- Preliminary review started, I will finish up later.
The date format in the citations is not the same as in the text, it all needs to be the same format.
Why include a bunch of "general references" when they're basically repeated by sources 13 through 62??
- The general refs are the selected pages, the others are direct links that are from the title history page. I was thinking, the more refs the better.--
Will
C
16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
-
-
-
- Adding "#Reign2" to the end does not make it a different URL, just a different point on the page.
MPJ-DK
(No Drama) Talk
15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Any change in code makes the url different. Different urls here. I'm willing to remove the extra refs, I just feel general refs and exact refs are more helpful than just one by itself. Maybe we should get a third opinion?--
Will
C
03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm sorry but "/Index.html" and "/Index.html#Bookmark" is not a different url, it's the same page one just jumps down a little.
MPJ-DK
(No Drama) Talk
04:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Instead of debating about it forever, I just went ahead and removed some of them, but not all of them. Because the ones I have left are used twice, are used for vacant reigns, or are used for special situations. I feel that is an ok compromise.--
Will
C
07:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
*Team title lists do not sort on the name of the team / wrestler.
-
-
-
-
- Never been pointed out here, and I've brought numberous lists, with 4 of them being tag teams.--
Will
C
15:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Hmm, alrighty.
- Okay, I know you are just trying to help. But considering a requirment is sorting and this problem has never come up before, I would rather not do something risky for no reason.--
Will
C
03:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
There is no need to put (1) next to someone's name, the "reign" colum covers that, in fact it's only added if the individuals total does not match the team's total ex. reign five, Maeda should be listed as (2) while Takada shouldn't have (1) next to him at all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Will please don't be intentionally obtuse, who says the standard hasn't changed? Seriously? You think that because you did something ONE time in ONE article because you like it the standard is changed? Well I guess I can't change your mind here, I'll just leave it at that.
MPJ-DK
(No Drama) Talk
04:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Not trying to be stubborn or difficult, but I feel doing it for all reigns helps more than it hurts. And could be the beginning of a change. I don't see how it hurts.--
Will
C
07:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
Event names should be in italics
-
- Same way TV show names are in italics.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The crufty "Successful defenses" colum makes the name colums too narrow and hard to read.
-
-
Reign 48, the note is not really relevant to the actual reign.
- Actually it does since they are supposedly no longer seen as the undisputed world tag champs. Now there are two titles. It is also mentioned on New Japan's site under their reign.--
Will
C
16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
Reign 49 - the date should be the date they're recognized as champions, not "interim champions", it's not the "IWGP Interrim Tag Team Champioship" list after all.
- They won the titles on that date. To be correct the date should be the day they began their reign then noted what day they are recognized as the official champions.--
Will
C
16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
-
-
-
Regin 52 & 53 - No need to repeat large parts of the note back to back, I think we all got it the first time it was mentioned.
Reign 52, is "unofficially" 198 days long, indicate official length too please
- New Japan recognize them losing it on July 21, 2009. Everything is official there.
Reign 53 is "Unofficially" 35 days long, indicate official length too please
Successful reigns sort with — between 0 and 1, that's not right.
-
- So it's always been wrong in your lists, never been a problem in mine.
-
-
- I see the problem you sort — as a "00", just like "0" sorts as "00" and thus it ends up listing the number before the character as both are "00", if you sort — by say "z" or something it should clear the problem up for you.
MPJ-DK
(No Drama) Talk
15:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
Something is odd with this sentence "NJPW does not recognize nor sanction the title defense nor lost;" - they can't "reconize the lost".
The championship indicator in the combiend reigns should be next to the "British Invasion" not their names, it goes on the top line.
Reference five does not support any kind of weightlimit for the Junior Heavyweight title unless my translator is broken.
-
-
There is no support for NJPW listing the Tag titles as "Heavyweight" division from what I can see.
-
- Oh yes then it's okay it's "class" not division. Come on Will don't be intentionally obtuse, there is nothing to support the "Heavyweight" part.
- It clearly says "IWGP Heavy Weight Class" in the bar above the image of the titles on the
history page. This article doesn't say division or only fought for by heavyweights. It allows the reader to decide what they think from it.--
Will
C
11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
Title has also been defended in CMLL in Mexico, should be mentioned for completeness.
-
-
- 1)
luchablog.com, referenced to CMLL Pages that no longer exists
- 2)
CageMatch.net Super Viernes September 30, 2005
- 3) SuperLuchas staff (January 3, 2006). "2005 Lo Mejor de la Lucha Mexicana". SuperLuchas (in Spanish). p. 20–21. issue 140. - a "Year in review" lucha magazine that mentions the IWRG title being defended in Mexico.
repeated mentions of "at a NJPW Live event" is repetitive and pointless - it's been stated that it only took place at a Non-NJPW event once, no need to mention which event it was unless it was a named marquee event.
"lengths add up to 1566" 1566 what? also should be 1,566.
"Those seven reigns tally up to 816 days, however this is the third highest. " however is not really appropriate here.
For a lead that summarizes the list you don't need to mention all 11 reigns, that's what the list is for. Over the top.
-
-
- Okay, I was going to remove some characters but then remembered that once The British Invasion lose the titles, the last paragraph will be removed completely, which will cut it down quite a bit. Is that okay?--
Will
C
11:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
reply
|