changes" at WrestleMania 2000, but they are not included in the official title history. They should be included because they show the transitions the belt took and consensus was to add them as unofficial reigns. To say that someone with an unofficial reign is a former champion, however, is inconsistent. The reigns should be listed as they are, but they should not be counted in the "Reign number" column, and they shouldn't be in the combined reigns table. Saying that they need to be counted (and that Wikipedia needs to give false information) so that a table will sort properly makes no sense. As far as "statistical purposes" go, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. If the problem lies with the column title or the table's name, the title and/or name should be fixed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We are based on facts, the facts on the reigns happened, they are, or have been, recognized by WWE, which makes them official. Tomorrow WWE could say Randy Orton was the first WWE Champion in 1899. Should we rewrite that entire article because that is what WWE recognizes? No, we note it, but do not list it as official because we know it never happened.--WillC 05:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your example is ridiculous. Arguing by strawman doesn't prove anything other than an unwillingness to have a sensible discussion. But yes, there are examples in which wrestlers are said to have won titles that they simply didn't win. Countless titles have been introduced and/or have changed hands through "tournaments" that never existed. They are counted as legitimate title changes, because it is the promotion that controls the title history in a fictional sport. As another example, the Eastern Sports Association states that Jack and Jerry Brisco held the ESA International Tag Team Championship in 1976. The Brisco Brothers never wrestled together in ESA. Once again, though, it's counted as an official reign. At any rate, consensus was to include them as unofficial reigns. You have chosen to ignore the consensus. I oppose. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You act as if a consensus at WT:PW is the final decision. No, they aren't. Again, they have been added as unofficial, but the columns do not read official reigns. There was no questions on how exactly they would be added. Just added as unofficial reigns.--WillC 01:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 03:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – The 85th title reign is sorting as the final one in the table. Fixed.--WillC 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note for entry 1: Change "becoming" to "who became", since it reads like McMahon became the first title-holder. Fixed.--WillC 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] List of combined reigns: Wrestlers who held the belt less than a day are sorting after those whose reigns lasted a full day. I don't see the problem.--WillC 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Look at this way: which is more, 24 hours or one hour? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] No, I don't see the problem in the sorting. Everything seems fine on my end.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] OK, sorting fixed. The ((sort)) template is used far more than it needs to be, but no point in fixing what isn't broken. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The original problem is fixed, but now the sorting from highest to lowest is all over the place. It may need the template after all. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fixed one; couldn't find anything else. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Not sure a See also link for hardcore wrestling is needed, seeing as one is included in the lead. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fixed.--WillC 00:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capping only, due to the discussion above on whether or not reigns should be included in certain tables. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Spell out WWE on its first appearance. That would result in The World Wrestling Entertainment Hardcore Championship, which in a way is still correct but the official name of the title was just the WWE Hardcore Championship.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "American-based" I think I've brought this up before. You can't have something based in "American". Try "U.S.-based" Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "a regulation where"-->a regulation stating that Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "the rule was deactivated in 2002" Never heard of a rule being "deactivated" before. Maybe "discontinued" or "removed"? Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Ladder match" Why is this capitalized? It is a proper name.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] It isn't in the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I usually cap it because I believe it is a proper name. Not sure why it isn't in the main article.--WillC 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Its not a proper name, its a common match name. "Hell in a Cell" is proper name only used by WWE while "ladder match" is used by the entire pro wrestling industry.--Truco 503 00:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Okay, fixed--WillC 01:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "the Hardcore Championship soon-after was retired."-->the Hardcore Championship was retired shortly thereafter. Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "there were 221 reigns among 47 wrestlers"-->there were 221 reigns shared between 47 wrestlers Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "all of which occurred in Canada, England, Germany, Scotland, and the United States."-->all of whom won in Canada, England, Germany, Scotland, and the United States. Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "at 154 days with four reigns"-->at 154 days in 4 reigns Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Due to the "24/7 rule", numerous wrestlers held the title less than one day, and due to the unknown exact time each wrestler held the title, each of their reigns are regarded as the shortest in the title's history."-->Due to the "24/7 rule", numerous wrestlers held the title less than one day, and because exact time at which each wrestler held the title is unknown, each of their reigns is regarded as the shortest in the title's history. Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "Names" table—naming the column "Years" is inaccurate, since those are full dates. Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "A 24/7 rule is applied to the championship, in which it can be won at anytime, anywhere as long as a referee is present."-->The 24/7 rule was applied to the championship; it could be won at anytime and anywhere as long as a referee was present. Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] "The 24/7 rule is deactivated on August 19, " Change "is" to "was". Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Can you center the List of combined reigns table as you did in the main table? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fixed.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The combined reign table sorting issue still needs to be worked out—see my comment above under Giants'. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Like above, I don't see the problem so I'm not sure how to fix something I can't see, sorry.--WillC 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look mostly good, though reviewers are invited to comment on the below. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• PWtorch and WrestleView have been identified as iffy before. I'll let other reviewers comment on this as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PWTorch is backed up by plenty of other third party sites and James Caldwell and Wade Keller, the main journalist, have been involved in wrestling for several years. WrestleView is usually only supposed to be used for results and non-controversial material. It is safe to use in this instance I do believe.--WillC 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having reviewed all wrestling lists to come through FLC in the past 9 months, I'm aware of this. I'm just mentioning it so that other reviewers can comment on them too. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the highs and the lows. The comment was mainly for future reviewers.--WillC 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)

Oppose I've only checked about half the list thus far but there appears to be a mountain of discrepancies which need fixing, those I found so far: Sorry, I thought everything was correct before nominating. Such a long list, I must have lost track.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] William Regal has three reigns in first table, eight in second. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Al Snow has six reigns in first table, four in second. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Joey Abs has one reign in first table, two in second. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Christopher Nowinski has two reigns in first table, one in second. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] The Big Show has three reigns in the first table, two in second, combined days doesn't tally either. I only found two reigns in the main table; reigns 72 and 76 are all I find. Days total is fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 182? --Jpeeling (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fixed.--WillC 15:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Crash Holly's is sorted by both Crash and Holly, combined days don't tally either. Fixed. Totally my fault. I must have not been paying attention when I did that table.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Pete Gas is sorted by both Pete and Gas. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Billy Gunn is sorted by both Billy and Gunn. Fixed. Still learning how to use the sort template. Just recently got it down. Should have fixed this list when I did.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Bradshaw doesn't have a 13th reign but has two 9th reigns. Fixed. My error in my copying and pasting names over and over. Steven Richards goes up to 22 reigns but doesn't have an 18th. Fixed.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Also the second table doesn't sort properly for either number of reigns or combined days. I would hope that once these have been fixed, similar checks could be made to make sure everything tallies. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments. My errors, I must have not noticed. This list was so long and too so long to update, I got fed up with it. So I guess I didn't do one last check up before nominating. My bad, sorry.--WillC 04:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] A few more fixes: Maven has three reigns on first table, one on the second. Fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Pat Patterson has one reign on first table, two on the second. Fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Steven Richards has 21 on first table, 22 on second. Fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Al Snow combined days don't tally. Fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Should the location of reign number 204 be Greensboro, North Carolina? No and Fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] No and Fixed are mutually exclusive. I assume there was only one Raw event on July 29, 2002 so the venue for 204 should be Greensboro, North Carolina rather than Columbia, South Carolina? --Jpeeling (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I marked them all as fixed then went and did them all at once. I must have missed that one. I am now sure that it is fixed, since I just finished the edit.--WillC 23:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I've not seen the spelling of Pensilvania, on reign numbers 98, 209 and 210, before. Is there a reason why Pennsylvania isn't used. Typos, fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Other locations with spelling errors: Tennesee, Massechunets, Clorado. I'm not American so they may be a few more I haven't spotted. More typos, to be honest I suck at spelling state names to begin with; they are fixed.--WillC 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Also can the dates in the references be made easier to read and consistent with the rest of the article, i.e. August 25, 2002 rather than 2002-08-25. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Fixed ref date formatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] One more fix: The note for reign 12 has "Smith awarded the title to Snow." Smith who? I presume Davey Boy Smith (The British Bulldog) but as that name isn't used in the article it wouldn't be clear to the reader. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I forgot to update that note apparently. Recently I found out that Davey Boy Smith actually won the title under his British Bulldog ring name, and I had the article using his real name. When I changed the names, I must have forgot to change the note as well. Fixed now.--WillC 21:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are a few errors that need to be addressed. Mshake3 (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? Be exactly please.--WillC 06:24, 25 August 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.