Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010.

IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship

 * Nominator(s):-- Will C  09:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the criteria. I am currently working on two topics (Topic 1 and Topic 2) on all of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling's championships. That being any that have been defended there at least once; not just TNA owned titles, any from any promotion over the seven years TNA has been around that I have evidence occurred. This title was defended in TNA twice and acknowledged by the promotion, so it falls under that area. This and probably one more, unless I discover another that was defended in TNA at a house show or something, is all I have left that I plan to take here. The rest can go to GAN. That is just the first, the second is about all champions in TNA, which also involves this one. As such, I rewrote this article entirely to get it to FL standards. All comments will be taken care of as soon as possible. Thank you to all who take the time out to review.-- Will C  09:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Though I'd love to see a bit of info on the title-creating tournament, what is there is what is there. If you get the time please stop by my FLC, which has also slowed a bit and could use a fresh reviewer! Staxringold talkcontribs 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Try using SortKey so the vacated "reign" sorts as a zero, otherwise you can't actually get the max in each col at the top when re-sorting. Plus it's chronologically out of order too.
 * Will try to do that.-- Will C  04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we're lucky, Dabomb87 will be back soon and will be able to point you in the right direction here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And here I am. Will try to take a look soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, date column is fine to me. Small question, should "Reign" be a sortable column? I guess it's useful to sort by reign and then by name so you get the multi-reign guys in order of their reign (though that could be done with dates as well). I ask because other than that use it seems to not do all that much, since there isn't any real commonality because "first reign" guys that I can tell. Meh, it doesn't hurt anything the way it is. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure, wasn't a big part of the format discussion done months ago.-- Will C  07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Conditional Oppose Maybe switch to Support if some fixes are made: First, the sorting needs to be fixed (there is no reaso for a vacant reign to be listed ahead of the longest title reign when sorting by length, vacancies should be list at the bottom. This is a problem with the sorting method Wrestlinglover wants to use, the sorting method used in FL's like List of WWE Champions do not have this problem and I have pointed this problem out to Wrestlinglover many times before). The width also needs to be fixed, no reason for columns like Location to be as wide as it is and forcing the Notes column to be so condensed. Also, Tag team names should be listed primarily and the members to be in parenthesis (not the other way around like the article currently does).  TJ   Spyke   18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like this vote not counted in the closure. TJ is bias against me due to our constant disputes over list format, so his vote is not neutral. His example is of an article that was passed as an FL over 2 years ago which fails the current criteria today including the sorting criteria he mentions, I and others have tried to explain this to him. Also TJ, the sorting problem has been discussed above as including the sortkey template. Dabomb is to be looking into it. Also, the tag team idea could work, however, that is to keep consistent with previously passed tag team FLs such as IWGP Tag Team Championship, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, List of ECW World Tag Team Champions, List of TNA World Tag Team Champions, etc. The champions come first, before the team name.-- Will C  18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done some work on the days held sort problem. The table is designed to do it, it seems. After various changes, it does not change. I used several different sorting methods, and yet it still followed the same suit. However, following the WWE Champions list is completely unacceptable. The days held columns has a 0 instead. Those are not reigns and not in anyway should they have a number there at all. Also, they are mixed in with other wrestlers 0 day reigns. The columns go vacant, held up, Andre the Giant, vacant, vacant, etc. That is not good sorting either. It would be best for you to strike your oppose on the grounds of not having enough knowledge on what makes an FL, over previous disagreements and the fact you voted oppose on this during an on-going disagreement after I presented you with the link to it shows you can't be neutral on this manner, etc.-- Will C  20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so it should not be stricken just because you disagree with me. As for the teams issue, I will tell you what you keep claiming when you go around changing entire articles to the format you personally like more: articles can continue being improved. Just because a tag team article was passed with one format does not mean it needs to stay that way. The format used in this article (and others you want to see it in) offers no benefits over the one already used in Featured title Lists (which DO pass FL criteria).  TJ   Spyke   23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TJ, this isn't about me disagreeing with you on formats. This is about you don't have the ability to be neutral in your vote. When you and I are involved in a argument on another page and have history, you voting oppose or support on this page can not be taken as neutral. That is a good enough reason for it to be striken from the final vote.-- Will C  04:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, I don't discount actionable comments because of a personal feud between nominator and reviewer. Please respond to the other comments TJ Spyke made (aside from sorting, which you've addressed), and explain why they should not be implemented (for example, why the width does not "need to be fixed", if you don't think there's a problem). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I however feel this is unneeded. If he was just reviewing the article, it would be fine. But due to his comment being posted directly after I gave him a link and he mentioning old formats, it seems more of a revenge angle rather than genually trying to help. I have looked into all of them. The location problem is vague. I don't know what would be a good width. I have decreased the section to 15% like the event column. As for the tag team being above, when the format was introduced, that is how it was agreed to be placed. See here where it was brought up again and it being agreed to in this section.-- Will C  00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment @ TJ Sypke's comments -- I actually will agree that the width shouldn't be fixed in some columns, because it does condense the list more than how it should be, like in the notes column. I don't agree with the tag team names being listed first because since the column is being sorted, it is more logical to have the names of the wrestlers to sort by for consistency because not all tag-teams have a name, and sorting by 'tag team names' and just the names of the wrestlers isn't consistent. This is how it has been for the most recent FL's.-- T ru  c o   503 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree some of his comments have marent. However, the sorting fucntion is table based. That is something that can't be fixed it seems. The width for location I would be happy to fixed, but the comment is vague. The others have been agreed upon.-- Will C  00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the sorting function some more. Now the Wrestlers column is at 23% while the notes are at 50%. The location and Event columns are at 15%. Is there anything else?-- Will C  00:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Like most professional wrestling championships, the title is won as a result of a scripted match." -- 'most'? Aren't they all?
 * Well considering at one point pro wrestling titles were won legit, I would say most. However, that is the past and this is the present it would be all. Instead of having that question, I just removed "Like most" and replaced it with "Being a".-- Will C  08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Title changes usually happen at NJPW-promoted events." -- usually? how about 'mostly'?
 * Done-- Will C  08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "At four reigns, the team of Gedo and Jado hold the record for the most by a team."
 * Done-- Will C  08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Separately, Gedo and Jado are tied for most days as champion." -- how about individually?
 * Done-- Will C  08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Their first defense in TNA at the tapings of their weekly television program TNA Impact! occurred on March 31, 2009." -- how about "Their first defense in TNA occurred on March 31, 2009 at the tapings of their weekly television program TNA Impact!."
 * Done-- Will C  08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would note somewhere stating why the defenses are notable for this title versus other pro wrestling titles.
 * No source that says why they are notable to New Japan that I have found. However, if I find one I will add that info. Still looking for tournament information from above so I may run across it in my search.-- Will C  08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The PW Torch ref should be listed as "Pro Wrestling Torch". T ru  c o   503 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Never had that problem before, I'll think about it though. I'll change it, no harm in it.-- Will C  08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing that still stands out is the defenses. Is there a note that states why NJPW uses them?-- T ru  c o   503 21:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I have seen of any on their site but it is all in Japanese. My translation tool may have mistranslated and I missed it. Though it may be obvious why they are important, seeing as puro has a more realistic approach. I'll search their site today and if I find anything, I'll add it.-- Will C  22:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there anything?-- T ru  c o   503 03:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but I'll continue to look. I got some more free time now. I'll see if there is anything I missed.-- Will C  05:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't find anything this time around either. A few interviews, match results, etc but didn't find anything that said how defenses are significant to NJPW and why they keep track of them.-- Will C  08:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would but then again that isn't exactly truth. It is becoming more clear and known that several companies keep track of them. WWE and TNA don't, but ROH, New Japan, PWG, etc do.-- Will C  22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then state that.-- T ru  c o   503 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, placed in a sentence.-- Will C  04:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support -- My main issues were fixed, but I would at least make a mention somewhere in the article (in prose or footnote, or however) that unlike other companies defenses are recorded by NJPW.-- T ru  c o   503 16:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than that I think its fine, they might not even be problems to the list. Afro ( Not a Talk Page ) - Afkatk 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a few minor problems which shouldn't be a trouble fixing
 * 1) "Being a professional wrestling championship, the title is won as a result of a scripted match." it feels like this statement could be changed a little bit to specify the match is predetermined.
 * 2) I think it could be mentioned in the 3rd paragraph that this was because of a pre-existing relationship between NJPW and TNA.
 * 3) in the References #1, 2, 3, 7 you've listed the site as NJPW.co. which it should be NJPW.co.jp as listed in the General references.
 * 4) References #4 and 10 you've listed as WrestleView.com and #5 and 9 its listed as WrestleView, this is minor but it's a little inconsistent.
 * All done.-- Will C  07:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support I have no problems with it. Afro  ( Not a Talk Page ) - Afkatk 07:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of the column widths still need fixing, but that can be done any time. The team name issue is about to be changed as so far the consensus at WT:PW is to list the team name fix. However, if the sorting feature for vacancies hasn't been fixes yet then it should go back to the previous template (which works much better than this format, the format in this article offers no benefits over the previous one). If this happens I will give my Support, otherwise I have to Oppose.  TJ   Spyke   22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sort issue is table. That is a design flaw in the main code, something I have nothing to do with. It does it with both formats.-- Will C  00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the widths some more. As for the tag team name discussion, that is a discussion. No new consensus established yet. If a new one is reached I will change them, but not until then. At the moment it is pretty close. Also, vacant wise, there only difference between them is the sort templates and the days held has a 0 in it, which is incorrect since they aren't reigns and if you read the key the dashes are there to not include those columns as offical reigns.-- Will C  08:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did my recent edit fix the sorting as desired? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, vacant reign column still comes after the longest reign. I tried everything from sortkey, to changing the letter or number it sorts by, to placing a days held template in the sort template. Nothing changed it. Nice try though.-- Will C  01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for kicks, what would the list look like in TJ Spyke's format (I would like to see a sandbox version if possible), and would the sorting still not work? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See List of WWE Champions, the vacant reign would be sorted within the official reigns. Just replacing the dash with a zero, though vacant columns aren't reigns; it would be just silly to add.-- Will C  23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would imagine it'd somewhat look like this as he seemed adamant at the time to maintain that format before Will brought it up to current FL standards.  Afro  ( Not a Terrible Joke ) - Afkatk 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just put in a "to and from date" that ends up in "-1" so the reign lasted from Jan 4 to Jan 3 and it sorts like it should, lower than zero.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk 11:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You MPJ, that is very helpful of you. However, I don't understand what you mean. Maybe you can point me to one of the lists you've done that has this in it so I know?-- Will C  05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did not work. New option &mdash; sorts as "0" and any 0 day reigns sort as "0.1" to fix the problem? Not that it's a problem in this list at this point in time.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk 06:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It already sorts as zero and yet still comes after the longest reign. This probably has always existsed since the days held column was introduced it seems.-- Will C  07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So very strange, I credited them with a "0 day" reign (Jan 1, 2000 to Jan 1, 2000) instead of "0" and that apparently makes a difference? don't know why, don't make sense but it sorts correctly right now in this case - so strange

Thank You MPJ, I did that before and it didn't work. Maybe you just have the magical touch.-- Will C  12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That sorting function is really odd, I guess it takes an odd man to fix an odd problem ;) glad it worked, it'd suck for that to be a problem for FL.  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk 13:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well again thank you. The list format has yet to be perfected and probably never will. Good thing is this is one less problem.-- Will C  17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And now it fullfills the "No redlinks at all" criteria ;)  MPJ-DK  (59,25% Done) Talk 19:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

While expanding the OVW Heavyweight Championship in a subpage, I discovered another problem. The fix to this one helps, but the vacant reigns come before the o day reigns. It goes 1 day, vacant, 0 day. I've worked on it and found no solution thusfar. I've tried sorting by 0.1 on the O day reigns. I've tried sorting the vacant reigns by -1 day and nothing. Would like to find a solution. Maybe you, MPJ, have some ideas?-- Will C  19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was encouraged to follow up on my comments here so that the FL process could move on. I actually did not have any objections to the article, I just tried to help Will fix the sorting problem, so in that regard I made no comments that need to be addressed in the FLC Process. So good luck with it (and I'm kinda stumped on the OVW thing myself Will).  MPJ  -DK 11:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.