Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/WCW United States 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 Matthewedwards 20:48, 2 August 2009 [1].

WCW United States Tag Team Championship

Nominator(s): Truco ₅₀₃ and ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE)

Featured list candidates/WCW United States Tag Team Championship/archive1

Well, here she is..My first list since April. Me and Blue expanded this list in about a week, and I think it turned out pretty well. To us it looks and reads fine, but we're used to it and issues can probably be found by others. Since this is my first nom in a while, I wont be surprised if I see a lot of concerns, but they will be addressed by myself or Blue quickly. Thanks in advance to any reviews.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No alt. text can be added to the image because it is an infobox inserted image. Also note that this nomination may have came a bit too soon, but stability should be no issue because this article is not touched upon daily or even monthly.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Re alt text: the infobox can be edited to add an alt text parameter. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Actually, see the documentation; there is a parameter for adding alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I didn't even notice that. Atl. text added.--Truco ₅₀₃ 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Resolved comments from MPJ-DK

There were at least 4 versions of the NWA United States Tag Team Championship in the old territory days, this is not even mentioned, nor are the three other versions linked to anywhere. with there being 4 versions frankly the name "NWA United Statest Tag Team Championship" should have been a disambiguation but if you can find a way to handle it without a disambig I could be swayed.

Do you have a source for that? I don't. Which is why I don't mention it.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that there are 3 other articles with the name on Wikipedia is the first clue, they're not the only ones either - and yes actually I do have a source "Wrestling Title Histories" tells me all about the various NWA US Tag titles from the territory age. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well those titles had no roots to this title so I added a otheruses template instead because the creation or use of those titles had no effect on this title.--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No roots but they all share a name, so "NWA Umited States Tag Team Championship" without ANY qualifiers is not the proper name for this article as it refers to other versions as well and with 3 other titles on Wikipedia and more US Tag titles out there I'm not sure huge "otheruses" template is the way to go. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, this title was not a regional championship. It was all over the country with JCP and WCW, and it wouldn't be correct to have a acronym of those 2 companies as the qualifier when the NWA controlled the title most of the time in its history. Technically, they considered this the prime NWA US Tag Team Championship, so making a dab for this would be a bit tricky, unless you have an idea. --Truco ₅₀₃ 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to know quite a bit about the subject and have several books on the subject so allow me to explain something here. this version of the US TAg Team champions was very much a regional title, it started out as the JCP US Tag and remained the JCP US Tag until it was turned into the WCW US Tag. the NWA Never recogonized ONE US Tag title, there was no "Main" title, just a bunch of regional versions, no one title being "main". Yes it's the title that grew most notable and known definitely, but it was never a "Prime" championship - the NWA had three "Prime" championships, the world singles and two lower weight class singles titles, this was always a JCP championship. There is also no indication that the NWA post-JCP recognized ONE primary US Tag title. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No "Reigns by combined length" section for either teams or individuals as is normal in wrestling championship articles.

I'm working on that now, it may take a "minute".--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Crockett Promotions was always a member of the NWA, it wasn't until Turner brought JCP and turned it into WCW that they left the NWA so mentions of "During this time, JCP was a subsidiary of the NWA" as they were always a member of the NWA.

I see no difference in wording but I changed it.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You worded it like JCP was at some point NOT a member of the NWA. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, since I wrote it I saw it otherwise I guess.--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Domino and Lewis held it four times as a team, they also held it the most times as an individual then right?

Very true, I missed that.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that only numbers should be centered

Well that's your opinion.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it certainly is. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason as to why everything shouldn't be centered, it seems a bit odd to have different alignments.--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well centering is not going to be the sticking point on this so no worries. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for team lists is that the team name is in small.

Not really, that standard was set up in the List of WCW World Tag Team Champions list, which I expanded. To me it seems better without small font, not all browsers look right with small font in the tables.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard evolves, recent FLs for team titles have had it in small, but "consistency" is just my opinion as above. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, I changed it to small font. Damn me and my small font :D--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"First activation" and "second activation" sounds wrong, perhaps use something like "version" or the likes? Activation sounds odd.

Definition of activation: To organize or create/the act of starting something Activation is fine.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, I disagree 110%. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it my opinion? --Truco ₅₀₃ 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look I never said "Activation" as a word is wrong, I just think that it's wrong in this context, I guess we'll just wait and see if anyone else comments. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Vailahi was billed as "the Barbarian", using his real name is confusing.

My bad, I missed that.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2 should sort as if it said "32 days", it does not right now.

Not necessarily, from February to May is more than 32 days. But it was sorting by April, so I fixed that, but not what you mentioned.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>Considering the column is for "Lenght" "April" isn't really a valid sort order, "Note" reigns in FLs sort by the least possible amount of days. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I meant that it was sorting by "4" instead of "5" (April instead of May), which is the correct date.--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that the numbering is switched for the second and third list so that it's the number of the current championship that's first and the overall that's in parenthesis - so WCW US Tag is 1 (12).

I don't know about that because all the overall reigns are without parenthesis, and changing that to a different format in the other tables would look odd since different formats are used. Bottom line, I think its better when one similar format is being used.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But they're not "overall" reigns when you add in the Jersey version. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean overall reigns as in (all the reigns combined, not counting the promotional differences since the title evolved from the JCP to WCW back to NWA Jersey).--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were several US Tag Team titles in the NWA is it confirmed that NWA Jersey actually continued the JCP version? and do they really recognize the WCW reigns? If not then they're a title that happens to carry the same name, but not lineage - and the WCW title is definitly NOT in the lineage of the NWA Jersey title.

I checked the title histories book and while it confirms it exists and gives the same lineage as listed here nothing indicates that it's a continuation of the JCP version of the US Tag titles. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well the Wrestling Titles Histories book is supposedly stating that the NWA Jersey revived the original NWA title and not the one with WCW lineage. Well, also IDK what you're talking about because they don't recognize the WCW reigns, and that's not what's in the article.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying that "supposedly" is wrong, I have the book. Also if the NWA Jersey branch does not recognize the WCW reigns why do you have the "total reigns" list continue on from the last of the WCW regins? MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title overall is represented as never being two different titles. When JCP sold to Turner and the WCW, it was still defended as the NWA title until Turner renamed it. But overall its still the same title. Then when NWA Jersey revived it, its still the same overall title: the number in parenthesis are just their to tell the reader how many reigns have occurred under the specific name of the title.--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing "first NWA, then WCW" I'm saying the addition of the 2nd NWA title is wrong. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Enemy has a team article, link it.

Link added.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Alright I think - I will check to see if the book actually links these two versions of the championship of if that's a solie.org creation.

They most likely are from the book because if it weren't they would have noted that different editors created the page.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before, both in the book but Solie.org were the ones that created the connection between them - that is not from the book. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? How does the book list both of these titles?--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It lists the original NWA title as beign replaced by the WCW one. It does not mention any connection to other NWA US Titles at all when it lists the NWA Jersey version, it always lists it's official "predecessor" like say WCCW Tag to USWA Tag. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot support right now. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats okay ;)--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me sort this out. The book officially states that the Jersey version is another version of the title with no connection to this one, correct? If that is so, I should create an article just for that list. Then leaving this one just at 19 reigns and ending with the WCW reigns. In addition, I can then rename this article the WCW United States Tag Team Championship, since that's what its last name was (eg. WWWF United States Tag Team Championship). With that being said, a dab can be created for NWA United States Tag Team Championship, what do you think?--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would solve all objections I have left about this list, you can turn the current name into a dab then for the ~~four~~ five different versions of the NWA US Tag title. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Okay, all done. Now, the combined reigns table summary will be published sometime tomorrow when Blue completes it. Other than that, everything is done. Wow, that was a mess to do, but thanks and apologies for any uncivil-ness of me.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't worry about it, we all share a passion for what we do or we wouldn't got for FLs, I'm confident the total reigns section is find and you have my support. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Cool. The combined reigns have been added.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wrestlinglover

Stay tuned, coming tomorrow, or whenever.--WillC 09:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be waiting ;)--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lots of cool table-work, lots of detail, but I'm worried about the references. The entirely article seems to be based upon source material from Solie.org (save a couple small notes from the Beekman book). I'm sure the information holds true, but is there really no better/other source material to confirm or build up that referencing? With all the promotional material wrestling puts out, is there no "Wrestling Encyclopedia" or something that has this information in more reliable, printed form? Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this one, it's actually mainly sourced by the book "Wrestling Title histories", the solie.org link is to provide an online version of the book, so that people without the book can check it. I think Solie.org also credits the book on the pages linked to. So it's a very reliable and thoroughly researched source (the book) with a "courtesy link" added. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could the book ref be included as well, just as something for Wiki-browsers to investigate for a printed source? See CMLL World Heavyweight, CMLL World Light Heavyweight, IWGP Heavyweight, etc? Some, like PWG World Tag (though this one has TONS of specific citations), simply list Solie but I really think a redundant print source would be nice to at least keep listed in the article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Way to make myself look dumb for not checking - i thought it was the book ref, I gave the author the details to use "cite book" (if I didn't I can). MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 02:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nah, the book source is included under the specific refs, it just seems like it's worth listing under general if it is ultimately the source material for Solie anyways. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry for the late replies. The main reason why there are little specific refs is because this title is a former championships that existed well over 10 years ago, and because the company which owned the title does not exist anymore, we are limited to resources. The book ref listed is just sourcing some specific information about the history of the NWA (such as Crockett, Jr. being NWA President). I added, however, the main book ref from Wrestling Title Histories under the general refs.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for that, guys, makes all the difference IMO. The tables are great, just wanted to ensure they were reliable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"Since it's establishment". Remove apostrophe.

Done.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen (en dash?) for "JCP promoted"?

Done.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commas before and after "The Barbarian and Dick Slater".

Done.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"while the Fantastics's...". Remove s at the end and move apostrophe before the parenthetical stuff?

Done. I left the apostrophe after the parenthesis because it would look odd for something like The APA's (Farooq and Bradshaw) last chance, instead of The APA (Farooq and Bradshaw)'s last chance. The latter reads more like The APA/Farooq and Bradshaw's last chance.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Table: Date row has one entry not centered.

Done.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second table: Typo in "WresteWar".

Done.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combined team reigns table: Sorting from most combined days to fewest is way off. Same applies for the individual table.

Done. I can't believe I didn't notice that.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p. for single-page citations, not pp. Also get an en dash in the page range.

Done.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are there no categories? Giants2008 (17–14) 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking myself the same thing, added.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Seems to be up to the level of the other wrestling title lists that have been streaming through FLC lately. Nice to see one of the older titles getting some attention. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

* Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Done. I missed them when I added the new tables.--Truco ₅₀₃ 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

The hatnote at the top is unwieldly and is redundant. Use {{otheruses}}.
"American-based"—based in "American"? No, you mean "U.S.-based" or "United States–based".
"The Barbarian and Dick Slater, of the titles " "the"-->their
"Overall, there were 19 reigns among 15 different tag teams that all occurred in the United States."-->Overall, there were 19 reigns among 15 tag teams, all of which occurred in the United States.
"The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain, the shortest possible length is used." This is a comma splice. You have two options: 1)Use a semicolon ("The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain; the shortest possible length is used.") 2)use a comma and a logical connector ("The exact length of at least one title reign is uncertain, so the shortest possible length is used."). Personally, I much prefer the second, as it flows better and makes more sense.
Footnotes 2, 3 and 4: "The exact date" Add "on which" after this. Remove "where" in footnote two.
Footnotes 2, 3 and 4: "placing" is not a good verb, because it sounds like someone actually "placed" their reign in that range. Suggest "is not known, which means that [italics are mine for emphasis, don't actually use them] their reign lasted between $number and $number days". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done all based on your suggestions. Thanks for the review.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.