Talk:List of WWE Champions/Archive 1

End of Cena's reign

It appears that listing Cena as already surrendering the title might be premature. WWE.com reports here that Cena "will have no choice but to surrender the title" (emphasis mine), the title history Flash (and the banner from clicking through) still show it, and their Superstars main page still shows Cena as champion. From every page I can find on their website, WWE still seems to consider Cena the champion. I imagine the exact date will be figured out within the week. --Billfred 21:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Nevermind--it sorted itself out. --Billfred 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments re. Talk: List of WWE Champions

I tried posting this at User talk:3bulletproof16, but, for a reason I can't explain he's blocked me, so I post here:

Hey Buddy,

I can appreciate that we have an honest disagreement about whether or not to include pictures in the list of WWE champions. But deleting my comments about this topic - why would you do that? Seriously, let the Wikipedia community as a whole hear and judge. If my opinions are so inferior to yours, I'm sure you'll prevail. But deleting my comments from a Talk page is just rude. What possible rationale could you have for saying that I don't have the right to make my case to the wider editors of Wikipedia?? Seriously, our disagreement is about me wanting to add photos to a list - it's not like I'm denying the Holocaust or something. Why are you being so insistent on snuffing out my opinion? Adam_sk 08:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

atitude era

Ummm, I dont see how Austin winning the title for the first time "OFFICIALLY" marked the beginning of the atitude era. There are many times where the beginning could be marked, none are even remotley official. Id go with when Bret Hart was screwed.

MITB Notes

Thanks for readding those. After I deleting them, I realized that they were important. However, I did clear out some other pointless notes, like how Cena hit an FU through two tables in the TLC match. We need to watch for that stuff. 131.230.135.105 20:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Antonio Inoki & Sources

I am currently preparing the list for a run at FL status, and that means reformatting it so that it matches WWE.com's descriptions. I was wondering if anyone had a source for some of the stuff that wouldn't be at WWE.com - mainly Inoki's unofficial reign as well as some of the taped one day/aired another changes. I think PWTorch, WON and PWI would be acceptable sources for an FL. Also, does anybody think that the events should be readded in the notes section? Usually, FL voters ask that every section in a chart have something in it and I was thinking that adding what event the change ocurred at would be a good and easily sourceable way to fill up space. -- Scorpion 19:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a reliable source for the unofficialy title changes (wrestling-titles.com). I could go either way on the events. TJ Spyke 03:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'unofficial' title reigns do not change the amount of times B Backlund held the belt, that's why they are 'unoffcial'. Until the day the creator/owner of the WWE (the WWE themselves) decide BB is a 3 or 4 time champ, he stays as 2 time. The story behind the unofficial changes is covered next to the reign, but to have the numbers tally with the unofficial record would be to imply that BB is a 3 or 4 time champion, which he is not, because WWE say he is not, and only they, not anyone else has the right to allocate reigns.Halbared 13:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

WWE doesn't count them, but unbiased sources like PWI do. WWE also claims Ric Flair has only won 16 world titles, but we know better. TJ Spyke 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes WWE doesn't count them, and they are the definitive authority on how many reigns are held by anyone, they can alter this when they like. Just as AWA awarded Hogan 2 title reigns years after the event. AWA changed their title history, if WWE choose to do this at a later date then the titles change. Flair can be anything from 16 to 20 time champion, it all depends on how you see his titles. the NWA never acknowledged certain title changes, and so his reigns are simply those recognised by the NWA. It has nothing to do with being unbiased, but everything to do with who owns the intellectual property rights, and no-one but the company in question does for any championship. The times that Backlund 'lost' the belt are covered in the side box, and the fact that the WWE does not recognise these and that Backlund's championship is interrupted. Therefore he is a single title holder as of 1984.Halbared 09:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I also don't appreciate you (TJ Spyke) removing all of the sources I added. -- Scorpion 15:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove all, just non-notable ones (it doesn't need to be noted that they won it at a certain event). Hal, Flair is a 22 time world champ and that is what we reckonize him. Hogan had those two title reigns the entire time, whether AWA reckonized them or not. Backlund is a 4 time WWE champ, so the article will say that (to do otherwise hurts the article and is wrong). TJ Spyke 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The intellectual property rights of how many championships are held by ppl belong to the WWE. No-one else. The unofficial changes are covered. What would be wrong is to ignore what the owner states. Flair is recognised as holding different reigns by different organisations, it crosses 3 companies, so that issue is not as clear here. Hogan is an AWA champ now, but wasn't 5 years ago. Fans are not seated in a position to gainsay the owners of said championships.Halbared 22:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait, does this mean WWE has authority over their history? Because we have to change a lot of articles then. According to WWE, Bret Hart was the first wrestler to hold the IC, heavyweight, and tag titles. (WWF Magazine, Dec 1992), so we have to clean up the Pedro Morales article. WWE has also stated Hogan's first match of his career was against the Iron Sheik. Better change Hogan's article to match this. The WWF website in 1998 stated in a typo that Astin was heavyweight Champ, so we better give Sean Astin a reign. Also, Vince McMahon (the creator/owner you mention) said in a 2002 interview that he counted Bret Hart as a three time WWF champ for some reason or another, so we better change that one.... and we won't even get into the way the WWF rewrote history in the 80's. Of course, we're talking about a fictional sport here, so whatever anyone wants to do. It's not worth putting too much thought into.Celedor15 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All of that stuff is just minor errors. What the user is saying is that while we should follow what really happened (ie. Antonio Inoki's reign which isn't official according to the WWE) but still take what the WWEs official history says into account. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor errors?! Bwahahahaha... WWF/WWE reinventing their history every four years based on politics and who presently needs a push are minor errors? Are you Vince McMahon? Come off it. WWE is the most unreliable source for history in the history of the business. I'm not saying how many reigns we should give Bob Backlund, but this idea that the WWE has authority over their history is laughable, and any true WWE fan knows that. Heck, Vince knows it. (Or he really did believe Diesel was the greatest WWF champion of all time, as he said on Raw during his reign. That's quite a thing to say for the worst drawing champion ever.) But like I said before, it's just silly to argue about the history of a ficticious sport.Celedor15 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources are needed for every reign. Because otherwise, people would say it's unsourced. Having a source gives all of the information needed. It seems unnecessary, but the list will now have little trouble reaching FL status. -- Scorpion 00:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not just have one source for the official title changes, and make it the WWE's title page. That way the info is there with a source without having 81 different sources that basically go to the same page. Just link here: [1]. TJ Spyke 06:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Are the sources hurting the article? No. That way, people can easily find the specific WWE.com info on that reign. Besides, the soures also have many of the specifics of the one part of the table. -- Scorpion 08:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all need to go (ones like Rock winning the Deadly Games tournament is fine), but to have a different ref for every single title reign is overkill and IMO can hurt the article. TJ Spyke 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[2]. A great site for match histories, based on the day they occured. Mshake3 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

FL

I don't suppose that some of the regular editors of this page would mind adding some support to its run at becoming an FLC... -- Scorpion 15:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray Stevens

I heard that Sammartino's first reign was interrupted once by Ray Stevens, and he won it back, but WWE doesn't recognize it. Is that true? -- Crippler.

I can't find any source to support that. For example, wrestling-titles.com lists Antonio Inokis (legit) title win and even DiBiase (non-legit) win. TJ Spyke 06:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Stevens is listed at the OWW WWE championship title history page. However, he is listed nowhere else. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He was listed on OnlineWorldofWrestling.com with a note of that WWE doesn't recognize the reign, making it seem legit.

"Federation"

Won the title at Backlash.[68] The title was renamed the WWE Undisputed Championship on May 6 after World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc. settles a lawsuit with the World Wide Fund for Nature, and drops "Federation" from all references in the company.[2]

As far as I know, The term "Federation" in World Wrestling Federation continues to be used in their past programming, they only censor the "F" when anyone says "WWF". This should be corrected. --Raderick 06:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think that was supposed to mean WWE removed all current references to "Federation" from the company; on the website, on TV, etc. I'll reword it to say "..and becomes simply World Wrestling Entertainment" to avoid ambiguity. --MarcK 14:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

wwe.com title histroy

wwe.com has the annoucement of the vacacy of the title up but if you go to totile history and click the last istance of cenas name it still says spet 17 2006- nothing but yes i did see vince announce the vacany last night. what should we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.74.254 (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

nvm it has been updated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.74.254 (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Undertakers, Triple H's and Randy Orton's reigns...

That took place in Rosemont IL, WWE.com recognises that they simply took place in the greater Chicago area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.61.59 (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Kane

Shouldnt it be oted that kane was never ment to win the championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.247.247 (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It looked like a perfectly planned finish to me. Do you have a source for this? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

1stly how do you know he wasn't meant to win it and secondly it doesn't matter.Skitzo (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Hardy

I notice someone has added Jeff Hardy to the list as winner of Royal Rumble 2008. As it hasn't happened yet, how is this possible?

It's ok, it's been fixed since I added this.

Yeah, someone vandalized the article. It was reverted. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bret Hart's first title win was not at a house show

It was a dark match at a TV taping.

http://www.angelfire.com/wrestling/cawthon777/92.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.218.242 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

According to WWE.com (Which I admit isn't the best of sources) it was a "non-televised live event" (AKA a house show). And although it might have been a dark match, I have seen video of that match, so it was taped (in other words, both sources are sort of wrong). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sid Victory was not STEEL CAGE --- February 17, 1997

Sid won the title from Bret in a regular match at RAW and not a Steel cage. The STEEL CAGE match was when Sid successfully defended his title against Hart with both Undertaker & Stone Cold interfering. The one where he defeated Hart to win the title from him, was on RAW the night after IYH:Final Four and Sid won, when Stone Cold hit Bret with a steel chair as Hart had Sid in the Sharpshooter. the referee was Earl Hebner

vandalism

it says the rock is the current champion and won it june 16 on raw. it says that hes in his 8th reign and it doesnt mention triple h's 7th reign in the table someone please change itSkilldog2 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ok its changed now. thank you to who ever changed it 70.100.168.23 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Championship names table

Where is the Timeline from 1963? Wasn't the championship named WWWF Heavyweight Championship until 1963? Timothy da Thy (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Championship didn't exist until 1963. Buddy Rogers was the first champion.--DonJuan.EXE (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

New table format

In this new table format, there is an "Event" column, and it always tags the event like Backlash (2008) instead of Backlash. It adds too much unnecessary bulk to the table especially since the year is written in the date column. I am going to change all of these so it just says the event without the years leaving the years in the date column. ViRaKhVaR321 (talk) 02:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Error in table

Scorpion thinks he controls the content of the article and chose to just keep reverting rather than explaining here why he thinks it shouldn't go it. See the edit history, basically Scorpion keeps removing the other people involved in the match at Backlash despite the fact that we always list the wrestlers in matches like this. Feel free to put the info back in since it is relevant. Scorpion, rather than get yourself blocked by reverting it again, discuss your opinion here and try and get a consensus on wanting the table to be incomplete. TJ Spyke 19:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not true, I explained my side on your talk page. It's unnecessary info. They had no chance of winning the title and thus they should not be listed. It's the same reason why we don't (usually) list interference. You are clearly the one with the ownership issues. I'm simply trying to do what I think is best, whereas you have admitted several times that you don't care, and yet you keep reverting me. Remember when I tried to use a template and you continually reverted me just because the template was "original research"? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I meant explain it here. After you left the message on my page you reverted the info 2 more times after. I didn't care until you decided to just keep reverting to get things your way and I only said it wasn't a big deal to me. I was justified on the template thing since that was original research. The other 4 men were relevant to the match and I think you wouldn't be arguing this if Rhodes or DiBiase won the match or if McMahon/Batista cost Triple H the title by getting DQ'd or counted out. TJ Spyke 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, because then their participation would have been significant. But since Orton pinned Triple H, it doesn't really matter. If we note that, then we would have to add that Hogan interfered in Savage's first title win, Hogan pulled Sid out of the ring to allow Flair to win in 1992, Yokozuna won his first title after interference from Fuji, Mike Tyson did a fast count for Austin to allow him to win, The Rock cheated to beat Mankind in the I Quit match and so on and so forth. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

None of them were actually involved in the match though (except Hogan/Sid, who were in the RR match). TJ Spyke 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does it honestly matter either way? Let's just get some form of consensus and be consistent. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article says "while as of June 2009 the current champion is Batista, who is in his firstthird" what is firstthird? --ShanRaj 10 (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, and do NOT blank sections for no reason. TJ Spyke 05:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Randy Orton

Is he the only superstar to win the title, and then lose it, and regain it in one night? he lost it to triple h first then triple h vs umaga triple h won then randy orton beat triple h later that night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.104.97 (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not notable. TJ Spyke 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Batista

He's the only Superstar to win the WWE Championship in a steel cage match. --ShanRaj 10 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually he the 3rd [[User:Supermike|Supermike] (talk) 1 —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC).

No, he's the first. Hell in a Cell is different from a normal Steel Cage match. No one else has won it in a regular Steel Cage match. TJ Spyke 14:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Top Combined reigns.

How was it decided that there would be 23 people listed there? That's such a weird number. Can't we cut it to 20 or add two more and make it 25? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's wrestlers with 100 days or more as champion. I actually think it should be a list of all champions reigns combined (meaning everybody who has held the title). Once a wrestlers holds the title for 100 combined days they get added to the list. TJ Spyke 20:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I guess that makes sense. I just wasn't sure how it came to be such an odd number. I agree with you that having all of the champions would be a good idea. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Regins 82, 83 and 84

Reigns 82, 83, and 84 doesn't make since. I remember when John Cena had to give up his WWE Championsip due to an injury because he would be out of auction six months to a year. Mr. McMahon awarded the title to Randy Orton at No Mercy (2007). Triple H won the WWE Championsip from Randy Orton in a Last Man Standing Match at No Mercy (2007). How did Triple H (Reigh 83) win the WWE Championship? Reign 83 doesn't make any since. Gibsonj338 (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Randy Orton was Awarded the Title Triple H came out challenged Orton and won then later that night Orton used the rematch and won the title back all in the same night.--Steam Iron 02:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Reigns 98 & 99

Batista's second reign did not see the ownership of the WWE Belt be given to the SmackDown brand, for one thing Batista never appeared on SmackDown while holding the title and for another no mention was ever made by any commentator or interviewer or wrestler or, as far as I've seen though I haven't read extensively, any newspaper article. Every other time a title moves brands, it is addressed (Edge's 2008 promo about Raw not having any titles; commentators and articles during a Draft) but nothing was said this time because it didn't move to SmackDown, nor did it move back to Raw. It was WrestleMania season, brand lines were blurred and Batista had the backing of the evil Mr McMahon to circumvent the rules. Tony2Times (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He was a SmackDown superstar when he held it. Ergo, it crossed both brands. –Turian (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A SmackDown superstar who never appeared on SmackDown with the belt, the belt never appeared on SmackDown either despite being their alleged property and no-one said it was SmackDown property. Tony2Times (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WWE.com had him listed on both rosters. So yes, I was right. –Turian (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Because he was appearing on Raw for a protracted period despite being a SmackDown superstar. Find me somewhere that says that the WWE Championship that never appeared on SmackDown and when was defended had the Raw graphic (with the buildings and red colour as opposed to the SmackDown DNA helix and blue colour). The WWE Championship has had no affiliation with SmackDown since May. Heck, the World Heavyweight Champion appeared on Raw a handful of times in the last month despite neither guy being a Raw member. But no SmackDown for the WWE Championship. Tony2Times (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm done arguing this because it won't change. WWE.com had him listed on both because he was challenged by a Raw superstar and he took it from a Raw superstar but was part of SmackDown. –Turian (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah he was a SmackDown superstar I'm not disagreeing with that, but the belt wasn't. No-one said he was. Tony2Times (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

When Batista was the WWE Champion WWE.com had the title list as being on both brands hence the duel branding.--Steam Iron 20:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For one that's not what the current listing says and two Batista is on the SmackDown roster, hence he was listed on the SmackDown roster as champ while the WWE Title is Raw property hence it being listed on the Raw roster. Whenever a title changes ownership, it is explicitly stated. It never was explicitly stated this time because it never changed ownership which is why Batista never appeared on SmackDown with the belt. Tony2Times (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The WWE website listed him as both brand's champion. Do you think we are making this up? Just drop it already. –Turian (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But wait, the article says the title became SmackDown! exclusive. Tony2Times (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Lock this article

Can someone please lock this article from vandilism. 98.20.3.37 (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)