Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Royal Rumble

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 3 support, 1 oppose. Oppose was irrelevant. Promote. Crzycheetah 20:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article lends itself well to a list format, and the list is fully sourced. I feel this list meets all the FL Criteria. There is some prose at the top, so I hope that doesn't disqualify this as a list. Nikki311 23:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks good enough. The Chronic 02:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of paragraphs is all you could come with for the history of an event that has been around for two decades and has lots of potential sources out there? And I have to admit that I don't think the table looks good with every single slot having a citation. Is it possible that you could at least move a few of them to general references at the bottom? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, that's all the reliable and sourced information I could find. I did heavy research, including looking through several books (listed in the ref section). Most of the wrestling books don't really describe the match in great detail. How do you feel about moving all the citations to the notes section of the table? Nikki311 00:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the event? You could have famous matches/moments, more records (I know WWE.com has a rumble match records section) and even add comments about general reactions to past Rumble match and events. [www.slam.canoe.ca Slam] is a good source for reliable reviews, although they only go back to 1998 (and there isn't one for the 2003 Rumble). As for the table formatting, I think you should try to get as many citations out of the table as possible, and try using general references, if they are available. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Famous matches and moments is almost all speculative (and possibly original research). As for records: that leans towards trivial information in my view. The list is pretty well done now, let's not add speculation or trivia to ruin it. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this page isn't naturally a list. It should be an article but it has been instead turned into a list. That's like getting rid of a lot of the content on Troy McClure and making it a huge list of movies he's starred in. I don't like seeing articles gutted just so they can be made into lists, so I'd like to see more content on the page before I can support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The page was not gutted. You can see the article before I changed/sourced it here. I did condense the information and removed unsourcable details. The rest of the article was two lists that I merged together and trivia that I eliminated. The overall Rumble article is suited to be a list. What more do you need than a description of the match, the rewards for winning, and how the match changed over time? That is the history. The overall concept hasn't changed much. I agree with Rob, when you start adding commentary, records, and statistics is when you begin adding trivia and original research. Plus, reactions to the events and famous moments are better suited to the individual events' articles themselves. The Royal Rumble article is supposed to be an overview, how the match/pay-per-view is in general, with links to the individual events...that is why it is suited to be a list. Nikki311 03:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • In keeping with that, should something be mentioned about the fact that besides the rumble match, there are usually matches with World Titles on the line? It seems fairly important to mention that there ARE other matches besides the Rumble itself, as the article is about the Pay-Per-View and not just the match. Ad@maniac 23:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Ad@maniac
          • I agree with Adamaniac's comment. I'm going to be very busy for the next couple of days, so I probably won't get to it until Sunday (maybe before), but I will add that info into the article. Nikki311 03:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I finally got a chance to make some changes. I added some information to make it clear that the event it a pay-per-view that includes the Rumble match along with other matches, including ones where championships are on the line. I also removed most of the citations from the table and added two general references to the reference section (the first two cite all the dates, locations, and winners). I left a few citations in the table to cite the notes that the general references do not cover. Lastly, I added a little more info on the brand extension. Nikki311 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The table looks much better now without all of the individual citations, but I still would like to see the actual article lengthened. Could anything else about the actual event be added? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support- The sections to me are well explained, and the table isn't cruft or hard to read, and Nikki has worked hard and done a good job on this article for the past few weeks. TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment, First of all, I'm sorry it took me so long to respond, but I've been sick for the past couple of days and did not feel up to doing anything Wikipedia-wise that required much thought. With that said, I've expanded the article part with a little more information and some examples. I'm hesitant to add much more than that, as it will begin to sound like trivia (as mentioned in the arguments above). The basics of the match (history, rules for winning, prize, and evolution over the years) and pay-per-view have been covered. Nikki311 06:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Like Scorpion0422 above, I'm not certain this is really a list. Perhaps it could be split into "Royal Rumble" and "List of Royal Rumble winners"? In either case, could you combine the date into one field (rather than two) and make the Date, Location, City, Venue, Winner, and Winner # all sortable columns? Those last two could probably be combined as well ("#13 Stone Cold", for instance), but that's not all that important. If you do combine them, though, take a look at {{sort}}, which will help make the column sortable in the right way. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, Actually, the year in the first column isn't so much a date as a link to the respective Royal Rumble year's article. Therefore, it does lend itself to being a list as it "brings together a group of existing articles", "is a timeline of important events on a notable topic", and "contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study". The list is more about connected the individual events than about the winners themselves. The table looked like this when I nominated it, but someone changed it along the way. Which version do you prefer? Also, I was just about to log off when I noticed your post, so I'll look into sort-tables tomorrow. I've never done it before, and it might take some trial and error time. Nikki311 06:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given your comments, it really should be "List of Royal Rumble winners" - that's the collection of information from existing articles. Then the "Royal Rumble" article should have the history and other information Scorpion0422 was talking about, which is not timeline related, is less well defined and complete, and which doesn't lend itself to listify. And I still think the dates should be merged, though having links to the individual years' article is nice. My reasoning is that wikilinked partial dates like February 22 (per WP:DATE) is frowned upon - if you have the whole date, it should be wikilinked for formatting purposes, not to lead to articles. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scorpion was talking about adding information about records and reviews that are better suited for the individual years' articles. Also, as I said, the links complied to the MoS when I nominated the list, until someone changed them. I have changed the first column so it is more apparent that they are links to individual articles and the date column per the MoS. As for sort tables, I like the idea of sort tables when there is something to actually sort. I think having them for the sake of having them is a bad idea. With that said, I don't see any reason to sort the links to the other articles, as they are already in chronological order. I also don't see a need to sort the location, month/day, or venue, honestly. I do, however, think the winner and entry number might benefit from being sortable. I don't know if they can be sorted, though, as the two winners of the 1994 Rumble might throw off the formatting. I'll play with it some today and see if I can get it to work. In closing, the purpose of the table is not to just list the winners, it is to provide links to the individual articles. The list of winners, notes, entry number, date, and venue, is just part of the description. Having a separate article for the list of winners, when it could just be included in the generic Royal Rumble article (which, and I repeat, is just supposed to be a quick overview and links to the individual years), seems pointless to me. Nikki311 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • I guess I'm not being clear. Royal Rumble, if it were an actual article, could be expanded to be a real article - including information like history, fans, criticism, etc. List of winners of Royal Rumble, if it existed, would be a perfect place to link back to the articles about individual years. The way it is currently combines the two (list and article) in a way that is not useful, and (IMO) is not eligible to be a featured list.
        • As for the dates, having the year separated from the month/day is against the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If you're going to have a date, MOS says you should have the full date and you should wikilink it so it will follow the user's preference for date presentation.
        • Third, if you have *any* of the columns sorted, it makes sense to have the date sortable as well. That way if the sort order is changed, it can be changed back to date order. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First, you are being clear. I know exactly what you meant. I just disagree with you. The arguments provided by myself and RobJ above is why I disagree with you. There isn't much more to say or add to the article, and saying much more would make the article sound jumbled and confusing. I've already added more than I wanted to the prose section. A criticism about a particular event should be in that particular event's article. In doing all my research for this, I never saw any criticisms about the event as a whole and making some up would be original research. The same goes for fans, with the exception of the note about the Rumble being one of the more popular PPVs, which I included in the article. All the history is already covered.
• I've fixed the dates.
• As I've never done sort tables before, I wasn't aware that you couldn't reset from the individual columns. I've added the sort feature to the year, wrestler, and entry number. I did run into one interesting issue, though. As some of the wrestlers are listed by their names (which they wrestle under) and some are listed by their ringnames, I wasn't sure if I should use the "last name first, first name" format because several wouldn't fall under that category. Therefore, I just sorted them by the first later of their first name or ringname. What are your thoughts on this? Nikki311 00:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Take a look at {{sort}} for that issue.
• Oppose as is - this is a list and an article on the same page, which fails FL#1f, FL#2. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply, I'm concerned about precedent. It seems Lost (season 1), Lost (season 2), Lost (season 3), Vanier Cup, etc. are all FL when they can probably be split up as history related articles and lists, as well. Nikki311 07:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice list.--Crzycheetah 20:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]