Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Mexican National Light Heavyweight 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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship

Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship/archive1

Nominator(s):  MPJ-US  00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows the format and level of quality of several other Mexican wrestling championship lists that I have brought through the FLC process. This version benefitted from ever single piece of feedback I have receieved so far, ensuring that it is consistent with previous submissions and deal with certain issues up front. ...  MPJ-US  00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by PresN

Doffing my delegate hat to review.

• "From its creation in 1943 it was not promoted by one specific promotion but shared between many Mexican promotions among others Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre..." -> "Since its creation in 1943 it has not been promoted by one specific promotion but shared between many Mexican promotions. Among others, these include Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre..."

• Fixed

• "Being a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately" -> "As it is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately"

• Fixed

• "Over the following years the title was promoted by various Mexican promotions, primarily Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre but they did not assert an exclusive claim to the championship." -> "Over the following years the title was promoted by various Mexican promotions, primarily Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre, though they did not assert an exclusive claim to the championship."

• Fixed

• "La Parka / L.A. Park and Pierroth Jr. are tied for most title reigns, with four reigns, Pierroth Jr. has the shortest reign with no more than 11 days." -> "La Parka / L.A. Park and Pierroth Jr. are tied for most title reigns, with four reigns; Pierroth Jr. has the shortest reign at no more than 11 days."

• Fixed

• Note 6 says that the date when the championship was "vacated" is not known, but is that the right word? Wasn't it won by Guzman from Anaya? Vacated to me implies that there was a champion, then there wasn't.

• Fixed, quite a few of the notes were apparently copied and just had the dates updated, but some bonehead (that would be me) forgot to adjust the text. I believe I have made each not more specific to the champion it is associated with.

• Notes 7 and 8 have the same problem, except more so- 7 is about a reign that ended on an ambiguous date, while 8 is about one that started on an ambiguous date; they can't both be "vacated". This goes on for the next few notes- please come up with standardized wording.

• Fixed. As above

• In the Reigns by combined length table, reusing the same notes doesn't make sense because now the context is lacking as to which reign you're talking about out of several.

• I will take a look at the approach to notes for combined reigns, see if I can come up with a good solution to this.

• The 1951 vacation has a hyphen in the reign number column, instead of a dash like the others

• Fixed

• That's about it, since references is it's own review type now; didn't look closely at them. If you found this review helpful, consider reviewing my World Fantasy Convention Award FLC down below. --PresN 17:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: - Thank you for your feedback, I will get to your list once I figure out the best way to tackle the notes for the combined reigns list. I appreciate your input and help to make this a better article.
• I think I got it figured out, simply list the figures used whenever there is a question of how long the reign really was.  MPJ-US  22:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, Support. --PresN 22:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good list on a lesser known topic. One minor point, the PDF refs should have a page number listed where the information is found. Also that I have not performed a source check as the majority of the sources are in Spanish so I couldn't be confident that it would be valid but I accept them in good faith. Cowlibob (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your input and I have added the page number.  MPJ-US  14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Thank you for responding to my comments in a timely fashion. As a QPQ, I would appreciate it if you comment in my nomination. Not mandatory though. -- Frankie _talk 13:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you and I will look at your FL in the next day or two.  MPJ-US  14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Miyagawa

• There's a bit of repetition between the first and second paragraphs in that you explain that the title is shared across promotions including Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre. Would it be possible to rephrase the lines in the second paragraph simply to state that Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre was the main promotion using the title during the first few years, although not exclusively. I don't think you need to reiterate the shared nature so quickly after doing it the first time.

• You are right, especially since it's that close together. I have tried to reword it, is that better?  MPJ-US  22:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Image licences appear to be good. There's one which is own use rather than grabbed from Flickr, but it's such a close crop that I'm inclined to believe it.
• No issues with the table, all appears to be good. Miyagawa (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Godot13

• Initial comments (more to follow)
  • Table sort functionality looks good.
  • When you refer to promotion, do you mean the match promoters/organizers?
    • The company that the match promoters/organizers work for - like
      Professional wrestling promotion.  MPJ-US  04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • For the Days held column, would it make sense to put the actual range in the column (along with the note), but keeping the sort parameter the same as it is now?
    • I have never thought of doing that, the version used is the general format used for wrestling championships. I believe the choice was to use a note because the date ranges are so uncertain and not to lead credence to a specific number. This is the version used for all the 15 FLs I have produced and I'd hate to be inconsistent between them.  MPJ-US  04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In location, both Mexico and Mexico City are used. Do you have the city or state location for those listed only as Mexico?--Godot13 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately the entries that just list "Mexico" do not have a mores specific location listed in the sources, primarily due to limited documentation of title change itself - often newspapers would report "Luchador I defeated Luchador II on January 1, 1901" when the champion would come to town to defend the title.  MPJ-US  04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Godot13: - I hope I have answered your concerns.  MPJ-US  04:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am out of town until Saturday evening. I will go over it again by Sunday. Sorry for the delay...--Godot13 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the content of the other reviews, and your responses to my comments immediately above, I can Support this for FL.--Godot13 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'd only complain about an unreferenced sentence in the lead, but fixed that myself with something from later in the article. igordebraga ≠ 04:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: no issues as far as I could see, so:

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]