Jump to content

Talk:NXT Championship

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.236.80.152 (talk) at 12:25, 4 July 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

′

WikiProject iconProfessional wrestling Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconNXT 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.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title defenses

Should we list title defenses here, since it's so early in the reign? Like how Rollins defended against Michael McGillicutty? Not even sure why that guy who Seth already beat in tournament got a shot before untried guys like Big E or Bray Wyatt. Ranze (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no here. Even though you posted this a long time ago, I'd just go ahead and answer it. NXT has house shows all the time and on those house shows, they put the title on the line in most of them, so it would be difficult to keep track. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no lists of successful title defenses for any wrestling championship. And it shouldn't, because even the WWE doesn't keep those. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We include the title defenses only when the promotion keeps track of them. WWE doesn't. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Shouldnt this article have a photo of the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.66.76.254 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Zayn

Should Zayn's reign really be counted? It's my understanding that a restarted match is basically treated as though it never ended, and thus it just goes down as a successful retain for Dallas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack Shadow (talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've removed it for now, but I'd really like to see WWE's official list of champions. — Richard BB 09:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combined reigns section

Before this page gets protected from edit warring, let's talk about the Combined reigns section and if this page needs it or not. Most of the reigns will be only one reign, but the WWE (or for this matter NXT) will make someone a two or more time champion one day. Right now we don't need it since everyone has only one reign and whoever won and lost it has been promoted to the main roster, with the exception of Sami Zayn. Zayn might become champion again if they want him to do it again.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

according to the project, we include th combined reigns table when the first two times champion appears. Until then, its pointless, its the same information we have in the main table--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there was a consensus somewhere. I agree with this. It's pointless at least until there is a two time champion - and to be honest as it is a developmental promotion how likely is that to happen? Not impossible yes, but unlikely. Mega Z090 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There will end up being like 20 champions in a few years and then maybe you all will think that it would be helpful for a combined reigns section. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The combined reigns section is included because of statistics. It shows the exact number of days each person held the title. It is not exactly about multiple reigns, it is about reigns in general. There is no consensus that it takes two reigns to have the table. The table is to exist as long as there are multiple champions.--WillC 21:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, we include the table when we have a two times champion. For example, the IWGP IC Title hasn't a combined reigns table until Nakamura appeared. Same for the 2 times champion Jay Lethal. Or the AAA Latin American Championship. Or the Divas championship. It's the same information you'll find in the champions table. Click in the days cell and all reigns will be organized. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's my memory as well. Mega Z090 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, there was never a project discussion on the format to lists. The only discussion took place at FL, where all notable information is to be included. That includes all statistics regarding a championship. I should know, I've been dealing with championships and lists are years.--WillC 03:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But is this particular list notable without multiple champions? That's the key here. It's also clutter without the dual champion to make it worth it. Otherwise all you're doing is duplicating the list of champions generally. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Without a multi-times champion, the table doesn't include new information, only repeats the same information we have in the main table. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New information: Who held the title the most. That is the primary reason for the section. Not other reason. Reason is not multiple reigns. It is days person held the title.--WillC 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same information you have in the other table. Click in "days held " and all champions will be ordered. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You got in before me, HHH! Edit conflict! (and I corrected your typo if that's OK) Mega Z090 (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks. Ordenar... freaking Spanish XD) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is taken into account because you don't have to perform an option to get the information. I could get the information that someone won the title twice without needing the table as well by doing the same function. You are arguing against yourself now for even having the table in general. I could add up all the reigns in my head and get the information the table would give in any list. Though the table still reflects it without me needing to do any action. As a reader I could get that information with a little work. We could list just who won the belt and get the rest of the info by looking at bios. Articles are meant to be informative and well done. This gives all information in an orderly fashion.--WillC 09:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your argument now because you are arguing towards your personal view rather than obtaining a consensus. Who would add the reigns up in their head? You're supposed to have the info right there, even with one click as the days held would do. The key to a good article is to make it easy to follow, and repeating material within the same page doesn't help that. There is a difference between being informative and over doing it for no good reason. Mega Z090 (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the best idea is to open one more discussion in the project talk page. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No - bad idea. The problem is here so it should be discussed here. Project members should be coming here to help. Mega Z090 (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem affect many other articles. Also, it's easier. People usually discusses in the project talk page, it's hard to bring here other users. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we have a major problem as there are no other articles that I am aware of that this affects. Therefore the discussion should be here. Are project members afraid to come here? Mega Z090 (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They just don't know.--WillC 13:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're not a superior entity like you.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be civil son. Stop taking this stuff so serious. It is an encyclopedia. Take it just as that. Articles and the quality is the important factor. You've been taking shots at me forever. I'm this close to reporting you over it when I don't do it to you.--WillC 14:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I said I respect you as user and ask you for advice in the past. However, you haven't give any reason why isn't the table pointless without multi time champions. Ribbon, Oka and MPJ agree it's a pointless table, also said your arguments are " reductio ad absurdam ". Maybe, you're wrong this time. You repeat your arguments, I repet my arguments, but we come to nowhere --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I respect you as an editor and as a person. I don't dislike anyone on here. GaryColemanFan, MPJ, and I are probably the oldest editors on here anymore. MPJ shows up rarely for discussion anymore. He is like I used to be, just absent and off doing what he wants. Gary is the same way. The project used to have a large large load of editors. They all left because all we did was discuss the same old discussions time and time again when the answer was already discovered. Part of what I do and probably why I get shit from people is to end discussions as soon as we can that aren't very productive since they are pointless and we can get to the more serious subjects. We are discussing a table that will end up in the article anyway with shots being taken at one another. I repeat my argument for clarification purposes. You all think I've taken it to absurdity levels. No, I'm looking at it logically. If I stated my argument in bare words with no fluff, it is very logical. My point is "The table will be in the article anyway. The current table has 7 rows and 4 columns, that is 28 boxes. 2 out of 28 boxes change from having one person get 2 reigns. That is a 7.1% change in the table. What is the point?" That is my secondary argument. My main argument is "The table is about combined reigns. There are no two reigns but it displays important information. Who has held the title, who has held it the longest, who has held it the shortest, etc. These are statistics and these statistics play a role in the summary for the title. Previous articles have been under the rule that all information is included. This information is important per previous discussions and FLs that passed." There is nothing absurd about my point. I took the logic behind the point y'all have stood behind and used it. You said that the reader could get that information from the table above. I said that with one person having 2 reigns you can get that same information from the table above. In half a second I can add 150 + 150 and we are done. Same logic. This very logic is used in FLs. The combined days is done with us adding them up.--WillC 14:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, here you go again presenting points that in actuality don't work. For instance, you said; The table will be in the article anyway'. That's crystal balling because this is a developmental promotion with a high turnover of talent, not a core promotion with long term "residents" (for want of a better word). So the additional point of the make up of the table resembles snowballing. And you said The table is about combined reigns. There are no two reigns but it displays important information, ignoring the fact that the important information you speak of already exists in the main table with the list of champions. So it's duplicating existing information. One click on the arrow after days held is all that's needed. It's simple and renders the combined reigns table redundant until we get a two time champion. All information is there without the combined reigns table so there is nothing to add. To say otherwise is, as HHH pedigree said, absurd. Mega Z090 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said, I included in my argument. I used your statements against you and all you can do is repeat yourself and say my argument is absurd. Crystal balling? No, it is not when NXT is slated to exist for several more years per corporate reports by WWE that they are going to keep the promotion around for the long haul because it is the future of their promotional efforts. They don't use the indies to get talent anymore. They use NXT for talent entirely per Vince McMahon on the Austin podcast. Based on your logic that the information is not new. Guess what? Two time champion doesn't make the information new either. The previous table shows all the reign lengths. We add the days together for the second table. It is not sourced. It is not verifiable. We do it with a template. We add it together from the previous table. If a reader can click the sorting function, a reader can add 1 + 1. Do explain to me the difference between sorting function and adding basic integers you are taught in in grade school?--WillC 06:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't, you ignored what I said for convenience. It is crystal balling when you assume that there will be a two time champion in a developmental promotion. Logic says there won't be. So the rest of that point is irrelevant. A two time champion IS new information because for the first time we have a combined reign. In fact by your logic a reader can add two figures together from the first table which means we don't need the combined reigns table anyway! The sorting function places the reigns in length order. It doesn't do the adding. That is the difference, and there's no need for adding when you have no two time (or more) champions. You're talking yourself into a corner and you don't realise it. Mega Z090 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About time you figured out I was arguing that 2 reigns makes no difference and the table wouldn't be needed then. I was wondering when you would finally catch on. I'm been arguing the table was pointless until multiple people have multiple reigns under your logic for several posts now. It took you this long to discover that.--WillC 04:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh 10 out of 10 for that back flip! Stick to one view and you might just get somewhere. Mega Z090 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is you've been arguing that it is needed when 2 reigns happen. I am arguing it is either needed now or not until 3 or 4 people have 2 reigns.--WillC 08:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two reigns at least, not two reigns specifically. Bottom line, it is NOT needed now and as you have left that option open we have a consensus. Mega Z090 (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I am arguing it is either needed now or not until 3 or 4 people have 2 reigns" - Obviously this is not the case. A consensus is a clear agreement between multiple people. There is no agreement. We are now getting down to the specifics of an agreement. When exactly is this table needed? Is it now or when a specific number of reigns is done. I don't agree that it is one person with 2 reigns. I believe it is now. Otherwise it is when multiple people have multiple reigns. You have shown where you stand. No agreement or consensus has been struck.--WillC 11:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another back flip! You should be in the Olympic Games! I will make this clear. As long as we have no multiple champions, the table is not needed. And in the case of this title, it will never be needed. There won't be multiple champions as it is a developmental fed with a high turnover. That is the reality. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

cough cough.--WillC 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant - has an existence outside of developmental. FCW precedes WWE involvement and OVW has had both WWE and TNA involved with them as well as having a separate existence. Also, I'm reverting your addition due to the killer rule of your point. Too much weight. Mega Z090 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a neutral point of view. My view is based on having a well informed article with all necessary and useful information. You're view as previously is grounded on being certain of something despite no evidence. You are not basing your view on sources but on your own ideas. My previous comment was sarcasm.--WillC 02:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never invoked NPOV. I invoked WP:UNDUE because you are adding duplicated information that presents too much weight to the article that's not needed. I base my views in the WP rules and not my own views, and that includes balance in information. You're overdoing it, hence the application of the rule I have. Now discuss the rule, or it will become obvious that you aren't interested in a consensus and I will be the one to take it further - or disengage again as I have done before as this is getting tiresome. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The combined reigns table is redundant. Policy is immaterial. Including it makes the article look inept, as it comes across as an oversight. It's a waste of the reader's attention. Ozdarka (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really should look at the undue weight issue here. I'm not trying to give a minority view of the NXT Title undue weight over the majority view. The content of the article is largely unaffected with the table inclusion regarding neutrality. Arguing over that policy is pointless because it doesn't apply to this subject. Please explain how including the table is giving undue weight to any other view? What large view is against discussing all statistics of an article? Did you even look at that policy before citing it? Notability and including all information shouldn't be ignored. This discussion is at the main page over there and it appears that not everyone is in agreement with this issue. Most just don't care it appears.--WillC 06:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an idea. Lets restructure the section. Instead of it being called combined reigns, call it "Title statistics". The issue against having it is entirely based on the name of the section. This fixes that issue.--WillC 06:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't because you are still duplicating information, which is undue weight! It has nothing to do with NPOV. It has to do with adding redundant information as Ozdarka said. All the statistics are already there withOUT the combined reigns table. Nothing else is needed. Applying WP:IDONTCARE hurts your point. I think this is enough talk - time for a vote. Mega Z090 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As below Paint even shown you that you are wrong on your policy statements. I don't care about your whining. I care about the section. The information presented is on each wrestler. That is new information. It shows the amount of days each person has held the title. It shows how many reigns. It shows how they compare to other wrestlers. That last part is very new.--WillC 01:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus sought

Should we keep the combined reigns table, or should it be deleted? Mega Z090 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it. I'm done. I don't care what you do with this. I've got better things to do. Mega Z090 (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Claim of new information proven to be false. Just saying. Mega Z090 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Get over it. Table provides easy information of who has the most amount of days with an reader having to do nothing. New information.--WillC 02:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Easy" information that duplicates the previous table 100 percent. Not new. Redundant. Get over it. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is just too easy to annoy you. New information regardless. Based on your idea there is no need for a lead because the information exists in some form already. Might as well delete the table since the current champion is stated in the lead.--WillC 04:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in your snow job. You aren't annoying me anymore. You're amusing me with such ignorance of the obvious. Keep it up. I have a full bucket of popcorn. Mega Z090 (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

So why are the NXT championships not titled "WWE NXT Championship", "WWE NXT Women's Championship", and "WWE NXT Tag Team Championship"? The NXT article here is WWE NXT, not NXT. They are owned by WWE, NXT is just the "brand". WWE is included on all of the articles of all of their current main show titles, even the Raw and SmackDown exclusive ones are WWE Raw (Women's/Tag Team) Championship and WWE SmackDown (Women's/Tag Team) Championship. --JDC808 ♫ 21:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a split?

Per WP:PW/SG, when a championship has 10+ reigns we can split into a list of champions article. Is it time for List of NXT Champions?LM2000 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, the WWE Raw Women's Championship should be split as well. Nickag989talk 17:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. WWE Cruiserweight Championship here soon too. --JDC808 ♫ 00:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a World Championship

My edit was deleted. On the February 24, 2020 episode of Raw, during his sit down interview, Drew McIntyre himself said that he had never been a world champion in WWE. Please remove all references to this belt being a world title.

Please don't add the claim that this belt is a "world" championship without a source that isn't WWE itself. This doesn't pass the Wikipedia sourcing guidelines, sources need to be independent of the subject in this case. Egaoblai (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each promotion decides what titles are world titles, like ROH or PWG proclaiming their titles as world titles. The information is sourced. It's not necessary another source since the promotion cntrols their own in-universe narrative. If other source says the title is a world title, it's just repeating what WWE says. Also, other sources, like Pro Wrestling Illustrated, PWInsider or WON are not goverment bodies who controls the world status of each title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of WWE referring to the NXT title as a world championship. The archived WWE.com reference failed to support the preceding "world title" claim. Amoeni (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NXT is not even considered main roster. The NXT title is the top title of NXT, but not a world title. Bo Dallas is not a former World Champion. Winning the NXT title would not make John Cena a 17-time World Champion.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In his sit down interview on Raw tonight (2/24/20), Drew McIntyre said he has never won a world title. Please remove all references to this being a world title. Let's be honest it never was.
Indeed. I think WWE's show itself would outrank one website mentioned.Muur (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment

This RfC concerns whether, in professional wrestling, the NXT Championship could rightly be described as a "world championship". This is one of those difficult matters about which the sources disagree. Editors have evaluated the sources, and although there is some dissent, the rough consensus is that NXT cannot rightly be described as a world championship at this time. Accordingly, I shall remove this wording with my next edit.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the NXT Championship be described as a world championship?LM2000 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No per the previous section. 04:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - as it's now been established that NXT Titles can be options for Royal Rumble winners (WWE counts Charlotte Flair's current NXT Women's Title as her 11th title reign) Vjmlhds (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know. One side, we have the previous discussion, where it was established a consensus. We have sources. However, I always feel (my Personal POV) the NXT title isn't a world title, even if NXT is the third brand. As LM 2000 says, source can be an anomaly, we know WWE writers are full of contradictions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought it should have been categorized as a world title after I saw the source in 2017 too, but since then I think more evidence has been against it being a world title than for it. As @Muur: said in the last discussion, the TV product continues to act as if Drew McIntyre never won a world title before WrestleMania, which means that the originally source was wrong. We should reflect that.LM2000 (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Its up to WWE to determine if its a World Championship, not us. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 00:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Drew said he had never won a world title in the lead up to wrestlemania.Muur (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, 10 days later, should we removed the World title part? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keith Lee (July 2020)

I thought this site worked on facts only and not spoilers? Despite the picture going around that shows Keith Lee holding the NXT Title after the Great American Bash, there is no confirmation from WWE that he is Champion. It is possible that they filmed two endings. Please keep Adam Cole as the current champion until WWE show the next episode of NXT on July 8th. Any attempts to put Lee back as Champion before then will be changed back to Cole.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NXT_Championship&oldid=965953883"