Talk:WWE Women's Championship

Propose merger

I propose a merger. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be merged because they are two separate titles following two separate lineages. Charlotte is the first "WWE Women's Champion." The previous title, according to WWE.com, which is known as the "Women's Championship", is still considered retired. That is why this page should be separated.

This is the original: http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/women

And this is the current: http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-womens-championship

They're two completely different titles. I think there should be separate pages for each.Dohvahkiin (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep them separate articles but have the original title under the name "Women's Championship (WWE)" and the current title "WWE Women's Championship" like the website does. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

AgreedDohvahkiin (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging this with the original Women's title would be like merging WWE Classics on Demand with WWE Network. Apples and oranges, two separate entities, so I vote to keep it separate. John (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Leave them separate. They are different titles given WWE have recorded different title histories for them. They just so happen to share the same name. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The only reason I proposed the merger is because of the debacle with the WWE Heavy Weight Championship belt. I just think it would be best to wait until there is clear clarification. Why have to delete pages and move pages until the clarification? I guess i was trying to not have all these moves and deleted pages. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What debacle? Are we talking about the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)? It seems the new Women's title is similar to that one; the WHC was spun off from the NWA and WCW titles, whose lineages can be traced back to the original. The description on WWE.com mentions that the lineage of this one can be traced back to Moolah, Wendi Ricter, Trish, Lita and Jackie, using similar language that they did with the WHC descriptions. It's related to the old belt but spun off with a fresh title history. It seems that we do have solid confirmation that this is a new belt, so it needs a separate article.LM2000 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

WWE could always change their mind and decide they're the exact same championship. If they do, then would be the time to discuss a merge.LM2000 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Article title

Can somebody move this article to "WWE Women's Championship" because all the redirects have mixed up the move process. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's just stop moving things for a while. Let discussion play out. And to avoid all the redundant discussions and talking past each other, let's have one discussion at the pro wrestling WikiProject talk page. oknazevad (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Reigns

So weird question, what if a woman who has head the old woman's championship wins this title? example: Mickie James comes back and wins the title. is it considered her 1st reign or her 6th reign?

First reign. Booker T held the WCW 5 times, when he won the World Heavyweight Championship in 2006 it was his first reign with that title even though it had been spun off of the WCW title.LM2000 (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

To be technical, the world title he won in 2006 was not "spun off" of the WCW title. They were two separate titles, but both used the Big Gold Belt design. But yes, it would be her first reign as this is a new, separate title. --JDC808 ♫ 04:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: There is a consensus to move these pages. I'll do that after disambiguating links to WWE Women's Championship first, as this essentially amounts to a switch of WP:primary topics and we want to ensure that we're pointing to the correct pages. wbm1058 (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Pages moved. wbm1058 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

---

• WWE Women's Championship (2016–present) → WWE Women's Championship
• WWE Women's Championship → WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010)

– There seems to be a general consensus on WT:PW supporting this move, but we need to make this official. The new title should be the one as the main subject (i.e. the one without the disambiguator), as it is the current championship, and thus the one people will mainly search for. As such, the original needs to be moved to a disambiguator. I suggested "(original)", but I'm open to other suggestions. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 23:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Support the first unambiguously. As for the second, dates are more standard for disambiguation, so WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) should be used. (Not that the "original" is necessarily bad, it's iust too uninformative). oknazevad (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support @oknazevad's suggestion. Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support and as mentioned above, the previous championship should be moved to WWE Women's Championship (1956-2010) rather than "original". Dannys-777 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support making this article the "default" and including a disambiguation redirect for the original WWE Women's title.DigificWriter (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support making this article without the disambiguation as it is more likely to be one people mean when they search for it and the original is a closed book so it seems more natural to have that one be the one with the end in the title rather than have the odd -present in the title. Tony2Times (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support, The current WWE Women's title should have no disambiguation, but I'm not really a fan of using (1956-2010) for the original I personally think (Original) would be better. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Original" is not only ridiculously vague and uninformative, it also goes against standard policy of using dates for disambiguation. Remember that the vast majority of people accessing these articles will not be knowledgeable wrestling fans and so the use of "original" to differentiate between championships would mean absolutely nothing to them. Dannys-777 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand how its "vague" or "uninformative" I doubt a lot of people would be confused by seeing "Original" its pretty self explanatory in the article title its the first/original Women's Championship, unless your completely brain dead and cant understand the meaning of the word "original". Speedy Question Mark (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Because people may not be aware that there have been two championships, that one came before the other, that the current championship is not the original championship, etc etc. It may be self-explanatory to you, but not to an average person who doesn't know anything about this subject, or to someone in 5 years time when the current Women's Championship is the norm and everyone has forgotten that there was an "original" championship. Again, Wikipedia is encyclopedic content and not just for wrestling fans. The policy of this website is to use dates for disambiguation where necessary. See Wembley Stadium (1923), Yankee Stadium (1923) etc. Dannys-777 (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support, Per above and support using 1956-2010 for the old title. Given the unanimous support for the name, can I suggest that maybe we should SNOW this and give the name consistency? I'm getting tired of changing the name on the DYK nomination every time there's a move. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Support only for the current championship to be named WWE Women's Championship, but the old one will be WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010). JC · Talk · Contributions 21:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I updated my new title suggestion for the original title per this comment section. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 23:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment I would rather we use the Women's Championship (WWE) naming scheme that we use for the original WHC and Tag title articles. Especially since WWE is using this same distinction themselves: Current title is listed as the "WWE Women's Championship" and the old title is listed as "Women's Championship". Feedback 22:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Counter comment. They also leave off the "WWE" from the IC and US titles, as well as historical titles like the Euro and Cruiserweight, so it is not indicative of a new naming scheme for the former title, and fails WP:COMMONNAME as the old title was always the "WWE Women's Championship" (or WWF before that, but that goes without saying). It would be essentially a made up, and erroneous, interpretation. Anyway, the dates are clear accurate and standard. Easier and more correct to stick with them. oknazevad (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Counter counter comment: There is not need to include WWE on those other titles on their website as there are not two separate titles with the same name as is the case here with the Women's Championship. I Support the naming mentioned by Feedback. --JDC808 ♫ 04:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

But that ignores the fact that they still are the "WWE Intercontinental Championship", "WWE Cruiserweight Championship", "WWE United States Champinship" and, yes, "WWE Women's Championship". This title was not renamed just because the formatting of one webpage. That's the error that you are both making. oknazevad (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And you are making the error of ignoring how WWE labels its two titles with the same name on its official website. --JDC808 ♫ 17:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it. I'm discounting it. There's a difference. I look at the historical picture from its actual time of use (being its a defunct title), along with looking at the rest of the website, particularly the other titles that definitely have "WWE" as part of their names but don't have it on that page, and it leads me to draw the conclusion that the formatting of the name of the old title does not constitute a name that leaves off the WWE that has always been part of the titles name as seen in pre-title-match graphics and reigning champions' name banners on television during the actual time the title was in use. In short, leaving the "WWE" to be a disambiguator is incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Support - seconding comment by oknazevad. B. Mastino (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to get technical, the official names for the World Heavyweight Championship introduced in 2002 and the tag team title belts that were introduced in 1971 were the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" and "WWF/WWE World Tag Team Championship", respectively, so the current designators for them here on Wikipedia are wrong in and of themselves. However, that's a debate for another time and place. With regards to the naming of the article for the original WWF/WWE Women's Championship, using the date designator of "1956-2010" should be what we go with because it's an accurate reflection of what the title's official name actually was.DigificWriter (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was never "WWE World Heavyweight Championship". They were always very specific about that. And the tag title's name was changed outright when the second set for SmackDown were introduced, dropping the WWE that they had previously bore. That's why the disambiguators are needed and there, because those titles actually had the father generic names of "World Heavyweight Championship" and "World Tag Team Championship", whereas the original WWE Women's Championship never dropped the WWE initials. 19:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. All titles have the WWE sigils in their name. They are just omitted for simplicity or conciseness, or in the WHC's case, to avoid confusion with the other WWE title. However, when it was necessary, they listed the full name. For example, every listing for the replica belts on WWEShop have always called it the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship". See here and here. Feedback 02:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Never was their a pre match graphic for a WHC title match that used the name "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" during the 11+ years the title was active. "WWE" was very much intentionally left off its name, specifically because they were distinguishing it from the WWE Championship which it coexisted with. The shop website is not in anyway accurate on the name. Nor are they consistent, as seen here, where it distinctly omits the "WWE", thereby showing that any "always" claim is incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with List of WWE Women's Champions (2016–present)

There is simply not enough material yet to warrant a separate champion's list. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. As discussed at WT:PW. Kinda surprised no one has done it yet. Go ahead, be bold and take care of it if you want. oknazevad (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:TOOSOON. It's too early to have them separate. When Charlotte loses the title, then we can have a separate list (though I'd wager that the instance we merge this, then the next WWE event will have her lose the title!) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support Make the page like the NXT title pages until the title becomes more established. Browndog91.
  • This was already approved at the project page. Someone should just merge them already.--WillC 07:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Confusing things said by Michael Cole and Charlotte

When they introduced this title, it was introduced as a brand new title that does not carry the lineage of the Divas title or the previous Women's title. However, on a recent episode of Raw (within the past month), Michael Cole said that Charlotte's reign began back at Night of Champions and that the Divas title became the Women's, and then there's this (0:25-0:30 mark): https://cdn1.wwe.com/hd_video1/wwe/2016/charlotteric_coleint_051116/charlotteric_coleint_051116_768x432.mp4. Charlotte said she's almost passed Nikki's reign, and Cole confirms this. It makes it seem like the new Women's title does actually carry the lineage of the Divas title. --JDC808 ♫ 21:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hardly be the first time the announcers have played fast and loose with title histories when it benefits promoting something. Which is why we use the official title histories as our guide. And they make it clear that it's a different title. oknazevad (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte 309 days

Charlotte is on commentary during the Bailey + New Day vs Dana Brooke + The Club.

Announcer said she held the title over 300 days and Charlotte rebuts "three hundred and nine days but who's counting?"

We list her first reign here as 113 days and her final reign as Divas Champion as 196 days. These add up to make 309, so it appears that Charlotte considers this to be one continuous reign.

Shouldn't we acknowledge this somehow? Ranze (talk) 01:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. How many times must you be told that announcers do not count as WP:RS?LM2000 (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with LM2000. The official title history has them as separate championships. Anything else is still SYNTH. Stop. oknazevad (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nope two different titles, don't care what an announcer says. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 06 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

---

WWE Raw Women's Championship → RAW Women's Championship – Discussion has taken place and support for the new page title is near-unanimous – Weweremarshall (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Sam Sailor 21:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: I don't know where that discussion took place. — Sam Sailor 21:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: It didn't. --JDC808 ♫ 21:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Comment there is discussion ongoing at Talk:WWE SmackDown Women's Championship. Also, this would be completely wrong anyway, as we do not use all caps for Raw per WP:MOSTM. oknazevad (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORT as long as "Raw" is not in all caps. mcLovin'tosh (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Weak Support to "Raw Women's Championship" per the same reason as on Talk:WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship. It probably would have been useful to have one discussion for all of these moves rather than separate ones.LM2000 (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, it's fine the way it is. You don't need to drop the WWE from it. It's still WWE Raw. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 04:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose After thinking about this WWE should be in the Articles title. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment, after Raw changed the WWE Women's Championship to "Raw Women's Championship", I am also thinking about opposing the move. I am about to convince myself that it's probably just fine the way it is for now. User:Mclovin'tosh (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose as per Crash Underride. There is no sufficient evidence that the WWE is dropped (such a constantly changing list on WWE.com that might well use short forms for brevity's sake is not eough). Also, editors should be much slower to move articles. Currently, the opposite is true. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Split Section

Following the heels the List of NXT Champions Article Creation for now having 10+ reigns as per the Wikipedia:PW/SG, I'd like to follow-up on the split of this article (which also has 10+ reigns), as well as the NXT Tag Team Championship, which already has 14 reigns and has been left untouched since March 1, 2018. And since this article has been more recently updated than the NXT Tag Titles, I figured that I'd toss this topic out here for a better chance of update. - 119.95.139.29 (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

When it was brought up to split the NXT Championship page, a couple of others, including this page, were also brought up, just no one has done it yet. --JDC808 ♫ 04:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, hence the follow-up. And as much as I'd like to create one myself, I also don't want to sign-up as a registered user due to past experiences in other wiki sites. Nevertheless, I'm glad someone like you's keeping track - and for that I'm grateful. I'll just stay tuned. - 119.95.139.29 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the split and the update, JDC808. :) Articles look nice now that they don't clutter their respective parent articles. - 119.95.139.29 (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2020

Whos kway? (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)The current champion is Smackdown's superstar Sasha Banks, who won the title in a thrilling matchup against Asuka at Extreme Rules 2020.  When she won the 
championship that day she began her 5th reign as the Raw Women's Champion, which is an incredible feat, considering it is the most reigns inthe belts, history, and she doesn't even operate under the Raw brand.(Smackdown is her domain).

 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. Jack Frost (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It also seems like the request is asking for it to be written with a lot of bias and hyperbole. What happened at "The Horror Show at" Extreme Rules was Asuka defended the championship vs. Sasha Banks. Towards the end of the match, Asuka spit green mist at Sasha, who ducked, causing the referee to be blinded and unable to call for a DQ. Banks then pinned Asuka, during which time Bayley removed the referee's shirt and donned it herself, counting to 3 and demanding the timekeeper ring the bell, which they did after repeated demands from Bayley. Sasha left with the championship belt, but it was unknown if Asuka had retained the championship via disqualification (DQ) or whether the 3-count was the decision. If anything, I think the info table should have Banks as current champion, but with a note that the reign is currently disputed due to last night's events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.197.176 (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Youngest Champion

Sasha Banks clearly won the title when she was 24 years and 181 days old. As of now she is the youngest women's champion. I hope people will stop adding misinformation. Damien Chazelle is regarded as youngest director to win academy awards even though Norman Taurog was also 32 years when he won the award. Days count matters.Rtyggu (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

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

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nikki A S H Raw Womens Title.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

WWE Women's Championship

What is going to happen now? On the WWE website, the shop has a supposed "WWE Women's Undisputed Championship" belt. Is this retired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikoMek (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@MikoMek the undisputed part makes 0 sense, but let's wait until the title history is updated. Logic says this is just renamed back to "WWE Women's Championship" but then again, it could be a brand new title (like Seth's is). JDC808 ♫ 01:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@JDC808 The Women's Championship Page Need the Picture. LinceOscuroPR (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess WWE simply copied the Universal Championship design and forgot to alter the Universal part. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

different lineages

different lineages from wwe 2600:1700:6DCE:B000:D49F:6251:AD1A:23F9 (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify what differences there are from WWE's lineages? — Czello ^(music) 07:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)