Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/IWGP 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 The Rambling Man 18:18, 12 September 2009.

IWGP Tag Team Championship

 * Nominator(s): Will  C  14:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Satoshi Kojima is red-linked when it shouldn't be. --Numyht (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Support - Although you need to let Me move stuff into the resolved box or at least respond before you do.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Preliminary review started, I will finish up later.
 * The date format in the citations is not the same as in the text, it all needs to be the same format.
 * Fixed.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why include a bunch of "general references" when they're basically repeated by sources 13 through 62??
 * The general refs are the selected pages, the others are direct links that are from the title history page. I was thinking, the more refs the better.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if it actually is more, the same reference 3 times is not the same as 3 references.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on what is considered the same reference. Same links or different links. They all have different links.-- Will C  11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They're the same links when they go to the same page, fairly simple.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not actually, they all have different urls.-- Will C  15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding "#Reign2" to the end does not make it a different URL, just a different point on the page.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any change in code makes the url different. Different urls here. I'm willing to remove the extra refs, I just feel general refs and exact refs are more helpful than just one by itself. Maybe we should get a third opinion?-- Will C  03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but "/Index.html" and "/Index.html#Bookmark" is not a different url, it's the same page one just jumps down a little.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 04:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of debating about it forever, I just went ahead and removed some of them, but not all of them. Because the ones I have left are used twice, are used for vacant reigns, or are used for special situations. I feel that is an ok compromise.-- Will C  07:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * *Team title lists do not sort on the name of the team / wrestler.
 * All names sort on the second word of each name, however the team names do not use the sort template.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be sortable at all.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How so? That is one of the requirements, is for the list to be sortable.-- Will C  11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been pointed on in a couple of FLs (Mex Trio, CMLL Tag, CMLL Trios).  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Never been pointed out here, and I've brought numberous lists, with 4 of them being tag teams.-- Will C  15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, alrighty.
 * Okay, I know you are just trying to help. But considering a requirment is sorting and this problem has never come up before, I would rather not do something risky for no reason.-- Will C  03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need to put (1) next to someone's name, the "reign" colum covers that, in fact it's only added if the individuals total does not match the team's total ex. reign five, Maeda should be listed as (2) while Takada shouldn't have (1) next to him at all.
 * To make sure everything is clear. This way people do not wonder if that is a mistake or not. Besides, only editors know what you just said.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So against the standard.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who says the standard is correct?-- Will C  11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I guess FLs don't have to hold to the standard of the subject then.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The standard can change/be updated.-- Will C  15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it definitly can... but it isn't so right now.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who says?-- Will C  03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Will please don't be intentionally obtuse, who says the standard hasn't changed? Seriously? You think that because you did something ONE time in ONE article because you like it the standard is changed? Well I guess I can't change your mind here, I'll just leave it at that.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 04:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be stubborn or difficult, but I feel doing it for all reigns helps more than it hurts. And could be the beginning of a change. I don't see how it hurts.-- Will C  07:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Event names should be in italics
 * Where is the rule for this? Only tv shows among other things should be like that. Never heard of plain event titles be like that.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Same way TV show names are in italics.
 * But this is not a tv show.-- Will C  11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * it's not just tv shows that are in italics, it's titles in general (not wrestling titles but book titles etc.). But whatever, I'm not going to argue with you, said my piece and I'm leaving it at that.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, just trying to be correct. It mentioned nothing about regular event titles the last time I looked.-- Will C  15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the rules specifically mention wrestling events ;)  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They don't, but I was speaking of events period. sports, plays, etc. Any type of event.-- Will C  03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Manual of Style (titles) on Italics - for certain categories of titles. I'm sure you'll argue that it doesn't say "wrestling events" but it does say the following "Feature-length films and documentaries / Multi-episode television serials" which is where wrestling PPVs falls IMO.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 08:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just mentioned it at WT:PW. Get a group opinion, since this effects all articles.-- Will C  08:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 08:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Unindent) Not resolved despite being put into the "resolved box", but not enough of an issue for me to oppose on this by itself.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The crufty "Successful defenses" colum makes the name colums too narrow and hard to read.
 * Probably fixed.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't really see the difference.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 01:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cloumn is now at 23% instead of 18. I changed it too 26 to see if that makes anymore of a difference-- Will C  11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reign 48, the note is not really relevant to the actual reign.
 * Actually it does since they are supposedly no longer seen as the undisputed world tag champs. Now there are two titles. It is also mentioned on New Japan's site under their reign.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reign 49 - the date should be the date they're recognized as champions, not "interim champions", it's not the "IWGP Interrim Tag Team Champioship" list after all.
 * They won the titles on that date. To be correct the date should be the day they began their reign then noted what day they are recognized as the official champions.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No they did not win the title on that date, they won the "Interrim" title on that date, not the same thing.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 18:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should take this to WT:PW to see which is better to do.-- Will C  11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You do that.
 * Okay.-- Will C  15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regin 52 & 53 - No need to repeat large parts of the note back to back, I think we all got it the first time it was mentioned.
 * It effects both reigns though. Removed anyway, it is just redundant.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reign 52, is "unofficially" 198 days long, indicate official length too please
 * New Japan recognize them losing it on July 21, 2009. Everything is official there.
 * Reign 53 is "Unofficially" 35 days long, indicate official length too please
 * Above note. They recognize them winning on July 21.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Successful reigns sort with &mdash; between 0 and 1, that's not right.
 * The same way it has always been done. I don't know why to change it.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So it's always been wrong in your lists, never been a problem in mine.
 * I took that format from other FLs. Not sure why it doesn't work or how to fix it.-- Will C  11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the problem you sort &mdash; as a "00", just like "0" sorts as "00" and thus it ends up listing the number before the character as both are "00", if you sort &mdash; by say "z" or something it should clear the problem up for you.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 15:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, done.-- Will C  15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Something is odd with this sentence "NJPW does not recognize nor sanction the title defense nor lost;" - they can't "reconize the lost".
 * Fixed.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The championship indicator in the combiend reigns should be next to the "British Invasion" not their names, it goes on the top line.
 * Think you got that sentence backwards, "it should be next to their names, not the team name".-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference five does not support any kind of weightlimit for the Junior Heavyweight title unless my translator is broken.
 * Translation must be broken.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes a joke instead of an actual answer. The page does not mention a weight limit.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 01:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What joke? Please don't be a dick today MPJ. Mine mentioned one. Anyway, fixed.-- Will C  11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no support for NJPW listing the Tag titles as "Heavyweight" division from what I can see.
 * Heavyweight class, like it says. I didn't say division.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes then it's okay it's "class" not division. Come on Will don't be intentionally obtuse, there is nothing to support the "Heavyweight" part.
 * It clearly says "IWGP Heavy Weight Class" in the bar above the image of the titles on the history page. This article doesn't say division or only fought for by heavyweights. It allows the reader to decide what they think from it.-- Will C  11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Title has also been defended in CMLL in Mexico, should be mentioned for completeness.
 * Got any proof? I didn't find any for that statement.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I do.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I got three sources for you, 2 online sources that may not meet the "Reliable source" requirement and a magazine source that definitly does.
 * 1) luchablog.com, referenced to CMLL Pages that no longer exists
 * 2) CageMatch.net Super Viernes September 30, 2005
 * 3) - a "Year in review" lucha magazine that mentions the IWRG title being defended in Mexico.
 * Done.-- Will C  15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * repeated mentions of "at a NJPW Live event" is repetitive and pointless - it's been stated that it only took place at a Non-NJPW event once, no need to mention which event it was unless it was a named marquee event.
 * I mentioned NJPW event twice in the whole article I see. I removed one.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "lengths add up to 1566" 1566 what? also should be 1,566.
 * Done.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Those seven reigns tally up to 816 days, however this is the third highest. " however is not really appropriate here.
 * Fixed.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For a lead that summarizes the list you don't need to mention all 11 reigns, that's what the list is for. Over the top.
 * I'm trying to get it big enough for a DYK. I lack around 135 characters to 900 to pass the 5x mark.-- Will C  14:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see, well my objection to it stands, no matter the reason.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, article quality is more important than trying to meet a certain mark so you can put a list up for DYK. T:TDYK isn't lacking in nominations. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I was going to remove some characters but then remembered that once The British Invasion lose the titles, the last paragraph will be removed completely, which will cut it down quite a bit. Is that okay?-- Will C  11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I removed some info that was not needed. After the Brits lose the belts, the final section will be cut. So is that okay for now?-- Will C  06:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * More to come.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 14:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay.-- Will C  16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no more to come right now, I don't have time and I don't want to hold up the process.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk 15:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for your comments.-- Will C  15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all comments resolved. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose A lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. Not the article, itself. I can't support until the lead is moved to a "History" section, and the lead is used the proper way, as a summary of the article.  iMatthew  talk  at 14:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it better now?-- Will C  05:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not, you didn't do what I requested. I said move the history to it's own section, and make the lead a summary of the article. I didn't say remove information from it...  iMatthew  talk  at 02:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't like the idea of a history section, but I went ahead and did one.-- Will C  03:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the lead is still too long. The information in the lead needs to be shortened to a summary of the championship, and a summary of it's history, and maybe a summary of it's appearance. The rest of the information up there should be moved to the history section or removed if it's not notable enough to be moved.  iMatthew  talk  at 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I cut the lead down to match other Featured Lists of this kind. I hope and believe that should be enough to change your mind seeing as this has pretty much been the unspoken consensus on format with titles.-- Will C  23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, the second paragraph seems unappealing to readers in terms of length. Split it into two paragraphs or re/move more information.  iMatthew  talk  at 23:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How about now?-- Will C  00:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. You know what? I'll give the article a full review sometime this week.  iMatthew  talk  at 01:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you will be more exact, we can fix this problem now.-- Will C  01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Issues above resolved. Not supporting as I'm still not sure this is an example of Wikipedia's best work. Not opposing because it's better now than it was before.  iMatthew  talk  at 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.