- Sorry it's taken a few days to get back to you on this but I've been busy. I see you've addressed the list and I've hidden the stuff I feel is resolved and commented or expanded on the rest.
- It is okay, I'm busy half the time these days anyway. I only get on here for a few minutes everyday now and rarely do I stay on the computer much longer than 30 minutes a day anymore. I got stuff to do, so I understand...you must be the same.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
- The link used in IWGP is not correct, missing a "d" at the end, I also question the worth of the link, how about a citation that supports it instead of linking to an unsourced statement on a page already linked to... if that makes sense?
- Fixed, covered by New Japan refs I do believe.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "it is contested for by junior heavyweight wrestlers." How about something along the line of "Only wrestlers under the Junior Heavyweight weightlimit may hold the championship" or words to that effect? Just a suggestion
- "The IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship was one of eight championships that assembled the J-Crown, or J-Crown Octuple Unified Championship for short" a few things
- How about from AUgust 5, 1996 until XXX the title was part of the..."??
- You say that "J-Crown Octuple Unified Championship" is the short version of J-Crown ;)
- I had the full name first and shorthand second to begin with. Must have forgot to remove the ending when I changed them.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "It formed on August 5, 1996" - I just got a mental image of the eight belts joing together transformer style. "it" refers to the championship and probably should be "it was formed", or created.
- Changed to created.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "is won as a result of a predetermined outcome." I'd add "to wrestling matches" or something like that.
- 2245 should be 2,245
- The tournament "to retain" and then listing the titles just doesn't read well. Why not explain that the tournament consistet of 8 champions who all put their title on the line or something along those lines?
- I don't really have much information on the title. I've checked Slam and PWTorch, and didn't come up with really anything, that is why it is vague. I'm blank on how to re-word it...any suggestions?--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "NJPW keep track of all championship title defenses per reign, which is unlike most mainstream wrestling organizations." source for that? and definition of "Mainstream" please is?
- I got none, was told to put it in during the last IWGP Title I nominated. Thought to continue it, but I can remove it. Didn't want to place it in anyway.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "the most of any former champion." should just be "any champion"
- "Guerrera's, Pegasus Kid's, and current champion Naomichi Marufuji's only reigns all have the least successful defenses, with zero" - hmmm sorting the "successful title defense" colum I see 7 reigns (one needs updating) with 0. Needs to be consistent or it needs to be crystal clear it refers to combined number of defenses.
- Oh, I went by the second table. That was meant to be total. I forgot to add single reign, I must have screwed that up.
- Active championships usually contains a section on the current champion, who he beat etc. I don't see that here.
- I told who the champion was, but not who he beat. Thought it would be redundant, and was waiting for his first defense to add that part. Will add anyway.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interest of keeping it simple why not just call it a "NJPW Show" instead of a "live event"? Everyone knows what a show is after all.
- Well NJPW Show doesn't role off the tounge. I would feel live event would be better, and also consistent with the table.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but no one calls them "live events", they're wrestling shows. In fact "Live events" would indicate that there are also "non-live events" which there aren't. MPJ -DK 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "it is assumed they have the same weight-limit"... for what? "the same weight-limit for the singles title" perhaps?
- Yes, weight limit for the title hasn't been discovered yet, but I would feel it is common sense they should have the same weight limit, seeing as some have held both titles.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please put "for the singles title" or something like that so that it's stated, not inferred. MPJ -DK 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The creation of the J-Crown is mentioned, but not the disbanding. Reading the text it appears that the J-Crown still exists.
- Check above, information isn't vast that I have found. I'll look some more.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The table now has more information on the breakup of the J-Crown, shame it's not totally reflected in the lead. MPJ -DK 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the information featured in the table a while ago to the lead.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Title changes happen mostly at NJPW-promoted events", considering how few non-NJPW title changes there has been maybe actually mention that in the text? it explains what is meant by "Mostly".
- Done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking more along the line of actually stating that reigns 36 and 37 starting on WCW Nitro due to their working relationship or something along those lines. MPJ -DK 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Main table
- "successful defenses the champions had during" - Copy and paste from Tag I think, it should just be champion.
- Sorting issues
- Juventud Guerrera should not sort by "G", it's not a last name it means "Youth Warrior"
- Pegasus Kid should not sort by K, it's not a last name
- Great Sasuke should n ot sort by S, it's not a last name as Sasuke is Japanese for Ninja
- Notes
- Note for reign 27 is in present tense
- Same for Note on 29
- And Notes for 31
- Note for 37 - maybe it should read "replaced Guerrera in the match", otherwise it's not clear what he was a replacement for.
- Notes vacated before reign 45 - "contested in a battle royal"? A new champion could be determined by a battle royal maybe? the title doesn't contest in itself, it's contested for.
- Note for 45 - Not a complete sentence.
- All done, just removed reign 45's note, it should be common sense.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Combined reigns table
- No need for the note [N 1] since none are tied
- I just hid it, it may be needed later.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting, same name sorting issues as in the main table
- NJPW may keep track of the reigns but that still means this page needs to reflect it as well, Mistico has two successful title defenses listed yet that's not what's in the list.
- Minor mistake fixed--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources
- Lead
- Outdated information - Marufuji has successfully defended the title, twice actually (on Jan 30 and on March 5). So all that information needs to be updated.
- Hadn't heard, but NJPW's site lists no defenses.--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know they don't - this is one of the dangers of just relying on the "Official source" since match results list two title defenses. More on that later. MPJ -DK 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it determines if NJPW recognizes those defenses. I'll be happy to add them, I just need references for those defenses. I'm not sure if NJPW held those events or some other company. I don't keep up with Japanese wrestling, let alone wrestling in general at all. I haven't payed attention since January to be honest. Once I get some refs to back them up, I'll place them in there with a note stating NJPW has yet to acknowledge them.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting
- Ultimo Dragon should not sort by "D", it's not a last name it means "Last Dragon"
- Vacated sorts as "V" shouldn't sort like it was held by a wrestler called "Vacated". MPJ -DK 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you suggest then? It would default sort as V, are you thinking dash instead?--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I sorted with – for vacant in my last FL. MPJ -DK 10:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but the fact that from 2000 the only real source is the company's own records is a bit of a problem for me. It's a Primary source and while it's fine in general this is "Featured List" and as such should have independent confirmation from independent thirdparty sources. There are pitfalls to the "official" story being the one being blindly presented, there could be "deliberate omissions" NJPW chosen to make? Without independent confirmation how do we know for sure?
- Well we would have to have information on that to begin with. None has been found, so that isn't our place to determine if NJPW has removed reigns on purpose. I have checked Slam bios, etc. I will see if I can find information on the January 4th shows, otherwise it is hard to find. Afterall this is a Japanese title. The only Japanese site that can be trusted at this point is just NJPW's. Sadly, this one hasn't been used in a major American promotion recently, so information is even shorter than the others.--All Done--WillC 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for now. MPJ -DK 10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "None have been found" - but you more or less admitted that you did not look very far, you would have known about the two title defenses for Marufuji if you had checked elsewhere. . Primary sources lead to problems, for instance the fact that they do not list two title defenses just highlights that point. I can sympathise with sources being hard to find, I work on Lucha Libre after all but that's not an excuse. It's pretty recent history (2000-2010) not pre-internet era, so frankly I don't see how it can be FL quality with mainly primary sources. It was delisted as an FL before for sourcing issues, so it'd be doing it a disservice to just "let it slide". If no reliable third party sources exists then maybe it's not actually a FL quality topic. My biggest problem remains the over-reliance on the NJPW sources. MPJ -DK 16:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the known reliable sources. I don't follow wrestling like I use too. Following primary sources is based on acknowledgment. If NJPW don't acknowledge something, then it wouldn't be "official" as a defense. Of course it may have happened, I just haven't been given any proof of that yet. Not my place though, you are the one presenting it and only said dates. Not names of events or what company. After I get that info I can better add that information. Well a few third party sites are used within the article, there is no guideline against primary sites being used majorly, the only thing about third party is they establish notability..though that wouldn't be a problem in this case. If I find time I'll check WrestleView's Japanese column started in early 2008. Just give me time, I'm a bit busy these days with work. I'll look tomorrow for information. Maybe I can find a magizine article of some sort. That remains me, I'll check PWI. I totally forgot about that article GaryColemanFan gave me during the tag title FLC months ago. That may hold some information. I agree on using alot of third party sources mainly, if you look at the TNA articles I've done, I use a majority of third party over primary if possible. If there was alot more information on Japanese wrestling on English sites, this article would be flooded with it. It is odd, this article's main problem is third party, when it was delisted for having third party references, but unproven references. Kind of ironic.--WillC 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NJPW.com may be the source for what "officially" happens, but that doesn't mean it did not happen if it's not acknowledged - Wikipedia is based on facts, if it happens it should be listed, if it's not "Officially recognized" then that should be noted instead of saying "It never happened". NWA WOrld title changes - not officially recognized but listed, same with the WWE title and the whole ruckus about Angle and his number of TNA World titles, "Official" is nice, but it's not "NJPWikipedia" after all ;) I know it's not easy to find sources but I also know it can be done. MPJ -DK 09:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, Wikipedia is based on facts. Been trying to get everyone to see that forever. "Official" is a strange concept. In a matter of facts, these defenses happened. I agree there. They are backed by proof. However, officially in company view, they aren't acknowledged yet it seems. So they are official yet unofficial. Some on here can't tell the difference.--WillC 05:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a little help with the two "missing title defenses"
|
