Talk:TNA X Division Championship/Archive 1

Title change dates
While it is understood that TNA iMPACT (as well as many Professional Wrestling events) are not performed live, but pretaped, the keyfabe relies on the airdates as the occurance of the event. Let's give an example, and yes, I am using the current dispute. AJ Styles won the title on October 24th, but the event is aired November 2nd. On November 9th, the following iMPACT, the announcers will refer to the title that was won "Last week". They will not refer to the championship reign as having lasted only 2 days, but a week and a half, if they even mention title length. If someone else wins the title, it will be referred to as being held "for a week", instead of as being held for however long it was ACTUALLY held.

I think the point I'm trying to make is this. Keyfabe relies on what is being presented to the audience as a whole, and not what is actually happening. To a very large majority of the people who watch TNA Wrestling, they watched the title change hands on iMPACT, and not at the taping of iMPACT a week earlier.

If anyone else wants to argue AGAINST my POV, they can just go to the official page (thanks vDub for the link) Edward Hyena

Couldn't have said it better myself. :-) vDub 12:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty big ruiling to make here. Basically, when TNA or WWE changes their history, wiki has to follow it. There's no way to reflect that. For example, in Pat Patterson's article, are we suppost to say that he won the Intercontiental Championship in Rio whatever and completely igonre that has was given the title? Remember when Edge said that he never lost a TLC match? Should we show that in an Edge or TLC match article? 12.206.114.132 01:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My question is : Why not? Part of the enjoyment in professional wrestling, and in fact, most TV and cinema, is a suspension of disbelief. You're not supposed to watch an event wondering if these people are really fighting and competing to be the most powerful athelete, or whether they've rehearsed their match and are performing to a script. You're just supposed to watch and enjoy. The same goes for movies. You're not supposed to think of the greenscreen and the computers rendering the effects when Keanu Reeves fights against computerized Agents, you're just supposed to watch, and enjoy. The issue with the way the article was being edited is that someone was trying to remove the kayfabe, which is a problem. Without kayfabe, what do we have? Edward Hyena 04:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Since TLC III never happend according to WWE, should the article reflect that? Go ahead and change it. 131.230.185.12 16:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Also, you can't go by what the company officially says because it's full of inconsistancies. I recall two instances when WWE announced a title change at Smackdown right after the taping ended that Tuesday: when Mr. McMahon won the WWF Title on September 14, 1999 and when Kurt Angle won the World Title on January 10, 2006. According to offical title history on WWE.com, as you point to as your undisputable source, McMahon's title change occured on Thursday the 16th (when it aired), while Angle's occured on Tuesday the 10th (when it was taped). So how can we suspend disbelief when the company admits otherwise? 131.230.185.12 16:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Without violating NPOV and giving any opinions on WWE, I will just say that WWE and TNA are two entirely different companies, and if we are going to nitpick at WWE, we should do it over in their entries. Are there any such inconsistancies in TNA's official history? Edward Hyena

Actually TNA does have some inconsistancies. In the beginning of TNA, the first Wednesday PPV was live, and the second week was taped right after on the same night. The first NWA Champion (Ken Shamrock) and X Division Champion (AJ Styles) of this era was determined that night. TNA lists each title change as occuring on June 19th, 2002, but lists the appropiate event (PPV 1 and PPV 2) that it occured.

Nonetheless, you want these articles to reflect the offical title history on a company's official website. If we're going to do this for NWA/TNA Championships, then we should do it for WWE Championshps as well. We're not going to have two separate guidlines for each company. 12.206.114.132 19:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already been working on tweaking the WWE championship histories using their official title history pages found on WWE.com vDub 14:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'm going to change them back. I've made my point, and until a final ruiling is made here, I'm going to do it my way. 131.230.135.105 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * vDub, don't vandalize the pages like that. TJ Spyke 03:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WWE and TNA are incositant, sometimes they list the taping date and sometimes the air date. That's why we at WP:PW have decided to go by when wrestlers WIN the titles, not when it airs on TV. TJ Spyke 03:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not considered vandalism when I'm going by official sources. vDub 12:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Official sources" are inconsistant. Both WWE and TNA mix in TV tapings dates and TV airing dates in the same list. That's why it was agreed a long time ago to use the day a wrestler WINS the title, not when it airs. TJ Spyke 05:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

First Black Champion
Is Jay Lethal the first Black X Champion? 63.3.7.1 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohgltxg (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Truko9308 14:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)== World Championship ==

Ring announcers have been declaring this title, when under contention, as "the TNA X-Division Champion(ship) of the World". Should this article cite this as such? If so, should it be called The TNA World X-Division Championship, the TNA X-Division World Championship, or the TNA X-Division Championship of the World? Phoenixmuffin 17:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Treat it like the WWE Cruiserweight Championship. "It is often referred to during ring announcements as the X Division Championship of the World." -- Aaru Bui  DII 00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I added that part to the WWE Cruiserweight section, it used to be there before but someone removed it, and I just noticed that Bulletproof took it out again, I don't get it. TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Retirement
TNA is working on phasing the title out, becasue they have signed more heavyweights, such as Matt Morgan,Test, Giant Bernard, so it Kurt Angle is scheduled to win and unify the world title and the x divisio title.


 * Yeah I was just reading that also that after the match at Hard Justice it'll be unified with the TNA World Title and TNA's going to take more of an emphasis on heavyweights, probably because they plan on introducing a Television title in the fall or something. TonyFreakinAlmeida 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The titles will be as follows:
 * TNA Heavyweight Championship
 * TNA Tag Team Championship
 * TNA Women's Championship
 * TNA Television Title (Maybe) ImmortalKaine 06:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is pure rumor and considering one of the few things distinguishing TNA from the WWE or any other promotion is their vaguely defined X division, they'd be foolish to eliminate it.
 * Well it's a pretty strong rumor at this point, a lot of x division guys and undercarders have been talked about being on their way out the door within the next couple of months, and this title match on Sunday is for all the titles to be held by one man. TNA hasn't exactly avoided foolishness the last 8 months either. TonyFreakinAlmeida 00:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cruiserweight Championship
the x Championship is just the tna Cruiserweigh Championship and should rename it the tna Cruiserweigh Championship

where is ur source for that coz thats not ture and ur full of shit. (its more of the secondry title in TNA but it is also like i the CW belt so if anything its the TNA IC CW title) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.207.93 (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sales?
Rumor is that the belt is not for sale as of yet, but it will be released for sale later in the year, does anyone have a reputable source for this, and or know where one can be purchased? (new design, not the NWA/TNA version)Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Agc.7WirjJiufNDEmBKnTiojzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20070921203130AAyaiU2 Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The TNA replicas will be produced by Premier. Their next replica is the NWA Domed Globe Heavyweight Championship which was due for release in December 2007 but has been delayed. The new set of TNA replicas will be available late 2008 after the NWA belt is released. You can currently purchase real versions of the belt through Midwest Championship Belts made by Dave Millican. --BeltFanDan (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Management Director & jargon
Will has posted endlessly at my talk page, but I feel these discussions are better here. I do not see how 'Management Director' is any sort of jargon - it is the guy's job title, and not a difficult phrase to understand. --hippo43 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an on screen power. Nothing more. Not his actual job. He has no power. This was agreed on already at WT:PW hundreds of times. Cornette is a contracted talent who is only told to go out there an announce a match he didn't even make.-- Will C  23:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is his character's title. I don't think anyone is confused by this. If 'management director' is some kind of impenetrable wrestling jargon, incomprehensible to normal folk, then so is 'authority figure'. I realise you have put a lot of work into this article, but you don't own it. It seems as though you have rejected every edit by anyone except yourself over the last few days. It's not your article. --hippo43 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't rejected anything. I've tried to fix problems and discuss. I've come to an agreement with Bulletproof about the world sentence on IM. He is going to rewrite the sentence and readd it while I'll add the sources we have to it so it is neutral and pass all criteria. So, I don't reject anything. I try to make should everything is correct. You would know that if you stopped and didn't just act, and instead followed Bullet's example. As for jargon. Wrestling is different, everyone knows what an authority figure is. It is your boss, a commanding officer. No one outside of wrestling knows what a management director is, and if they do it can be a number of things. Wrestling is a giant male soap opera. It is scripted and fake. Everything besides the impacts is fake. Fake storylines, fake names, fake figures, owns, etc. None of it is real. So saying management director is also jargon, because it is a made up position that doesn't exist. To tell the difference between fact and fiction.-- Will C  00:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I struggle to understand your English sometimes. Private agreements made via IM hardly amount to collaborative editing. If you want to discuss and agree changes, do it in public at the article talk page, so all editors can be involved. I'm well aware of the nature of wrestling, fact, fiction etc. 'Management director' is no more confusing than 'authority figure'. --hippo43 (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That problem was between me an him. Not anyone else. We had a disagreement. So it was solved via a faster way. If I could get on IRC I would have discussed it there. But choose something we already talk on together.-- Will C  00:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is therefore no record here of your discussion. When discussing changes to this article - changes that obviously affect every editor who has an interest - please do so here at the talk page. --hippo43 (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There doesn't have to be a record of our agreement. This was not a consensus. This was a discussion on finding sources and him explaining how to write in a netural matter. Nothing important. He said he would re-write the sentence. I told him I would find the sources. Nothing important. A simple small agreement to colaborate. Would have been two sentences on his talk page.-- Will C  00:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Will on this one. The terms "Management Director", "General Manager", "Authority Figure", "Talent Relations Director", etc. need to be explained that they are not legitimate jobs because the people in those positions are scripted to portray people who have power within in the company, although the power really lies in the hands of the script writers and the executives of the company. -- T ru  c o   503 01:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In wrestling articles that have gone to FAC recently, terms such as Management Director have been explained to avoid concerns about the presence of wrestling jargon. While moves and similar generally require the most explanation, it must be made clear that power figures are merely playing a role. Truco is correct in this regard.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 15:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree.-- Will C  03:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, beacuse occsionally, someone MAY have an authority role both on and offscreen. Vince McMahon himself comes to mind when he portrays Mr. McMahon. It needs to be made clear that that is NOT the case here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus with Jarrett today who is supposed to be the boss though could be fired by Dixie. Sometimes they have power and other times they don't, like Jarrett.-- Will C  06:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge with List of TNA X Division Champions ?
Is there any special reason these two articles are separate? The List article includes almost all the same material as this one, and if all of it was in one article it would not be an unwieldy size. --hippo43 (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The list of champions is too big. There was no problem in the split. This one was expanded along with that one to FL. Both are sourced, both are notable. Multiple championships are spilt.-- Will C  00:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The combined article would be about the same size as the current list article. There is virtually nothing in this article that is not included in the list article. I can't see why two articles are better than one here. Can anyone explain? --hippo43 (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The way it is done. They may say the samething, but this one explains the X Division, matches, important moments, and at one point belt design in a deeper description which the project still believes should be included. So they are two different articles. It passed FLC so it doesn't need to be joined together. This one also passed GAN. So the notability is established. Take this to WT:PW to ask for them to be merged. Because if this one is merged, then about 50 others would have to as well. I didn't break them up. Someone did that in 2006. I don't know why there are two different articles for champions and championships. So I can't tell you. Sorry.-- Will C  00:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's not something most of us have thought about. The only real reason I think of for having two separate articles is "that's how it's always been" which is hardly valid, obviously. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Per WP:WIAFL, this List of TNA X Division Champions passes 3b "it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." The list does not largely recreate the prose of its main article, and warrants for a split. Imagine if the List of WWE Champions was merged with the WWE Championship article? That would be insane. Some championship lists are merged with the main article if the main article about the title does not have enough content to stand alone as a separate article. Example CZW World Heavyweight Championship, used to be a list with the list of champions but it was expanded enough to warrant a split from the list. These types of lists also meet WP:STAND point 4.-- T ru  c o   503 02:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * [ec]Gavyn, I have no objection in principle to an article about the title and a separate list of champions. My problem is that the list article is essentially a repetition of this article, with a list added on. If we are to have a separate list, can we keep it as an actual list, rather than a duplicate of this article? Or merge the two articles? The resulting article would be hardly bigger than the current list article. As it stands, Will and I will have to fight simultaneous edit wars on two articles, which gets tiring!


 * Truco, as far as I can see, the intro of the list covers the same ground, if not in the same words, as this one. I'm not sure that comparing it to List of WWE Champions is valid. Merging those would indeed be insane, but it's not what is being discussed. What would the problem be with this article including the list? It would not be an unmanageable size and it would be more convenient for readers. I'm not sure what the downside would be. --hippo43 (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I didn't even see the lead. Now that I'm looking at it, the lead needs to be reworded and cut down to be more of a summary about the list itself and not about the title. Thats what the main article is for, so I will agree with you on the point of recreated material. However, the size of the list IMO is large enough to meet WP:LIST, WP:STAND, and pass WP:FORK. Though, the prose needs work. -- T ru  c o   503 02:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is called the TNA X Division Championship. Not Wrestlers who have held the TNA X Division CHampionship. This article should be about the championship entirely. Eventually the list of champions will be almost as long as the WWE Title list. 38 reigns in 7 years. In another 7 if TNA lasts that long in this economy, though it is likely IMO, it will almost match that of the WWE Championship, which has been around for 60 years. The length is just too long. Also Truco, I'm in the process of re-writing it. Remember that was my first list, and I've had around 6 or 7 pass since then. So I'll get too it soon.-- Will C  02:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, Will, you realise it's not your article, right? --hippo43 (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, but there is no reason to merge. Why merge it. There are plenty of articles that can be merged but aren't. Like TJ said: "The most obvious reason is length. The articles would be way too big if the lists were on the same page. You could also ask why any article exists. Why have a list of Super Bowl champions when there is already an article on the Super Bowl? Why have a list of episodes for a TV series? Hell, The Simpsons has a article for each episode and article for each season and a overall list of episodes for the whole series (i'm not using those as justification to keep them, just pointing out that there are plenty of lists on Wikipedia and you could ask why any of them need to exist)." Both have passed reviews, both have reliable sources, both pass criteria, meaning there is no grounds for a merger. The lead of a list is to tell a summary of the background of the championship. That is what the List of champions does. Too in depth, I agree, but is easy to fix-- Will C  02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Plus the reason I said I'll get on it is because I expanded, it is somewhat my duty. But if someone who is knowledgeable in the subject say TJ, Truco, just someone who has expanded a few wrestling FLs from WP:PW they can do it. The reason I exclude you, is because you seem to not have even heard of TNA. So you wouldn't know what to do, IMO.-- Will C  02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, after WP:OWN, try reading this. If you are the editor who expanded it and cause the problem, perhaps you are not the man to fix it? --hippo43 (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You first. There is no problem with it. I got the information on the format from Truco and other lists. So far the only problems I've seen have been caused by you because a week ago, none of these things were problems, no offense that is.-- Will C  02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Will, there is a difference between "none of these things were problems" and "noone had noticed all these problems". I didn't cause the badly-written list, original research in the 'belt designs' section, or all the unreferenced material here. If your doctor tells you you have testicular cancer, you don't tell the doctor "this is all your fault, my balls were fine until you showed up." --hippo43 (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

hahaha, no, the problems would have been fixed eventually. But all you did was cause more problems. With in the FL criteria the nominator of a list should be knowledgeable in the subject. You are not knowledgeable enough in this subject so de facto your are not knowledgeable enough to fix it. I had to come behind you and fix the problems you created. And still the belt design section was not OR. Around three or four people agree it is not. You took it amongst yourself to remove the section instead of getting a final decision if it was. It was your opinion if it was. Not a consensus. So you were incorrect there. But look at this, at least when I'm told not to edit war, I don't. You have to be blocked for it, then start all over again, but hey, no offense.-- Will C  03:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "You're edit-warring, I'm being reasonable!" "No, I'm being reasonable, you're the one who keeps edit-warring!" "No! ..."


 * No offense, but you appear to be an idiot, but hey, no offense. You have no idea what I'm knowledgeable about. From your recent edits, I doubt very much that you are knowledgeable about wrestling or writing in English. It's not my opinion that makes the 'Belt design' stuff original research, it's your inability to supply a single credible independent secondary source to support your material. I am still open to it being reinserted if you can supply proper references, but I am still waiting. --hippo43 (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * @Hippo43: Any questions about whether the list of champions should be a seperate article should be asked at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. Seeing as there are many wrestling title featured lists, a merge would call into question whether those lists should be independent. I don't have a strong feeling on the matter myself, but there has been a lot of discussion at FLC on similar issues in the past few months.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 16:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Giant. Now can we end this? The edit warring and disagreements aren't getting us anywhere. It is not a world title until a written source from TNA is avaliable. The X Division section I'll source with the X Division DVDs once I re-write it. Afterwards there should be no problems.-- Will C  03:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Millican
The site is not his own personnel site. It is said on the site that it is for business. There are multiple people who work for Millican Belts. Even if this is challenged, all sites are personnel, including official sites from promotions and people themselves so this isn't any different. He also has pictures of said championship belt and says he has worked with TNA on the site. The site is reliable, because it is from the creator. Making it a primary source.-- Will C  13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The site is not a reliable published source - it displays no policy about editorial control or fact-checking. Nor is it independent - in terms of Wikipedia sources, it is essentially a personal site. If you're not clear on what is a personal site, as opposed to a published website that is a reliable source, see WP:V and WP:RS.


 * Moreover, none of the sources listed link the belt design shown on Millican's site to the belt presented on the podcast source. Making the connection here amounts to original research. --hippo43 (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Millcans site is backed by WrestleView.com, a reliable third party site. The site is not a news site, in it that it does not publisher outside information. It does not have columns, articles, etc. Only images of their creations and announcements. Check the about us section and the main page. Fact checking is not a problem here. The images which are used were uploaded at the same time of their unveiling. check this. The fact it says on the image page "Created by Dave "The Ace" Millican & Designed by Rico Mann." when it says this no where else, it does not make it OR.-- Will C  00:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Forget this, I'm nominating the article for FAC tomorrow. If you have anymore problems bring them up now. Because I'm tired of you watching me everytime I edit this page or any of the other TNA Titles and bringing up false claims.-- Will C  02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
Moved from my talk page: --hippo43 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please just leave these articles alone I ask. No offense, but you do not understand nor know the information. There are multiple agreements you are unaware of. So for the sake of stability and to not causes edit wars. Just leave them alone.-- Will C  23:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This sort of comment shows incredible arrogance. Read WP:OWN. What agreements are you talking about? Perhaps you could actually link to them rather than expecting other editors to trust your understanding? Do they supercede Wikipedia policies?


 * I realise you have put a lot of time into these articles, but you do not own them, and nor does the PW project. These wrestling articles are not exempt from the quality standards that apply to all wikipedia articles - I don't think you understand these. In particular, articles are written for a general audience, not just fans (or lovers) of the subject.


 * Perhaps you should take a step back, rather than instinctively reverting any changes to articles you are so obviously attached to? In any case, I will edit whatever articles I choose. cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should actually discuss a few things with project members and ones who work on the articles "regularly" or are you to busy causes problems of your own since looking at your history you tend to think you own alot of articles yourself. Just check the archives of WT:PW which last year was the most edited page on wikipedia. Too many discussions to link. First, Heel and face are jargon and should only be used in special occasions. That was agreed on to help non-fans understand the article better. Looking at the note within the article it says that TNA have yet to state whether the Legends or the X Division is the secondary Title. The X Division Title has always been the secondary title in TNA so with a new one introduced it only makes sense to note this. The reference within the article does not cover that. Instead it covers the World Title being the highest by looking at the ranking system on TNAwrestling.com. Common sense comes into play with the explanation of "fast paced, dare-devil type of wrestling" being linked to Cruiserweight. On TNA television the Cruiserweight divisions have often been compared to the X Division. It only makes sense to have them link. The explanation also makes more sense then saying dare-devil style. While the lead does not need to have every statement linked to a source. Being the first title of its kind is common sense because TNA created the X Division. There is also something you may not be familiar with and that is called a fact tag. It avoids problems like these and allows editors to search for a source. It is better than losing important information that could be improved in the future.-- Will C  23:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to persuade me, try not being a dick on my talk page. If there are specific agreements you want to quote, link to them, or stop referring to them. The PW project may have agreed something, but that does not make it binding - the project, again, does not own articles. If you want "non-fans" to understand wrestling articles, why on earth are you trying to insist that only wrestling obsessives should edit them? Clearly non-fans will better understand "heels (villains)" than "villains" with a misleading link to "heel".


 * There's no point linking to cruiserweight if it's not a cruiserweight championship - that is simply bad writing.


 * If you have a source for "tied for second..." please supply it. Otherwise it has to go. Your idea of common sense s irrelevant, as this is an encyclopedia. I'm well aware of what a fact tag is, but IMO they ugly up articles and badly-written, unsourced statements should be removed without them. The onus of verifiability is on the editor who restores the challenged material, per WP:V. --hippo43 (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but we've went through this before I would rather it not fail the FAC on stability once again. The fact tag allows people time to verify information that is already there. It doesn't matter if they are ugly or not. They were created for a purpose and should be used for that purpose. Common sense is a policy. So my idea of common sense is somewhat needed in this situation. If something is not said on whether which is higher, it is easy to assume they are tied. That is common sense. The "heels (villains)" thing is not helpfully. First that is not professional writing. It hurts the flow of the article. While villains has been FA and GA approved. Not once have I said I own this article or anything of that nature. I'm working for what is best. In all honesty, you have become disruptive by removing info, when you could have at least asked why it is in the article and how is this determined. By placing a fact tag for a day at the least, would be understandable. Pipelinking villain to heel is not be a problem. Multiple articles on wikipedia link to articles of different names then what the linking word was. Crusierweight is not just a division, it is a style. Crusierweight, lightweight, etc are all styles in professional wrestling. The X Division is based off of the cruiserweight style. This has been stated multiple times on TNA television and even in TNA DVDs. The only difference in a cruiserweight division and a X Division is the weight limit. That statement, not in those exact words, has been uttered on TNA TV for years.-- Will C  00:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, point by point:


 * FAC & stability - I don't care. My concern is with the article's quality. Your focus on achieving FA status suggests you have lost sight of the purpose of Wikipedia, to be useful to readers. It's not about you.
 * FA status improves wikipedia overall. The article passing that criertia allows for it to be featured on the main page so that interested readers can learn more about professional wrestling among other things the exact reason this site was created. Articles that have content that changes contantly hurts the overall improvement of wikipedia. How can the quality of wikipedia improve when you can't trust the information in the articles since they chane every few seconds? You may not want to assume so quickly.-- Will C  01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fact tags - they are not required by policy. Sources are.
 * Correct, but they avoid edit wars which is noted within multiple policies to avoid at all costs. They also keep stability level and allow readers to see that the statement may or may not be true.-- Will C  01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Common sense - this is not a policy. WP:V is. Your assumption that your common sense is needed shows your arrogance. What about others' common sense?
 * Thanks for remaining civil. Common sense is to relied on small cases. In this case it is small.-- Will C  01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heels (villains) - IMO this is better for a general audience. You are not the best person to make this judgment. It is fairly standard English writing and doesn't hurt the flow of the article.
 * That is your opinion, but the majority disagrees with you. The majority being the editors of WT:PW and the reviewers at WP:GA and WP:FA. It is best to be as simple as possible. Villain is simple and allows readers to just keep going without being puzzled for a moment at why they are called heels, etc.-- Will C  01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only difference in a cruiserweight division and a X Division is the weight limit. That is quite a difference - they are not the same thing so should not be linked as if they are.
 * But is the weight limit involved in the statement? No, the style of wrestling is. High flying wrestling. So the statement which is talked about, in which they are fast-paced, etc would be best linked to the article that the style is based off of.
 * I know you haven't said that you own the article, but your actions suggest that you think you do. Just look at how quickly you have reverted my edits over the last months. Take a step back. I know you care about the article, but it isn't yours. I don't have to ask you why something is in the article - I am free to edit it just as you are. If you disagree with my edits, you are free to start a discussion at the article talk page. I have made numerous small changes to the article - can you find any that you haven't objected to? Your suggestions that I leave it alone or ask for your approval before making changes are classic ownership behaviour. --hippo43 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there are a few I haven't objected too. But seeing as it was already agreed on to keep certain things within the article, I would rather keep them in. You saying I own the article is funny because you seem to show up on alot on that article for no reason and begin removing stuff and saying your version is correct. But have yet to state why? You say it needs a source, I'll give one and you say it is not reliable but do not show how it is not. Ownership issues seem to be in your corner.-- Will C  01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "You seem to show up on alot on that article for no reason and begin removing stuff" - look at the language you are using - "you seem to show up" etc. Do you really not see why you are acting like you own the article?? I don't need to give you a "reason" for editing the article. I am free to edit it, as is every other editor. I only want to "remove stuff" when it is crap which weakens the article.


 * If you supply actual reliable sources, I will have no issue with them. Look through my contributions to serious articles, you will see I have no problem with good quality sources. If there aren't any good quality sources covering wrestling, then maybe we have to question the notability of some of these articles. We can't, however, start using poor quality sources instead. --hippo43 (talk)
 * It looks like you have nothing more to say besides say it is a bad article. The GA status would say otherwise. The fact that all the sites within the article have been discussed multiple times on how they are reliable. It is your opinion on it being bad. So what. Plus I never said give me a reason. I said give a reason so "everyone" will know. It is "your" job to prove I have ownership issues.-- Will C  01:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I didn't say it is a bad article, though there are many ways it could be improved. When I first edited it, much if it was badly written, badly referenced, trivial and not written for a general audience. I may be wrong, but you seem to have written quite a lot of it, and don't seem to be interested in non-wrestling articles, so maybe don't have an inderstanding of standards that would be applied to other articles.


 * You wrote "you seem to show up on alot on that article for no reason and begin removing stuff". What reason might that be, if not wanting to improve the article? Why would I need to give you a reason?


 * It's not my job to prove anything - your words show that you have ownership issues here. --hippo43 (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see the ownership issues. Anyway, maybe I was a little rash. I'm sorry if I offended you. But I've worked on this for a while and from what it was I would hate to get this far and it fail for something out of my hands. I work on a few articles outside of wrestling. I just enjoy working on wrestling articles mostly. I've read the MoS and other policies.-- Will C  01:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)