This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of WWE 24/7 Champions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Article content cannot be sourced by something in the "External links" sction, has to be a reference, inline in this case to match the general citation style. MPJ-DK ( talk) 13:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Right now the list repeatedly indicates which brand a wrestler belongs to. IMO that is unncessary and makes the "Notes" column unwieldy. May I suggest two alternatives:
I prefer the second option. Not only is it much simpler but as of now, brand allegiance has never played any role in rivalries, so why do we need to include it here. The championship is not about the silly Raw vs. Smackdown trope but about a couple of undercarders obsessively running after a belt. Str1977 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually no, there wouldn't need to be a consensus. As there never was a consensus to begin with that any of it is important. Normal functions doesn't mean consensus. For years, editors have tried to add absolutely everything possible to the notes section. Alot of it isn't even relevant or important at all. First reign note really just has to say Foley laid the belt in the ring and Titus picked up. It says all of the actual relevant information. Stating No Way Jose was there doesn't add anything other than trivia. Melina being referee doesn't change the title reign in anyway. Those are trivia notes and ip editors and newer ones have always thought they were needed. Basically due to wanting this due to fancruft. Usually, when a committee looks at the articles, they get removed as unnecessary.-- Will C 17:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need to have sentences like this in articles, let alone in tables? English has variations in syntax or even pronouns to avoid such monstrosities. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC) PS. @ JDC808:, this what you're reverting to. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering if ordering all the reigns that lasted less than a day by time is what should happen since it isn't noted anywhere by WWE or anywhere on the article itself. I think ordering by alphabetical would be better since that is what happens on most other articles regarding reigns that last less than a day. Also I would think someone watching and recording how long each title reign lasted would be OR but happy to be corrected on this thanks. Browndog91 ( talk) 08:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
If two or more wrestlers are tied in days, priority is given in this order: most reigns, most successful defenses, alphabetical.Successful defenses does not apply here, so resigns then alphabetical - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 21:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I may be wrong here, but shouldn't the 24/7 title be formatted like how the Hardcore title is? For the latter title, reigns that last less than a day are organized alphabetically, not by number of reigns. Should the Hardcore title format be updated to follow the current 24/7 format? Or vice-versa? Dakota.952 ( talk) 23:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There were actually 54 days before R Truth won the title on last week's Raw. 176.36.57.234 ( talk) 23:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello I was wondering if Jinder Mahal and Mike Kanellis should be ranked separately or with the other wrestlers that have held the title less than 1 day? The way it is now Jinder and Mike are ranked as equal 5th and the others are all equal 6th, should it be that all the people who have held the title less than one day be all equal 5th? Browndog91 ( talk) 07:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I feel like it looks best this way. Shouldn't multiple time champions be ranked higher then the rest of people that held it for five minutes? StaticVapor message me! 20:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. The title is strange, I know. However, this is something it's very strange. The event section is for the event. Like TV show, PPVs, special cards. But it's something that aren't events in the title. Golfing session, a flight to arabia saudi, Drake Maverick's hotel room, Inside of an stadium, outside the arena. These are not events, are locations. There is no event called "Drake Maverick's room", it's a Location. (In fact, the information about the hotel room is in the notes section "Took place in Drake Maverick and his wife, Renee Michelle's hotel room.") Do you think we should include to Location and Notes? We can leave the event as N/A and the location or Note as "Inside of Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, TN" / . -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
R truth is 17 time 24/7 champion Abhishek Gandha ( talk) 15:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
176.36.57.234 ( talk) 20:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Why Ted DiBiase is listed as "The Million Dollar Man"? It's his nickname, not a ring name. His ring name is Ted DiBiase. 176.36.57.234 ( talk) 23:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
On 7 november, 2022 episode of raw, after winning the title Nikki seemingly tried to trash the championship(although she failed miserealy). so does that mean its retired or defunct? what do ya think? 223.233.63.129 ( talk) 14:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
When you go to the page for the title, it lists this.
[1] https://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/24-7-championship
Says that Dana is the champion and it's still tracking days for her. Evil Yugi ( talk) 01:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of WWE 24/7 Champions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Article content cannot be sourced by something in the "External links" sction, has to be a reference, inline in this case to match the general citation style. MPJ-DK ( talk) 13:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Right now the list repeatedly indicates which brand a wrestler belongs to. IMO that is unncessary and makes the "Notes" column unwieldy. May I suggest two alternatives:
I prefer the second option. Not only is it much simpler but as of now, brand allegiance has never played any role in rivalries, so why do we need to include it here. The championship is not about the silly Raw vs. Smackdown trope but about a couple of undercarders obsessively running after a belt. Str1977 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually no, there wouldn't need to be a consensus. As there never was a consensus to begin with that any of it is important. Normal functions doesn't mean consensus. For years, editors have tried to add absolutely everything possible to the notes section. Alot of it isn't even relevant or important at all. First reign note really just has to say Foley laid the belt in the ring and Titus picked up. It says all of the actual relevant information. Stating No Way Jose was there doesn't add anything other than trivia. Melina being referee doesn't change the title reign in anyway. Those are trivia notes and ip editors and newer ones have always thought they were needed. Basically due to wanting this due to fancruft. Usually, when a committee looks at the articles, they get removed as unnecessary.-- Will C 17:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Do we really need to have sentences like this in articles, let alone in tables? English has variations in syntax or even pronouns to avoid such monstrosities. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC) PS. @ JDC808:, this what you're reverting to. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Just wondering if ordering all the reigns that lasted less than a day by time is what should happen since it isn't noted anywhere by WWE or anywhere on the article itself. I think ordering by alphabetical would be better since that is what happens on most other articles regarding reigns that last less than a day. Also I would think someone watching and recording how long each title reign lasted would be OR but happy to be corrected on this thanks. Browndog91 ( talk) 08:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
If two or more wrestlers are tied in days, priority is given in this order: most reigns, most successful defenses, alphabetical.Successful defenses does not apply here, so resigns then alphabetical - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 21:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I may be wrong here, but shouldn't the 24/7 title be formatted like how the Hardcore title is? For the latter title, reigns that last less than a day are organized alphabetically, not by number of reigns. Should the Hardcore title format be updated to follow the current 24/7 format? Or vice-versa? Dakota.952 ( talk) 23:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There were actually 54 days before R Truth won the title on last week's Raw. 176.36.57.234 ( talk) 23:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello I was wondering if Jinder Mahal and Mike Kanellis should be ranked separately or with the other wrestlers that have held the title less than 1 day? The way it is now Jinder and Mike are ranked as equal 5th and the others are all equal 6th, should it be that all the people who have held the title less than one day be all equal 5th? Browndog91 ( talk) 07:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I feel like it looks best this way. Shouldn't multiple time champions be ranked higher then the rest of people that held it for five minutes? StaticVapor message me! 20:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi. The title is strange, I know. However, this is something it's very strange. The event section is for the event. Like TV show, PPVs, special cards. But it's something that aren't events in the title. Golfing session, a flight to arabia saudi, Drake Maverick's hotel room, Inside of an stadium, outside the arena. These are not events, are locations. There is no event called "Drake Maverick's room", it's a Location. (In fact, the information about the hotel room is in the notes section "Took place in Drake Maverick and his wife, Renee Michelle's hotel room.") Do you think we should include to Location and Notes? We can leave the event as N/A and the location or Note as "Inside of Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, TN" / . -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
R truth is 17 time 24/7 champion Abhishek Gandha ( talk) 15:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
176.36.57.234 ( talk) 20:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Why Ted DiBiase is listed as "The Million Dollar Man"? It's his nickname, not a ring name. His ring name is Ted DiBiase. 176.36.57.234 ( talk) 23:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
On 7 november, 2022 episode of raw, after winning the title Nikki seemingly tried to trash the championship(although she failed miserealy). so does that mean its retired or defunct? what do ya think? 223.233.63.129 ( talk) 14:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
When you go to the page for the title, it lists this.
[1] https://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/24-7-championship
Says that Dana is the champion and it's still tracking days for her. Evil Yugi ( talk) 01:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)