Wikipedia

Talk:List of WWE Intercontinental Champions

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Retched in topic Weird sorting problem with the "Days recognized" column?
Learn more about this page
Featured listList of WWE Intercontinental 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
May 16, 2007Featured list candidatePromoted
September 1, 2007Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

Older

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

why is shelton listed at least twice near the bottom but has 2 different "times" listed?

becuase he's a two time champion!???? --- Paulley

I don't think Chris Jericho should be listed as having three separate title reigns during his feud with Chyna. He won the title, then became a co-champ with Chyna, then regained sole posession, but never lost it. It was one continous reign. Mshake3 21:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • Officially Chris Jericho is listed only twice during that feud with Chyna. MJ @ Mon Sep 18 21:35:19 2006 EST
And that "official" listing is wrong IMO. Should be discussed. GetDumb 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sure, in your opinion it's wrong, but since it's WWE's official title history I don't think there's any need for discussion. 69.136.13.211 (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Owen Hart was to win the Title at Over The Edge but died due to an accident before the match took place.

How is this rumor included? Even if it is true, there is no mention of Randy Savage supposed to win the title at WM4 but Honky Tonk threatening to walk? It has no place on this page.

HTM was supposed to drop the title at the Main Event - not WM4. GetDumb 00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Rob Van Dam defeated Eddie Guerrero in a Ladder Match on the May 27, 2002 edition of RAW, but its not listed here, and the match is on the Ladder Match DVD....we should change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Dagon (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is listed there... THe fact that it was a Ladder match isn't mentioned, but it is listed. -- Scorpion0422 16:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's what I meant, sorry, it is listed as a Ladder Match now, though, thanks....--Lord Dagon 16:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Who the hell is trying to change the names around from Mr. Perfect to Curt Hennig, Razor Ramon to Scott Hall, etc.? Keep them under the names they won them as. And no caps either please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.168.28 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Jericho and Chyna: co-champions

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to WWE.com title history, Jericho's first reign reign began on december 12, 1999 and ended on january 3, 2000. His second reign is listed as beggining on january 23, 2000 so those 20 days when him and chyna were named co-champions arn't counted as official title reigns. They basicaly held on the title unofficialy until an undisputed champion could be found.

Whoever argues this is a mistake here's more proof from that title list on chyna's supposed 3rd title reign:

Chyna - Aug. 27, 2000 - Sept. 4, 2000 - Eddie Guerrero and Chyna faced Intercontinental Champion Val Venis and Trish Stratus at SummerSlam in a rare a mixed-tag match with the Intercontinental Championship on the line, meaning whoever scored the pin or submission would win the title. All four Superstars ended up brawling in the ring, with Guerrero and Venis taking their fight to the outside. Chyna scored a press slam on Stratus and got the pin for her second Intercontinental Championship.

Given this as source, I'm editing the page. Secretaria 4:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't have it listed as vacant for 20 days though, since the title wasn't technically vacant. Not sure why WWE has Jericho's reigns separated like that but they still consider him and Chyna champions for those 20 days. TJ Spyke 04:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
The whole thing is a mess. The way it is on the title list it's as if the whole co-champions thing wasn't meant to be taken serious. Then, because WWE clearly recognizes Jericho as an 8 time champion it can't be a saparated reign. They also seem to recognize chyna as 2 time champ. And even if we ignore wwe.com I have no idea if the whole co-champions reign is part of jericho's first or second reign. Not really sure what to do. Perhaps we should use the # like unoffical nwa reigns, but it would screw up the table. Secretaria 5:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does the vacancy start on January 3? The taping were in December and the show where the titles got vacated aired in December. What has January 3 to do with all of this?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bob Holly

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago27 comments9 people in discussion

...is a former IC Champion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.182.99 (talk • contribs)

And your source for this is, what? WWE doesn't consider him a former champ, neither do reliable third party sources like PWI. TJ Spyke 21:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well there are countless episodes of WWE(then WWF) tv where he is referred to as such. WWE don't consider him a former champion NOW, but they did back during 1995-1997 or so. Likewise PWI is hardly a reliable source. It's a factually inaccurate biased markazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.182.99 (talk • contribs)

Holly was never IC Champion, do you have an actual source? Also, PWI IS a reliable source. TJ Spyke 04:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, that would require uploading old TV segments from RAW/Superstars c. 1996 or so. That or finding the archived form of the wwf.com site from the same time. Nobody disputes that WWE today do not recognize him as such, but at the time he was recognized as a former IC Champion. In fact it was a running joke because he only held the belt for a few minutes before being stripped. 41.245.182.99 (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you are referring to what I think you are, he was never considered champion. The belt was vacated after a controversial finish between the champion and Holly, Holly was never considered the actual champion though.

I think you'll find that he was. For about a year or two afterwards he was referred to as being a former IC Champion, and again there were many jokes made about how short his title reign was. Of course, nobody disputes that today WWE do not recognize him as such, but AT THE TIME he was. This is hardly unusual in professional wrestling. Retroactively dropping recognition of a title reign. Again yo would need to actually show the footage from the time, or if it still exists somewhere, the WWF's own website from the ime recognizing it. There are loads of cases where wikipedia recognizes stuff as "unofficial" or "unrecognized". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.172.13 (talk • contribs)

Except in all those cases there are sources to support it, you have yet to produce and source. I have been watching WWE since 1990 and I don't recall Holly ever being considered a IC Champion. Also, remember to sign your comments. TJ Spyke 22:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well what what be a source? I have looked for wrchived wwf.com pages and found diddlysquat. Would a link to say youtube where a commentator refers to him as having been IC Champion count? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.174.119 (talk • contribs)

If you can't find a source, then it won't go in. I have looked at my past issues of PWI and WWE Magazine and didn't find any reference to Holly ever being champion. I can't find any reliable source online that says it. As for YouTube, if it is of WWF/WWE broadcasts, the answer is no they are not allow because they are illegally being hosted on YouTube and violating copyright laws (as WWE does not allow their copyrighted material to be posted on YouTube or any other file sharing site like Daily Motion). TJ Spyke 15:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, the only ways of verifying it are:

1)showing physical footage of the WWF acknowledging it(which isn't allowed ooh ooh)

2)finding an archived version of www.wwf.com from the time which DID refer to Holly as a former IC Champ(good luck with that eh)

So, in short, something which is a fact can't be included because the imbeciles who run fan websites are ignorant, yet their basement websites are used as "reliable sources" to include other information, some of which is wrong. Wikipedia, huh? 41.245.174.119 (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Scratch that....lookee here:

http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/profiles/h/hardcore-holly.php

Check his "titles near the top" and....Scroll down to April 1995 41.245.174.119 (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

And just found this...

http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/n64/file/199352/6181

He WON it, but was then STRIPPED, the decision was NOT overturned, he was stripped of the title the same night he won it.

Pity, I can't give links to youtube clips where everyone from Gorilla Monsoon to Vince Mcmahon to Michael Cole calls Holly a former Intercontinental Champion, but then it's copyright laws and all.....41.245.174.119 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmmmm.....

http://www.australiansportsentertainment.com/jj.html

...and really I could go on for hours with this, but the point has been made I think. Again, nobody disputes that WWE today don't consider Holly to be a former IC Champ, but then they also don't consider Antonio Inoki to be a former WWE World Champion, even though their own website stated for years that he was! 41.245.174.119 (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Has anyone read the above links, and followed up on them? I see that the article still refers to JARRETT as having been stripped of the IC Title! Again, that is what WWE says NOW, but they DID recognize Holly as a former IC Champion for a few years after the match, and said that he(Holly, not Jarrett) was the one stripped. This should be marked as an unrecognized reign. 41.245.178.49 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I found this through reading another poster's contributions.... Yes, Bob Holly DID win the Intercontinental Championship in 1995, the WWF did recognize him, but they DO NOT recognize that title change today, and they DO NOT recognize Holly as a former Intercontinental Champion at the present time. However this SHOULD be listed as an unofficial reign in the article. Paulkearvell (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You have any proof for that? I can't find any proof that they ever considered him IC Champion. The official record (which can be sourced) is that the match ended controversially, Jarrett was stripped of the title as a result, and they had a re-match for the vacant title. TJ Spyke 15:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, the official record (which can be sourced) states that Bob Backlund had an uninterrupted W(W)WF World Title reign from 1978 to 1983, whereas that is not true. Again, NOBODY is arguing that WWE recognizes Holly's reign today. The point is that Holly DID win the belt, and WWE USED TO recognize this reign. So it should be listed as an unofficial reign. Jarret could not be stripped of the title, as he wasn't the Champion at the time. Paulkearvell (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Reliable sources exist for Backlund, no reliable source exists that says Holly won the title. Jarrett was the champion, that he why he could be stripped of the title. TJ Spyke 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

What about the sources the guy posted above? How are those any less reliable than the ones already there? And please do not post a link to the WP:RS page. Yes, WWE now say that Jarret was the champion, and was stripped of the title, but that is NOT the way it happened at the time. Had you been watching WWF in 1995 you would know this. 137.158.152.209 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Let's see, the GameFAQ's link (GameFAQ's in general is not a reliable source) is a user-submitted video game FAQ, so that is out. There is nothing to indicate that Australiansportsentertainment is reliable. Obsessed With Wrestling is not trustworthy since they stole the majority of their info from Online World of Wrestling (when the owner of Obsessed With Wrestling had a falling out with the guy who owned the domain, he left and took his content with him to start Online World of Wrestling. Shortly afterwards the previous domain owner took all the info and put it back on the site. So basically the owner of the first site stole the info from the guy who created it), there is no way to verify their accuracy. TJ Spyke 15:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source to say that they "Stole" their info? And most of the sites listed as "Reliable" are fansites with no verification for their accuracy/ Having linekd to some of them, they look like something a 13-year-old fan made on a home computer! That's reliable?! The only "reliable" one is wwe.com, yet that fails because a) the same site doesn't include the Backlund switches as mentioned above and b)wikipedia prefers not to use sources where the information comes from the people involved in the article. 41.245.179.167 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

You really are desperate right now, resorting to claim that reliable sources like WON and PW Torch (both of which have been around for more than 20 years) are not reliable. I'd like to see a normal 13 year old make a site that even comes close to them. Both are respected newsletters, so are the other sites considered reliable by WP:PW. Regarding OWW, I am not sure how to prove it. If I felt like it, I know I could. As for WWE.com, you really are out of it. First, Wikipedia prefers third party sources to prove NOTABILITY. TJ Spyke 16:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
In addition, Ealdgyth, one of the FLC directors, cleared each and every one of those sources as reliable (though WrestleView was declared "marginally reliable") and complying with WP:V and WP:RS. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think anyone is despearte, apart from people who don't actually answer replies, or if they do, say "I think I could". The fact is, WWE today states that JARRETT was stripped when it was HOLLY who was. So the gormless fans who run their websites just go along with that. Same thing with WCW's and the NWA's ridiculous current versions of their titles' histories. The whole reason Holly's reign was removed from official history was during the Hardcore Title's existence they wanted to portray Holly as a guy who had never held the World, Intercontinental, or European(do you even remember that title?) but had been a pretty dominant Hardcore Champion...Hardcore Holly! But they most definitely DID recognize Holly as a former IC Champion at least through 1996 and 1997. I have searched the internetarchives/waybackmachine but they weren't archiving much back then, sadly, as it would have shown the old WWF.com recognizing Holly as a former IC Champion. As far as the WON and PWT, funnily enough on other wikipedia discussions they have been dismissed as "dirt sheets" and "unreliable", yet here, since they agree with your take, they are "Reliable sources". Go figure. I guess their reliability corresponds directly to how closely they follow your views? Anyway, I KNOW, the other poster KNOWS, and the people who run those websites(as well as various other websites, and various other people) KNOW that WWE DID recognize Holly as a former IC Champ for at least 2 years after the match with Jarrett. It's just too bad wikipedia contains inaccurate information. :-( Paulkearvell (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

How old were said discussions? Several years back, we didn't use ANY sites like that as sources. Now, several of them have been deemed to pass [[WP:V|| and WP:RS, so we can use them. That being said, if you can find a recent discussion that references those sites as unreliable them maybe you'd have a point. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Pealkearvell, I am not sure there is "another" user. The 2 IP's (who are most likely the same since the IP addresses are nearly the same) both edit almost only talkpages, specifically this one and the multiple world title page. This makes me think they are sockpuppets of yours. You have yet to provide any proof that WWE ever considered Holly champion. There have been sites in the past that said Jericho won the WWF Championship from Triple H, that doesn't make it true though. TJ Spyke 15:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not that it's really relevant o this discussion, but I followed the other editor's contributions through the Talk:List of multiple world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling and discovered THIS discussion page.

What IS relevant is that over on the Talk:Bound for Glory (2009) page YOU describe some of your own "reliable" sites as "Most of the time they are nothing more than rumors and BS, but some morons and websites that care more about increasing viewers than being accurate report them as fact." Where did you think I got that "leak"? Not from the links the poster above added, but from WON, which is stated here as being a "Reliable source". So which is it? Is it that some of what WON reports is "Raliable" and some of what WON reports is "moronic BS"?

Also, as to the "some people report Chris Jericho..." well nobody ever seriously claimed that THAT made him a WWE Champion. However, WWE (well, the WWF as they were then) DID THEMSELVES refer to Holly as "a former IC Champion" and the old wwf.com website made reference to that as well. The fact the the current wwe.com says that Jarret was the one stripped, and omits the Holly reign is not disputed. Just as websites that cut and paste their titles history sections of wwe.com agree with that. Bizarrely some people cut-and-paste their "information" from wikipedia, then wikipedia uses those same sites as "reliable source", a true example of circular logic. It's pointless arguing this, as you have stated that uploading old WWE tv shows where Holly is referred to as such would break copyright law, and I have searched in vain for archived wwf.com pages from a dozen or so years ago. This omission of Holly due to "unreliability" is a shining example of a wikipedian flaw. Namely that truth can be overridden by revisionism because there are no "Reliable internet sources" that state the truth, whereas WWE(who spout revisionist history as easily as they breathe)'s falsehoods can be used for verification. Paulkearvell (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Though it can occasionally happen that sites end using Wikipedia as a source and Wikipedia in turn uses it as a source, it's something that is usually caught quickly enough. If you see a page citing a source that cites Wikipedia, go right ahead and remove the site as a source. As for WON, they are reliable, not infallible. No one and nothing is reliable 100% of the time. WON generally corrects their mistakes when they do make them. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
So it's just a coincidence that both you and the 2 IP's making almost the exact same edits? Where did WON ever make any such claim? I just checked their site and found nothing about Turning Point or leaks or anything like that. You keep claiming WWE at one time considered Holly as IC Champion, yet you have yet to actually provide any evidence of that. The point about Jericho is that there have also been sites that claimed he was champion, just like there are sites that claim Holly was IC Champion. See WP:V and WP:RS. TJ Spyke 17:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

"The exact same edits"? WTF? We have the exact same take/view on this situation that's certain, just as you and User:Gavyn Sykes have the exact same view/take on the situation, only he is far more articulate and nowhere near as offensive as you are. I have been unable to find archived wwf.com pages showing that they used to consider Holly a former IC Champ so will leave it at that. However I do know for a fact that WWE did used to refer to Holly as such, it's just that only certain websites now acknoledge this(post-WWE revisionism) yet those sites just happen to be the ones you consider "unreliable". Hmmm. Paulkearvell (talk) 06:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

As an outsider to this discussion who is reading it for the first time, can I just say this thread ought to be locked from future posts? The level of "He Said, She Said" bickering here is absurd, and is eating space that could be used for more legitimate questions. Moderators, whoever you may be, please let my post be the last on this thread. Thank you. Blozier2006 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Bryce L.Reply


If Bob Holly counts (AND HE SHOULD NOT, it was never recognized as a reign at the time, and then never by the WWF until JR just started talking about it on commentary during Bob Holly matches) then Savio Vega should have a reign listed as well, because the circumstances between Holly and Jarrett and Vega and Goldust were near identical.00:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.169.119 (talk)

Final Argument's for Bob Holly (Let's put an end to this please)

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

I think the best way to resolve this is to have it noted in Jeff Jarrett's reign that Bob Holly pinned him but the title was vacated as Jarrett's foot was under the rope, and that Holly's reign is un-recognized by WWE. Now if we are to continue the trend of Holly fans saying "no he was a champion", then we MUST, not should but MUST edit the profiles of Savio Vega, Shawn Michaels, Marty Jannetty, Chris Benoit etc. As Savio Vega won the I.C title in 1996, but the title was held up, The Rocker's won and held the World Tag Team Championship for a number of day but the titles were returned to The Hart Foundation, Chris Benoit won the WWF Championship twice in 2000 but the title was returned to The Rock and yet none of this articles or title histories include it as a reign, more it's regarded as a significant note in the champion's reign because of the simple fact the reign is not recognized by the WWE. As for the argument that announcers have called him a champion before, so what J.R once called Charlie Haas, Rene Dupree, does that mean we add that to Haas' ring names of course not, because they make mistakes! So if we are going to recognize Holly as an I.C Champion then it must be a precedent that any title change, no matter of it being offically recognized or not by the promotion in charge must be added to that person's profile and that title's history, because other wise it's a joke of an encylopedia that people get to dictate what is considered history and what isn't. However if we are to say that whilst Bob Holly did pin Jarrett and was at the time awarded the Intercontinental Championship the title was then held up and Jarrett pinned Holly for the title later that night, but NOT recognize him as a champion then that basically covers the entire situation, and keeps the article within sync with other title histories and profiles.

Sorry about the length of that but I do hope that it makes everyone happy as a balance between recognizing what's happened but not making false statements and giving false information.

Jack Styles 124.171.184.94 (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why is Daniel Bryan's victory at NOC 2013 vs Orton recognized? He won the title but was stripped (just like Holly) because of a ref error (just like Holly) and a rematch was held between the two guys (just like Holly) WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because WWE say so. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

First, Wikipedia is about Verifiability. There are RS stating that it did happen.

Second, the article is not stating that Holly is recognized as a former IC Champion today. It even explicitly says that he is not. All it is saying(as backed up by RS) was that he did win the title, he was stripped of it, and that this brief reign is not recognized today. Which is exactly what happened, and what anyone who actually watched it at the time knows.

Third, WWE/F have not always been consistent about the way they treat things. The same thing can happen at two different times, and the way McMahon and WWE treat it can and will be very different. However, on that one day in 1995, the World Wrestling Federation did indeed recognize that Bob Holly had briefly held the Intercontinental Title, and in fact there are numerous references by commentators(such as 'Bob Holly was Intercontinental Champion for a cup of coffee') for at least two years afterwords. The old WWF website(sadly not on Wayback Machine) listed Holly as having been IC Champion. They later chose to not recognize this reign, but that doesn't change the fact that they used to recognize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.26.12 (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nope. 1, yes, the match happened. However, 4 sources, only OWOW is reliable. 2, Holly never won the title. As OWOW says " Bob Holly defeated Jarrett and the referee raised Bob's hand and declared him the new WWF Intercontinental champion, until he noticed Jarrett's foot. The referee then reversed the decision and declared the title vacant." That means, Holly never won the match or the title, only a Dusty Finish. 3, if you have some reliable sources about Holly as IC champion, please, show them. Until then, the decision was reversed and Holly never won the title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

He is listed as a former IC Champion, plus https://www.facebook.com/events/650697128276789/, http://www.angelfire.com/nf/wolfmaninblack/WWF/IC.html, http://slam.canoe.com/Slam/Wrestling/Bios/holly-hardcore.html etc.

Again, no one says that WWE recognizes it today. However, it used to be recognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.26.12 (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

    • "However, on that one day in 1995, the World Wrestling Federation did indeed recognize that Bob Holly had briefly held the Intercontinental Title, and in fact there are numerous references by commentators(such as 'Bob Holly was Intercontinental Champion for a cup of coffee') for at least two years afterwords." - I would consider this compelling evidence. Can you point to one of these instances? The references provided so far are mainly fansites, I don't see that they have any weight. I could create a website tomorrow recognising Greg Valentine as a former WWF Champ but it wouldn't make it true. McPhail (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Mainly fansites"? The Slam Wrestling link alone is more than enough. And here's a video link taken from the PPV St. Valentine's Day Massacre: In Your House. That took place on February 14 1999! Listen at 0:50. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17ebpo_al-snow-vs-hardcore-holly-bob-holly-hardcore-match-st-valentine-s-day-massacre-wwf_sport

Really, I don't see the issue you have. No one is suggesting Holly be listed as a recognized former champion. He's an unrecognized former champion, like Jack Veneno, Carlos Colon and Victor Jovica are unrecognized former NWA World Champions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.26.12 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The St Valentine's Day Massacre source is good enough for me. McPhail (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

So, can it be reinstated as an unofficial reign? (If so, which sources, out of the ones removed from the article, and the ones on this talk page can/should be used?) 197.88.26.12 (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Make his unofficial reign grey, just like Inoki's unofficial WWE title reign WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Can someone else tell certain editors to stop blanking the section entirely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.26.12 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Didn't see this discussion before I did my reverts. We typically don't go by what commentators say as their accuracy varies. No reliable source has since listed him as a champion, unlike Inoki, so I'm still opposed to the way he is listed at the moment.LM2000 (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you, the commentators just didn't know that the decision was reversed in that match instead of just vacating the title. He was never listed as champ on wwe.com since the page's birth over a decade ago.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

He was listed on the old wwf.com site in 1997, but those pages aren't archived. it was only when he became "Hardcore Holly" that his IC reign was erased from history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.157 (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way you can prove that? Wikipedia has a verification policy.LM2000 (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The verification is the multiple RS(such as SlamWrestling), and the video link of Michael Cole calling him a former IC Champion. Sadly, the wwf.com site is not properly archived from the time.

And who are you to make pronouncements about what "commentators know"?

What exactly is it you are after? Holly's reign is not recognized today. Nobody ever said that it was recognized today. But it used to be recognized. He had an unofficial reign as IC Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.157 (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Announcers have a live mic in front of them for several hours per week and are prone to misspeak. This is a bigger problem in TNA where Sting and Kurt Angle's number of world title victories changed every week, Rikishi was once billed as a former world champion, Tenay would regularly confuse how many number of X-Div reigns Kaz and Daniels had, etc. It's still a problem with WWE; years ago announcers couldn't decide whether or not to include ECW Championship victories in tallies towards number of world title reigns, JBL has called Sting a 2-time NWA Champion despite WWE not recognizing one of those reigns because of TNA, when Miz first won the IC title King erroneously claimed Miz had won the Grand Slam when he meant to say that he won the Triple Crown... Miz's grand slam didn't count until this year when WWE introduced a "New Format" which includes the US Championship.
This list is a Featured list and I'd like to keep it at that top quality, that's my agenda here. You've provided no evidence that his reign was ever official and that's needed per WP:RS and WP:V. @HHH Pedrigree:, WrestlingLegendAS, Oknazevad, and myself have expressed opposition to your additions; only McPhail has offered any support. The onus is on you to get a consensus and so far you have failed to do so. Please stop edit warring.LM2000 (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Everything you have just said there is unsourced and your POV. There is at least one RSW to back up Holly's unofficial reign. Someone asked for evidence which included remarks made by commentators. It was provided. You are just deliberately trying to be otherwise. It is Reliably Sourced. And this was at the point where JR was telling Cole what to say, word-for-word. Really, you are objecting to the idea of Holly as IC Champ. Because using Wikipedia's RS rules, there is no reason NOT to list Holly as having had an unofficial reign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.86.143.157 (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Jeff hardy's win in manchester, england

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone explain this to me: jeff hardy won the intercontinental championship from johnny nitro on november 13, 2006 in manchester. did he have to defend it later that night in a ladder match, or did he win it in a ladder match? it is all confusing.--JereMerr 04:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)--JereMerr 04:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremerr (talk • contribs)

Huh? There's no mention of Hardy winning it in a ladder match from Nitro, it was a regular match. TJ Spyke 15:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. i was watching a video on youtube that says that on november 13, there was a laddeer match for jeff hardy's title. i was just wondering if later that night, he had to defend it against nitro again later in a ladder match--JereMerr 16:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)--JereMerr 16:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremerr (talk • contribs)

Drew McIntyre's second reign

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe this will go down as McIntyre's second reign.

Kofi won the match and the belt, Drew came down with his letter, and Kofi then had to hand over the belt to McIntyre.

So Kofi is now a 2 time Champion as is Drew.

Vjmlhds 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Based on WWE.com's Intercontinental Title History page they count this as one single, uninteruppted reign for Drew McIntyre. Dahumorist (talk) 17:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Carlito

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

May I ask why Carlito is not on the list of combined reigns? He had a 90 day reign and the list goes from Chyna with 89 to Eddie with 114. Was this just a an error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasonK565 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Kinda fixed.65.43.96.3 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Shawn Michaels' 2nd reign

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the main article, you have listed that Shawn Michaels was stripped of the belt on Sept. 27, 1993, due to failure to defend it in 30 days. HOWEVER, on his DVD set "Heartbreak & Triumph", Shawn himself claims that he was stripped at that time for testing positive for steroids, and was also suspended in relation to the incident. Shouldn't this "Legit" explanation be listed instead??

Blozier2006 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Bryce L.Reply

Standard question on all the champion pages...

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

(Or at least all I've read...)

Should we not change the reference to the number of total reigns in the top section from the number of "champions" to the number of "reigns"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcade (talk • contribs) 07:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why Roddy Piper isn't on the List of Combined Reigns Chart???

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Under the List of Combined Reigns chart i noticed that Roddy Piper isn't on there yet he held the IC Belt for 77 days ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.36.28 (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Because originally the list was for top combined reigns ending at the 100-day mark. Editors began adding their favorites to correct perceived snubs while others tried to make the list more accurate by tallying the remaining guys. Any mistakes compounded problems on an already flawed table. And so... Papacha (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
^ That and that the table was expanded back in 2007 area so its extremely outdated.--WillC 06:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The List of Combined Reigns is Wrong. EDIT: Its Fixed! :D

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you do math with that list it shows Cody Rhodes at #7 longest Reigning. When really as of today he is tied for 10th. Missing likes of Rock, Tito Santana, and several others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.83.95 (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you clarify please? As of today Rhodes is tenth (nearing ninth) in individual reigns and is attributed the correct number of days. Combined he's nowhere near the ten-spot and would have to hold the belt another four months to break in. He's breached both Santana's single-run records but hasn't matched Rock's 2nd; this much is shown on the initial table. Nothing's changed between when you originally made this comment and now, so I'm unsure what you've read that's struck you wrong. Papacha (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, No someone fixed it. It had Cody higher and had people missing. Thank you to whoever fixed it.

Pat Patterson

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Patterson is listed as having been awarded the title (partly) as a result of "winning a tournament in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil." Do we have any verifiable information that said tournament did, in fact take place, as I have understood for many years that this was a fiction dreamt up by WWF/E to add legitimacy to the history of the belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.229.243 (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply


WWE has produced an article which may or may not be true about said tournament: (Warning: They added a page at the end of the article with a picture of the Berzerker saying April Fools) (http://www.wwe.com/classics/intercontinental-title-tournament-finally-uncovered-26102625) Peter (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Jarrett-Razor 1995 Title Switch

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Jeff Jarrett regained the Intercontinental Title from Razor Ramon on Sunday May 21, 1995 in Trois Rivieres, Quebec. The page has it listed as Monday May 22, 1995. That's false. The WWF never ran house shows in the US on Monday nights opposite taped episodes of Raw back in 1995. The only show the WWF ran on Monday May 22, 1995 was a show in the Philipines. WWE.com may have it listed as May 22 instead of May 21, but that is a mistake on WWE.com's part. TheHistoryOfWWE.com will back this up. The date should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.55.48 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Warrior's 2nd Title Reign

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Warrior's 2nd IC Title reign should end on April 3, 1990 not April 1, 1990. The Ultimate Warrior didn't forfeit the IC Title at WrestleMania VI(Sunday April 1, 1990). The show went off the air with him holding both Titles and no mention anywhere on the show of him either having to forfeit or be stripped of the Title nor was it mentioned at all in the weeks leading up to the match that the winner would have to forfeit/be stripped of either of the Titles.

The first show following Mania VI was a Wrestling Challenge tv taping on Tuesday April 3, 1990(there was no show on Monday April 2nd). At that taping they taped shows to be aired on April 15th, 22nd, 29th and May 6th. The following day on Wednesday April 4, 1990 they held a Superstars Of Wrestling tv taping for April 14th, 21st, 28th and May 5th. It was at the April 4th taping that the first matches in the IC Title tournament began. On television it wasn't until the Saturday April 14, 1990 episode of Superstars Of Wrestling that Jack Tunney made the official announcement that the Warrior forfeited the IC Title due to "not being able to handle the schedule of defending both Titles"(I'm paraphrasing). And since the Wrestling Challenge taping on the 3rd was to theoretically feature matches taped "after Tunney's announcement", the Warrior's 2nd reign should end at the April 3, 1990 tv taping instead of at Mania VI itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.209.182 (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Number of Champions?

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Number of different champions is listed here at 70, I count it at 72 — which is the correct number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.45.102 (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Jack Swagger's brief reign

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://instagram.com/p/mvYjDMqon2/

As evidenced here, Jack Swagger briefly won the title at a house show, before Brad Maddox restarted the match due to Big E's foot being on the ropes. Big E went onto regain the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.253.98 (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Technically, since the first decision was overruled, and the match continued, Big E retained, not regained. Swagger only thought he won the title. See WWE's official title history. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wrong date

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Goldust's second reign ended one week prior: http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/intercontinental/322512

Otherwise their match that lead to the vacancy and the match for the vacant title would've been on the same night. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WrestlingLegendAS (talk • contribs) 16:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Video Proof of Bob Holly vs Jeff Jarrett

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Both Parts of the match are now on youtube for you guys to judge yourself Part one is labeled 4 30 95 Part two is labeled 5 7 95

71.235.161.49 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Requests for comment

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago26 comments10 people in discussion
Consensus is for not including Bob Holly due to the lack of reliable sources for including him over those against. Amortias (T)(C) 21:31, 6 September 2016 (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 Bob Holly be included in this list as an unrecognized champion?LM2000 (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • No - This debate has gone on for at least seven years and no conclusive proof has been provided that WWE ever recognized this reign. Proponents say that commentators have previously referred to him as a former champ and that in the 90s the WWF website listed him as one. Commentators aren't WP:RS and anecdotal stories about seeing him in such a list in the 90s have never been verified (WP:V). A source has been provided from Slam! Wrestling which says he had an "unofficial run" with the title. This is a vague description and ultimately it's not up to Slam! to crown champions, WWE decides who is and who is not a champion and nobody has ever been able to prove that they ever considered Bob Holly one.LM2000 (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes - Consensus was reached a while ago. And until some vandal took it upon themselves to blank him without explanation, this issue wasn't brought up. Again. What do we have? We have a WP:RS referring to Holly as Intercontinental Champion. We have WWE commentators themselves referring to Holly as a former Intercontinental Champion. The fact that WWE right now don't recognise him as such was never disputed, and is utterly irrelevant to this issue. WWE definitely used to recognise him as a former Intercontinental Champion, and we have a WP:RS to back that up. Hence it's an unofficial reign. 197.88.60.117 (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
A no contest, not a draw. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
So Wikipedia is now based on a vote?? Surely it should be about WP:RS? There are Reliable Sources, both from WWE themselves and from Reliable third party sources stating that Holly was Intercontinental Champion. Why should someone who just says 'No' without offering a reason be more Valid than Reliable Sources?Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.190.178 (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • No - SLAM Wrestling said a seeming Intercontinental Title run after pinning then champ Jeff Jarrett (the title win was over-ruled when it was discovered, upon review, that Jarrett had his foot on the ropes while pinned and the title was declared vacant). starship.paint ~ KO 13:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Notice the end bit and the title was declared vacant). So it was vacated after Holly "won". It wasn't overturned(a la a Dusty Finish), it was vacated...Also note that the Slam source that lists Holly as having had "an unofficial run as Intercontinental Champion" precedes that later link you added. Again meaning that WWE used to recognise Holly as being Intercontinental Champion, but they don't know. This was most definitely NOT a Dusty Finish. It was a reign that was recognised at the time, but was subsequently removed from the official WWE title history. Just like Antonio Inoki and his World Title reign. Again, WWE obviously don't recognise it today, but they used to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.117 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I have obtained a video of the end of the match. Holly was never announced as the new Intercontinental Champion. Within 15 seconds of the pinfall, a second referee at ringside was arguing with the original referee. Within 2 minutes, the two referees told ring announcer Howard Finkel to announce: "Ladies and gentlemen, may I have your attention please, there seems to be some confusion in the ring, as both officials seem to be undecided, as to the outcome... [Jarrett interrupts] ... as to the outcome of this match. However, there are other World Wrestling Federation officials present in the building, and assuredly, a decision, the official decision, as to the outcome of this match, will be rendered later on." There was no outcome of the match at that point. The sources say that the outcome was vacating the title. So Holly was never champion. Compare this to Elimination Chamber 2015. The first referee was bumped, the second referee counted a pinfall. The ring announcer and the bottom graphic both announced Ambrose as the new champion. But, when the first referee came to, he changed the match decision to a disqualification so the title never changed hands. starship.paint ~ KO 03:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. The ONLY thing that matters here is that we have WP:RS saying that holly was Champion, it just isn't recognised by WWE anymore. The votes, the meat puppets, your personal interpretations....none of that counts for anything. What does count is the WP:RS stating that Holly had an unofficial Intercontinental Title reign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.190.178 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • No, the other thing that matters here is that the same RS said that he was never a champion, he just seemed like one. the title win was over-ruled and a seeming Intercontinental Title run. This points to no title run and contradicts with unofficial reign. WP:RS can make mistakes too. The burden of proof is for you to find a WP:RS which does not contradict itself. starship.paint ~ KO 08:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

... and now I found a book source (page 195) saying this: But Holly was never Intercontinental Champion, he just wasn't! The WWF have claimed this before, but in reality champion Jeff Jarrett was beaten by Holly in 1994, but the decision was overturned and the belt held up, with Jarrett winning the rematch. Holly was never recognized as the champion. There's simply too much evidence against Holly being champion. starship.paint ~ KO 09:14, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

What???? The earlier Slam Wrestling source listed it as an unofficial reign. The later Slam Wrestling source lists it using the current WWE definition. That's not "contradicting itself". That's changing to suit the current WWE version of events. By the same token, it would be easy to find sources "contradicting themselves" when it comes to Inoki as World Champion, or Harley Race winning the NWA World Title in New Zealand.

And the "burden of proof"? There are WP:RS listing Holly as winning the Intercontinental Title, and it then being vacated. That is all that matters. Nobody ever disputed that the current WWE position is the "overruled" one, and that WWE(and others) view it like that today. But WWE themselves used to view Holly as a former Intercontinental Champion whose reign ended when the title was VACATED. And there are WP:RS to back that up. What WWE say now is not disputed at all. You are trying to confuse the actual issue here. The ONLY two questions here are these:

Did WWE used to acknowledge Holly as a former Intercontinental Champion, whose reign ended when the title was vacated?

Are there WP:RS which can verify this?

And the answer to both of these questions is "YES! YES!"

What subsequently happened is neither here nor there. That's why Holly's reign is explicitly listed(or rather was before a serial troll blanked it) as being "no longer recognized by WWE". The only "burden of proof" was to show that both WWE themselves as well as other WP:RS used to' recognise Holly a former Intercontinental Champion, whose reign ended when the title was vacated. And that was achieved long ago. It means nothing to say "Ohoho! But some sources today take the current WWE stance!" nobody ever said that that wasn't the case. The sources closer to the actual time of the title change list as him as a former Intercontinental Champion, who had a very brief reign which ended when the title was vacated. And then the latter-day sources use the "overturned" WWE revisionism. So all yuo've done is prove my point for me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.117 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

You've repeatedly said that WP:RS supports inclusion and we've told you why that isn't the case. There's clearly more evidence against inclusion from RS than for it. There's also a difference between Inoki's reign, who won the belt and held it for a week overseas only to hand it back at the end of the Japanese tour, and a dusty finish like this. This is more comparable to Hogan's NWA and AWA "reigns", which we don't recognize because they were overturned immediately due to the finish. The recent RS provided by Starship should end the discussion: But Holly was never Intercontinental Champion, he just wasn't! ... Holly was never recognized as the champion. This isn't a WP:RECENTISM problem where we're only reflecting the current stance, the source explicitly says he never was Champion.LM2000 (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

And why should that one source somehow be deemed to be of more worth than anything else? I can find books sources claiming that the Earth is flat, or that Queen Elizabeth II is a lizard-woman. That doesn't mean that they somehow hold more value than a respected website that is sued as a WP:RS all over Wikipedia.

Again, Bob Holly was Intercontinental Champion. it doesn't matter what that piece of crap book says, or anything from recent times says. What does matter is that WP:RS closer to the actual time of the actual match say...that Holly was briefly the Intercontinental Champion, but the title was then vacated. And then, years later, WWE decided to change their stance on what happened that night.

And the only reason you feel that that "isn't the case" is because you somehow can't comprehend the idea that professional wrestling promoters would try and rewrite the history of the business. You probably also believe that before 1984 all pro wrestling took place in smoky bars in front of less than 300 people too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.117 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You keep pretending that an RS says something it doesn't say and that there's a consensus in place when there isn't one. I do hope the (so far) unanimous result of this discussion is enough to stop this near decade-long edit war.LM2000 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. Hey, anon, you're wrong. It doesn't say what you think it says. There is no, nor has there ever been, consensus that agrees with you. Because the fact is your are wrong. Get over it. And go away. Stop wasting our time. oknazevad (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Er, it says exactly what I said. And you are being rude. Please see WP:CIVIL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.60.117 (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

The sources say it was a dusty finish. Wwe declared the title vacant, overruled the holly victory. He never was champion. Sabio vega defeated goldust too, bu the title was declared vacant too. Chris jericho defeated triple h, but his victory was overruled. Kofi kingston won a tournament...--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Yes, I don't watch wrestling a lot; and I dont know the "recognition" process. but there are other unrecognized champions in this article. and the article indicates unrecognized championship by † in the beginning. so they should be included. and it's better to avoid threaded discussion, since its inconclusive status has prompted this rfc. --HamedH94 (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2016 (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.
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 147 external links on List of WWE Intercontinental 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Pat Patterson

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why does Wikipedia start his reign on September 1? WWE lists September 15: https://web.archive.org/web/20071011020905/http://www.wwe.com:80/inside/titlehistory/intercontinental/322358WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is the link where it says he gives his first interview as champion: http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/championship79.htm 8/22/79; Hamburg, PA; Fieldhouse 8/25/79: WWF IC Champion Pat Patterson (w/ the Grand Wizard) defeated Johnny Rivera via submission with the Boston Crab at 7:01; after the bout, Vince McMahon interviewed Patterson & Wizard at ringside where Wizard explained how Patterson was now the IC Champion after winning a gruelling tournament last week in Rio de Janeiro with Patterson saying he doesn't care what happens to the North American title he previously held — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:C400:D010:C0E2:CD18:1E06:7A70 (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC) Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Ahmed Johnson

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was looking up your Intercontinental Championship history and noticed that it states: "Ahmed forfeited the title after being attacked by the debuting Faarooq after winning an 11-man battle royal." I am curious did he lacerate his kidney BEFORE being attacked by Faarooq or did Faarooq cause the laceration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:C400:203E:353E:E522:49F5:FAB3 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The end of Stone Cold Steve Austin's first reign

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Having reviewed numerous sources claiming Austin forfeited the title on 8th September 1997, and others - including the official list, I decided to go straight to the source: the 8th September 1997 episode of Raw Is War[1]. The opening segment of that night featured Vince McMahon interviewing the recently appointed Commissioner, Sgt. Slaughter.

In said interview, Slaughter said "...Until I get clearance, you're suspended, Steve Austin. And another decision I have made as Commissioner of the World Wrestling Federation: starting tonight, there will be a tournament for the Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship. Starting tonight, to [culminate] at Badd Blood, on October 5th, in St. Louis, MO, where a new champion will be crowned. And I am ordering you, Steve Austin, to be in St. Louis, at Badd Blood, on October the 5th, to forfeit the Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship. And I am ordering you to be there to present the title to the winner of the tournament."

This would seem to indicate that 8th September 1997 is NOT the date Austin forfeited the title, but rather the date he was informed that he would forfeit the title on 5th October. Therefore, this would suggest that Austin's first reign did, in fact, end on 5th October as the official list states, and this page should be updated accordingly. If there's another source stating otherwise, let's hear about it. --Morogth (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ "WWF Raw Is War (08-Sep-97)". WWE Network. WWE. Retrieved 26 May 2019.

And, once again...Bob Holly

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://whatculture.com/wwe/20-wrestling-facts-you-probably-didnt-know?page=5

Of course, this is plain fact. BOB Holly was recognized as a former Intercontinental Champion for years. Right up until his transformation/repackaging as 'Hardcore Holly'. At which point somebody obviously felt the new gimmick/character worked better as someone whose "only single title he has ever held is the Hardcore Title!" But that doesn't change the indisputable, and repeatedly verified, FACT that from 1995 to very early 1999 Holly was repeatedly referenced as having been Intercontinental Champion. In fact, as already posted(VERIFIED) here, even at the St Valentine's Day Massacre PPV on February 14 1999. HARDCORE Holly was still referred to as having been Intercontinental Champion. It was right after this point, of course, that that changed. But that doesn't change the fact that he USED TO BE unambiguously recognized as a former IC Champion.

You couldn’t be more wrong. Holly’s win was never officially recognized by the WWF. In old issues of Raw Magazine from around 1996-1997, they used to do “Title History” articles where they list the dates of every championship change. Holly’s win over Jarrett was never acknowledged. And these were the same articles that DID acknowledge and recognize the Inoki-Backlund title changes from 1979. The Holly win was a Dusty finish. Plain and simple. The only person on TV who used to mention it from time to time was Jim Ross, who obviously misremembered what happened. Eventually someone corrected JR and he stopped saying it. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, we'll just take your word for it...
Also, an earlier link is to Michael Cole referring to Holly as being a former Intercontinental Champion, so that person saying that The only person on TV who used to mention it from time to time was Jim Ross is shown to be untrue by a link on this very discussion page. Note too that people have actually linked to Reliable Sources, like eg. Slamwrestling and Whatculture, as well as to video of WWF TV from the 1990's, and that all verifies the reality. Yet, OldSkool01 has no RS. All she did was make a claim about a RAW Magazine. Yet there is no proof of her claim. Everyone else provided RS.

AJ Styles win date

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.sportskeeda.com/wwe/rumor-wwe-reportedly-taped-finals-intercontinental-championship-tournament

Per multiple sources including this article here AJ and Daniel Bryans match was taped the tapings before 6/8

https://whatculture.com/wwe/report-wwe-filmed-34-unbelievable-34-aj-styles-vs-daniel-bryan-match-for-smackdown

Per this article, per Fightful the date of the win was May 26th

All of those articles are quoting Fightful. Fightful is incorrect. Both Raw and SmackDown for June 8 and June 12 were taped on Monday June 8. This is the schedule that was released back in April. Both PWInsider and the Observer had the exact same taping schedule. https://pwinsider.com/article/135865/wwe-to-begin-pretaping-tv-tomorrow.html?p=1 OldSkool01 (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes the episode was taped but the Daniel Bryan/AJ Styles match was taped separately. Like Backlash was live but Edge and Orton was taped.

https://twitter.com/SeanRossSapp/status/1273127131061661698— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.11.34 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

It’s one person saying it was taped on May 26th. PWInsider, the Observer and other highly reliable sources are claiming it was taped on June 8th. PWInsider and the Observer also noted that the Boneyard Match, the Money In The Bank ladder matches, the Backlot Brawl and the Edge-Orton match were all taped on a different day. Why would they not mention the AJ-Bryan match? Also what reason would there be to tape it over 2 weeks in advance? It was a regular match, not a cinematic match that needed heavy editing done to it like the ones mentioned. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article you are linking is from April, they plug and play things as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.11.34 (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

And here’s an article from June 7th from the Observer saying the same thing. https://www.f4wonline.com/daily-updates/daily-update-takeover-ufc-250-trends-mikaela-mayer-312766 Raw for June 8 and SmackDown for June 12th were taped on the 8th. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://members.f4wonline.com/wrestling-observer-newsletter/june-22-2020-observer-newsletter-speakingout-and-david-starr

From today's Observer! "Notes from the 6/12 Smackdown show. Most of this show was taped on 6/8. Styles and Nakamura was taped a few weeks earlier. Not sure why. The impression that was given was the finals of the tournament would be on 6/1 and it was taped at the same time as the 6/1 show." Please excuse Dave's Daniel Bryan mistype

That still doesn’t verify the date. There was no June 1 episode of SmackDown. June 1 was a Monday. And there were no TV tapings taking place on June 1 either. I have no problem changing the date of the match if we can for sure verify which date it actually was taped on. Right now we’re getting conflicting reports on the date. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dave was thinking of Raw but figure he's meaning they assumed the match would originally air on 6/5 Smackdown which was an off week for the tournament that week. Smackdown accoridng to your schedule was taped 5/26 which brings us back to Sean Ross Sapp and Fightful reporting 5/27

"Tuesday 5/26 - Smackdown will tape for 5/29 and 6/5." < From your article posted above on PWInsider — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.11.34 (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

That’s all well and good, and you might be right about Dave messing up the dates, but WP relies on verified sources that specifically point out the reference a person is looking. And we still have no source directly from Dave saying specifically that the match was taped on May 26th. All we have is him saying the match was taped “a few weeks earlier”. I’m gonna keep searching for other sources to clarify this whole thing. I personally don’t care what date we list, whether it’s May 26, June 8 or whatever, as long as we have more than 1 reliable source specifically verifying it. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Very fair but we now have two sources saying it was indeed not June 8th so that should be out. I feel like May 26th or 27th either or would be more accurate than what the page is listing right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.11.34 (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Now here’s another monkey wrench. I just went back and watched the June 12 SmackDown. Everyone in the audience during the Bryan-AJ match is in the exact same spots and wearing the exact same clothes that they’re wearing for every other match on the show. Even Cole & Graves are wearing the same clothes. If the Bryan-AJ match was taped on a different day from the rest of the show, everyone in the audience wouldn’t be in the exact same spots wearing the exact same clothes. Same with Cole & Graves. WWE doesn‘t pay attention to detail like that. If you watch the Edge-Orton match from Backlash, the audience isn’t wearing the same clothes and aren’t in the same spots that they were for the rest of the PPV. So clearly WWE wouldn’t care about continuity in that regard. This leads me to think that the entire June 12th SmackDown episode was taped on the same day. The question is which day? We have several sources saying for sure the episode was taped on June 8th. The plot thickens. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
And these: http://www.profightdb.com/cards/wwe/friday-night-smackdown-taping-33453.html and https://www.cagematch.net/?id=1&nr=267536 OldSkool01 (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
And another: https://prowrestling.net/site/2020/06/12/wwe-friday-night-smackdown-preview-new-intercontinental-champion-to-be-crowned-wwe-backlash-contract-signing-six-man-tag-match/ Makes no mention of the Bryan-AJ match being taped. This is frustrating. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

If someone has access to it someone should reference the 6/5 audience to the 6/12 one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.11.34 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just checked the June 5th episode of SmackDown. The fans aren’t in the same spots, however, some of them are wearing similar clothes to the June 12 episode. With that said, AJ Styles wrestled Drew Gulak on the June 5 episode. If Bryan vs. AJ was originally supposed to air on June 5, then why would they also have AJ wrestle Gulak on the same show? Ugh. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Here’s a theory, is it possible that they did indeed tape Bryan-AJ on May 26th and then decided for whatever reason to not use that match, and instead they just retaped the match again on June 8? Maybe there was something wrong with the original match or maybe they wanted to do a different finish. I don’t know. I’m just trying to make logical sense of everything. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

failure to use sum template here

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Presently this code is used to represent the length of Zayn's ongoing reign:

{{age in days nts|July 24, 2020}}</wiki> This produces {{age in days nts|July 24, 2020}} I realize that July 24 was chosen because it was 65 days prior to September 27th, but I was wondering about a way to "show the math" in the underlying code. I tried to use [[template:sum]] to do that but it's really weird because when "age in days" outputs a number and I try to make that an input into the sum template, it seems to read as 0. Example: I use :<nowiki>{{sum|{{age in days nts|September 27, 2020}}|65}}</wiki> It outputs: :{{sum|{{age in days nts|September 27, 2020}}|65}} Whereas if I used this alone: <nowiki>{{age in days nts|September 27, 2020}}

It correctly outputs 19 (20 tomorrow and so on):

65

Is there some kind of fix for that? It's like "sum" is reading "age in days" as 0 prior to allowing AID to compile a numerical output. WakandaQT (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 15:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Weird sorting problem with the "Days recognized" column?

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anyone else notice that there is a weird sorting problem with the Days recognized column. Like it recognizes Gunther as #1 but Honky Tonk Man is somehow 30th? retched (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_WWE_Intercontinental_Champions&oldid=1201346954"