Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mexican National Heavyweight Champions

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [1].

List of Mexican National Heavyweight Champions edit

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk)
Toolbox

I nominate this list for Featured List status as I believe it fullfills all the FL requirements. Several problems have been addressed after review from several helpful Wikipedians MPJ-DK (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

General comment
  • Fix the dabs (using the first tool in the toolbox at the right)
Lead
  • The Mexican National Heavyweight Championship (called the Campeonato Nacional Completo in Spanish) is a Mexican Mexican professional wrestling championship created and sanctioned by Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F. (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission). -- (1)The English name of the title should not be in italics (2)Do not link anything in the name (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission) its WP:OVERLINK and does not redirect to any relevant articles (3)Remove the second Mexican
  • 1) done, 2) Removed the wrestling link - but a definition of what "Mexico City", "Boxing" and a what a sports related "Commission" is isn't relevant? 3) doneMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No because its overlinking of common terms that a reader should be aware of already. The only link relevant would be an actual link to the commission itself--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll remove "Mexico City" & Boxing links. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 1933 until the mid-1990s, Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) had control of the championship; however, the Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA) has controlled the championship since 1996, after the commission granted them the right. -- (1)In what ways does CMLL have control over that title? (2)..granted them the right to...?
  • 1) as stated the Commission endorses it, they say "yes this is a national mexican title" and they approve champions. Everything else CMLL (and later AAA) had control over - so they have control of who wins, who challenges, which storylines it's used it, how it's promoted (in a PR sense) and everything else. They do everything but the two aspects that are explained that the COmmission did. 2) the right to control the title.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1)Since its unknown really what the control the promotion has since the control is controversial, I would add that as a footnote.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Controversial? I'll add a footnote. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*As it is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won or lost competitively but instead by the decision of the bookers of a wrestling promotion. -- Comma before but
  • The title is awarded after the chosen champion "wins" a match to maintain the illusion that professional wrestling is a competitive sport. -- (1)I would pipelink sports entertainment to "illusion"
  • Being created in 1926 means that the Mexican National Heavyweight Championship is the oldest continuously promoted wrestling title in the world. -- Well you don't know that it is created in 1926, just its documented use, so it should be restated as such.
  • Well considering you yourself objected to a phrase indicating that it may be older than from 1926 on the grounds that it was Original Research I am a bit surprised at this comment. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need accusations sir. I'm stating that that in the previous sentence you say the first documented use was in 1926 (with the possibility of being older) and in this sentence you state that it was created in 1926, which contradicts the previous sentence that states its first documented use.
  • Accusations? what the? WP:AGF and all, changed to "being created no later than". MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre (EMLL, later renamed CMLL) was founded in 1933, it was given the promotional control of the title, with the Commission only being asked to approve the champions. -- Does the Mexican commission have an acronym? If it does, the Commission should be replaced with that
  • It does not have an acronym as far as I've been able to find out.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"The current Champion, Charly Manson, is the longest reigning champion, although, there is some uncertainty over his championship status, and as a result, the longest documented reign belongs to El Médico Asesino, who held the title for 2074 days. -- Remove the quotation mark in the beginning
  • Mr. Águila holds the distinction of being the champion for the shortest amount of time with 42 days. -- Comma before with
Title history
  • I would make sure that the days held is correct.
  • Do you just want me to confirm I checked or do you see a problem? I didn't once calculate any days, I used the "time in days" template do it with start & end dates where I've reviewed it a few times to ensure I put the correct start & end dates. As far as I can see this is fine.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, because sometimes reigns that last one day or vacated reigns are not counted properly sometimes with the template.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacant titles don't have legth and the shortest reign is 42 days, I think I'm on the safe side here. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Championship reigns by combined length
  • The key should not have the Name in italics because that's not how it appears in the table itself
  • I put that so the cell wouldn't be just narrow, but I changed it.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Wrestling-titles.com is not a reliable source--₮RUCӨ 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right it's not deemed a reliable source according to WP:RS, which is why I've restricted it to one simple thing - the minimum weightlimit for the term "Heavyweight" in regards to Mexican weightdivisions, not really controversial or problematic, it's certainly been used for less sources than a lot of existing FLs on wrestling. I guess I could look for another source for this detail.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to stop comparing to old FLs, they were passed when the sourcing and FL criteria was not as strict as it is today. Wrestling-Titles.com is not reliable for weight divisions either because that information is controversial since weight divisions are scarce in pro wrestling today, and that is not verified by other reliable sources (unless you can find one). --₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failing to see the "controversy", but I'll remove the citation until I can find a reliable one. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the general ref or an official page from the promotions can verify that the title is for those weighting at least the certain weight limit can challenge for it, then that can be used instead of finding a source for the weight divisions in pro-wrestling.--₮RUCӨ 22:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a very good point, I've not read the preface sections of the book in a real long time, maybe it has a comment in there - thank you for that idea. 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • So was this done?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked but didn't find it specified in the book, I haven't found any weightlimit mentioned on Heavyweight titles in wrestling as they're generally "no weight restrictions" unlike the lower weight divisions that are only open for a narrow weight range. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how did you come up with the weight limit listed in the article?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know perfectly well how but the source was deemed "unreliable" even for something as uncontroversial that the Heavyweight division theoretically has a lower limit.MPJ-DK (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Break) Problem solved, the statement isn't there any more. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But wait, if there is a limit, then thats substantial to the article. Is there a Spanish ref that states this?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But wait"?? That's no more "substantial" to this article than any other list of heavyweight wrestling titles on Wikipedia
For point number 3, a comma isn't needed before but because the subject of the sentence does not change. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, its either or, I've seen variations of this in other FLC's that are in Brit English.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charly Manson, is the longest reigning champion, although, there is some uncertainty over his championship status" - this is not elaborated on anywhere in the article. What is the nature of this "uncertainty"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • D'oh - it was in the article before I split it, it's explained at Mexican National Heavyweight Championship but of course it should be menetioned here in some way. I'll figure out a good way to work that into it.
  • I think I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "it does not promote the events at which" "at"-->in
  • "Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) had control of the championship;" Why not "Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) controlled the championship;
  • "however, the Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA)" Not really a contradiction, just a change in ownership.
  • "Being designated as a heavyweight title"-->Because it is designated as a heavyweight title
  • "it can only be competed" Can you replace "it" with the noun you are referring to here?
  • "As it is a professional wrestling championship, it" Same "it" comment as above. "As"-->Because
  • "The earliest documented use of the Mexican National Heavyweight Title is in 1926." "is"-->was
  • "Being created no later than 1926 means that the Mexican National Heavyweight Championship is the oldest continuously promoted wrestling title in the world."-->Because it was created no later than 1926, the Mexican National Heavyweight Championship is the oldest continuously promoted wrestling title in the world.
  • "it was officially acknowledged" Who acknowledged this?
  • "Mr. Águila holds the distinction of being the champion for the shortest amount of time, with 42 days." Trim some of the peacock language: "Mr. Águila has been champion for the shortest amount of time, for 42 days."
  • Dates should not have leading 0s. For example, "September 07, 1956"-->September 7, 1956
  • Same with the numbering. 03-->3, etc.
  • The table in "List of Championship reigns by combined length" needs a symbol (e.g. *, ^, #) to accompany the color. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "List of Championship reigns by combined length" table, the "Wrestler" column does not sort properly. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right I didn't even notice when I checked first time. I added a hidden text so that it sorts on the "significant" name, so last name for guys using real names and ignoring the "El" for those that have that in their names. MPJ-DK (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I've addressed all the problems. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a different way to do notes so that it's clear what is a footnote and what is a reference, I think it works out better.MPJ-DK (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
  • "The Championship is currently vacant, possibly inactive as it has been vacant since September 13, 2006" - so is it inactive, vacant, both or neither? This sentence is extremely confusing. Also, shouldn't a line indicating its current status be added to the bottom of the list? Currently if a reader skips or skim-reads the lead and jumps straight to the list, they will think the last guy on the list is the reigning champ.
  • Well all we knew for sure when I wrote that was that it was vacant but there has been no clear cut announcement that it was inactive. I now have a source that says "it's inactive" and I changed the wording and everything to reflect this fact. Should be more clear now. And looking at it I had the source all along but forgot to fix the text! MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't view reference no 1 at work, as my firewall doesn't like it, but our own article on the AAA World Heavyweight title specifically states that Manson's National title was not on the line when he lost to Mesias in the semi-final of the tournament to crown the first AAA champion,w hich would suggest that he left the tourney with it intact. Can you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I can clarify, the other article is technically wrong. He didn't officially lose it to his opponent but it was unified in the tournament and thus inactive from the second Manson got knocked out of the tournament. the AAA Title replaced this title (and 3 others). When I get time I need to actually update the other article. The AAA source talks about the AAA HEavyweight title stating the titles it replaced. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbered refs against the last champion on the list are the wrong way round, should come in numerical order
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Sorry if I repeat anyhing that's been discussed already, if I do, feel free to slap me down. Anyhoo...

  • The title is ambiguous. When I loaded the list up I expected to see a boxing list. I got a wrestling list. Because of this I would consider renaming it to include wrestling somewhere.
  • The thing is, that's the name of the championship - nowhere in the title is the word "wrestling" mentioned so it can't really be included in the name. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on the fact that Mexican links to Lucha Libra in the lead. This isn't terribly clear as I would expect it to have linked to Mexico instead...
  • "...Title was in 1926. Because it was created no later than 1926,..." not keen again, a little repetitive, perhaps "in 1926 and as such is the oldest.."?
  • "... the promotional full control of the title,.." reads odd to me, would "...the full promotional control..." be better perhaps?
  • You have "the commission" and "the Commission" in the lead. Be consistent.
  • If the championship is now inactive, ought the lead to say "was a ... championship" rather than "is a... championship"?
  • 2074->2,074. Check the Days held column for more of this...
  • I actually don't control that, there is a template that calculates the number of days and gives the number, not sure if I can get that format to come out using that template or not but I'll have a look. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mr. Águila has been champion for the shortest amount of time.." - "amount of" is redundant, and again, ought this be "Mr Aguila was champion for the shortest time,..."?
  • Full stops or no full stops in the table. Be consistent either way.
  • I would include a statement about the deactivation and vacation of the title in the lead as a final word.
  • "Title vacated when Dantés retires" written in present tense seems a little odd - perhaps "retired" is better. Same for "dies...".
  • For Firpo Segura, you have a note as to who he defeated. Surely this information is available for a number of the more recent titles?
  • It's only mentioned when the person defeated for the title wasn't the previous champion, no note = beat the previous guy on the list. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is fine until you reorder the list....! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is true, but no other championship title list includes this and would be redundant in the format 99% of the readers se it - sorting is for when you want to look at different aspects like length or place or so on, not general comprehension. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Championship vacated for unknown reasons" don't you mean "Title vacated..."?
  • The term is used interchangeably "Title" or "Championship" isn't any difference. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised that so few of the more notable wrestlers have no articles. Just a comment really.
  • it really is a shame, Lucha Libre is not a great focus area on the English wiki pages, hopefully I'll get to make a lot of the articles in the future. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, apologies for any repeats and more so for being late to the review. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've answered the question that are quickly answered, I'll go through your notes and fix anything I haven't commented on yet.

Okay I've done the edits, I think it turned out well. I even removed the only unsourced statement on the page. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:40, 26 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Mexican_National_Heavyweight_Champions&oldid=1136094084"