Talk:WWE Universal Championship

Understanding What A World Title Is

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

Two points. This title should be considered as World Championship nonetheless. It is not a secondary title, it is not a tertiary title. It's a brand-level belt and is being promoted as the belt of the show. The exact name of the title isn't important, but rather if it is indeed the top level belt to be fought for. Seeing as how RAW is a globally promoted show via television and other media and this belt is the top title, it is appropriate to class it as "World Championship". Even the WWE version of the ECW Championship wasn't named "world" champion per se, it was still considered just a minor renaming of the belt. It is not much better than the constantly name changing of the (recent) WWE World Heavyweight Championship and WWE Championship. The name is interchangeable but is still classed as World Championship even though the name of the belt isn't reflective of that. Next, several non-major promotions have promoted a similarly named belt and not every promotion names their "world-class" belt as World Heavyweight Championship. Some other promotions do name their belt as Universal Heavyweight Championship or other variations. So considering it not as a World Championship because the name isn't reflective of this is shenanigans. retched (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So by that logic, if WWE decided to up the value of either the IC or US Titles and make one of them the main championship of a brand, would those belts all of a sudden be considered World Championships, simply because they are the top title of a brand? What about NXT? NXT is also globally promoted and has run shows in other countries. Does that mean the NXT Championship is considered a World Title too? I just want to make sure we're consistent across the board. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You're not going to get any consistency because the WWE is notoriously inconsistent. Let's look at the ECW title, since you brought it up. Remember in the early days of the ECW revival they did promote it as a world title, but that faded in time. On the other hand, the NXT championship has never been promoted as equal to the WWE title. Likewise the WWE and WHC titles were always supposed to be considered equal, even after the brand split ended and the WHC lingered around for a while until the unification, but they clearly weren't booked as equals. Which brings me to the next point: what if, instead of introducing a new title they had revived the WHC as many had speculated. Would the name alone mean it is a world title? Because that's what you are getting hung up on, the name. It's clear that this is intended as the top title for the Raw brand, and that it's supposed to be the equivalent of the WWE (World Heavyweight) Championship, but without the history. We'll see how that plays out, but there's no doubt that it's meant as a new world championship, even if the name doesn't include the word "world" (except for that first W in WWE). oknazevad (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ditto to what Oknazevad said. Also, Raw is their flagship show. Why would they let their flagship show go without a world championship? If it's not a world championship, then that leaves only one world championship in WWE, however, it's only on SmackDown, meaning that superstars on Raw could not compete for WWE's world championship. The WWE Universal Championship is a world championship for this reason. If we go by your logic and base it on the name, then the WWE Championship was not a world championship from 1998 until its unification with the World Heavyweight Championship in 2013, and it wasn't a world championship from June 27, 2016 to July 25, 2016. --JDC808 ♫ 08:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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

IMHO, this issue confuses some elements: The new Universal Championship is certainly Raw's primary title (as opposed to its secondary title, the US championship). They could elevated a secondary title (IC, US) to the primary level but they could not have elevated a title that is restricted to certain area (let's call it a regionally limited title) like the US or the IC (originally refers to the North and South American continents) to the level of a world title. However, the name "Universal" differs from such regionally limited names as it is not unlimited. "Universe" means all and if there's a difference to "World", the Raw title's claim even goes beyond the name of the Smackdown title. Hence, I think it is rightfully classified as a world title.

Finally, one shouldn't give to much credence to Stephanie McMahon's words. The element "heavyweight" plays no sensible role in this as the US title is a heavyweight title too - all male singles title that are active at the moment are "heavyweight" titles. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mick Foley said the "Universal" component was in tribute to the "WWE Universe", did he not? With all due respect, the "world" arguments here rely entirely on guesswork and assumption, which undermines an encyclopedia based on facts. All we know is that the WWE Universal Championship is a championship, so shouldn't we wait for indisputable "world" confirmation in order to maintain Wikipedia's integrity? 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:F877:B5C1:7AC8:4E59 (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

What Foley said doesn't contradict what the word "universal" means. BTW, he also said "for ALL of you". What we have right now is more than that the UC is a championship but that it will be the primary champopnship on Raw and that it is created to fill the void left by Ambrose's title being on Smackdown.

But I agree to the extend that there are probaly not many instances where we would have to dub the UC a world title but many instances where we can avoid the issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

But where has WWE, not news outlets but WWE specifically said this is a world title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:D967:DE5C:5CF9:DCAC (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, WWE aren't inclined to do that. I don't recall many WWE.com articles that read, "X will face Y for the WWE Championship, which by the way is a world title!" Anyway, VNT is satisfied by the sources I gave above.

I don't see what's so baffling about a world title having the word "universal" in its name, given that the WWC Universal Heavyweight Championship has been a noted world title for over three decades. 212.166.90.79 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE probably won't issue such a statement but we will be able to deduce it from statements like "Seth Rollins is a three time world champion" and the like (of course, if Balor wins at SummerSlam it might take a while for such statements to come forth.

For the reasons given above, I see absolutely no reason not to classify the UC as a world title, though it is not the World Championship. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:27, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE's word is law. Stephanie McMahon said the Universal Championship would be held by Raw's heavyweight champion, and all over WWE.com, it is described only as a championship. "World" is conspicuous by its absence in both cases. So, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the title as a world belt, yet this article continues to describe it as such. As for other sources, Pro Wrestling Torch is a top source according to the WP:PW/RS page given above, and its editor Wade Keller says the Universal Championship is NOT a world title:

I like that if they were going to introduce a Raw-based main singles title, they didn't call it the Raw Title or World Title, but rather Universal Title. I think it's a fine compromise to avoid having "two world champions" and having the lineage with the existing Smackdown-based title in tact. I'm not sure prestige-wise how history books or wrestlers themselves will look at holding a newly created Universal Title compared to a title called a "World Title," though.[5]

Keller is refering simply to the two titles having distinct names so as to avoid confusion regarding the generic term "world title". And if you don't think that causes confusion, see the ridiculousness at Talk:WWE World Championship where someone has never learned to drop the stick regarding the distinction between the WWE title, the now defunct WHC and the generic catch-all "world champion". The passage doesn't mean what you think it means. And you're still getting hung up on a name. oknazevad (talk) 16:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I'd like to have WWE unequivocally call it a world title as well, but as covered above, they're unlikely to. Again: ProWrestling.net and Sky Sports are preferred sources per WP:PW/RS, and their articles on the Universal Championship satisfy WP:VNT until WWE tells us it's not a world title.

If we're going by consensus opinion, it's a world title. If we're going by Wikipedia policy, it's a world title. Best to describe it as just that. 212.166.90.87 (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Dave Scherer of PWInsider (another top source listed at WP:PW/RS) also indicates that the Universal title is not a world belt, but merely "a championship on par with The WWE Title".[6] So now there are two top sources (along with Wade Keller) casting serious doubt on the status of the Universal title as a world belt. I ask yet again: when did WWE (only the company who created and own everything about the title) say it was a world belt? And why is the term "world" conspicuous by its absence in everything WWE says or does in relation to the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:4D33:8879:9E1A:51A4 (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE themselves said the title is equal to, and will become greater than the WWE World Championship. If it's equal to the WWE World Championship, and its goal is to be greater than the WWE World Championship, then how is this title not a world championship? --JDC808 ♫ 21:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

None of this indicates that WWE considers the title to be a world belt. I'd be paraphrasing, but on The Life and Times of Mr Perfect, the documentary portion talks about the Intercontinental title being equal to the WWF title under Hennig – that doesn't make it a world title. There is sufficient evidence that the company considers the WWE, World Heavyweight, WCW and AWA titles to be world belts (they're non-committal on the ECW title), but nobody has been able to come forward with a single example of WWE – whether on TV or in print – designating the Universal Championship as a world title. That's a problem, since WWE, you know, created the belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:6A44:4600:1823:85F4:30DC:5227 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Try reading WP:PSTS, and stop edit warring against policy and consensus. oknazevad (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is far more convoluted than it should be. Reliable sources report that it is a world championship and so should we per WP:RS.LM2000 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Given the A) Wrestling is an entertainment business and a World Title is defined by the company and B) WWE have not called this belt a "World title", I'm going to remove the "World" title from the lede. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to add it back if they can find sufficient evidence that WWE refer to the belt as a World title.Egaoblai (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You're a bit late to this discussion, and did you actually read it? They have referred to it as a world title. --JDC808 ♫ 20:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't see any evidence, can you link me to where WWE have referred to it as a world title?Egaoblai (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if they did or not (and at the least the announcers have), as reliable third-party sources have stated plainly it is one. We do not parrot WWE solely, as that doesn't fit WP:NPOV. oknazevad (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You know that wrestling is a scripted show right? if third parties have said it's a world title, then that's their intepretation, but not exactly canon.Egaoblai (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course we know it's scripted, but that doesn't automatically mean we don't go by reliable sources. Also, the very first source for it is from WWE if that's your concern. --JDC808 ♫ 10:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that a further WWE reference was added to the lede some months ago. The subject is unequivocally a world title. Amoeni (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually right now, WWE has no World Heavyweight Champion, and hasn't had one for years. A World Champion is the top Champion of a promotion, not of a "brand". Right now, who is THE Number One guy in WWE? You can't say, can you? Because there's a WWE Champion and a Universal Champion. Oh, and even an NXT Champion. But, who is the Undisputed, unambiguous Top Heavyweight Champion in all of WWE? If the Universal Championship and the WWE Championship are equal, it doesn't make them both World Titles, it means that neither of them are World Titles. Each "brand" had its own Top Championship. But, every "brand" is part of the SAME promotion..WWE. In this way the WWE, Universal, NXT, NXT UK, and other any WWE "brand" each had its own "brand" championship. But there is nobody who is Champion of all of WWE. So, WWE has no World Title....Remember the NWA. Not Billy Corgan's outlaw promotion, the actual NWA. Every territory had its own Champion. Mid-Atlantic had their own Championship. Georgia had their own Championship. Florida had their own Championship. etc. etc. But then, there was one guy who was World Heavyweight Champion of the entire NWA....So, who is the one guy who is Champion of the entire WWE? There ain't one. Each subdivision, or "brand", has its own Champion, but there is no actual World Heavyweight Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.19.177 (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reviving a discussion that was settled over 3 years ago. That is your personal opinion, and it does not matter here. Both the Universal and the WWE Championship have been classified as world championships, both by WWE and by reliable sources. The WWE Championship has been a world championship since it was created back in 1963. The Universal Championship has been a world championship since it was created in 2016 (the NXT Championship is in a weird flux, so not going to get into that). They are equal as they are both the top championships of their respective brand. You are correct in that there is not an "undisputed" world champion of WWE, but that doesn't change the classification of either the WWE or Universal titles (and this isn't the territory days anymore). --JDC808 ♫ 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Clearly it wasn't settled. And you obviously have no clue what a World title actually is. Oh yeah, and the WWE title has NOT been a World Title since 1963. Because from 1971-1983 it was just a territorial title, NOT a World Title. But, anyone can call anything anything they like. But that doesn't make it fact. If you honestly think that ONE promotion(WWE) can have THREE "World Champions" at the same time, maybe you'd be interested in helping out a Nigerian friend of mine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.19.177 (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It was settled, because personal opinions do not matter here, and we have documentation from reliable sources that classify these titles as world championships. Just because you say it's a fact does not make it a fact. I personally don't think indie promotions should classify their top title as a world championship, but that's my opinion and I'm not going to go on a talk page for one of those titles and try to argue that it shouldn't be called a world championship. The promotion decides what they consider to be their world championship and how many they promote. Impact even briefly had two world championships earlier this year. --JDC808 ♫ 13:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

By the very definition, ONE promotion can not possibly have more than one World Heavyweight Champion. Wikipedia should say that WWE promote more than one WWE "World" Champion. But nobody in their right mind should endorse that as Wikipedia "fact".

(And how is "But WWE themselves say so!" RS? So, if a group claims something about themselves, and a person who supports that group repeats it, it becomes RS? Wow, just Wow!) Doing so makes Wikipedia look like a gag encyclopedia.

And Impact didn't have two World Champions. They made it clear that there was an Impact World Heavyweight Champion, and anyone else claiming to be a "World Heavyweight Champion" in Impact Wrestling...wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.89.19.177 (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We (as in Wikipedia) do not determine the classification of a promotion's championships. The promotions themselves determine that classification, which is backed by third-party reliable sources. A third-party reliable source can't just go and say it's not a world championship just because they don't agree with it (which is exactly what you're doing). This is not the territory days in which there was a governing body that determined championship classifications. And yes, Impact did briefly have two world championships earlier this year when they officially sanctioned the TNA World Heavyweight Championship (2020–2021) as a separate title from the Impact World Championship. But, this is just completely pointless to keep arguing because you're completely letting your personal opinion influence what YOU believe to be fact. The matter is and was settled over three years ago and is backed by multiple third-party reliable sources. If you actually want to continue to challenge this, then provide actual reliable sources that prove your point. Also, please stop removing the signature that the SineBot adds after your posts. It adds it because you are not signing your posts, and signatures are required for all posts made on Talk pages (WP:SIGNATURE). --JDC808 ♫ 10:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Names table

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

I agree. If such a table contains no useful information - and it will not contain any in the foreseeable future - we should keep it out. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 13:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that's a reasoning I can agree with. I just didn't like someone reading in implied meanings. oknazevad (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

category

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

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2016

finn balor def seth to win

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

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

Finn Balor Injury

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

He offical has and so has WWE 2607:FB90:509E:C935:0:4E:5449:D901 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Clearly I said UNTIL, which now they have, which is why its now been changed. Probably should check that stuff before you post. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Brand designation history

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

Agreed, I believe I tried to remove it once before Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I also find it unnecessary, but it was insisted for it to be kept. --JDC808 ♫ 00:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

JDC808 Where was it insisted? I only ask cause I can't find where it was talked about anywhere. I'd like to know why it was needed. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I made a slight error, though basically same thing. It was insisted on the WWE Women's Championship article, which has the same situation as this. The edit summary insisting it said "The title predates the brand split, so this chart is to explain its assignment in that. [It] did appear on SmackDown before the split." --JDC808 ♫ 01:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and removed it. This will probably end up being discussed at WT:PW because WWE Women's Championship has the same issue.LM2000 (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It's pointless for both Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: put it back on the Women's Championship because the belt existed before the brand split. I'm assuming he did not put it back here because this belt has only existed after the split and has only been on one brand. I'll concede there's a distinction there, but still not particularly useful as the Crusierweight Championship had been established before the split but spent the brand split on just one roster. I'm replying here rather than the Women's Championship to make sure that that distinction is why Oknazevad didn't restore here and to make sure we all agree the table is of no use on this article.LM2000 (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

That's it exactly. Existing prior to the split, the (now-Raw) Women's Championship needs something to indicate that it was specifically limited to the Raw balance at the time of the new split. (Which is still pointless. Wait, that's a forum post.) oknazevad (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Agree Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2016

!Date won: August 29, 2016 !Current Champion(s): TBD

Epicneter (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit has already been listed as such under reigns. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to be confused with World Heavyweight Championship? Why on earth would anyone confuse these belts?

The WHC was retired years ago. There is no overlap between the belts. Also, no rational person would be able to confuse "WWE Universal" with "World Heavyweight" since the names are completely different. The WCW, ECW and USWA world titles were also contested in WWE - should we list those under "not to be confused" as well?

Removed, obviously. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

That is how they are all listed. If you remove them again after you have now been warned on your talk page you will be blocked for Vandalism. Do not remove them again. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

What? You've literally provided NO argument as to why the World Heavyweight Championship should be mentioned in the lede of this article. Stop vandalising and move on. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been warned, reported, and told Stop removing your vandalizing they articles. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice try, vandal. Stop trying to terrorise constructive IPs with your WP:OWN garbage. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

there is obvious consensus to include this link, as you have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors, on multiple pages. How about you drop the tedentious editing and respect consensus? oknazevad (talk) 04:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"Consensus" or an anti-IP editor pile-on? I think the latter. My reasoning for these edits is sound. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well this is a sack of b.s., Chris is a trusted editor that was following guidelines. I love how it's always IPs that instantly jump to vandalism claims. CrashUnderride 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous editor. I see no possibility of confusion between the Universal championship and the other titles, as it has a clearly different name, with a new lineage. In any case, the relationship (of rival world titles) between the universal title and the WWE World Championship is explained in the opening paragraph. In contrast, I think we should distinguish the WWE World Championship and World Heavyweight Championship (WWE), as they have similar names, at times virtually identical, and the relationship between the two is complicated enough to require a diagram. I therefore propose we remove the template from this article, and only use the template to distinguish between the WWE World Championship and World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) on their respective pages. Silverfish (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Chris"WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 22:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you oppose? Silverfish (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose reason Users who are not familiar with wording of a title or name and are not longtime fans could be confused and end up on the wrong article. They are linked the same on women titles and on tag titles and should not be removed. There are others who feel the same who I am sure will contribute later. Chris"WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I think some sort of hatnote is necessary. Not counting the ECW, WCW, NWA titles, which are not as easily confused for obvious reasons, these are the only world titles WWE has had and I do think people who are unfamiliar with the promotion will confuse them.LM2000 (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Balor has never held this title - WWE have withdrawn recognition of his "reign". Please remove.

Stephanie McMahon twice said tonight on Raw, that tonight will crown the "first ever" Universal Champion. Balor's one-day reign is being disregarded, and is clearly not recognized. Please remove Balor from the list of titleholders for the integrity of the encyclopedia. 195.88.75.147 (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Typical Steph slip up. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Stephanie said it twice, and Cole said it before the beginning of the match. There might be something to this... Warlock82 (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if they did decide to retroactively change history we do keep actual reings that are unrecognized and it should be the case here. Balor was announced as the winner, the match was not overturned, and he could not relinquish a title he never held.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Strong Oppose look at all the WWE title's that have unrecognized title reigns lists, such as WWF Light Heavyweight Championship. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 03:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Utterly oppose. He's still listed as part of the official title history at wwe.com. Steph messed up. Twice. Happens. Doesnt change that Balor was the first champion. oknazevad (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

STRONG Oppose I don't know if there is any other way to indicate an opposition to this. This might even be a case for SNOW. For reasons already stated, this is a flub up by Stephanie. Still listed as an official title reign on WWE.com. The match had an official result and Finn was declared the winner. retched (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Surely you jest. People holding microphones are prone to misspeak and are not considered WP:RS. Even if they decide to no longer recognize him we will keep him in the list as unrecognized as we have enough sources to establish that he was considered the first champion.LM2000 (talk) 11:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• Utterly oppose. Even if it were not merely Stephanie misspeaking but an official pronouncement by WWE or removed him rom the lis of champions, it would remain a fact that Balor won the title. WWE can't rewrite history and if they tried (which they aren't in this case) we mustn't follow. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"Legit" vs. "legitimate" in Title history

This is an encyclopedia - not a website for smart wrestling fans. "Legit" is an insider term that will read as lazy English to anyone who isn't a hardened fan. The term has been altered to "legitimate" by myself (with a link to "legit" on the wrestling jargon page), as well as by User:Oknazevad[7][8] and User:Crash Underride[9] - both tenured editors on the pro wrestling section. WP:CON so far is to exclude this term, but User:Str1977 is extremely passionate about its inclusion. Please weigh in. Warlock82 (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Use "legitimate" with link. Pretty straight forward application of WP:Jargon. Especially when the short form is not only directly derived from the word, but the full word is also quite frequently used. Indeed, the jargon page entry should probably be written as "legitimate (or legit)". oknazevad (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for going to talk after all. I can't see the consensus you claimed in your edit summary.
  "Legit", though a technical term in wrestling, is not merely an insider term - and hence not WP:Jargon - but is known outside of wrestling at least since MC Hammer's song (and that's over two decades ago). Also, "legit" and "legitimate", though etymologically linked to each other, have quite different connotations, with "legitimate" also indicating that something is "rightful" as in "he was the legitimate king of England. We wouldn't want to say something like that about an injury.
  To sum up, the arguments against using "legit" are void as most people easily understand the term (and the few who don't can follow the wikilink) while there is a substantive argument against "legitimate". Str1977 ^(talk) 19:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Use "legitimate" with link. As Warlock said, this is "not a website for smart wrestling fans". I tried explaining that "legit" isn't proper grammar, but whoever kept reverting it said it was the "proper" term and I'll be damned if I'm gonna get a 3RR. One (9 years ago) is enough. lol. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 19:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Use "legitimate" with link. Just in case I didn't get that over before (MOS:JARGON). Warlock82 (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
• Use "legitimate" with link - The less jargon the better. I understand "legit" isn't the most esoteric wrestling jargon out there but "legitimate" is still better grammar.LM2000 (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

LM2000 and Crash Underride, it is not a matter of grammar. Sorry to see that none of you even addressed the connotations issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe because none exists. Clearly there's multiple connotations of the word legitimate. You're the one reading in a connotation that is inappropriate. That's on you, not the word choice. oknazevad (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Use "legitimate" with link per Oknazevad. 82.132.221.162 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Name Change

As per the WWE website, the title is known as the Universal Championship. They dropped the "WWE" before the word Universal. http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-universal-championshipDohvahkiin (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A) The omit the "WWE" from the IC and US titles as well, but we do not. B) We'd need to disambiguate anyway because there are other Universal Championships (most notably WWC in Puerto Rico) so this title is preferable per WP:NATDAB. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

  Why don't we apply the same logic to Seth Rollins' World Heavyweight Championship? Just curious. Siladitya Dash (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Siladitya Dash: We don't do it there because of reasons of ambiguity. There have been three different titles that used that name at one point or another, and the one that causes the most trouble where it concerns naming is the WWE Championship – when that was unified back in 2013 it was called the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" for a while, so it's an exception to the rule to avoid extra confusion. Instead with have the disambig page. — Czello ^(music) 08:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Similar arguments were made when there were RMs regarding WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship and WWE SmackDown Women's Championship and neither of them were moved.LM2000 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Same as above comments, also, it will still be referred to as the WWE Universal Championship, just as the US and IC titles are sometimes referred to with "WWE" in front. --JDC808 ♫ 05:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• OPPOSE per above, already had to request a move back due to an inexperienced user moving without consensus. Also the site URL says WWE Universal Championship http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-universal-championship Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2017

Hi, WWE have begun to refer to the "WWE Universal Championship" as just the "Universal Championship" since the WWE Fastlane 2017 Event on March 5th. This was done via graphics and commentary at the event but no official news or confirmation was given other than the name change appearing across WWE's online media.

Please refer to the website link below for citation.

http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-universal-championship

Thanks 203.106.221.220 (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see above discussion. --JDC808 ♫ 09:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Add "other names" in infobox?

The WWE Championship article has one. Why can't we have it here? Perhaps there will come a time they'll change it to "Universe Championship" or what not, who knows? Anything can change in the WWE. I mean we don't need to change the article name though. Any thoughts? ~mcLovin'tosh (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC).

Because they're hasn't been any "other names" to document. The WWE Championship's name has varied over the years along with the company. The WWE Universal Championship, which is less than a year old, had had precisely one name. The parameter is pointless. oknazevad (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This is exactly the same situation with the Intercontinental and United States titles. They're almost always referred to without "WWE", but WWE is still part of their name. --JDC808 ♫ 17:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

The Intercontinental and United States always had the "WWE" logo prefixed in their names (as it is always in the graphics when the champion wins the title or enters with the title.) regardless of it being announced sometimes with "WWE" prefixed or WWE.com listing it without the "WWE" prefixed to their names as it is an original championship on WWE.com from the 20th century and not a second reincarnation like the Cruiserweight and WWE Cruiserweight or the Women's and WWE Women's. But the current Universal Championship's name situation is like the World Heavyweight Championship, The Universal title was only called the "WWE Universal Championship" since it's introduction (July 25th 2016) till the Fastlane (2017) (March 5th 2017) when Bill Goldberg won the Universal Championship (Kevin Owens entering as "Universal Champion", no "WWE" prefixed) which is 223 days off the "WWE Universal Championship" name. The "Universal Championship" name is officially on WWE.com, on the graphics and hasn't been mentioned or announced with "WWE" prefixed to it whatsoever since Goldberg winning the title from Owens. It has been the name for over 334+ and counting days which is longer than the "WWE Universal Championship" with big names such as Goldberg and Brock Lesnar. Which makes it the WP:COMMONNAME, and like the "World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)" it should be moved as the "Universal Championship (WWE)". Hope that makes sense to you all. 92.27.41.69 (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

That is false. Just take a look at Survivor Series 2017 and Royal Rumble 2018 (Brock's last two televised matches). "WWE" was pre-fixed to its name above Brock Lesnar's name on the graphic when he made his entrance. Wrestlers and commentators will also sometimes call it the "WWE Universal Championship". If I remember correctly, Braun Strowman just did it recently on Raw. The World Heavyweight Championship is a different story. It NEVER had "WWE" prefixed before its name. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope, you're false. If you are implying to the only graphics prefixed mention at Survivor Series (2017) and Braun Strowman calling it as such on a promo (You're wrong about two things 1. Royal Rumble (2018) it did NOT have "WWE" prefixed on the graphics whatsoever and 2. announcers NEVER called it the "WWE Universal Championship" since before Fastlane (2017)), then you should also mention about Dolph Ziggler's WWE Smackdown Live graphics when he enters it reads former 2-time "WWE World Heavyweight Champion" and announcers mentioning him being as such, but he "NEVER" won the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Oh yeah, and Zeb Colter announcing Alberto Del Rio as the next "WWE United States Heavyweight Champion" at Hell in a Cell (2015). But no, you just want to act like a smartass trying to make me look false with as many minor sources you could find possible and put me down. 92.27.41.69 (talk) 07:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Dude, chill. He didn't personalize his arguement, and you shouldn't either. oknazevad (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

^Ditto, that was a complete overreaction. Here are links where you can see for yourself about the two matches I mentioned: Survivor Series and Royal Rumble (terrible quality for both, but look right above Brock Lesnar's name when he comes out. The WWE logo is before "Universal Championship", and they do this with the WWE Championship too instead of writing out "WWE"). WWE 2K18 actually does this too. The case with Ziggler could have been a mistake, or it could have been a simplified way to tell someone watching for the first time that he was a two-time WWE world champion without having to explain that there have been multiple world championships in WWE (the graphic only has so much room for text). It wouldn't have been the first time if it was a mistake. (Sometime after Owens regained the U.S. title from Jericho last year, on one episode of SmackDown, the graphic said he regained it at Payback; that was false as Jericho won it at Payback and Owens regained it on the next episode of SmackDown.) When it all comes down to it though, both "WWE Universal Championship" and "Universal Championship" are used. Yes, it's true that "Universal Championship" is used much more often, but as seen in the two links above, it is still referred to as the "WWE Universal Championship". This kind of interchange never happened with the World Heavyweight Championship. --JDC808 ♫ 22:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Goldberg's reign

Goldberg's reign lasted 28 days, not 29.176.36.57.234 (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

34 Muhammad Danial Arif (talk) 03:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Balor < 1?

Why is Balor's reign listed as simply one day if it says above his reign lasted 22 hours? Also, I know this was fought over above but is the 'Not to be confused with WWE Championship or WWE World Heavyweight Championship template necessary? They're impossible to confuse, especially Universal with WH. It's like saying 'Not to be confused with the WWE Intercontinental Championship' under 'TNA Tag Team Titles'. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

For the former, it's rounded to the nearest whole day. It two hours' difference, not worth noting. As for the second, if I say "Raw's world championship", which title am I talking about? Because all three (the WWE, the WHC, and the Universal) have served that role at differing points in the two brand split periods, and have been revered to informally like that. That's why the hatnote makes sense. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I clarified the hatnote since the confusion really only stems from someone looking for the Raw Championship. - Galatz^Talk 21:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the new version makes more sense. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2018

Change the current Universal Champion back to Brock Lesnar. Roman Reigns hasn't won the Universal Championship yet. CATCUDDLES1234 (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. oknazevad (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

record second reign?

Why "record second reign"? Other wrestlers have held the WWE/WWF Heavyweight title more than twice. And other wrestlers have held the Heavyweight tile longer too (Hulk Hogan, Bob Backlund, Superstar Billy Graham, etc)

Are you saying that his previous run was the longest title run since 1988 or something like that? That's still not the record. 2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:5560:1889:FD95:84E (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)ES

Record second reign means he is the only wrestler to have held the Universal Championship twice. The Universal Championship and the WWE Championship are two completely different world titles. This article literally explains everything to answer your questions and clear up any confusion. And yes, his first run with the Universal Championship is the longest world championship reign since 1988. In terms of the top 10 world championship reigns in WWE history, his is the 6th longest (and that's world championships in general as the WWE has had multiple world titles over the years). --JDC808 ♫ 05:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)--JDC808 ♫ 23:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"Record" second reign is silly. It's a two-year-old belt. Sharonaj (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how old the belt is, it's still a record. --JDC808 ♫ 23:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018

Please change Finn Balor's days recognized by WWE from 1 to <1.

https://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/universal-championship RickVulcan (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  Spintendo  08:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Brock's third reign

WWE's official website says that Lesnar's third reign lasted 27 days, but I can't figure out how to put that into the infobox. If I have the right start and end date, it displays 28 days, do I put the end date one day earlier to display 27? I'm still kinda new and haven't figured everything out yet. Any help would be appreciated Dakota.952 (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Put earlier end date so it will display one less day (or add a day if it happens to be the opposite, which has happened). I fixed it. --JDC808 ♫ 03:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Rem

Please edit that seth rollins also reign tag team championship Abhishek Gandha (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

That information is irrelevant and is not included - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Universal Championship still on Raw

Some editors claim the Championship is on SmackDown since Bray Wyatt won it in my opinion it's still on Raw Because of the color of the Championship there is no way WWE will have two World Championships on one brand WweSpiderman 13:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWESpiderman (talk • contribs)

First, read WP:NOR. Second, Michael Cole said on the broadcast that if Wyatt won, the title would go to SmackDown, and wwe.com has changed the title history's page color from red to blue. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ditto to what GhostofDanGurney said. Also, did you not watch WWE from 2002–2011 during the first brand split? There were in fact times that two world titles were on the same brand. The issue was rectified quickly with either the champion being transferred, or a rematch in which the challenger won back the title to return it to their brand. We also can't forget that there was a trade made following this recent draft in which Alexa Bliss and Nikki Cross were traded to SmackDown (we can't rule out the possibility that Bray Wyatt or Brock Lesnar could go to Raw to settle that trade). As of right now though, the Universal Championship is on SmackDown along with the WWE Championship. And in response to the color of the strap, he literally just won it yesterday (it's not just going to instantaneously change color). For all we know, Wyatt could show up on SmackDown tonight with the belt having a blue strap. --JDC808 ♫ 20:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

And the issue has been rectified. Lesnar quit SmackDown tonight and is going back to Raw with the WWE Championship. The strap will probably be changed to blue next week unless they want to keep it red for whatever reason. --JDC808 ♫ 04:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote

Can anyone give a valid reason to include it? It currently is a clear violation of WP:NAMB - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Because the potential confusion in a topic such as this for the average reader extends beyond having near-identical names. These three titles are the World titles that have been in the main roster of WWE. It's a case of using common sense to go beyond the obvious to aid the reader. oknazevad (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ditto to what oknazevad said. This hatnote has also been used on WWE Championship for quite sometime now. Copied it here as the previous hatnote (about a redirect that no longer redirects here) was no longer needed. --JDC808 ♫ 20:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please show me what policy or guideline supports that? WWE Championship is a very different story because that title could mean the other things. No one would ever come here looking for one of those. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

So you know that for a fact? There are readers who may in fact think that the Universal Championship is a revived version of the World Heavyweight Championship as both were world titles that originated on Raw for the brand split. There are also readers (particularly those unfamiliar with the product) who may think that the Universal Championship is just another name for the WWE Championship (and vice versa). That's the point of the hatnote. --JDC808 ♫ 22:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No that is the point of the article. The article explains the history of it. The lead would benefit from a link to the article that describes all the World Championships in WWE, but it certainly does not belong in a hatnote. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please fix

Why Rollins' reign is listed as 80 days? It's 81. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.36.57.234 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This article has too many mistakes with the lenths of title reigns

Finn Bálor - 1 day. It's would be <1 if the start and the end of his reign had the same date. Goldberg's first reign - 28 days. Combined days also have to be fixed. Roman Reigns - 64 days. You've fixed Rollins' second reign, but now it's time to fix combined days (179). "The Fiend" Bray Wyatt - 119 days.

Yes, WWE recognizes all of this as it is now, but in such cases there are two cells for WWE recognized number of days and real number of days. 176.36.57.234 (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"RAW World Champion" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect RAW World Champion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 12#RAW World Champion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

There is a mistake / uncorrect statistic on this page, which I would like to correct. 62.202.180.94 (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not doneEdit requests are to be in the form of stating what you'd like to see changed, not to ask permission to make the change yourself. What is incorrect and what is your source? oknazevad (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

৳

Vlad An Gub (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Titles not unified

Just so there's no confusion, WWE.com has the WWE and Universal Titles still listed as separate entities, with Roman Reigns holding both.

I know they promoted it as a "unification match", but for it to be a true unification, one of the titles had to become absorbed into the other, with the lineage ending, and this isn't that. It's apparent WWE just threw out every promotional buzzword possible ("Winner Take All", "Unification") to build up this "Biggest WrestleMania match of All Time!"

But in practical terms, this was really a "Winner Take All Match", and what we wound up with is basically Reigns doing a "Becky 2 Belts" deal.

Vmlhds (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure I heard Alvarez say that they're not actually unifying the titles in the traditional sense. Let's wait until there's some definitive confirmation of it happening before we make any changes to this (or other) articles. — Czello 14:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Go to the talk page of “WWE Championship” as I don’t feel it’s necessary to have the same exact conversation on two different pages. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

change 621+ to 623+ 97.108.121.236 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Real Omer (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

[[File:Roman reigns.jpg|thumb|200x200px|

What to change Roman double champ picture in combined reigns section .

[[File:Roman reigns.jpg|thumb|200x200px| Real Omer (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: That image is a copyright violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Roman Reigns have unified the Championships why don't you just create a new Page for the Undisputed Universal Championship then doing what you are doing right now because The WWE Championship and WWE Universal Championship are retired

Roman Reigns have unified the Championships why don't you seriously just create a new Unsuspecting Universal Championship page and finally acknowledge that the WWE Championship and WWE Universal Championship are retired Vehgetah (talk) 13:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Because they are not officially retired. They're still keyed as separate titles on WWE's official title histories, and Roman's profile shows him holding both. Belts are not championships (despite the McMahon-speak), so just because he has only one belt does not mean he has only one title.

Besides, they're not retiring the WWE Championship. It's the foundation of the company. The only reason they didn't quietly retire the Universal title after Roman became unified champion is because he had that title first, so they can play off his records from that earlier date. Once he drops the titles (and therefore no longer in the middle of a 1000+ day reign), I suspect they'll finally retire the Universal title; since they have the other World Heavyweight Championship now. oknazevad (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

when Roman drops them it's going to be called WWE Championship and thanks for the information 😉 Vehgetah (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

2A00:23C6:64A6:9601:445C:D534:ECCE:DF57 (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)