Jump to content

Talk:List of WWE Champions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of WWE Champions is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 3, 2007Featured list candidatePromoted
September 1, 2007Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

Unrecognised championships

[edit]

Didn't Rob Van Damn win the belt one night only for it to be reverted ala Chris Benoit?(Halbared 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)) Yes he did, just found it in a wreslting magazine. Rob beat Undie, on RAW, but the magazine does not have any dates, anyone help with this? The decision was quashed, the match restarted.(Halbared 16:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

If your referring to the reign I'm thinking of, then RVD beat Taker in a match, but it was later revealed that Taker's feet were on the ropes and the result was reversed a minute later. -- Scorpion0422 03:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also happened to Chris Jericho, he won the title from Triple H then the decision was reversed and the title reign was stricken from the record books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.167.220 (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Ted DiBaise? He even defended the title at a house show against Bam Bam in 88.

Sixshooter500 (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho's "First" Title Reign.

[edit]

I added the time when Jericho beat Triple H for the title, only to have it stricken, to the list. I feel it meets the criteria for an title reign not recognized by the WWE. Jericho beat Triple H, and actually held the title for a period of time (As short as it was). We make note of the time when Greg Valentine beat Bob Backlund for the title, and the title was held up, even though WWE says Baccklund held the title uninterupted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonJuan.EXE (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note for the record that Valentine never beat Backlund for the title. Anyone who watches the video footage on youtube can see that Valentine didn't win. There is a huge difference between winning -- and having your hand raised in error by a dazed referee. The title was held up pending internal review, made moot by a later Backlund victory. The analogy would be the Patriots winning the Super Bowl, but the announcer after the fact goofs and hands the Lombardi trophy to the Seahawks. NFL would never say that Seattle "won" the trophy based on that error. In the same way, there are plenty of "Dusty finishes" in the AWA where legitimate wins are voided immediately -- either due to outside interference or similar actions. Vachon had a 1-2-3 pin count on Bockwinkel, only to have it voided due to a Dusty finish -- i.e. Bockwinkel's manager interfered. In WWE such a result would stand -- in AWA it didn't. Same here -- in WWE these anomalous resutls -- such as Valentine's "victory", Van Damm's apparent victory and Inoki's non-recognized victory -- they don't stand. Because WWE has decided they are not title transfers. And this isn't because WWE has permanent say over it, either -- but rather because AT THE TIME the events happened, they said they didn't count. I would be sympathetic if WWE changed its position years later -- but an outside/neutral source maintained the original decision. Here the original decision by WWE (property owner) is what is still standing. IMHO that even makes Andre's 1-day (actually 10 minutes) reign dubious, as it was immediately voided. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24.24.221.54 (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Couldnt it be mentioned in the Notes section?[reply]

Actually, it wasn't until a week later (I think) on Superstars that Jack Tunney officially declared the title vacant. He explained that since Andre relinquished the title, he was no longer champion (the argument being Andre's intent) Since "the title can not be given way," DiBiase was not the champion. Now, you may ask if Andre can't give the title away, then why wasn't he just given back the belt? Again, intent. The WWE considered Andre "relinquishing" the title the same as voluntarily vacating it. They should have just given the belt back to Hogan, seeing that his shoulder was up at one anyway. BUT, that would mean my boy Macho Man wouldn't have won his first world title at WrestleMania IV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.48.148 (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Reigns

[edit]

Can we get a table with with like the top 10 Guys with the longest single Title Reign? So that people can see who has held the belt the Longest in one reign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can already sort the table by reign length. Just click on the arrow and you can sort it loongest-to-shortest or shortest-to-longest. TJ Spyke 19:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means can we put a table with all the longest single title reigns not just the current title reigns--Dcheagle (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I am understanding you correctly, you can already do that. The table is sortable, so you can sort all 92 title reigns by length (FYI; the 10 longest reigns are Sammartino's 2nd, Hogan's 1st, Sammartino's 1st, Morales' 1st, Backlund's 3rd, Backlund's 2nd, Backlund's 1st, Cena's 3rd, Savage's 1st, Hogan's 2nd). TJ Spyke 23:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok i read the wrong ok yea know i under stand and yes you can do that my bad--Dcheagle (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says that Sammartino's 8 years are a record for longest reign by a wrestling world champion, but didn't Fabulous Moolah hold the Women's World Title (consecutively) for much longer than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.220.34 (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock

[edit]

How long was the Rock actually champion? He's listed as 297 days but the dates in the chart add up to 302. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graveyardkiss (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of ...

[edit]

As of {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}} is not a valid way to keep a list up to date. You have to actually tell us when the data was last valid. --Golbez (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually disagree. As long as the page is continually updated (and see how many updates we've had since last night!!), the list is up to date as of the Current Month, Day, and Year. --Starcade (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of top combined reigns

[edit]

Does anyone know how to change the List of top combined reigns list to be under the List of top combined reigns banner and not under the External links banner? I tried a bunch of things and I don't know for the life of me how to do that. If anyone knows how to do that and can fix it, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Gibsonj338 (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different question, same portion: Why are we deleting names from the list who haven't gotten to a certain number of days in total reigns (I believe it's 100.)? --Starcade (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Reigns' championship will reach 387 days on December 28, 2022, please fix it Wardolo (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Reigns Combined reign 387+ on December 28, 2022. Wardolo (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we refer to him here as Dos Caras Jr. or Alberto del Rio?

[edit]

Just wondering. --Starcade (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove?

[edit]

Should we really put Miz/Mysterio on the list? After all, there is no guarantee that the events will play out as it has been announced. 76.29.164.90 (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then there's no guarantee as to what to do. Is the title even vacant? Is Punk the champion? Is Cena the champion? I do believe the encyclopedically verifiable thing to do is at least to mention the tournament in the "vacated" explanation (I can agree that actually pre-creating the Miz/Mysterio space on the list is a bit much, but that is the advertised and currently verifiable final, so I let it stand.) Even if del Rio/Caras cashes in, Miz or Mysterio is the next champion unless the tournament is thrown out (kayfabe), and, at that point, we get to all the questions I gave above. --Starcade (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we always go through this with the Combined Reigns List? Because...

[edit]

A lot of us are not clear as to whether the list should include all champions or champions who have had a reign or reigns totalling X number of days (at least one group has placed X = 100 on many of the different pages). Since we don't seem to have a central authority, we keep going back and forth. I believe all champions should be listed, from zero days on up. I think we need a discussion on that one. --Starcade (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Cena: 1,024 days, not 4,000-plus

[edit]

I had noticed that Cena was listed in the table of combined reigns twice, and in the time it took me to log in and attempt to edit, someone else had put him on top of the list with over 4,000 days. It's 1,024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasdenonno (talk • contribs) 07:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punk or Cena?

[edit]

Whos the real champ? I thought Punk left with the belt, or was that just the belt itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.230.50 (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 124.180.227.77, 2 August 2011

[edit]

i would like to change it

124.180.227.77 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how this works if you will tell me what you want changed I would be happy to make the changes for you--Dcheagle 06:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CM Punk at SummerSlam

[edit]

Why is CM Punk's victory at SummerSlam not being counted? He may have only been the champion for a few short minutes, but he still won the match and became the champion. Just because he lost an impromptu match immediately afterwards, it doesn't mean that his previous victory didn't happen. 2.27.19.166 (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevrtheless I still think it should be noted that he won that night, and put next to it that it was a match to determine the undisputed wwe championship (the wwe championship was referred to as the undisputed championship for quite some time in the past - and yet appears in this list). Perhaps confirmation from the wwe would be a good idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.143.12 (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I agree with you to some extent, saying that he won the championship implies that he lost it in the first place. I'd say putting a note next to John Cena's last title reign saying that he lost the championship to CM Punk in a title unification match. --90.193.32.89 (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miz's title reign

[edit]

Someone needs to fix The Miz's title reign info. It says he won on 11/19/2010 and held the title for 163 days. That date is a Friday and Raw is held on Monday. On Miz's wiki page, it says it was 11/22/2010 that he won. So he held the title for 160 days and not 163. I checked Orton's info above, and his is right. I've never commented on here before, so if I've messed up the signing part, I apologize.97.73.64.169 (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)TOJW — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.169 (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 98.233.48.103, 27 August 2011

[edit]

Jeff Hardy || 1 || 42

98.233.48.103 (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alberto Del Rio as WWE Champion.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Alberto Del Rio as WWE Champion.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 29 October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Successful Defences

[edit]

Just curious... the IWGP Heavyweight Championship has a column in its title history (and in its list of combined reigns) for number of successful defences. I think this would be a really interesting stat and wonder whether it is something that is worth adding to the WWE championship, as well as the various other WWE championships? Thoughts... Pigs Might Fly Music (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Companies like New Japan and ROH keep track of the defenses, WWE do not. We can't add one as there is no way to source them all. The title is pretty much defended at almost every house show.--WillC 22:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a table with every PPV title defense. Anyone interested? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. As Will noted above, PPV defenses are hardly comprehensive, and not a complete history of title defenses. Too many Raws, Smackdowns, house shows, Saturday Nights Main Events, etc. for it to be meaningful. WWE doesn't track title defenses the way they do in Japan; it's just not part of the American wrestling milieu. To try to include it would actually be original research. oknazevad (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just PPV defenses wouldn't include original research, I can get all the info I want from Wikipedia. And PPV defenses are obviously way bigger than RAW defenses. So what about a list with all the defenses on another wikipedia article I'm going to create, and this site gets linked somewhere in the original "List of WWE Champions" article?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Custom titles

[edit]

Wouldnt it be a good idea to place in the notes section during a reign when a new title belt is introduced? Especially when the new design is permanent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.221.54 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Error in WWE Champions List

[edit]

I just thought I'd let everyone know that I saw an error in the WWE Championship history under WWE Championship belts section. Where it said WWE Undisputed Championship2004 Edge, I removed the "2004 Edge" part

Psmith303011 (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Warrior

[edit]

Shouldn't the Ultimate Warrior's reign be 294 days? He won the belt on a Sunday and lost it on a Sunday. 293 doesn't divide evenly by 7. 294 does.I noticed this because CM Punk is approaching 294 days if he keeps the belt until SummerSlam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE08:C8D0:84A2:24BC:8C0C:373F (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would be a good catch, but no; pay-per-views didn't always take place on Sundays then as they do now. Rumble '91 occured on a Saturday. Papacha (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Backlund

[edit]

How does Bob Backlund get the second longest reign as wwe champion if he only captured the title twice, one being 648 days and the second being 3 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.34.168 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because the reign recognized is 2,135 days. Papacha (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also i also noticed that if you add his first reigns as if it was uninterupted plus his second reigns it only adds to 2,127 days and the total says he had 2,138 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.34.168 (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because your math is off. Papacha (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for format

[edit]

I've put together what I think is a fair format regarding pictures for this page:

1. The belt itself

2. The current champion (and if he happens to have the belt all the better)

3. The record title holder

I think this covers all the important items that needs to be represented, but other posters prefer to just have pictures of people with the belt, regardless if they're champion or not.

So I'll put it up to vote--my format or something else, and whatever we choose here will apply to all the other title lists as well to keep things uniform.

1. Emphatically Yes keep the format I laid out above. Vjmlhds 18:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you think it's a vote shows how little you know about wikipedia. -- Scorpion0422 18:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What--I'm not allowed to vote on my own proposal? Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Obama or Romney can't vote for themselves for President. Vjmlhds 18:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. -- Scorpion0422 18:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Of Bruno Sammartino

[edit]

Bruno Sammartino is the greatest WWE Champion of all time. His picture should be added. Gachingy (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a free-use image of Bruno with the belt I doubt you'd find much in the way of opposition. Papacha (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Longest consecutive reign?

[edit]

Is it at all possible to add a column to the reign length table that states the longest unbroken reign of the wrestlers? So in CM Punk's case (as I dont know the others) it'd be 352 I think, and so forth? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The table is versatile ; completely sortable by pressing the tabs on top. Press "Days held" and you've got your number. Papacha (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I mean like say John Cena has held it 10 times for 1,058 days, would it be possible to add a column that says what his longest single reign of those 10 was? So say it was 365 days unbrokenbefore a loss, Punk would be at 350+ I believe, and so forth.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you can sort columns on both these charts. Just hit the tab on the top table. Papacha (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, I was talking about the bottom table where all the information is summarised. Didn't see there was one in the upper table. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 7, 2007

[edit]

What exactly happened here? Randy is awarded title, loses it, then earns it back in the same night? The description for Triple H's win is blank, can someone fill this area in with an explanation of what occurred? Very confusing part of the table. Ranze (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After Randy was awarded the title, Triple H came out and forced him into a title match by insulting him. Helmsley won the title and went on to defend it later that night against Umaga. It was orginally scheduled to be Cena vs Orton for the title in a Last Man Standing Match but Cena was injured so they used Helmsley instead. 50.138.212.177 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest champs

[edit]

The table mentioned Brock becoming the youngest champ ever. A big deal was also made about Orton being the youngest-ever champ during his first reign. This makes me think perhaps we could include in the article the progressive 'youngest champ' records. I'll compile them here. It begins with the age of the first to hold it, and then only lists a new person winning it when they're younger than that record:

  1. April 1963 Buddy Rogers (born Feb 1921) wins title at 42 years old
  2. May 1963 Bruno Sammartino (born Oct 1935) wins title at 27 years, 7 months old
  3. November 1991 Undertaker (born March 1965) wins title at 26 years, 8 months old
  4. April 1993 Yokozuna (born October 1966) wins title at 26 years, 6 months old
  5. November 1998 Rock (born May 1972) wins title at 26 years, 5 months old
  6. August 2002 Brock Lesnar (born July 1977) wins title at 25 years old
  7. October 2007 Randy Orton (born April 1980) wins title at .. 27 years old? Wait a minute...

Maybe Orton was the youngest ever heavyweight champ? Better go revert that. Oh wait. Did I make any mistakes? I guess Brock really was the youngest WWE champ ever in the history? I'll make a similar chart on the HW page I guess. Ranze (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the one for Orton was the World title, not the WWE title, but it's still a fairly spurious claim if you go back into the actual history of that title and don't just ignore everything before the World/WWE split of the Undisputed title.69.212.127.94 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cm punks title reigns

[edit]

i noticed that it says that cm punk has won the wwe championship 3 times but when i looked on wwe.com in the title reign section it only says that he won the wwe championship 2 times. Not sure if its an error on wikipedia or wwe.com, but just wanted to point it out so you can either make the change or leave it as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.32.154 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion emanates the fact that Punk was the champion at the same time as Mysterio and Cena. Punk won a match to become the undisputed champion, but it's not entirely clear if this counts as his second title reign or a continuation of the first. I'll look into it. – Richard BB 15:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked; WWE officially call him a 2-time champion. I've amended the records to reflect this. – Richard BB 16:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that Triple H was the referee for that match. I think he should be added as well50.138.212.177 (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Orton WWE Champion 2013

[edit]

I have a request that we find a photo of Randy Orton holding the current version of the WWE Championship. The image on the page itself is great, but out of date because of their being a new title belt.

173.18.208.35 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Backlund's cumulative reign - wrong # of total days

[edit]

Backlund had 2 (recognized by WWE) reigns - one for 2135 days and one for 3 days. However, the "List of Combined Reigns" table is off, listing him at 3605 days. What appears to have happened is that someone added his 2135 day first reign total with the 1470 days he held it after the Inoki controversy was resolved - an understandable mistake, given the formatting of the table. However, the 2135 includes the 1470 days after the Inoki controversey as well as the time before and during. Thus, in total, he held the title for 2138 days - which actually puts him in 3rd, behind Hogan.

I tried to edit it myself, but I have no experience in so doing and it wasn't turning out correctly, so I have made no changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.248.63 (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't have this mistake before as I check this page often. Someone who didn't know what they were doing must have added the days. I don't know what I'm doing, that's why I don't edit all but the most basics of stuff on wikipedia.

173.18.208.35 (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Putting number of defenses and who it was defended against in list

[edit]

I think we should add in the list how many times a person defended the title and who they defended the title against while they were champion Dragonwolf21211 (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding details on this information could be difficult; plus, with champions who reigned for many years, the list could go on forever. Is this really notable enough, or is it in danger of becoming fancruft? — Richard BB 11:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a idea, to maybe help make the list more in depth, like I was seeing on the ufc champions pages, sorry Dragonwolf21211 (talk) 06:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't apologise; all ideas are appreciated I just feel this one is a bit superfluous. Thanks, though! — Richard BB 07:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would be really hard finding the info for Bruno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.201 (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of listing defenses, however due to the difficulty of tracking title defenses at dark matches, I would suggest we start off with a more conservative attempt like 'successful retentions at pay-per-views'. This unfortunately means we can't count Sheamus' excellent WWE title defense against Zack Ryder, but sacrifices must be made. Ranze (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary protection request

[edit]

I think this page should be protected so only admins edit it until next week or the week after because of users constantly changing John Cena's reign from 12 to 15 when in reality the other 3 are only World Heavyweight Championship reigns. This page should have temporary protection until next week or the week after that. Stephen"Zap" (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've request semi protection, which will prevent IPs from touching the article for awhile.LM2000 (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

STAN STASIAK

[edit]

IMHO there should be some special recognition/mention of Stan Stasiak in the article. Why? Shortest (legitimate) reign (9 days) as an interim champion. Yes, there are others on the list with shorter reigns, but the 1-day winners are purely show gimmicks. And Mr. M's 6-day reign is really the same (gimmick). Stan's title reign was a real transfer. IMHO if you are going to emphasize the longest reigns, then a mention of the (sentimental favorite) shortest reign is also trivia-worthy. Chesspride 66.19.84.2 (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inoki should just be a note

[edit]

WWE published an article about his phantom change: http://www.wwe.com/classics/phantom-title-changes-26076117/page-6 It should be a note, just like Valentine in 1981 or Jericho in 2000. Just like in these cases, the decision was reversed, and since Inoki handed to title back to Backlund, which makes his entire reign invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We had a pretty lengthy discussion like this awhile back with Jack Veneno's reign on List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions. Some phantom reigns were briefly recognized, and still are by other promotions, others (like Hogan's NWA reign and Jericho's WWF) were just Dusty finishes. This summarizes the Inoki WWF reign pretty well. It lasted for almost a week but was never mentioned outside of Japan.LM2000 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hogan's NWA reign? Don't you mean AWA? And what happens if WWE decides to retroactively recognize the reign? We gonna have a note like "WWE did not recognize this reign until 35 years later?" WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We had a discussion about a 1979 incident with the NWA belt and Hogan, but his AWA reign doesn't count either. If WWE change their mind then we'll have to reflect that, we have an incident with the List of TNA World Tag Team Champions article where TNA can't decide whether or not to recognize Kaz and Super Eric's reign.LM2000 (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But wikipedia doesn't even mention Hogan's reign, even if AWA rectroactively recognized it, but mentions Inoki's reign, even though the reign was recognized for one week or less.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 09:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a win being overturned and a reign going unrecognized. Hogan's AWA reigns were both overturned, as was that NWA reign. It was kind of like Jericho's WWF reign, only instead of the decision being reversed in one night it took a week to do so. Inoki and Veneno won the belts clean overseas at a time when they didn't have to worry about international broadcasts, it made the foreign fans happy and they just handed the championships back and the fans in the States never knew about it. Hogan, Jericho and Valentine's situations were all storyline driven Dusty finishes, which is quite different.LM2000 (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I think unrecognized reigns should just be a note, it looks better. The reign was erased from the record books after Inoki handed the title back to Backlund, which was a storyline too. He was just Champion for the people in Japan, so it kinda looks like a storyline. It's still dusty to me. And it wouldn't hurt the title history to look like the one on wwe.com, except for the notes about unrecognized reigns. After all, WWE are the only guys to say whether he was Champ or not. They recognize the matches in 1979, but don't consider the title win to be legit, so it's more like "didn't happen" than "unrecognized" WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a bit of a cheek to state 'actual as opposed to recognised. Halbared (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inoki and Valentine sources

[edit]

If someone wants to add these sources: http://www.wwe.com/classics/phantom-title-changes-26076117/page-6 http://www.wwe.com/classics/phantom-title-changes-26076117/page-2 WWE made an article about these title changes.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

[edit]

What's to discuss?

Some want a pic with the belt, some want the current champ, I gave 'em both...what's the big deal?

Why does it have to be one or the other? The current champion is kind of important you know.

Vjmlhds (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk didn't win the title at a house show

[edit]

"WWF on MSG Network @ Madison Square Garden in New York City, New York, USA"

Or did he? I'm not sure, found this at cagematch.de WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Rollins

[edit]

Whoever doesn't like Seth Rollins, stop changing the photo. He's the current champion, and needs to be the current image on this page.

173.23.105.213 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

search confusion

[edit]

Sometimes when I type List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions, I can get to this page, and sometimes it takes me to the now defunct WWE world title. apparently the difference maybe caps. Can someone go and change the pathways a bit so it won't be so annoying to navigate. One suggestion, for the other belt, "List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE)" for one, and "List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions" for the other Because that second option, takes me to the defunct belt sometimes.

173.23.105.213 (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. oknazevad (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognized reigns

[edit]

Antonio Inoki's wiki page says at the bottom: 1 ^ Inoki's WWF Heavyweight Championship reign is not officially recognized by WWE. So why is nothing said about Bob Holly's IC title reign on his page?

Should we delete the note on Inoki's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 22:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE v WHW exclusions

[edit]

Formerly there were 2 lists:

What I would like to know is: do we have any specific references for excluding WHW champs from this list?

Has WWE made it clear that only former WWE champs qualify as WWEWHW champs, and that former WHW champs do not?

If so, when and where did they do so? Ranze (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One is the Big Gold Belt and the other is the WWE Championship. The confusing part is that they both have the same names (except for the WWE in front of it). Two different titles, two different lineages, two different lists.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and the proof is in the WWE's title history. They consider this the direct continuation of their original championship, with just a name change. oknazevad (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]
Cole, Michael (22 November 2015). Survivor Series. Sheamus is now a four-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion. This is incredible. This is absolutely stunning. Fourteen thousand plus are stunned in Atlanta.

As a followup to the previous topic, as I have posted a nomination on the home page, I propose we split this list back to its prior listing of "List of WWE Champions" and only use "List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions" to refer to people from Orton onward who have held this unified title.

Although @Oknazevad: is correct that the WWE considers the WWEWHW title a continuation of the WWE title, Michael Cole's commentary about Sheamus tonight also makes it clear that they also consider it a continuation of the WHW title as well.

For that reason, our chart is misleading, as it implies only people who held the WWE title were former WWEWHW champs. Former WHW champs are also considered former WWEWHW champs though too.

Since merging these charts would just be confusing, we should keep them discrete and lock them in place, and form a new chart, simply noting to refer to the prior charts for people before this. Ranze (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No there are not. Official history: [1]. Not a new title. Never has been. Drop the idea, please. oknazevad (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That chart is not all-inclusive. Even that page says "melding the two most vital championship lineages". Former WHW champions are consistently cited as being former WWEWHW champs. We see this in WWE.com calling Cena a 15-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion and we hear this with Cole calling Sheamus a 4-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion.
To support your theory that being absent on that chart means you're absolutely not a former WWEWHW you will need more assertive proof. Ranze (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that's ridiculous. The official championship history at the official website is as definitive and assertive proof as you can get. This has become tendentious editing alread, and it barely over an hour. oknazevad (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We tend to not use commentators as reliable sources because they are prone to misspeak. The official championship history posted on the company's website is about as cut and dry as it gets. oknazevad's version is the correct version.LM2000 (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys keep bringing up http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-world-heavyweight-championship which says nothing about its chart being all-inclusive. A champion being absent on this chart does not mean they are not considered a WWE World Heavyweight Champion by the WWE. It in fact says:

WWE Champion Randy Orton defeated World Heavyweight Champion John Cena to unify the two titles, melding the two most vital championship lineages

It explicitly tells us the lineages are merged. This means that people on http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/worldheavyweight are also considered former WWE World Heavyweight Champions. Sources from WWE calling Cena 15-time WWEWHW and Orton 12-time WWEWHW and Sheamus 4-time WWEWHW all confirm this. Ranze (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another good reason to start an entirely new table: http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-world-heavyweight-championship/20131027-randy-orton explicitly says this:

The Viper defeated World Heavyweight Champion John Cena in a brutal Tables, Ladders & Chairs Match to claim both titles and become the first-ever WWE World Heavyweight Champion.

So although the lineages merged and past WWE/WHW reigns count toward multi-reign tallies, Orton is still considered the first of a new championship tier. Ranze (talk) 06:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andre and Rey and Roman

[edit]

Since all 3 are under one day could we list the specific minutes/seconds so it's clear who is the shortest-reigning champion? Ranze (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list is alphabetical except for those people that have a reign less than a day because André's reign was the shortest, so that's the difference there. Rey's reigns was about an hour and André's was less than 2 minutes, and now Reigns has the title so that doesn't matter anymore. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Alphabetical. The parameter is days, not hours or minutes. Rey and Andre had minus one day. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HHH. The chart is total days as champion; being less than a day each makes André and Rey equal. So it should be straight alphabetical. That André's reign is considered the shortest overall is covered in the statistics section of the infobox.
Which is my answer to the original question: let's just keep them at days so we have consistent units. Not only because sorting the chart would otherwise be incorrect, but also because the the chart is about the entire history, not just comparing the shortest reigns. In other words, to modify the chart for the one end ignores the fact the chart also has tow count for Bruno Samartino. oknazevad (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't you then be keen to say that Rey had the absolute shortest reign due to the fact that he is at the bottom of the chart? Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition we are listing reigns as a statistic in the tables so I would have reigns take precedence in a tie. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the first, I could see that, but not definitively. After all, the alphabetical order is pretty obvious, and the stats are at the top of the page. As for the second part, which way is the tie being broken? While having more reigns sounds more impressive (hi Ric Flair!) but having a total of days in fewer reigns means more uninterrupted time as champ. oknazevad (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do see that, it's impressive to have more time as champ uninterrupted, or have won the championship more times. You could argue either way to be truthful. But I feel like the numbers should take precedence. I mean the time that the wrestlers hold the championship is the exact same, so it would seem a bit more special to have held the title more times. In a data table, the numbers should always go first. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WWE 'World Heavyweight' Championship

[edit]

I know that the WWE commentators have been mentioning that Cena is a "15-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion" and most recently at Survivor Series, Sheamus a "4-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion". So what I have done is made a table on my sandbox, User:Aleuuhhmsc/sandbox, in which I have added up the reigns and days for both the WWE Championships and the World Heavyweight Championship, but I have not posted it on here because I figured people would lash out at me. So someone give me the green light or the red light on if I should insert it there. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say not to. It's only going to confuse things with respect to the separate title histories. We've has too many issues with that already. oknazevad (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. There is a strong consensus that the title histories are separate at Talk:WWE World Heavyweight Championship#WHW contributes to reign total, combining them is confusing and pointless.LM2000 (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This, http://www.wwe.com/superstars/johncena , says John Cena is a 15-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion (12-time WWE Champion & 3-time World Heavyweight Champion). This, http://www.wwe.com/superstars/tripleh , says Triple H is a 13-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion (8-time WWE Champion & 5-time World Heavyweight Champion). I don't know about you but I would put this conversation back on the table. Hell, it shouldn't really hurt anyone if I just add the table I have in my sandbox. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Triple H profile says 13-time world champion, not "WWE World Heavyweight Champion". Please see the discussion the LM2000 linked to. I am sorry to see your efforts go to waste, but they're based on a factually incorrect assumption. oknazevad (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Rollins' reign

[edit]

Ok so I remember that the day the news was released about the title being vacated was November 5, the day after the house show, effectively ending Rollins' reign at 221 days. However, WWE.com's title history says that the title was vacated on the day of the house show, which ends the reign at 220 days (here is the link: http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-world-heavyweight-championship/20150329-seth-rollins ). I'm going with 220 just because that's what WWE.com says, and I don't really mind what we stick with to be honest, I just want to know what you guys think. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That does pretty much make it official, though I would personally tell WWE they made an error there and it wasn't really vacant until the announcement the next day. But as it's their title, if they want to say it was vacant from when the injury was suffered, that's their call. oknazevad (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Haha that doesn't really help Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputed Championship names

[edit]

Hi guys. I was rewatching clips of old shows (Raw, SmackDown, and pay per views) when the WWF/WWE Championship and the World Championship was first unified (from December 2001 to September 2002) as the Undisputed Championship, and notice it was called as such:

December 9, 2001-May 6, 2002: Undisputed WWF Championship May 6, 2002-May 19, 2002: Undisputed WWE Championship May 19, 2002-September 2, 2002: WWE Undisputed Championship

So while we got "December 9, 2001-May 6, 2002: Undisputed WWF Championship" correct, but for May 6, 2002-September 2, 2002, there were two different periods: one where WWE put its initial after Undisputed: May 6, 2002-May 19, 2002 and another where WWE put it before Undisputed: May 19, 2002-September 2, 2002. Do you guys want two distinct time period or keep it the same? Seasrmar (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Heavywieght Championship

[edit]

It is listed as the WWE World Heavywieght Championship. Until WWE changes it on their own site then the name should remain the same as that is what the source says http://www.wwe.com/superstars Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC

They have officially changed the name back to the WWE Championship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.239.8 (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we know hence the reason the page will be changed after lock down is lifted Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea when lockdown is going to be lifted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.239.8 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 30 June 2016

[edit]


71.60.102.11 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC) WWE is calling the championship the WWE Championship, so change all references of the title from WWE World Heavyweight Championship to WWE Championship.[reply]

Change will be made after lock down is lifted on the 1st. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not currently protected. Removing tag. Nakon 04:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't this page be moved?

[edit]

I tried several times to move this page to "List of WWE Champions", but every time it said this page could not be moved. With the name of the championship being changed back to WWE Championship, the name of this page should be changed as well. If anyone knows why a move couldn't be made, I'd like to know. OldSkool01 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that someone screwed up when trying to move it yesterday (anon's can't move pages), and instead edited the redirect, and pages can't be moved over a redirect with more than the redirect's creation in their edit history. You could easily file a technical request at WP:RM, as there's no opposition to the move. oknazevad (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I put in a move request. I don't think anyone will contest the move, but with some WP editors, you never know. Thanks. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mcmahon or Vince

[edit]

See the following talk page as this issue has already been discussed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WWE_Championship#Vince_McMahon_or_Mr._McMahon.3F.3F.3F Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the Champ? Rollins or Ambrose?

[edit]

https://twitter.com/WWENetwork/status/755238292639985666

18th July 2016 episode of Raw ended controversially. Stephanie announced Seth as the champion, then Raw went off air. On the Network, Lilian Garcia confirmed the match was a draw, thus Ambrose is still the champion. DanTheStripe (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanTheStripe (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with the network for now.--174.91.187.80 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's decisively Ambrose: http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/july-18-2016#full-detail-40008502 — Richard BB 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2016

[edit]

On the list of World champions and their reigns, Seth Rollins is omitted. For the sake of accuracy, this should be corrected ASAP. Dovmensing (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: I don't see any place where he is omitted. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Reigns' Lenths

[edit]

Someone changed lenths of title reigns (and combined reigns) according to "official WWE history", by the air date. It has to be fixed or undone, cause WP counts reigns according to when title changes actually happened.176.36.57.234 (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not Done They appear to be correctly formatted Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 11:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-No, they're not. They WERE correctly formatted before the edits by JDC808. Just undo all that and it's fixed.176.36.57.234 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They appear listed per WWE.com which is main source per WP:PW/RS Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 13:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda agree with the anon. The actual numbers should be listed, with the values accounting for tale delays in parentheses and/or a footnote; the current formatting reverses that. oknazevad (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I'm not seeing the issue @Oknazevad: if you see it or are understanding it better feel free to change, no argument from me. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 13:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The way I formatted showed both the "official" reign as dictated by WWE (which is the date we should go by for their scripted reigns anyways), and the "real" reign by the dates the title was actually won (and not the tape delay date). A note is also there to indicate this. --JDC808 ♫ 14:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with the changed format. A discussion should have been had before JDC808 took it upon themselves to make these changes. The reason WP has always used the date the title change actually happened as opposed to the date that the title change aired is because WWE themselves are very inconsistent with their title histories. WWE.com's title history sections are a mess. Sometimes they count when a title change actually happened and sometimes they count from when it aired. There's no consistency and that's why WP always goes by the date that the title change happened. I'll give you several examples of inconsistency. The New Day just surpassed Demolition's record as longest reigning Tag Team Champs. That's because WWE recognizes July 18, 1989 as the day Demolition lost the belts. If they went by the date the match aired, July 29, 1989, Demolition would still hold the record. Also both of Mr. Perfect's IC Title wins are counted from the date he won them, April 23 & November 19, 1990. Not the day those matches aired, several weeks later. Also, WWE.com counts Paige's NXT Women's Title win from the day it aired, yet Paige defended the title on house shows for weeks before the match aired. I can go on and on with plenty of more inconsistent examples. The way the WP tables were set up for years is we always go by the actual date the title changed hands and then make a note of when the match aired. Not go by the date it aired and then make a note about when it actually happened. That is backwards. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently making a Talk post at WP:PW on this issue. Yes, they're inconsistent, but it is their history that they have scripted, not us. More to follow at WP:PW. --JDC808 ♫ 15:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It is their history, and they've been known to change their history at the drop of a hat. WP is here to seperate fact from fiction and tell what really happened and keep consistency. WWE.com can change their history on their own website all they want, WP does not. If WWE.com decided to say that Hulk Hogan is a former 12 time WWE World Champion, it doesn't mean it's true and WP would not make that change. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The standard disclaimer here that all pro wrestling is fiction, and that no titles are actually won in legitimate competition, should be mentioned. oknazevad (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title reigns by WWE.com

[edit]

Hey, I understand that thing with additional day numbers per WWE.com in case of title changes being taped, but even when WWE.com editors just made a mistake? John Cena reigned for 49 days last time he won this title, but if WWE.com editors are so stupid that they can't count days correctly, why that means we have to reckon with their stupidity? -176.36.57.234 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's what they officially recognize. It's in the Notes for this reason. --JDC808 ♫ 19:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at The project talk page, it's obvious what WWE is doing is counting inclusively, where they count both the day a champ won and lost the title as part of the reign. Like Cena's last reign, where he won on a Sunday, then lost it on another Sunday 7 weeks later. In that case he did hold the title for part of each Sunday, so they include both. It's actually valid when the unit is a day to round up to a full day even if it is only partial. oknazevad (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely wrong. That's not how anyone counts days. If you are born on a Sunday afternoon, you are not automatically 1 day old on that Sunday. It's not until the next day, Monday, that you are 1 day old. A full 24 hours have to pass before it is considered 1 day. To use your example of 7 weeks, let's do 2nd grade math. There's 7 days in a week, therefore 7 x 7 equals 49 days, not 50 as WWE.com would count it. Let's say for arguments sake that the WWE World Title changes 9 times within a calendar year, if you were to do it the way you suggested, where both the day a wrestler wins the title and loses the title counts as part of their reign, then that means 9 times a year you are adding an extra day to the calendar. You'll end up with 374 days in a year. That's ridiculous. There's no other way to argue this. WWE just plainly has imbeciles running their site. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And sometimes the count 7 weeks as only 48 days, then as 49 days, then as 50 days. They have no idea what they are doing. But I don't think we should change it, it's their official version.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having two columns I think we should have the real number of days in parenthesis Paul "The Wall" (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not sortable. And the real days should be first anyway. oknazevad (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

[edit]

@Oknazevad: The gernal fixes that were done at the same time as tagging links as dead, were done in accordance with MOS:LINK2SECT. Do you have any specific link which were sub-par/were linked to the wrong place? (t) Josve05a (c) 17:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World title, but that was a bad redirect in the first place; we intentionally merged that section to the general professional wrestling championships article be wise it was not separately notable and full of OR. The link you created was a holdover to a poorly targeted redirect. That's why LINK2SECT gives poor advice when it comes to redirects; page moves and merges are often not sufficiently accounted for by redirects and are therefore poorly targeted. Better to just directly link to the section, as they're the exact target, not through a resource wasting redirect. oknazevad (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

[edit]

Someone needs to fix John Cena's combined reign and Styles' name in the combined reigns table. 176.36.57.234 (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Half Done Styles name is fixed, Cena's combined regins are correct for the WWE Championship title at 13, before you say it's 16, the other 3 regins are for the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). Two different titles. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 04:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me wrong. I meant that Cena's days were incorrect, not number of days. Just like Styles' reign lasted 140 days, not 141. But now it's fixed, so it only remains to delete dots from "A.J. Styles", cause he's "AJ Styles" in WWE.176.36.57.234 (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Styles name fixed, Apologies your request seemed as if you disagreed with the 13. Appears all is corrected now Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 04:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INOKI is not a champion

[edit]

Why is Inoki champion in this article if the title change is not regocnized. There were multiple changes of NWA belt and some of them are in the NWA belt article, most aren't. Here this situation. Inoki is not a champion, there was no title change. If you count Inoki's reign, then Ted DiBiase IS the WWE Champion. All of this is really inconsistent here on Wikipedia. You say that some champions who aren't champions are champions and some are not. Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.93.97 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inoki pinned Backlund clean while WWF was touring Japan. He held the belt for a few days and then handed it back to Backlund after a rematch ended in a no contest. After returning to the states, they acknowledged Backlund's reign as being undisturbed and that's continued since. He was officially champion at one brief point in time, they just don't recognize this anymore. This is different from Dibiase, whose reign was immediately overturned by Jack Tunney.LM2000 (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In those times there was standard procedure to drop the title to the local talent and then regain it before the tour ends. None of those changes is counted in NWA or WWE. Only Inoki's reign. Stop lying, Wikipedia. Inoki wasn't a champion. Never. Regognizing garbage reign 40 years ago is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.93.97 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If reigns like Inoki's count then Ric Flair is at least 22-time world champion. Wikipedia says it's 16-time. So why are you so inconsistent and count Inoki's reign but not recognize Flair as 22-time world champion. It's the same case - dropping the title to the local talents at tour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.93.97 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only person that thinks we're "counting" these reigns is you. For the record, Flair's unrecognized reigns are detailed at List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions. Colon and Veneno "won" the NWA championship under similar circumstances.LM2000 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. You list unrecognized Inoki's reign. PLEASE LIST JERICHO'S UNRECOGNIZED SECOND REIGN. Same situation as Inoki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.93.97 (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The one from Raw in 2000 where he pinned Triple H? That was a dusty finish, the decision was overturned fairly quickly because of a fast count from Earl Hebner. There's a difference between unrecognized reigns and overturned decisions.LM2000 (talk) 22:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No difference. Both reigns should be listed if Inoki's one have to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.93.97 (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've had extensive discussions in the past and have came to a consensus that there is a difference there. Your opinion is fine but you'll have get a new consensus. If you list Jericho we'll have to list other overturned reigns, like Hogan's NWA and AWA dusty finishes. Consider bringing this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling if you want more input.LM2000 (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After the discussion with you I've changed some opinions. Present article seems good with Inoki grey in both tables. You're doing a good job, cheers.88.156.93.97 (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the US title history? OK, WWE recognizes Flair as a 6-time champ, but what about unrecognized reigns of Greg Valentine, Blackjack Mulligan and Paul Jones? I think they don't have to be counted.176.36.57.234 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's something you'll have to bring up at Talk:List of WWE United States Champions. When WWE acquired the belt they recognized some of the reigns WCW didn't but also probably decided not to recognize some which they did. Flair is only listed as a five time champion in the title history but is described as a six time champ elsewhere on the website, that's why Valentine is listed as unrecognized. PWTorch says Jones and Mulligan swapped the title back and forth, including one "phantom" reign designed for the angle. Feel free to continue this conversation on the other talk page or start a broader conversation about other championships at WT:PW.LM2000 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 128 external links on List of WWE Champions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of WWE Champions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of WWE Champions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punk's 2nd Reign Length

[edit]

Punk's second reign (Survivor Series '11 to Royal Rumble '13) is not recognized by WWE as 435 days. Punk always said in his promos he was champion for 434 days and he had tshirts with "434" designs on them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.254.212.156 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First title change outside of N.A.

[edit]

I was in the process of adding this fact to the page when I noticed that it had already been added and removed several times. Is there a valid reason for this? It was stated on the broadcast, and the WWE page sourced says that it was "the first time in history that the WWE Championship has changed hands outside of North America." Is it because of the fictional Brazil tournament or the unrecognized title changes in Japan? Even so, what right do we have to go against the source? Vavent (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

combined

[edit]

Can we change the combined reigns table? The "No. of reigns recognized by WWE" side looks a little awkward to me, I understand the need but can we do like on the U.S. Champ. page, like Bob Backlund 4(2), since there are only 4 out of 52 rows which need that edit? DCF94 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting date trivia

[edit]

Not sure if it's worthy enough to be noted on the article itself, but The Rock beating Undertaker for the title in July 2002 was the first time it had been won in July and that it had taken 39 years for the title to have changed hands at least once in each month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.8.243.238 (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be included. See WP:TRIVIA - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 12:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ted DiBiase

[edit]

On the latest episode of Monday Night RAW (22nd of July 2019) Ted DiBiase was referred to as a former WWE Champion, and his purchasing the title from Andre the Giant was mentioned after he purchased the 24/7 Title from Alundra Blayze, which was considered a legitimate title change. It can thus be seen as a retroactive recognition of his eight day title reign, and thus I put forth that this article should be updated to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.57.132 (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Valentine

[edit]

The sources do not support the claim that he had the belt. They say the title was vacated due to the ref's mistake. Lava Lamps (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and even then they say Backlund defended the title in other cities while the dispute was going on in New York. Valentine should not get his own column in the table.LM2000 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it outright. It was a one month storyline with zero long term implications. There was no vacancy. Nor was Valentine recognized. A dazed ref handed the belt to the wrong person, the one that clearly lost. It was a non-event, trivial at best, used to set up one subsequent match, and certainly not to be listed as a vacancy. oknazevad (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oknazevad: To say there was no vacancy is not entirely accurate. If you watch the October 19, 1981 Backlund-Valentine MSG match, when Howard Finkel makes the announcement following the match, he clearly says that the New York State Athletic Commission is vacating the title. Now the thing is, it was only vacant in New York City, which by 2020 standards sounds ridiculous to only vacate a championship in 1 city, but back then things were different, and New York City was the WWF's #1 market. Backlund ended up regaining the title 5 weeks later in the MSG rematch on November 23, 1981. Without question Valentine never won the title. He was never announced as champion nor recognized as champion. Backlund was also not acknowledged as the champion going into the rematch. So I agree that Valentine does not deserve to have his name listed in the champions column. However, I do believe that the New York City vacancy should at least be noted somewhere since the match where the title was vacated did air on USA Network, a nationwide cable channel. It was not just a trivial anecdote. OldSkool01 (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As Backlund defended the belt at the time it was vacated, nothing more than a footnote is needed if there is a reliable source to back it up. Indeed the current note no longer makes sense with Valentine being removed from the list. Lava Lamps (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a reliable source and added a note next to Backlund’s reign. OldSkool01 (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a reliable source? Looks like a fan page, not a reliable source.
Frankly, I still say it's trivia. The claim that the NYS Athletic Commission declared the title vacant is meaningless drivel in a fake sport. They have no actual governance, and this is not their title. It was just a detail meant to create heat on the rematch. It completely lacks real-world perspective. oknazevad (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. A couple of things to cover here. First, that is indeed a reliable source. TheHistoryOfWWE.com is used all over WP for wrestling pages. Second, “meaningless drivel in a fake sport”. Ok. If we’re gonna play the fake sport card then we might as well eliminate any details at all about anything involved with professional wrestling. I mean, are you serious? Third, not that this matters, but the NYS athletic commission, as well as many other state commissions, actually did have some authority back then as to what was and wasn’t allowed. Did they have the power to strip someone of the championship? No. But did they enforce things like blood usage in matches, event curfews, age restrictions of fans at shows, wrestlers licenses, weapons being used and so on? Absolutely they did. Heck, even AEW got fined by a state commission recently for the Moxley-Omega lights out match. But regardless of all that, them saying the state commission vacated the title is no different than saying the Raw general manager vacated the title or the Smackdown commissioner vacated the title or the board of directors or the championship committee or any other authority figure you can think of. And we mention all of those details when it comes to championships, right? And finally you mentioned “real world perspective”. How can you mention a lack of real world perspective in the same paragraph where you said it’s a fake sport? Also, how is a commission lacking real world perspective? Every major sport has a commission. Wrestling at that time just used the commission a lot more than it does today. Today we have authority figures, which is just another form of a commission. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you misunderstood his point. The "fake spots" he said means there is no goverment commision to rule over the promotion. It's not like World Boxing Council. If one commision said the title is vacated, has no power over the promotion itself. AEW it's different, they fined AEW becuase the broke a rule, but they can't decide if the AEW title is vacant or anything else about booking. About the last thing, if the NYS commision is legit, has no power over WWE. A RAW GM is an storyline plot device created by the promotion. William Regal, Vickie Guerrero, T-Long had no power, it was McMahon who made the calls. So, if the NYS Commision it was a plot device used by WWE at the time, fine. If not, I think it's not necessary since had no power. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t misunderstand anything. First off he said fake sport, not fake spots. You guys are so fixated on whether or not the NYS Athletic Commission had any power over the WWF in real life. It was a work. The story that was told that night is the commission ruled the title vacant. Howard Finkel made the announcement and then Vince McMahon himself on commentary immediately followed it up by saying “Looks like we have no champion.” Of course it was an angle. They used the commission in the angle to make it seem more realistic because in 1981 a lot of people knew that the commission actually did have some legit authority back then. Yes, in 2020 it comes across phony, but back then it didn’t. OldSkool01 (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if the commision it was a kayfabe one, it would be as a GM. To be honest, these kind of vacancies of the 60-70 are a pain in the ass. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not really that complicated. At least not in this specific case. The October 19th match is on Youtube and the rematch from November 23rd is on the WWE Network. You can watch them yourself and see how everything played out. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the one that HHH elaborated on. The NYS Athletic Commission has no power to determine champions, let alone outright control the now-WWE Championship. They used to recognize champions in boxing, but that was decades ago, didn't actually exist in 1981, and was boxing, not pro wrestling. The then-WWF was simply using the idea as a storytelling device to provide a reason for the rematch. They never ceased to recognize Backlund as champion, and there was no vacancy. The whole thing is overblown, and certainly doesn't warrant anything calling it a vacancy.
As for the source, it needs to go. Any and all uses of it need to go. I don't care how many articles use it, it is a crappy fan site and not a reliable source by WP:RS standards. Heck, I'd bet that it would be rejected at the reliable sources noticeboard. It's misuse elsewhere is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS situation. oknazevad (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the site might look like shit, I’m surprised it’s not got a marquee tag going across it. but it’s published by two authors of multiple published works. It passes WP:RS Lava Lamps (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

@Oknazevad: So you, by yourself, get to decide what’s a reliable source and what isn’t? That’s arrogant, no? Good luck getting it removed. In all seriousness, I’m willing to bet you’ve never actually seen the matches in question. Were you even a fan back then? If you were, you wouldn’t still be stuck on the whole “the NYS Athletic Commission has no power over the WWF”. It was an angle!!! How hard is this to comprehend?! Go watch the matches. Both Howard Finkel and Vince mention the vacancy. And what do you mean it didn’t exist in 1981? The Commission absolutely existed in 1981 and yes they did have some authority over professional wrestling events back then. I’m begging you to go back and re-read what I’ve been saying. You’re just making stuff up now for the sake of whatever it is you want to believe. The vacancy did happen. It was only vacant in New York City. I don’t know how many times I have to say it. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was 2 years old at the time, but I have watched the matches (thanks for the links). Doesn't change my opinion that a title is either vacant or it's not. The same title can't be vacant in one place and not vacant in another. And the WWF Championship, the title that is the subject of this list, was not actually vacant. Backlund was still recognized as champion by the WWF, and he still defended the title as champion. The only thing that could be noted is that Backlund had another match with Valentine because of the obvious ref's error on the previous match, but I object to calling it a vacancy.
As for the history of WWE website, my first impression is that it is much like wrestling-titles.com, generally well done, but still a fan site. The books that supposedly confer reliability for the author are actually self-published compilations of material from the website, therefore not generally considered to show reliability. I think we should re-examine the inclusion of the site as a reliable source on the project level. oknazevad (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can object all you want, but at the time, the WWF itself considered it a vacancy in New York City. Vince McMahon on commentary mentioned it and Howard Finkel announced it to the crowd. That’s all that matters. If it was a vacancy across the whole country then it would be included as a seperate entry on the champions table grid. But since it was only a territorial vacancy, it should only get a note mentioning it. It find it funny that you object to this footnote, an angle that the WWF acknowledged on TV, but you don’t object to the Backlund-Inoki title changes being included on the grid, even though the WWF never mentioned it once on TV. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Inoki matches were reported by reliable outside sources at the time (from my understanding) and has been acknowledged after the fact by WWE. There's also the real-life controversial aspect of the situation, namely that Inoki went into business for himself there. The plan was for the first match to end with interference, resulting in it being declared a no contest afterwards with Backlund remaining the champion despite Inoki apparently winning. Backlund was supposed to win the rematch clean, but Inoki made it a mess again (yet another example of owners that book themselves as champions). The WWF just threw up they're hands and said both matches were no contests and Backlund was champion all along. It definitely strained relations between the two companies and likely shaped Vince's views on co-promoting to this day. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I have no objections at all about the Inoki title switches being included. They should be included because they actually were title changes, no matter how many times WWE wants to rewrite history. I was making a point that one scenario was mentioned on TV and one wasn’t. At first they didn’t acknowledge Inoki’s win in the US, then years later in Raw Magazine, when listing every WWF World Champion, they did acknowledge it by including Inoki. And also, the night that Backlund regained the title from Bobby Duncum in MSG, Backlund never came to the ring wearing the belt, nor was he introduced as champion. Just like with the Valentine vacancy. In fact, I just went back and watched the ending of the first Backlund-Valentine MSG match again, just to refresh my memory, and Finkel says “The World Wrestling Federation Championship belt will now be held up, pending an investigation by representatives of the NYS Athletic Commission and the World Wrestling Federation.” Vince McMahon on commentary immediately says “Well, we have no champion apparently is what they are saying. Apparently what they’re saying is that the title has been held up. Backlund is not a champion. Valentine is not a champion.” And like I said, the rematch was booked for 5 weeks later back at MSG and Backlund wasn’t introduced as champion, nor was he wearing the belt. Yes he kept defending the belt during those 5 weeks in the rest of the northeast territory, but not in NYC. I’ve tried including Youtube links in the past, but WP blocks them. Just go to Youtube and type in “WWF - Bob Backlund vs. Greg Valentine 10-19-81”. It’s 27 minutes, 39 seconds. OldSkool01 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And the owner of said “fan site” has been plugged and promoted on other reliable web sites like PWInsider. So if PWInsider is reliable, then their word should be good when it comes to endorsing the HistoryOfWWE site, no? OldSkool01 (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PWInsider may be reliable, but they don't make Wikipedia sourcing policy, no.
By the way, please don't insert responses inside previous posts. It causes parts of my response to be separated from the signature. That makes it more difficult for others to know who said what, and makes it look like I forgot to sign.oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Inoki Information is Wrong

[edit]

The information about Inoki's title reign seems to come from an article on wwe.com from 2012 about the title matches. However, this article has been proven inaccurate. Both the November 30, 1979 and December 7, 1979 title matches are available in their entirety on the New Japan World streaming service. Inoki won the first match cleanly with a backdrop suplex. However, Backlund actually won the rematch by pinfall after hitting an atomic drop onto the top rope while the referee was distracted, regaining the WWF title. This was a clean transfer of the title via pinfall; the title was never vacated. 14.193.223.241 (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that’s incorrect. Backlund pinned Inoki in the rematch on December 6th, but if you watch the whole video, right after the match, Hisashi Shinma walked in the ring, reversed the decision, took the belt back from Backlund, got on the mic and ruled the match a no contest because Tiger Jeet Singh interfered earlier in the match. He then handed the belt back to Inoki. Inoki refused the belt as soon as he went back to the locker room and that’s when the title was declared vacant. Backlund ended up defeating Bobby Duncum on December 17th in MSG for the vacant title. On TV in the US they never mentioned the Japan title changes, but they didn’t ignore them either. Backlund never wore the belt to the ring for the December 17th vacancy match with Duncum, nor was Backlund introduced as champion. There are several sources that verify all of this. OldSkool01 (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting WWE.com recognised days

[edit]

Wiki's title history should accurately reflect the real number of days as much as possible,

All the title reigns that WWE.com wrongly added and subtracted by a day should be recognised as the actual number of days, otherwise it's just very confusing.

I'm of the opinion that only taped title changes should reflect BOTH the real and recognised number of days. RaikouSuicune (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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) 17:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

[edit]
Wardolo (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change Roman Reigns' 385-day championship to 386 days, because on December 28, 2022, it will be 386 days that he is the champion (in the Combined Reigns section). Wardolo (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RealAspects (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change Roman Reigns' 386 day championship to 387 days, because on December 28, 2022, it will be 386 days that he is the champion (in the Combined Reigns section) Wardolo (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022 (3)

[edit]
Wardolo (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Highway 89 (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the Roman Reigns championship on December 28, 2022 to 387 days in the Combined reign section. Thank you. Wardolo (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022 (2)

[edit]
Wardolo (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the Roman Reigns championship on December 28, 2022 to 387 days in the Combined reign section. Thank you. Wardolo (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RealAspects (talk) 04:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship?

[edit]

I've been looking through old belt designs. Interestingly enough.. The original title designs from 1963-1971 say "World" on the title. After Pedro Morales wins title in 1971, the WWWF rejoined the NWA. From 1971-1984 all designs, whether WWWF or later WWF say simply "Heavyweight Champion". In other words, NOT a World Championship. Only after Hogan is Champion in 1984, do the belts start saying that the Champion is a WORLD Champion once again. All title designs from 1984-1998 clearly state that the Champion is a World Champion on them. After Austin wins the Championship from Michaels at WM14, he was presented with a new belt the following night. This title did NOT say that it was a "World" Championship on the belt. In fact the ONLY linear WWF/WWE Championship from March 30 1998 to present that stated that it was a "World:" Championship on the belt was Steve Austin's personalised "Smoking Skull" belt. On the other hand, the 2002-2013 World Championship, as well as the current 2023-present Championship belt both say unambiguously that they are/were World Championships.

In short, the WWWf/WWF/WWE Championship was only a WORLD Championship from 1963-1971, and from 1984-1998. As Austin's title belt was an unofficial vanity belt, its claim of representing a WORLD Championship is not validated. On the eve of WrestleMania 40, the only WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP in WWE belongs to Seth Rollins.(And hopefully soon, Drew McIntyre.) Roman Reigns has never won a World Heavyweight Championship. Neither has Brock Lesnar(unless you count in Japan). Neither have Kofi Kignston, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Superstar Billy Graham, The Iron Sheik, Stan Stasiak, The Miz, Big E, Vince McMahon, Mankind, Eddie Guerrero, John Bradshaw Layfield, Bray Wyatt, or Jinder Mahal. Others like AJ Styles have won world Heavyweight Championships...but not in WWE. John Cena is a THREE-time World Heavyweight Champion, Randy Orton a FOUR-time World Heavyweight Champion, Triple-H a FIVE-time World Heavyweight Champion. NONE of them are anywhere near Ric Flair's number of World Title reigns, whether you count it as "sixteen", or a different number. If WWE/WWWF/WWF THEMSELVES didn't consider their top title to be a WORLD Championship, why should anyone else? 197.83.246.171 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWE clearly stablished the title as a world title.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that "Whoosh!" sound going over your head? Te point was simple: The WWE Championship has not always been referred to as a World Championship. From 1971-1984 it definitely was NOT a World Championship. From 1998 it has just been the WWF/WWE Championship. And from 2001-2001, 2002-2013, and 2023-present, there has been an entirely separate Championship that was unambiguously called THE World Heavyweight Championship. if WWE themselves didn't call it a "World" Championship, why should anyone else? It is clear that, at times, WWE have retroactively called people who were never World Champions "World Champions". Superstar Billy Graham was a territorial champion. So, this whole "Finish the story" silliness is about Dusty Rhodes, a three-time NWA WORLD Champion, never wining a regional title. From the night after WrestleMania XIV WWF made a point to r fer to their top title as the "WWF Championship"(with Attitude Era scratch logo), nothing more, nothing less. Later that was the "WWE Championship". Meanwhile, in 2001-2001, then 2002-2013, and again 2023-present there was a second Championship that WAS/IS called "THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP". The, as in singular, the definite article, no other, unique, alone, the one and only, the sole World Championship, the World Championship. (And WWE also made it unambiguously clear that the "Universal Championship" has nothing to do with the universe, as in the vastness of space. It's "Universal" as in "WWE Universe", the term WWE uses to refer to the WWE fans. So, it's really the WWE Fans' Championship. NOT a World Title either.) You can pull out old copies of WWF/WWE Magazine from after WM14, and the Champion is referred to "WWF/E" Champion, NOT as a "World" Champion. M'kay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A world title doesn't to explicitly have the word "world" in it to be considered as such. You might be reading a bit too much into their names. Otherwise this appears to be WP:OR. — Czello (music) 16:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if WWE decided to retroactively recognize the Intercontinental Championship as a World Championship, and declared that every Champion since Pat Patterson was a "World Champion", would Wiki go along with that? Or would it be stated that up until now the Intercontinental Championship was NOT said to be a "Wold Championship"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retroactive decisions have been added to the encyclopedia with a note – for example at AEW Women's World Championship#Reigns where Toni Storm as interim AEW Women's Champion was retroactively made an official title reign. We'd probably do just that, and provide the details. — Czello (music) 16:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not answering the question. But, I got one thing wrong. After THE WORLD Championship was unified in 2013, the "WWE Champion" carried on until 2014. Then the WWE Championship became the "WWE World Champion". In 2014. The "Universal Championship" began in 2016. Roman Reigns won the "WWE World Championship" in 2022. That title was later abandoned, in favour of the "Undisputed Universal Championship". Only for a new "World Championship" to be unveiled! If we're asking the question "What was the World Heavyweight Championship in WWE?", it goes something like this...

1) pre-1963.. WWE recognizes the NWA Champion.

2)1963-1971.. WWE World Champion(Rogers through early Morales).

3) 1971-1983..WWE recognizes the NWA Champion.

4) 1983-1984.. No World Championship recognized.

5) 1984-1998.. WWE World Champion(Hogan through 24 hours after WrestleMania 14.. Austin for a day).

6) 1998-2001.. No World Championship recognized. When Austin is WWE(NOT World) Champion he has his own custom belt made that says "World" on it, bug the OFFICIAL belt is the scratch logo belt, which doesn't say "World".

7) 2001.. World Championship briefly recognized late in the year(The Rock)

8)2001-2002.. No World Championship recognized.

9) 2002-2013.. World Championship(Triple-H through Randy Orton)

10) 2013-2014.. No World Championship recognized.

11) 2014-2023.. WWE World Championship(with Roman Reigns as last Champion)

12) 2023... briefly No World Champion recognized

13) 2023-present .. The World Championship(beginning with Seth Freakin Rollins)

There may be some minor issues there, but we need to recognize the difference between a WWE Champion and a WWE WORLD Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is textbook WP:OR. We don’t go off personal interpretation. — Czello (music) 20:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being that WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment, it's already in the name. A title doesn't gain or lose world title status because of a name change (not that "world title status" really means anything more than "top title of a company/brand"). And you seem to be unable to accept that not only does it simply not matter if the title's name includes the word "World" – the Universal Championship has never had the word in its name outside the use of WWE and yet it's universally (pun intended) considered a word title – but also unable to comprehend the concept of OR. You wouldn't happen to have previously used the user name Ranze, would you? This is a pointless conversation. Drop the stick. oknazevad (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must deduce that you're both Gen Z. The difference between a promotion's top title, and a WORLD Title are obvious to anyone who followed wrestling at all, ever. As an example, the top Championship in ROH was originally just the ROH Championship. It was only later declared to be a WORLD Championship. The original pre-World title status champions are not recognized as World Champions, only ROH Champions. Same thing with ECW. From February 1992 to August 1994 it was the ECW Title. It was only the ECW World Title from August 94 on. The W(W)WF Championship from 1971-1984 was not a World Championship either. According to W(W)WF themselves, at the time. Ans, with the WORLD Championships of 2001, 2002-2013, and 2023-present, it's clear what that makes the WWE Title. There's only one World, and only one World Heavyweight Championship per promotion. Get it? Got it? Good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Gen Z, not that it'd make any difference. This is all still WP:OR. — Czello (music) 21:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OR is calling something a "World Championship" when the promotion themselves do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're reading too much into the literal name. Do you have a source to say that they're not considered world titles during those periods? If you're basing this entirely on what the name is, it's WP:OR. — Czello (music) 07:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're claiming that even 1971-1984 was a World Title??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Because it was indeed promoted and recognized as such during that era. Or are you unfamiliar with the champion vs champion matches of the late 70s and early 80s where Bob Backlund wrestled AWA champ Nick Bockwinkle (note that the AWA was not an NWA member) and NWA champs Harley Race and Ric FLair as a full equal. The history is not on your side, let alone your inability to drop the stick and realize no one agrees with your total self-created non-problem and lack of consensus. Just stop. You are wrong. Get that through your head.
Oh, and I'm Gen X, btw. oknazevad (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The W(W)WF was a member of the NWA. All NWA member promotions could create any titles they likes, except WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP, WORLD JUNIOR HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP, and WORLD LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP. Because there was only ever one of each throughout the entire NWA. When the WWWF left the NWA in 1963, they created the WWWF WORLD Heavyweight Championship. But, when the WWWF rejoined the NWA in 1971, in order to once again become an NWA member, they had to recognize the NWA World Heavyweight Championship as the true World Heavyweight Championship. As such, the WWWF Championship lost its "World" Title status, and became the Championship of a single NWA territory. In other words, the same level of Championship as the United States Championship.

Anyone who knows anything at all about pro wrestling knows that to be true. And, it was definitely just the W(W)WF Championship when the WWF left the NWA in late 1983. They didn't add the word "World" back to the Championship until Hogan in 1984. Your ignorance of this speaks volumes, and suggests that perhaps you should withdraw from this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. Insulting the intelligence or knowledge of other editors will get you nowhere and just undermines your argument. In fact, given that you still haven't addressed the issue of WP:OR that myself and oknazevad have both raised, perhaps it's you who should withdraw from the discussion, as it's not going to progress further until that's resolved. — Czello (music) 09:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What OR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC) [2]... Do I need to point out that the NWA stands for "National Wrestling Alliance" next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Ok, then.. [3].[reply]

You're drawing your own conclusions from things; that's OR.
Great, WWF recognised champions from other promotions – but it's OR to suggest that means that the WWF Championship wasn't a world title at the time. If you want to make that claim, you need a source that explicitly says it. — Czello (music) 14:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, that does explicitly state it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 05:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Tim Hornbaker's National Wrestling Alliance: The Untold Story of the Monopoly that Strangled Pro Wrestling (ISBN: 978-1-4596-5345-0), 2007, ECW Press..

  • (page 192).. Mindful of the pros and cons of being a member, McMahon rejoined the NWA at the 1971 convention in Mexico City. One requirement by the Alliance was that Morales' WWWF championship be recognized as a regional heavyweight title, and not a "world" title.

...and next time I'm asked to prove that The Rock and Dwayne Johnson are the same person.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.83.246.171 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an actual source and better illustrates your point. Do you have sources for the other periods you believe it wasn't a world title? — Czello (music) 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Rhodes' title reign already recognized by WWE.com

[edit]

See here:

https://www.wwe.com/titlehistory/wwe-championship GrandDukeofLuzon (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_WWE_Champions&oldid=1230799089"