Talk:CMLL World Lightweight Championship

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on CMLL World Lightweight Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6LDla2zy5?url=http%3A%2F%2Fentertainment.howstuffworks.com%2Fpro-wrestling.htm to http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/pro-wrestling.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cmll.com/noticias.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cmll.com/02_resultados/dom_familiares/dom_familiares.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cmll.com/02_resultados/dom_familiares/dom_familiares.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Kayfabe?
So is this "perfomance art" or a real competition? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The outcome is predetermined and the wrestlers work together to put on a performance that looks like they are legitimately fighting each other.  MPJ  -DK 02:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, that needs to be in the lead, and the entire article fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:N Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What needs to be in the lead? The nature of professional wrestling?? And please do tell me how it fails notability with significant coverage in reliable sources? I also don't see how the article is "Summary-only descriptions of works.", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" or "Exhaustive logs of software updates." in fact the article makes sure that any "data" that is list follows the NOTPLOT guideline of data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. since it provides the general perspective, the company's use of the championship, the rules that apply to them etc.    MPJ  -DK  03:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes "the nature of professional wrestling". There may be significant coverage in 3rd party RS's but it isn't in the article. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you actually look at the sources?? The following sources are used:
 * CMLL itself - while primary they are a fairly good source on their own actions, only used for non-controversial statements
 * Wrestling Title Histories - Published book (not self-published either) with an editorial process by two guys who are considered "industry experts"
 * Súper Luchas - Printed and online magazine with an established editorial process
 * Box y Lucha Magazine - Printed magazine with an established editorial process
 * MedioTiempo - Sports news website, with an established editorial process, published by MSN
 * Dragon Lee's twitter shows a picture of the belt stating what it is currently named at - cannot get a better source than the championship belt to prove what is written on the bet.
 * The Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling commission rule book - I doubt I have to explain to you how the rulebook is the best source when quoting rules
 * New Japan - like the CMLL source it is a primary source, used to source an non-controversial fact that happened on a NJPW show.
 * Mondo Lucha a Go Go - Published book (not self-published either) with an editorial process
 * Legends of Pro Wrestling - 150 years of headlocks, body slams, and piledrivers - Published book (not self-published either) with an editorial process by a guys who is considered an "industry expert"


 * So tell me again where this is lacking reliable sources please, because I'm not following your logic?  MPJ  -DK 03:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead updated too. I believe that addresses any actual issues identified.  MPJ  -DK 03:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for updating the lead. Would you care to provide two or three specific examples of independent reliable sources discussing the topic (rather than merely repeating the plot)? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Repeating the plot"? I see, so having proven that they are reliable and that the fully sourced article provides context etc. we're now on to this?  MPJ  -DK 04:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So how about this - what sort coverage would be consider "not repeating the plot"?  MPJ  -DK 04:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For example see Blade_Runner Siuenti (씨유엔티) 05:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Wrestling Title Histories - Has a chapter on the history of the title
 * Box y Lucha magazine - covers the creation of the title, gives the backround and context of CMLL Japan more
 * Súper Luchas 2003 year in review magazine - covers it being brought back, what led to it
 * Súper Luchas 2008 year in review, mentions that while the champion is back in CMLL they were not actually using the championship
 * Súper Luchas 2009 year in review, covers bringing it back


 * Not just the "plot" as you say but gives context, historical perspective etc. that alone provides "significant coverage" to satisfy WP:N
 * Finally, based on your comments you're basically looking for comments that rate/review/critique the wrestling matches themselves - since a review of a match is analogous to a review of a movie - nothing in here is a "match review" it's not appropriate for an article about the championship, that gives the history, the background, the stats etc. "match reviews" only belong in professional wrestling show articles or biographies of wrestlers if they've gotten critical acclaim or are really bad in the ring. if you're looking for a "critical reception" that is a fallacy to always expect that, I have not found anything that was critical of the championship or it's use.  MPJ  -DK 12:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So yeah, if any of those things about the title found their way into the article somehow, that would be an improvement. If it's a fallacy to look for "critical reception" how about Blade_Runner Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Any of those things"? You mean the context that is already there or match reviews that do not belong there. You are not going to find a pro wrestling source quoting an official why they chose to make someone a champion, while it is scripted, outcomes and decisions are not made public to maintain the illusion that "wrestling is real". You cannot just do a straight comparison to movie articles.  MPJ  -DK 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah by "title" you mean "championship", I misunderstood, sorry. You tell me "Box y Lucha is a printed magazine with an established editorial process". How can I confirm this established editorial process? and does that make it a WP:RS anyway? and what exactly does it say about the championship on pages 10-12, how can we know it is "substantial coverage"? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * yes an established editorial process does indeed make it a reliable source, that is really something you should know if you are trying to do a source review. Also are you aware of Wikipedia's process on printed material vs. online material?  MPJ  -DK 23:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK which bit of WP:RS tells us that "an established editorial process does indeed make it a reliable source"? and at the risk of repeating myself "How can I confirm this established editorial process?" Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding "Wikipedia's process on printed material vs. online material" perhaps you could enlighten me. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah yes sorry I did not realize, no problem. So basically for printed sources we are to Assume Good Faith on those, for the source review it only needs to cover sources that are available online to verify.  MPJ  -DK 00:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

MOS:PLOT
It should be remembered that plot summaries of fiction such as this should have a limited number of words, eg 700 words for a feature film, per MOS:PLOT Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Lucha ilbre????
Is Lucha ilbre like an actual thing? Why is it in so many articles ? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 04:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:N
Can someone remind me which reliable sources cover the topic in depth, per WP:N?
 * If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.
 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 06:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Source #2 - a chapter on the championship history
 * Source #4 - a section specifically on the championship
 * Source #6 - a section specifically on the championship
 * Source #7 - a section specifically on the championship
 * Source #13 - a section specifically on the championship
 * Source #14 - a section specifically on the championship
 * Source #18 - a section specifically on the championship
 * Source #19 - a section specifically on the championship
 * Source #20 - a section specifically on the championship
 * Source #21 - a section specifically on the championship
 * QED.  MPJ  -DK 20:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Er and were any of these available for me to look at? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The one we can see is #18, which says apparently "Southern California wrestler Tommy Williams was announced as champion in October so he must have defeated Rocky Romer on September 15", which doesn't look like in-depth coverage to me. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I stated, they had a section specifically recapping any activity around the championship, just happened that it was not a banner year for the championship.  MPJ  -DK  21:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So that's strike one, I've taken the liberty of striking #18 out. Do you care to pitch any more of into our field of vision? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Siuenti (씨유엔티) 15:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bad form to make changes to someone else's text on a talk page. And how is it "strike"? I stated what it contained - section dedicated to the championship. Please don't forget your manners and talk page etiquette.  MPJ  -DK 22:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK so that was a section but not in-depth coverage. Which of the other sections are not in-depth coverage? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So we are looking for 2 articles with 100% coverage of the championship which you claim to exist. What a surprise it will be if they are off-line and impossible to access.
 * So why are we looking for "2 articles with 100% coverage"? that's not stated in WP:GNG, in fact that does not require any article to be 100% on the subject. Pleae familiarize yourself with the rules before you start to tag articles. I'm not interested in fullfilling these imaginary requirements you have no guideline to back up.  MPJ  -DK 16:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Er didn't someone say "plenty reliable coverage, including articles 100% on the championship" exists? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * So you do agree that you had no guideline reasons to revert the tag removal.  MPJ  -DK 16:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 16:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The please quote where it says that it requires "2 articles 100% about the subject" to meet notability? I have looked and I do not see it, please enlighten me, becaus I am seeing no such thing.  MPJ  -DK 16:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And if you cannot provide those quotes please revert yourself for making edits against the guidelines. Thanks.  MPJ  -DK 16:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 2 articles 100% about the subject are sufficient but not necessary. You claimed they existed and I believed you, more fool me apparently. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 17:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked where in the guidelines you found support to re-add the tag and you have not yet provided that justification, doesn't matter if I said "I'll give you a lollypop", cannot tag articles if there is no guideline reason to tag it. As I stated, please provide guideline justificiation for the revert.  MPJ  -DK 17:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Match that received no mainstream coverage?
How are we supposed to know that a "match that received no mainstream coverage" actually happened, and isn't just kayfabe? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * technically we don't for sure, we know the match was scheduled to happen and that Williams was the champion afterward but there were no results reported anywhere I can find, which I believe is what the article states.  MPJ  -DK 20:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So we don't know for sure that the match actually happened. Can we say that explicitly? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Súper Luchas independent?
How do we know that Súper Luchas is an independent, reliable publication with a reputation for fact checking, and not just some rag which regurgitates whatever CMLL tells it to? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have previously invited you to examine other sources that I provided - 3 separate, independent of each other sources that could be used to verify certain non-contentious facts - after all if three independent sources agree, it kinda increases the likelihood of a fact being true. There are ways of independently verifying facts in the article if you doubt they are true, I offered some a while back.  MPJ  -DK 22:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Seen talk page, see no comments on # of "100% coverage articles"
So the revert comment was "see talk page", we'll I've seen it and I see no place where you state your interpretation that it needs "2 articles 100% on the championship" since that's actually not what the general notabilty guideline states - it states it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, so technically it does not even need one source 100% about the championship. If you're going to tag something and revert it when I point out the tag is not appropriate please at least provide a correct justification not just your own personal interpretations. Like I said, plenty of reliable, independent coverage, if you disagree I believe AFD is the correct process to take. MPJ  -DK 15:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at the section WP:N above please. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 15:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)