Jump to content

Talk:WWE Universal Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.95.33.153 (talk) at 00:00, 23 August 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconProfessional wrestling Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconWWE Universal Championship is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Understanding What A World Title Is

Before we get into huge arguments/edit wars about whether or not this new title should be considered a "World Title" or not, let's break down some differences. On Raw Stephanie McMahon specifically said Raw needs its own "Heavyweight Title". The Universal Title is absolutely a Heavyweight Championship, but not necessarilly a World Championship. Just because it is the main title of a wrestling promotion/brand/etc., doesn't mean it's automatically a World Title. From 1971-1983 the WWF Heavyweight Championship was the main title of the WWF, but it was not considered a World Championship. From 1992-1994 the ECW Heavyweight Championship was not considered a World Championship. From 2007-2010 the WWE version of the ECW Title was considered a Heavyweight Title, but not a World Title. The terminology alone, "Universal" is not the same as "World". Similar to Intercontinental, United States, etc. Those titles at different times were called the Intercontinental Heavyweight Title, the United States Heavyweight Title, not the World Intercontinental Title or the World United States Title. Similarly this new title could very easily be called the Universal Heavyweight Title. The World Universal Title just would not work, again, due to the terminology. I think we should discuss the pros and cons of this before we automatically assume this new Universal Title is a World Title. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. This title should be considered as World Championship nonetheless. It is not a secondary title, it is not a tertiary title. It's a brand-level belt and is being promoted as the belt of the show. The exact name of the title isn't important, but rather if it is indeed the top level belt to be fought for. Seeing as how RAW is a globally promoted show via television and other media and this belt is the top title, it is appropriate to class it as "World Championship". Even the WWE version of the ECW Championship wasn't named "world" champion per se, it was still considered just a minor renaming of the belt. It is not much better than the constantly name changing of the (recent) WWE World Heavyweight Championship and WWE Championship. The name is interchangeable but is still classed as World Championship even though the name of the belt isn't reflective of that. Next, several non-major promotions have promoted a similarly named belt and not every promotion names their "world-class" belt as World Heavyweight Championship. Some other promotions do name their belt as Universal Heavyweight Championship or other variations. So considering it not as a World Championship because the name isn't reflective of this is shenanigans. retched (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So by that logic, if WWE decided to up the value of either the IC or US Titles and make one of them the main championship of a brand, would those belts all of a sudden be considered World Championships, simply because they are the top title of a brand? What about NXT? NXT is also globally promoted and has run shows in other countries. Does that mean the NXT Championship is considered a World Title too? I just want to make sure we're consistent across the board. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to get any consistency because the WWE is notoriously inconsistent. Let's look at the ECW title, since you brought it up. Remember in the early days of the ECW revival they did promote it as a world title, but that faded in time. On the other hand, the NXT championship has never been promoted as equal to the WWE title. Likewise the WWE and WHC titles were always supposed to be considered equal, even after the brand split ended and the WHC lingered around for a while until the unification, but they clearly weren't booked as equals. Which brings me to the next point: what if, instead of introducing a new title they had revived the WHC as many had speculated. Would the name alone mean it is a world title? Because that's what you are getting hung up on, the name. It's clear that this is intended as the top title for the Raw brand, and that it's supposed to be the equivalent of the WWE (World Heavyweight) Championship, but without the history. We'll see how that plays out, but there's no doubt that it's meant as a new world championship, even if the name doesn't include the word "world" (except for that first W in WWE). oknazevad (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto to what Oknazevad said. Also, Raw is their flagship show. Why would they let their flagship show go without a world championship? If it's not a world championship, then that leaves only one world championship in WWE, however, it's only on SmackDown, meaning that superstars on Raw could not compete for WWE's world championship. The WWE Universal Championship is a world championship for this reason. If we go by your logic and base it on the name, then the WWE Championship was not a world championship from 1998 until its unification with the World Heavyweight Championship in 2013, and it wasn't a world championship from June 27, 2016 to July 25, 2016. --JDC808 ♫ 08:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the OP is patently wrong to say the WWECW title was not a world belt from 2007-2010 (there are multiple WWE.com articles describing it as such), he's absolutely right in saying that there's no evidence for the Universal title being a world belt. It's not been described as such, and the term "world" should stay out of the lede until we have 100% confirmation. This is an encyclopaedia; guesswork has absolutely no place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:4C3B:C424:2E9A:730 (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, this issue confuses some elements: The new Universal Championship is certainly Raw's primary title (as opposed to its secondary title, the US championship). They could elevated a secondary title (IC, US) to the primary level but they could not have elevated a title that is restricted to certain area (let's call it a regionally limited title) like the US or the IC (originally refers to the North and South American continents) to the level of a world title. However, the name "Universal" differs from such regionally limited names as it is not unlimited. "Universe" means all and if there's a difference to "World", the Raw title's claim even goes beyond the name of the Smackdown title. Hence, I think it is rightfully classified as a world title.
Finally, one shouldn't give to much credence to Stephanie McMahon's words. The element "heavyweight" plays no sensible role in this as the US title is a heavyweight title too - all male singles title that are active at the moment are "heavyweight" titles. Str1977 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mick Foley said the "Universal" component was in tribute to the "WWE Universe", did he not? With all due respect, the "world" arguments here rely entirely on guesswork and assumption, which undermines an encyclopedia based on facts. All we know is that the WWE Universal Championship is a championship, so shouldn't we wait for indisputable "world" confirmation in order to maintain Wikipedia's integrity? 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:F877:B5C1:7AC8:4E59 (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Foley said doesn't contradict what the word "universal" means. BTW, he also said "for ALL of you". What we have right now is more than that the UC is a championship but that it will be the primary champopnship on Raw and that it is created to fill the void left by Ambrose's title being on Smackdown.
But I agree to the extend that there are probaly not many instances where we would have to dub the UC a world title but many instances where we can avoid the issue. Str1977 (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Sky Sports[1] and ProWrestling.net,[2] two preferred sources here on Wikipedia per WP:PW/RS, the WWE Universal Championship is indeed a world title. UPI[3] and IGN[4] articles bolster this point. Is it absolutely, truly, definitely a world title? WP:VNT. 212.166.90.70 (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But where has WWE, not news outlets but WWE specifically said this is a world title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:D967:DE5C:5CF9:DCAC (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, WWE aren't inclined to do that. I don't recall many WWE.com articles that read, "X will face Y for the WWE Championship, which by the way is a world title!" Anyway, VNT is satisfied by the sources I gave above.
I don't see what's so baffling about a world title having the word "universal" in its name, given that the WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship has been a noted world title for over three decades. 212.166.90.79 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WWE probably won't issue such a statement but we will be able to deduce it from statements like "Seth Rollins is a three time world champion" and the like (of course, if Balor wins at SummerSlam it might take a while for such statements to come forth.
For the reasons given above, I see absolutely no reason not to classify the UC as a world title, though it is not the World Championship. Str1977 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WWE's word is law. Stephanie McMahon said the Universal Championship would be held by Raw's heavyweight champion, and all over WWE.com, it is described only as a championship. "World" is conspicuous by its absence in both cases. So, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the title as a world belt, yet this article continues to describe it as such. As for other sources, Pro Wrestling Torch is a top source according to the WP:PW/RS page given above, and its editor Wade Keller says the Universal Championship is NOT a world title:
I like that if they were going to introduce a Raw-based main singles title, they didn't call it the Raw Title or World Title, but rather Universal Title. I think it's a fine compromise to avoid having "two world champions" and having the lineage with the existing Smackdown-based title in tact. I'm not sure prestige-wise how history books or wrestlers themselves will look at holding a newly created Universal Title compared to a title called a "World Title," though.[5]
Keller is refering simply to the two titles having distinct names so as to avoid confusion regarding the generic term "world title". And if you don't think that causes confusion, see the ridiculousness at Talk:WWE World Championship where someone has never learned to drop the stick regarding the distinction between the WWE title, the now defunct WHC and the generic catch-all "world champion". The passage doesn't mean what you think it means. And you're still getting hung up on a name. oknazevad (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this an awful long discussion over something so petty. It's literally the same scenario as 2003 when the WHC was introduced, just a different name. But I'd argue it is a world title based on this line in the championship match preview: "According to Raw management, the newly sanctioned championship will eventually outstrip SmackDown Live’s WWE Championship in importance." Why would they say that if it wasn't a world title? People are paying too much attention to the wording being used in describing it, rather than paying attention to how it's presented. And it's being presented as the Raw equivalent to SmackDown's WWE World Championship. That alone, in my book, makes it a world title. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 15:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a world title until WWE calls it one. All the third party commentary in the universe (ho ho) means nothing next to WWE's own designation. For now it's a title, not a world title. 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:5C01:A657:524:DD59 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to have WWE unequivocally call it a world title as well, but as covered above, they're unlikely to. Again: ProWrestling.net and Sky Sports are preferred sources per WP:PW/RS, and their articles on the Universal Championship satisfy WP:VNT until WWE tells us it's not a world title.
If we're going by consensus opinion, it's a world title. If we're going by Wikipedia policy, it's a world title. Best to describe it as just that. 212.166.90.87 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Scherer of PWInsider (another top source listed at WP:PW/RS) also indicates that the Universal title is not a world belt, but merely "a championship on par with The WWE Title".[6] So now there are two top sources (along with Wade Keller) casting serious doubt on the status of the Universal title as a world belt. I ask yet again: when did WWE (only the company who created and own everything about the title) say it was a world belt? And why is the term "world" conspicuous by its absence in everything WWE says or does in relation to the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:4D33:8879:9E1A:51A4 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WWE themselves said the title is equal to, and will become greater than the WWE World Championship. If it's equal to the WWE World Championship, and its goal is to be greater than the WWE World Championship, then how is this title not a world championship? --JDC808 ♫ 21:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of this indicates that WWE considers the title to be a world belt. I'd be paraphrasing, but on The Life and Times of Mr Perfect, the documentary portion talks about the Intercontinental title being equal to the WWF title under Hennig – that doesn't make it a world title. There is sufficient evidence that the company considers the WWE, World Heavyweight, WCW and AWA titles to be world belts (they're non-committal on the ECW title), but nobody has been able to come forward with a single example of WWE – whether on TV or in print – designating the Universal Championship as a world title. That's a problem, since WWE, you know, created the belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:1823:85F4:30DC:5227 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try reading WP:PSTS, and stop edit warring against policy and consensus. oknazevad (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is far more convoluted than it should be. Reliable sources report that it is a world championship and so should we per WP:RS.LM2000 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the August 16 edition of Talking Smack (at the three-minute mark), a kayfabe Daniel Bryan made a barb that the WWE World title is "the only true world championship" in the company, indicating that the WWE Universal Championship is also a world title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.92.95 (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cole called it a world title twice after Balor won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.222.104 (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Names table

Okay, let me put it this way, what is the point of having the table if there are not going to be other names? We already know that the name is "WWE Universal Championship". It is stated in four places within this short article without the table. We do not need this table to tell us the name of the championship, again. The table is only needed if there are other official name changes for the championship, which of course there are not since it was just created. To add to that, if by chance the name does get changed in the future, the names can just be added to the infobox like how the WWE World Championship and other WWE championship articles do it. --JDC808 ♫ 06:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If such a table contains no useful information - and it will not contain any in the foreseeable future - we should keep it out. Str1977 (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 13:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's a reasoning I can agree with. I just didn't like someone reading in implied meanings. oknazevad (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

category

How to create a category on wikipedia? Thebrodler (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2016


finn balor def seth to win

50.54.73.218 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No he didn't.LM2000 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Balor Injury

Until WWE Strips him or it is vacated he is still Champion. WWE.com still has him listed as Universal Champion and has not offical said he was vacating the title just that he is supposed to on RAW. http://www.wwe.com/superstars Soooooo until that changes stop removing him. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brand designation history

Is this section necessary given there is only one brand listed? WWE Cruiserweight Championship spent its entire tenure on one brand and does not have this section.LM2000 (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Universal_Championship&oldid=735767875"