Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of TNA Television Champions/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 not promoted by Dabomb87 00:14, 21 August 2011 [1].

List of TNA Television Champions edit

Nominator(s): --WillC 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to make two topics about TNA Championships. One about the reigns and one about the titles. All current title lists are done except this one. Then there are a few more from TNA's past but they need alot of work. So here is this one. The topics are located here (reigns) and here (championships); this may explain better.--WillC 14:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"who unveiled and declared himself the first champion on the October 23, 2008 episode of Impact!." Doesn't say what he unveiled. I assume it was the title, but that isn't clear now.
- Fixed--WillC 06:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"at the tapings of the May 26 episode of Impact Wrestling to win the title." If there was only one taping, "tapings" shouldn't be plural.
- Fixed--WillC 06:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Names mini-table, the em dashes should be smaller en dashes per MoS.
- Fixed--WillC 06:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reign 11: Dash in "three–way" should just be a regular old hyphen.
- It actually was a hyphen from what it seemed.--WillC 06:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did we ever establish whether Solie.org was a reliable source. As I remember, the parts of it from a published book were fine as convenience links, but the rest was questionable.
- At this stage it is only here out of habit, but due to the recent history of the title, I'd assume since it gets its information from books, etc that it would be reliable. Afterall, it isn't really the main ref, eventhough it is a general reference, since everything is so easily to source at this stage.--WillC 06:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4 has a capitalized "YR." in the title that is needlessly in all caps.
- Fixed--WillC 06:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 19 has a hyphen which should be an en dash. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Fixed--WillC 06:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose no need at all to split from the main (tiny) article of TNA Television Championship. Suggest nominator withdraws as this is a clearcut abuse of 3b. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the same pattern as the rest of the articles. Also, the TV Title article needs to be rewritten as there is more that can be included into it. It can easily be made to be at the same size as TNA World Tag Team Championship or TNA Women's Knockout Championship. As well as it was agreed at WT:PW that once the history exceeds 10 reigns, it is to be broken off into a list. Isn't anything different from this and the others I've done honestly. Just recently the belt designs section was removed in the TV article because the title belt design today was conflicted.--WillC 07:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's not about what other articles have done in the past, it's about whether this is capable of being a standalone list, given the paucity of the main article. My opinion is that it cannot. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with that is it is pick and choose, considering the other articles have the same format as this one, and this one was based off those. I did that for consistency purposes. If those pass, this one should pass. Large enough the article passed a GA review. If it is large enough to pass a GA review, I would assume the main article is fine, while this one meets the agreement at WT:PW and is fully sourced. It is also the same size at the most recent passed List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions. No difference in this one than those.--WillC 22:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not pick and choose, it's whether the list should be separated from the main article or not. The main article is small and there's no good reason to split the list out to a separate article. I have little or no interest in what WT:PW say, this is FLC. Having said all that, of course this is just my opinion, and I'm sticking with it until I see a better reason than "others are 'like' this and have passed". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good reason: Article needs re-expansion. Main article passed GAN with table, so some information was left out. Article passed GAN in 2009, has not been expanded since.--WillC 23:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I'll withdraw the oppose when the main article is re-expanded sufficiently to enable this list to be standalone. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I shall begin re-expansion as soon as I can.--WillC 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Let me know when you're done, good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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