Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of current champions in WWE

List of current champions in WWE
I submitted WWE Championships as a featured topic, initially using the category as the main article, only to find out not only do I need a lead article, but it has to be at least GA, if not FA status. Therefore, I whipped this list together, put some pictures on it, and am now submitting it as an FL. It's got sources for all the wrestlers; they're taken from the individual title lists. Also, I have pictures for everyone except two wrestlers, since no free images exist for them and there's not really good enough fair use rationale to please the image Gestapo on this site. So I hope this will suffice; if anything further needs to be done, please let me know. The nomination for featured topic is pending, though only a few hours older than this one, so hopefully there will not be any conflicts. Anthony Hit me up... 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - are the flags really needed? Do the notes need to be tiny? I would also suggest against using state abbreviations. --Golbez 21:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nikki311 02:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: The notes are a bit out of context; it should probably include who they defeated to win the title. In particular Hornswoggle's note only lists the other challengers, which is fine for the Cruiserweight title list but needs to be elaborated in this situation. Same for all the others. --MarcK 06:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "notes" listing needs a lot more space considering their content is going to be much larger than any other part of the listings. –– Lid(Talk) 11:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For one thing, there's not too much more information to be included in the Notes. I also made the "C" in Champions lower-case because as someone pointed out, the capital C refers only to the WWE Championship; this is about all titles, and so no capital is needed. Anthony Hit me up... 13:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The John Morrison note is expanding its listing to exceedingly long proportions and is nearly impossible to read easily because of the lack of space. –– Lid(Talk) 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've got my monitor at 1600x1200, so I guess it looked fine to me. What's your res at?  There should be a standard for the site (nothing against you, but I've noticed a lot of articles get into edit wars over size).  If someone with a smaller, more common res wants to edit the page so it looks OK on, say, 1024, that'd be fine. Anthony Hit me up... 15:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Davnel03 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You're going to need to remove all those images of the wrestlers with the belts. That's not fair use, I'm certain of it. See this for more info. Also, all dates should be linked. And i don't think you need the sentence on what is contained in each field. Hmm. At the moment, I'm going to have to Oppose. --SteelersFan UK06 02:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, those are all free images, or at least the description pages say so. --MarcK 02:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Aah, ok, sorry some of them looked like they weren't free use, i didn't bother to check though. I think they should be resized so that each field isn't random sizes though <:-| --SteelersFan UK06 05:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, there isn't a single belt visible in any of the images; they're only of the wrestlers. Secondly, please look at the image before jumping to conclusions that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's ridiculous fair-use policy (which I have massive problems with but won't get into here).  As far as disrupting the table size, that I don't have a problem with, and it is on THOSE grounds and those grounds ONLY that I am removing the images. Anthony Hit me up... 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixable oppose - lead is shortish, table columns should be of consistent width, and I think images should go away because they just throw the whole table balance away. I know only one case when tall images look ok in tables - it's when they are in the first column. But this particular table requires that the first column would be the campionship name. Renata 05:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree regarding the images. Maybe just one in the lead (with a longer caption) would be enough. Circeus 17:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed images from the table & threw one in the lead, which I expanded & fixed up a bit. It does look better, IMHO. Anthony Hit me up... 19:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks better with the images removed. The list is just fine. DSachan 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think there should be some deliberation on the title of the article as there is one more article 'List of WWE champions' and this one is 'List of current WWE champions', although when one reads through the article, the difference gets clear but still it creates some confusion in the beginning. An idea might be to rename it to 'List of current winners of WWE championships'. - DSachan 14:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong' Support but nit-pick Comment I will do it myself but I think the wrestlers who are champions there needs to be a link to there WWE superstars page which will give you all the information. I feel that the date won number of times won also needs references but if you add a link to all the superstars pages then it saves adding all them ref's. I will do it myself if I have time.  Everlast 1910 09:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Everlast  1910 09:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Sorry for the whitespace. I didn't expect the Tableof Content to reappear an fill in the blank space. Circeus 14:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't even think this is notable for a page, let alone a featured list. Biggspowd 01:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Biggspowd's page he has been blocked for three months. So how can we get an answer for his point of view? Everlast 1910 10:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not part of the featured list criteria. –– Lid(Talk) 13:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the block length has been lowered to a week, the reason given being vandalism. –– Lid(Talk) 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Biggspowd, this is an unactionable opposition made in the entirely wrong forum. If it's not notable, nominate it for deletion insetadof disrupting other legitimate processes. Circeus 17:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support what more can I say. MPJ-DK 16:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)