Talk:WWE Championship/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Deleting Inaccurate Past Designs

I will continue to delete pictures of past designs that have the WWE that in reality never had them in the first place. The Attitude Era Belt and Smoking Skull belt NEVER had the WWE logo. They only had the WWF logo. Putting these up as past designs in inaccurate information and should not be presented as fact.

Isn't the WWE and WWF the same thing? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The WWF's name was change to WWE in the summer of 2002, AFTER those belts were retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that the article talks about both the WWE and WWF title? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I realize that. I'm not an idiot. I've been watching wrestling longer than you've probably been alive and have worked in wrestling journalism since I was your age (if the age on your profile is accurate). No offense. But when you put up a past design that was NEVER used but because of a replica that was made because of a lawsuit (the WWE cannot put out belt replicas that have the old scratch logo), then you are putting up inaccurate information). The Smokin' Skull Belt and Attitude Era belt NEVER had the WWE logo but it is being presented as having been. That is where my issue lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I got it out of storage and took a pic of my WWF Championship Replica (Attitude Era) with the proper logo. When I can resize it and such, I'll put it up. I got in contact with a friend of mine to do the same thing with his Smokin' Skull Belt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SChaos1701 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not the pictures in but add a notation to the article that the logo is not correct? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

LOGOS DON'T MATTER!!!!! AND I'M AGREEING WITH GAVYN SYKES!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

there's no need to shout. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 21:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

but would't that be all the Title past design too? Don't be such a baby(but then you) WWF and WWE are the same company just like WWWWF was —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.126.69 (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Try reading my concerns before you spout out insults about something you're completely wrong about. SChaos1701 (talk)

So you think WWE a new company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs)

Please show indisputable evidence citing specific examples that shows that I think that. If not, then please stop slandering me before I have to bring admin into this. I will not abide personal attacks. If you would have seen the original image, it had a picture of the attitude era belt with a WWE logo. That belt NEVER had that logo on it so I took the image of.SChaos1701 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a good free use image of the original belts fine, otherwise it won't hurt the article to use a picture of a replica belt (which will of coarse have the WWE logo since they can't use the Attitude era logo). Also, don't make threats since there is nothing here that would require an admin and no one has done anything wrong. TJ Spyke 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well considering that this issue was taken care of A YEAR AGO, people still attacking me is just ridiculous. The situation is no longer going on. And yes, slander is ILLEGAL and I will not abide it being done to me plain and simple. SChaos1701 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1)Please learn the difference between slander and libel. 2)Neither have happened here (how is someone saying "so you think WWE a new company" libel?). 3)Do not make legal threats. TJ Spyke 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is well within my right to report anything that I feel is inappropriate, breaking the rules, and illegal to an admin. This situation was taken care of a year ago and I'm still getting attacked over my rightful concerns FROM A YEAR AGO THAT WERE TAKEN CARE OF and I will not abide by it. SChaos1701 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. Nothing illegal has happened and nothing against the rules has happened. I guarantee you no admin will do anything and they will tell you the same thing. TJ Spyke 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And people wonder why Wikipedia isn't taken seriously. It possibly can't be the immature personal attacks and ignorance of facts......no.......it can't be. SChaos1701 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please point out the personal attacks from a registered user. The only attack I see here is from an IP (and even that is tame, it's just an IP telling you not to be a baby). You threatening legal action (which can cause you to be blocked) over non-existent slander (you don't understand what slander is. Slander is spoken, libel is written, although neither have happened here) is what hurts. Never mind. You have no interest in improving the article, you just want to sit here and pretend people are committing libel against you and making toothless-legal threats. 21:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm considering talking to an admin because people keep coming here a year later and attacking over something that was resolved and taken care of. I would be happy to shut my mouth if people would leave it alone and stop attacking me. I'm sorry that it's gotten this far again, but I will not have people attacking or disrespecting me. Plain and simple. SChaos1701 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No one is attacking you, please see Paranoia. Go talk to an admin, nothing will happen. TJ Spyke 22:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh so this crap I'm having to read a year later isn't at all disrespectful or completely skewed. And you basically telling me I'm paranoid isn't an underhanded attack. Sorry, it's been a while since I left my padded room. SChaos1701 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There was ONE comment after your last comment, and that was Supermike asking if you thought WWE was a new company. You think that people are committing libel against you (which is false) and think people are being disrespectful (which is false, except for an IP). You think people are breaking the rules (which is false) and/or breaking the law (which is false). That seems like paranoia. I hope you do talk to an admin so that this nonsense will finally stop. This page is for discussing improvements to the WWE Championship article. TJ Spyke 22:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this is about discussing improving the page. (Your disrespectful and unfounded comment about me being paranoid aside). And my thread originally was about that to the point that I went through and looked for pictures of the accurate belt design and when I came back with them, the images were changed with the logo issue taken care of. Now a year later, I come here and see people making libelous statements and attacking me over it when they weren't around in the first place. A YEAR LATER...do you realize how ridiculous that is and now pissed off one can get when they see attacks like that. If the shoe was on the other foot, you would agree. SChaos1701 (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You are continuing to make false statement,s STOP. There have been ZERO libelous statements (except from you), and there have been no attacks except 1 from an IP. I wouldn't be making BS accusations and threatening legal action for stuff that didn't happen, so no I don't know what I would do. I didn't make any disrespectful or unfounded comments, taking a look at the paranoia article shows you are exhibiting several signs of paranoia and that is why I pointed it out. I would also like to point out that only 1 person made a comment after your last post in this section and that was Supermike. You can't claim you came back a year later to see all these comments when your last one had been in September. TJ Spyke 22:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with you. Originally I wasn't even talking to you. You brought yourself into this on your own. But thank you for your expert psychoanalytical diagnosis. Just wondering...where did you get your PhD. in Psychology? SChaos1701 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Vacancy

Hey How do you guys feel about adding the titles vacancies? Its been vacated four times in its history so i think its notable what do you think?LifeStroke420 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not important. Its already noted on the List of WWE Champions page. -- bulletproof ^3:16 07:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And it's been vacated seven or eight times. Tony2Times (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New Regin

According to JR that with HHH winning the scramble it starts a new title reign. He said "Triple H has entered his 13th title reign" Overlordneo (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because JR is an idiot and has no clue what he's talking about. Wait for an answer on WWE.com Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

wwe.com has spoken, they only list Matt Hardy as champion and don't mention that Finlay, Mark Henry and Chavo all had pins in the match. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Never believe anything JR says —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Smackdown!

When the WWE title was on Smackdown then drafted to RAW, the SD! plate on the tite belt was changed. Now that its back on SD!, has it changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.27 (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there have been changes. For example, the very top middle part is blue now. I've been trying to see if the "Mon Nite Raw" plate has been changed to "Fri Night SD" (or something similar), but I can't get a good enough look at it. Though since they made the minor alteration I already mentioned, they might have gotten that done, too. 75.70.219.136 (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

the following snapshot was taken during an interview on Dec. 14, 2008 which reveals "Mon-Nite RAW" still embedded in Smackdown's WWE Title: http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/6/16/71842/mnr.jpg

spinner belt

A belt with an exceptionally long strap was created for André the Giant before WrestleMania III, however he never wore it as champion. Similarly, Edge had originally designed an entirely different custom belt than the "Rated R Spinner" design he used for his second reign; however, the plans were scrapped due to time constraints.[3] The "Spinner" belt's design has become the WWE Championship's primary design, having been used by John Cena, Edge, Rob Van Dam, Randy Orton and Triple H. However, ever since Randy Orton was awarded the belt at No Mercy 2007, the centerpiece still spins but force must be used. How do you know? Kalajan (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't but you can change it Darrenhusted (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I´m not stupid, but you can track him( something i dont know how to do) and block him Kalajan (talk) 21:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Can anybody add the current picture of the WWE Title, I mean the rated-r style?

Name of Championship

The name of the title did not change to being called the wwf championship as late as 1998, as early as 1991 Howard Finkle introduced the Hulk Hogan vs Untertaker match at survivor seris as being for "the world wrestling federation championship" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.6.47 (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this back up, the IP was right. They began calling it just WWF Championship a lot earlier than 1998. TJ Spyke 15:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction in history section

the WWE Championship is not the only championship to be featured on all three brands. if you remember correctly, both Chavo Guerrero and Kane were on the SmackDown brand when they won the ECW title. Chavo did not get traded to ECW until after he lost the title to Kane at Wrestlemania 24. Furthermore, Kane brought the ECW Title to Raw with him after the 2008 Draft. so while the WWE title was the first title "owned" by Raw, ECW, and Smackdown brands, it is not the only one. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned

The ECW was never regonised as a smackdown championship Adster95 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

the championship belongs to the brand that the holder(s) is listed under. Chavo Guerrero was not a member of the ECW roster until after he lost the ECW Championship to Kane.

On the ECW roster bit during chavo and kanes reigns it remained there so it was still ecw exclusive. So its only been officially on the raw and smackdown brands. Adster95 (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The listing on wwe.com is irrelevant as it varies randomly. for example, when miz and morrison were WWE tag champions, the titles remained listed on the Smackdown page. however when they won the WORLd tag titles, they were moved to the ecw page.

New side plate.

They recently changed the side plate on the belt. The old one said Mon Nite RAW. The new one says WWE Champion. Anyone got a pic to show the updated look of the belt? Wwehurricane1 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A idea

I know we say that there been 38 different champions but can we also do something like HHH is the 89 person to hold the WWE title or is that useless information Supermike (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

He's not the 89th person to be champion though, his current reign is the 89th reign and that is noted already. TJ Spyke 16:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My Mistake Supermike (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Rock

The Rock had his on custom bet The Brahama Bull Belt19:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SonsOfAnarchy1982 (talk • contribs)

No he didn't. There were plans to create such a belt, but WWE never went through with it since they didn't want it to become a gimmick with each champion getting their own custom belt. TJ Spyke 19:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

World?

Is the word "World" included. Is this still regarded as a World Title? Dr Rgne (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really important, but it is the World Wrestling Entertainment Championship, and has been defended in countries other than the US. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's not really important overall. The issue about what makes a "World" Championship is something that's debated. In fact, it's being debated for the upteenth time on the project's discussion board. A few believe it depends on what Pro Wrestling Illustrated believes, some feel it's based upon whether the title has ever been defended in foreign countries. Mine is a little more simplistic: It's based on the view of the promotion that owns the championship. If WWE feels the WWE Championship is a world title, then who am I to say it's not? As far as I know if, PWI currently doesn't recognize the WWE Championship as a "world" title, which is something that's caused a bit of a stir and generated new discussions of what makes a world title on the project's discussion page. I've mentioned that various boxing governing bodies, like the WBA, WBC and so on, have all named and refer to respective titles under their control as "world" championships. There was some committee or anything, they basically just declared their straps as world titles and that was that. No magazine, publication or anything really can strip the "world" status from those titles. The same holds true for wrestling. Even though wrestling is a "fictitious sport", the belts are still property owned by wrestling companies just as boxing titles are owned by boxing companies. As to which title is "more deserving" of being a "world" title, that's not really relevant and, in my view, reeks of POV. At least as far as the various Wikipedia articles go.Odin's Beard (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Randy Orton?

Did not Randy Orton "win" the WWE Championship from Batista via forfeit one night after Batista winned Orton due to Batista being injuried? Is not Randy Orton the WWE Champion, and NOT Bautista? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.185.207 (talk • contribs)

The match was a no contest.--WillC 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On ECW tonight, they announced a four way to crown a new WWE Champion on next week's three-hour Raw so the title is vacant. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

They didn't state it was vacant. They must state that. Otherwise it is OR.--WillC 04:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the defending champion will not be in the Fatal Four-Way match doesn't exactly help the argument against it being vacant (and wwe.com confirming that Batista will be out of action for at least 4 months). The only question is whether the today is considered vacant right now or if it will be vacated next Monday, either way the title will be vacant and a new champ crowned. TJ Spyke 05:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

either way the title will be vacant? We can't be sure of that. The Undertaker was injured, but he didn't vacant it. Multiple champions have been injured and did not vacant the championship. As I told you on your talk page, we don't know if the match may be changed to include Batista or Batista is allowed to choose a sub. WWE gave Batista the championship while he was injured for a reason. We must wait to find out that reason. Saying it is vacant when WWE hasn't said they are vacating it, stripping Batista of it, etc is OR. We must remember that wrestling is not a legit sport. If this was lets say MMA and Lesnar was injured, of course the UFC Heavyweight Championship would be vacant.--WillC 05:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When The Undertaker got injured WWE had him lose the title and then report he was injured. WWE has already stated Batista will be gone for at least 4 months (so a new champion will be crowned) and have said that there will be a title match next week on Raw that will not involve him. UFC (and MMA in general) is an oddball in that they almost never strip their champions of their belts, Randy Couture quit UFC and was gone for like a year but was never stripped of the UFC Heavyweight Championship, they instead create fictional "Interim" belts. I can wait to list it as vacant, but I think it's pretty clear that Batista is not champion anymore and that next Monday night there will be a new champion. TJ Spyke 12:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes there will be a new champion seeing as Shitista is injured that is a given. But vacanting is up in the air. We (wrestling world in general) thought that after Cena was injured in 07 that at No Mercy we would have some type of match to crown the new champion. No, Orton was awarded the belt. In that thought a number of things can happen Monday. Batista could show up and give his title to Trips, Cena, Big Show, or even Orton. Orton could be declared the champion this Monday seeing as Batista never showed. It is all unclear. So I still believe we should wait. Hell Flair could return and become GM and do something werid. 3 hour Raw usually has a reason. Mostly because of ratings, but SD pulling 1.6s now. So what is the point anymore?--WillC 13:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As stupid as it would be for WWE to have a title match without having the champion involved and without vacating the title, they've done it before. When CM Punk was attacked at Unforgiven 2008, he was taken out of the World Heavyweight Championship match but the title was never declared vacant--the title history shows that Jericho's reign directly followed Punk's. I'm inclined to agree that even though the obvious thing would be to vacate the championship, until they officially announce that we can't say for sure. Jeff Silvers (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Eddie Guerrero

Didn't Eddie guerrero weigh 228 not 220? look at this website:

http://www.mahalo.com/eddie-guerrero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flakitox3 (talk • contribs)

See Eddie's page for the source. TJ Spyke 01:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WWE Title = Raw property

On WWE.com, they list the WWE Title on the Raw Superstars page.

This indicates that even though Batista is a SmackDown wrestler, the belt is still considered Raw property, and Batista acquired it through his deal with Vince McMahon.

Vjmlhds 17:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On WWE.com, they list the WWE Title on the SmackDown superstars page (and have done son since he won the title, they only started listing it on the Raw page too this week). This indicates that the title is considered part of BOTH brands. TJ Spyke 20:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This, I can live with. All I was trying to say was Raw had a claim to the title as well as SD, that's all.

Vjmlhds 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

100th Champion

Shouldn't it be listed on that WWE Championship sidebar with the pull down thing that Sheamus is the 100th WWE Champion? He is the 100th ever WWE Champion.--Nascarking (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lightest WWE Champion

It currently states that Guerrero is the Lightest WWE Champion, yet he weighed 228lbs, this is confirmed by Eddie's Wikipedia Page, secondly Eddie's weight next to "Lightest WWE Champion" is 225lbs when he weighed 228lbs, never, not even on live television did the announcer ever say 225lbs. Now that that has been said, Jeff Hardy weighs 215lbs, he was WWE Champion, shouldn't he be the Lightest WWE Champion???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flakitox3 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardy CURRENTLY weighs 215. Via a YouTube video, he is stated to be 225 on the night he won the WWE Championship for the 1st time (Armageddon 2008), which if Eddie was 228 on the night of No Way Out 2004, would STILL make Jeff the lightest WWE Champion. 24.188.240.74 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

NEW Shortest Reign?

The current shortest reign is recorded as Andre the Giant with 45 seconds, HOWEVER, if you look at Wikipedia's very own 2010 WWE Elimination Chamber pay-per-view, Batista's defeating then-champion John Cena was recorded at 32 seconds, thus making John Cena the shortest reigning WWE Champion. Now this is going off of your own numbers, Wikipedia, this is your documents I am referring to, so either the match time is wrong, or the data needs to be updated. Thanks :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.184.249 (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"participants execute scripted finishes"

Forgive me if this has been vetted here before, but the final line of the opening paragraph seems to be a tad anti-pro wrestling. "participants execute scripted finishes rather than contend in direct competition". While that certainly is true and there should be no attempt to hide that fact, that point is made in the article on professional wrestling itself, and I do not think that there are many who would come to a "history of a professional wrestling title" article without understanding what professional wrestling is. Putting it prominently in the first paragraph just seems to read like someone who disliked pro wrestling and wanted to belabor the point... should it be re-worded? BambinoPrime (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll somewhat agree with you.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 13:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll remove the line. BambinoPrime (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that line part of the out-of-universe movement a couple of years back?   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Needed as per previous consensus. You can change it to a different explanation, but explanation is still needed.--WillC 23:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It could use rewording but its still need as not everyone knows that its 'fake'--SteamIron 06:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the talk page archives, I must have missed the consensus. Perhaps replacing it with a line or two regarding it's actual function in the story lines... i.e. to promote a particular character, create new story avenues, reward a long-term wrestler, that kind of thing. That still makes the point that the title is awarded via storyline, without casting a negative connotation. BambinoPrime (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's in the WP:PW talk archives somewhere.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Undisputed belt

I'm proposing some mention of the 3 versions of the undisputed belt. Now references are a problem but if anyone can help that would be great but during this belts time it increased in size dramatically and had some changes to the paintwork 138.253.199.180 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is if it can be cited and proven notable by such sources... sure why not.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Time held?

Just a question; Is it worth noting that The Miz is the first champion in several years to hold the WWE title for more than 100 days, or is this considered unimportant trivia? I think theres something to be said there, but just a question.--24.16.148.205 (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Just trivia in my book. Now, if he were to surpass Hogan's first reign (highly unlikely), now that would be notable.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 06:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism

Deleted line under Brand Designation where someone wrote in which a piece of shit John Cena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calebcass1 (talk • contribs) 14:42, May 23, 2011

Big Gold Belt was never the WWE championship

This is a consistent problem, however the Big Gold Belt was never referred to as representing the WWE championship. It was originally (in WWE) known as the "WCW championship", before becoming known simply as the "World championship". When the the undisputed champion was crowned it continued to represent the "World championship" before being retired. Never was it referred to as the "WWE championship".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.229.242 (talk • contribs)

While you are correct that the Big Gold Belt represented the WCW Championship even after it only became known as the "World Championship," you are incorrect in your assessment of the situation. When the World Championship and the WWF Championship were unified, the World Championship was deactivated. When this happened, the WCW/World Championship was retired, and what continued to be defended was simply the WWF Championship under the name "WWF Undisputed Championship." From December 2001 to April 2002, the Big Gold Belt and the WWF Championship belt (commonly known as the Big Eagle Belt) were both used to represent the WWF Championship under that name. So in fact, the Big Gold Belt did represent the WWF Championship collectively with the Big Eagle Belt. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Past Designs Section

The past designs section is horribly incomplete. While I agree that we don't need the smoking skull belt anymore than we need The Miz's "M" spinner belt (both just custom designs), we DO need to have the classic WWF championship. http://www.wrestling101.com/home/wp-content/gallery/features/wwe-belts-7.jpg Why that's not listed in past designs is beyond me. Hsox05 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

CM Punk

Let's clear this up once and for all.

CM Punk is still under contract to WWE.

They wouldn't have given him the belt otherwise...use some common sense.

It's all an angle, folks.

The WWE title is still Raw property, as the Punk/Cena/Vince saga takes place on that program.

Thank You.

Vjmlhds 18:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

CM Punk officially redebuted with championship in hand on the July 25th edition of RAW, thus along with John Cena is the current and reigning WWE Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.123.68 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The WWE only list John Cena as the Official Champion.--Dcheagle 23:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't fucking matter, CM Punk is the ACTUAL WWE Champion, he never lost.

It does matter as the wwe says who champ not you or punk--Dcheagle 04:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so dude. It's what the WWE wants you to believe. Go read the smackdown spoilers. CM Punk has resigned a new contract. That doesn't take away the fact that CM Punk is the ACTUAL WWE Champion. It's obvious you're a John Cena fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelsHockey (talk • contribs) 05:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

WWE Championship is VACANT

Vince McMahon announced on RAW that a new Champion will be crowned tonight and that CM Punk has been stripped of the Championship. Please stop adding Punk as the Champion as this is false. The WWE Championship, as of right now, by orders of Vince McMahon, is VACANT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.128 (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

New Design for Title

It struck me last night, but could this whole issue with CM Punk and the WWE Championship just be a way of the WWE creating a new design for the title? --Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bold prominence of past titles

I bolded these in the introductory section because it is important to bold alternate names (and not just the article title) and these terms all redirect here. Having them stands out shows they are just as significant as the current name and aids navigators in locating information about these belts and what they became and when. AweCo (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Cdalton.one.sports, 23 July 2011

The page for WWE Championships is wrong. It says the champion is vacant, but it is actually held by CM Punk. He won the title on July 17, 2011 in Chicago, Ill. at the Money in the Bank pay per view. He has not been stripped of the title. On WWE's website, Punk is still listed as the champion: http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/wwechampionship

If you could please change this to be correct, I would appreciate it!

Cdalton.one.sports (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done I'm sorry to say this it is vacant Punk has been stripped of the title as of last monday.--Dcheagle 08:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- kinda. I'll partially reverse that, for three reasons. The main one stems from the argument I'm having on Wrestlemania XXVIII vis-a-vis the Daniel Bryan cash-in and the concept that appears to be getting rammed down my throat of WP:Crystal, even though I have demonstrated that not to be the case over there. If putting Bryan, by the nature of the program and at this point and time, on the Mania XXVIII card is WP:Crystal, then the concept of the strippage and any Raw title match in Hampton, VA tomorrow night (7/25) is also, technically, WP:Crystal as well.

This redoubles when you look at the second reason. We now know that SOMETHING is going on between Punk and WWE, and that this grand angle is going a fairly new and viral direction. Still, end of the day, we can't source that he's under contract, but they are keeping it well under wraps.

The third reason is a timeline continuity-break in the storyline. The best I can say (and what I posted today) is that the current title status is unknown. Consider the following from the storyline: The Board meeting which ended McMahon's tenure took place several hours before McMahon announced the tournament. So, is the tournament valid? Is the final valid? Now, consider the timeline of the "questionable decisions" involved. Is the lifting of the suspension valid if the "fire Cena" stipulation is not? Is Cena the champ? Is Punk the champ? Is Alberto del Rio also #1 Contender on top of Senor Dinero el en Banco? Is the Rey/Miz tournament final valid? We have a storyline continuity break which probably will be addressed on the 7/25 RAW. But, as of the moment, the entire current status is unknown. Punk may well be entitled to this entire week as champion, or not even be entitled to a reign at all (though we do have official sourcing, as of the moment, to clear that entitlement for the moment)! Anything else gets to WP:Crystal material as far as some are concerned here. --Starcade (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The WWE website currently lists no WWE Champion, in addition to the announcement from Vince on Monday. Whilst there's a very good chance Triple H could overule the tournament final and the stripping of Punk he could also not. There's conflicting sources at work and I don't think any of us can say with any assurance what the true state of the title is now so perhaps listing the current champion as Unknown is the most honest statement we could put right now.--Evil Maldini (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Golan22, 26 July 2011

want to write that cm punk is the champ

Golan22 (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Cena is listed as the champ per the wwe--Dcheagle 12:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's bullshit POV, the title is currently in dispute, with CM Punk and Cena both claiming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.114.168 (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The WWE Officially shows Cena as the WWE Champion not both of them.--Dcheagle 00:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else it should be both of them listed since they both currently hold title belts. Even though Punk is clearly still the champion Ajwindon (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC) ajwindon

But that is not the case the WWE Officially shows Cena as the Champion not both of them--Dcheagle 04:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you watch wrestling though? Punk clearly still holds the title belt, and it is the original title belt. Not the fake one they made for a paper championship to hold over till he returned Ajwindon (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do and I was watching raw last night but the fact still stands that John Cena is the champion as listed on wwe not both of them.--Dcheagle 04:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cm_punk#WWE_Champion_.282011.29 he is still listed as Champion over on his wikipedia page Ajwindon (talk) 04:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in that does it say he's still the champ all it says is he showed up with his own belt that does not make him the champion.--Dcheagle 05:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Which he won at Money In The Bank. The title was never vacated, therefore making Punk the true champion. At least that is what logic would concludeAjwindon (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Are we watching the same show the title was vacated last week per the WWE he is no longer the champion.--Dcheagle 05:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

They never "vacated" it. They just created a new championship belt and that is what John Cena has.Ajwindon (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

He is no longer the Champ [1].--Dcheagle 05:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The title belt that he still has says different. Its okay not to admit it, but Cena is not the champion. Cena's belt is a fake and Punk will prove that and more with his return and current reign on RawAjwindon (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I will say this one more time, Per the WWE Punk is no longer the Champion and as such this page list the current and correct Champion Jhon Cena any attempt to make this page say otherwise will be removed as vandalism.--Dcheagle 05:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WWE's website features a picture of both Cena and Punk holding the titles with a caption saying "The Champs are here" It's not on the Superstars page, but neither is Punk. It just means they haven't updated yet. John Cena confirmed through his twitter page, that both men are considered WWE Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.123.68 (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be but till the the WWE says otherwise John Cena Is listed as the only Champion.--Dcheagle 23:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It says on this article http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/2011-07-25/suspense-of-entitlement that "The Game, however, also found issue in John Cena’s lingering rematch that was denied him when the WWE Title exited Chicago’s Allstate Arena in Punk’s clutches. If all true, then under Triple H’s rule, for the first time in WWE history, there would be two officially recognized WWE Champions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.55.235.224 (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

However it does not say for sure that there is two champs which is what we're looking for here. In order to say there are two champs we need WWE to say that there are two champs and they havent done that yet all they've said is that there could be two champs.--Dcheagle 03:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that Dcheagle is a John Cena fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelsHockey (talk • contribs) 05:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I could care less who has the title but as it stands right know its John Cena not CM Puck if wwe says other wise well change the info but till then it stays how it is.--Dcheagle 05:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's actually CM Punk, but that being said seeing as how you go by what WWE.com says, this means then that if WWE posts an article saying that Kane is injured for 3 months and even though everyone and their mother knows it's just part of a storyline, you're going to take their word for it and believe he is really injured? Ok I see how it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelsHockey (talk • contribs) 23:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Lest we forget, the WWE Championship is a title that is contested via mock battles with predetermined outcomes. That is, the champion is whoever WWE says the champion is. If the WWE came out and said tomorrow that Michael Cole was the champion, then he would be the champion. It's that simple. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So is Triple H acknowledging two champions on Smackdown! enough for you, or are you going to keep on demonstrating why no one trusts Wikipedia as a valid source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.123.68 (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you would look you would see that both are now listed per last nights smackdown.--Dcheagle 01:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Typo

I noticed there is a typo on this page. You have it as WWWF instead of WWF! lol Id fix it myself if I could. Thought Id let you know! =) ----Arkitan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.102.133 (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nvm, I had always thought World Wide was one word! >.>

Why is it still marked undisputed?

This isn't 2002. There is one single champion, Alberto Del Rio, and he should be the WWE Champion. The title is not disputed. Hopefully this undisputed mess stops soon... unless they decide to reunify the belts, which I doubt happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.203.189 (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

-- WWE.com is currently referring to the title as the Undisputed WWE Championship. The article's usage of that term seems to be warranted. 99.30.110.201 (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No it's not warranted. The title history on WWE.com still refers to it as "WWE Championship." http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/wwechampionship As usual, everyone's just jumping the gun by changing something. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Youngest champions?

I have been doing some reading and it seems the championship has been held by progressively younger people setting records over the years. This may not be all of them, but people who have apparently set this record are Undertaker then Yokozuna then Randy Orton. I am probably missing people before and in between. Bonechamber (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Randy set the record for World title not the WWE one

Dolph Ziggler

[2]

Dolph Ziggler is not the WWE Champion. WWE.com does not list him as WWE Champion but still lists CM Punk as the WWE champion (evidence is in the above link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.73.54 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:WWF Championship - Brahma Bull Belt.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:WWF Championship - Brahma Bull Belt.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:WWF Championship - Brahma Bull Belt.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I corrected this. Originally there was no link to the exact photo page on Flickr, so it was flagged by a bot. Someone provided a source but did not remove the tag. I removed the tag, so there should be no problems now. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible change in design of title

Two points:

• Speculation is not to be added to an article. Wikipedia is not a fan forum.
• New information should be backed up by a reliable source. (see WP:CITE for more info on that)

ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a former design not listed

Before World Wrestling Federation turned into World Wrestling Entertainment, the WWE Undisputed title belt once had the WWF logo on it. I tried to edit it and tahts why there is a mess at the top of the page, but heres the pic of that title http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100928002904/prowrestling/images/d/df/WWF_Undisputed_Championship.jpg, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.114.204 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Identical to one of the other ones, save for the change in logo. If a freely licensed image of it is found, then it could be added. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Original Belt

I saw on yahoo a few days ago that the original WWWF title belt was recently found after it mysteriously went missing after it was won. It was then replaced. I think we should put this in the article somewhere it since very significant as i headlined the yahoo home page which is meant for big news and the fact that the orginal belt design went missing seems important though Here [3]--BlackDragon 23:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The original belt was replaced before Wrestlemania 3 as the original belt could not fit around Andre the Giant in case he had won it from Hulk Hogan! ----Arkitan

Billy Graham did not have a custom belt

The Red Strap Belt that this article calls custom was also worn in the title reigns of Pedro Morales, Stan Stasiak, and Bruno's second run. I have photos of them, and you can find photos elsewhere.

173.30.187.100 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Title Issues

Hello the championship belts section have a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, i have removed so many times but you revert it please remove the world championship because it is the page of WWE CHAMPIONSHIP
ThanksKskhh (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The WWE Championship is a world Championship so why we removed that fact from the article.--Dcheagle | ^{Join the Fight!} 10:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

To IP 173.2.172.196

Don't edit the article 173.2.172.196. You really suck.Kskhh (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

MFW

Chris Jericho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.124.123 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

New undisputed champion

Since it has been made clear on the November 27 episode Main Event that the two world titles are facing unification at TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs (2013), should it be mentioned in the "Undisputed Champion" section about the reunification? Jedi Striker (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't we change the picture of the belt to that of the WWE Championship and World Heavyweight titles together as this seems to be with what WWE are going with. Wyatt 151 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no indication that this is what WWE are going with until Raw airs. — Richard BB 21:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved

WWE World Heavyweight Championship

A new article should be created called WWE World Heavyweight Championship as this is what WWE are referring the unified belts to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyatt 151 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, this article is going to be renamed as soon as the redirect is deleted. — Richard BB 18:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish that they would change the name of the title to the WWE Undisputed Championship. It'd be better than the name it has now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.227.189 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it confirmed that WHC is retired?

And that only the WWE lineage remains active? After all, they are still carrying both belts around. 2002:188B:E3DB:0:0:0:188B:E3DB (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the WHC has been added to WWE's list of retired titles on their website. — Richard BB 08:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominee. (non-admin closure) Jgera5 (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

---

WWE World Heavyweight Championship → WWE Championship – The "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" name may only be temporary, as the Big Gold Belt is expected to be retired in the near future after 29 years while the relatively recently designed WWE Championship belt will become the sole belt for the championship. Additionally, moving the page just over a week after it was unified with the World Heavyweight Championship might be jumping the gun a bit. If it was over a year from the unification I could see it making sense, but I can see WWE simplifying the name back to WWE Championship like it did in the late 1980's. I suggest moving the page back to WWE Championship until it appears that WWE is in fact going to call it the WWE World Heavyweight Championship long-term. Jgera5 (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC) Jgera5 (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Page_move:_WWE_Championship_.E2.86.92_WWE_World_Heavyweight_Championship, please ensure you notify editors there of your Requested Move. Nick (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That's for the last discussion. Unless anyone wants to start a new discussion now, I'll just cast my vote here:

• Strong oppose. WWE have been very clear that this is the new title name. There is no reason to suggest that this would change any time soon, and OP's speculation that WWE might change the name back is sheer guesswork, original research, and crystal ball reading. Until it does change back, we use whatever title WWE call it. Finally, I'd like to remind OP that the Big Gold Belt being retired is irrelevant. At the time being it does not represent the old WHC, it represents the WWE World Heavyweight Championship (just as it represented the Undisputed Championship after the WCW title was retired). If they do retire the BGB, then this belt will still be called the WWE World Heavyweight Championship until WWE say otherwise. — Richard BB 16:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Entirely too speculative. A)No firm evidence that the Big Gold Belt will be retired. B) Even if it is, it is purely speculative that they'll drop the "World Heavyweight" from the title's name. C) We know for a fact that the title is presently called by the current article title. D) Even if the Big Gold design is retired, there's no reason to conclude that using only the new(ish) WWE Championship belt alone means that the shorter name will return just because the belt doesn't contain the words "World Heavyweight". See for example the TNA World Heavyweight Championship belt, which doesn't have the full name of the title on it either. While I would expect that using the short form "WWE Championship" will probably slip back into use, that doesn't translate to a rename to me. oknazevad (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC) PS, looks like Richard had the same idea at the same time.
• Oppose There is no evidence that they will drop the name and there is no good reason to assume that the name world heavyweight can't be used if the stop using the gold belt. Also, if the title is changed the article can easily be moved to whatever the new title is without much (if any) issues.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

For starters, thanks to Nick for seeing the previous discussion. With that said, the WWE Championship wasn't called the Undisputed Championship for even a year, and many of the wrestling dirt sites have said that the Big Gold Belt will be retired and the WWE Championship belt will eventually be the sole representation of the unified title. (Personally, I'd rather they would keep the Big Gold Belt and drop the newer design, but that's another story--at least it's an improvement over the "Spinner" belt.) It's not like WWE needs to classify weight classes anymore--they haven't had a true cruiserweight division since 2007 and even if they did still have it, SPOILER ALERT: it's all fake. That's why I created this discussion, to gauge people's reactions, but seeing that a decision was made at a prior point, I'm withdrawing the discussion for the time being. Jgera5 (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

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

GA Nom

There is no way this can pass GA. It is under sourced and needs a copyedit, too many pictures, etc etc etc. It is an automatic fail. I should know. I expanded all of the TNA Championships to GA.--WillC 23:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to clear up confusion about the belts

There have been rumors going around that the Big Gold Belt had been retired.

Well, this photo from Battleground last night, with John Cena clearly holding both title belts should put that to rest.

Vjmlhds (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Info box fix

Someone messed with the info box. Needs to be fixed. Dunno how to do it myself. Jedi Striker (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I was able to fix it. Jedi Striker (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Pic of Cena with both belts

Since Randy Orton and Daniel Bryan had pics of both belts, I looked for one for Cena. Found one on ign.com, but having trouble with the form. I'm very unfamiliar with uploading picture files. Anyone want to take a crack at it? Or maybe tell me how to properly do it? Here's the address with the picture on it: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/07/01/john-cena-to-turn-heel-for-fey-poehlers-the-nest Jedi Striker (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2014

I have a picture of the new wwe championship with no background u can change the picture url to http://demandware.edgesuite.net/aaiw_prd/on/demandware.static/Sites-wwe-Site/Sites-main/default/v1408477274401/images/large/W07717.jpg for a clean picture without cropping it Fxds400 (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used.
Please note - you must own the copyright before you can make such a request at Files For Upload - Arjayay (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Current Champion picture

Admittedly, we don't know if Brock will still be Champion after Night of Champions 2014, but I'm pretty sure we could find a picture of him with the new belt, rather than one without? 182.55.99.33 (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Problem is, all pictures of him with the new belt seen thus far are copyright WWE, and therefore could only be used as fair use images, but our own non-free content criteria disallow any such use unless a free substitute doesn't exist. In this case, since the point of the image is to show Brock Lesnar, any free image is automatically superior to a fair use one for our purposes, and the current image is a free image as it was taken by a fan at an event who released it as such (and even there I think the WWE could conceivably make a fuss that a fan photo at one of their events is not purely free). So unless another fan happened to be sitting ringside at Raw last week and is willing to release their personal photos under a free use license (and even then, the WWE's rights might play a part), this is the best photo for the purpose. oknazevad (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism

I was wondering if there should be some consideration to making it more difficult for anonymous contributers to edit this article. After the event tonight, there was a lot of vandalism with regards to the Reigns section (Jillian Hall apparently won) and insisting Cena defeated Lesnar to become the new champion. Some of us had to do some reverting several times. Would a higher security level be possible? Chris 0095 (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Chris 0095

The article has been semi-protected (IP users and non-auto confirmed new users not allowed to edit) before, usually for short periods of time following a spate of vandalism. Considering that it has had to be done numerous times, and the vandalism begins again after expiration, I wonder if this is the type of high-profile, frequently vandalized article that should have permanent semi-protection. I'm usually loathe to suggest it, as page protection should be only doled out when absolutely needed (because of the open nature of Wikipedia), but this might be one of those places where it's needed. oknazevad (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Really?

"For the period between 2002–2013, the title was one of three world titles in WWE, along with the World Heavyweight Championship and ECW Championship (2006−2010)."

Why is the ECW title considered as a World title? Christian's WHC win in 2011 was considered his first world title by the WWE.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

At the same time, Lashley was called one of the world champions during his reign. With Christian's case, the WWE was often very sloppy distinguishing between a world title, and the World (Heavyweight) Championship, often omitting the word "heavyweight" when describing it.They may have been referring to it being his first WHC title reign specifically. oknazevad (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No, they called him a 2-time World Champion in 2012, they called CM Punk a 5-time World Champ (2x WWE, 3x WHC, no ECW). It's like the NXT title, the major title of its own brand, but no WWE world title.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet, when they brought out the Undertaker to decide which championship to challenger for following the 2007 Royal Rumble, Lashley was there as ECW champ right along side Cena and Batista, the WWE and WHC holders. So, for a while at least, they did treat it as a third, equivalent world title. oknazevad (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Chavo Guerrero entered the 2008 Rumble as ECW Champion.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So clearly by then, they didn't consider it equal, though it had been the year before. I remember people being surprised/annoyed at Chavo's entry, saying it was crapping all over the ECW title and brand. But it was definitely considered a third world title for at least a while after its revival. oknazevad (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So do we have too split it? World title for 1 year, midcard title for 3 years? Or just say in retrospective it was no world title? Just like the WWE Championship. It was a regional title from 71-83, but everybody consideres Sammartino a 2-time world champ, even though he won the title during that time period.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

WWE regonized the ECW Title as a World title. http://espanol.wwe.com/shows/unforgiven/2008/7938432 When Matt Hardy won the title, WWE called it his "first World title". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

But then there were times were they didn't call it a world title. Who knows for sure? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Title problem

At first there were two titles named WWE Championship and World Heavyweight Championship. So two articles of these two championship should be created on Wikipedia. Then now the title is merged and it is called WWE World Heavyweight Championship. So another article should be created named WWE World Heavyweight Championship. So the records of previous retired championship should be written on new championship. Ric Flair is most title winner of WWE World Heavyweight Championship i.e 16 times as WWE call it. It has record on WWE that Ric Flair is most time champion. There should new articles on Wikipedia... Noxboy (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Noxboy (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

No. The curren title is the same lineage as the WWE Championship, and does not have the now-retired World Heavyweight Championship reigns in its history. That is a fact. Not to mention that the Big Gold Belt was not the same as the NWA title, so not all of Flair's titles were with that championship anyway. You are wrong. Period. Drop it and move on. oknazevad (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

But WWE calls Ric Flair as 16 time WWE World Heavyweight Champion Noxboy (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Noxboy (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No they call him a 16 time World Heavyweight Champion. They know he only won the WWE title twice. Mister Q101 (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Listen nicely what commenters say. They say "John Cena is 15 times WWE World Heavyweight Champion and there is only one man more who is Ric Flair with 16 times" Noxboy (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Listen again and realise that you are not correct. They don't say WWE for Cena either. Drop it and move on please. Mister Q101 (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok Noxboy (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WHW snub

Why do we not list the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) from September 2002 – December 2013 as part of the history of this title's name? It clearly plays a role in the current title's name and aesthetics, possibly a more prominent one.

If you look at the title or when Seth Rollins is on TV, they will often just display the WWE logo (rather than the letters WWE) and then "World Heavyweight Champion".

To add on to this, during this match 10 August 2015 against Rollins for the title, the announcers are both saying he's a 12-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion and saying he could walk out a 13-time one.

So they are also counting his World Heavyweight Championship reigns toward his cumulative WWE World Heavyweight Championship reigns.

I think this is grounds to restructure how WHW is ignored. Ranze (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No it's not, it's a separate title and it always was a separate title. The commentators referred to "World" Title including ALL world titles WWE recognise - including NWA and WCW (hence for instance they call Ric Flair a 16 time World champion when he only won this title twice). 121.219.61.6 (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Plus if they were referring to Cena's WHC title reigns, he'd be a 15-time champion, going for his 16th. Cena's held the WWE title 12 times and the now-retired WHC 3 times. oknazevad (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

We have a vandal who is not here to contribute I think. As of this comment, the title holder has been changed to CM Punk. It needs to be reverted and the user concerned blocked as he seems to have a history of this and nothing constructive. 1.136.96.185 (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. oknazevad (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Title problem

What is John Cena 15 times champion? WWE calls John Cena as 15 times WWE World heavyweight Champion. Ric Flair holds record for most time WWE World Heavyweight Champion i.e 16 times. The titles has been unified so Ric Flair holds most title reigns. The match between Cena & Randy Orton was to unify titles not to retire it. So this page should be changed Noxboy (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Kid, Cena won the WWE Title 12 times and the World Heavyweight Championship 3 times. Those are two separate titles. Flair only held the WWE Title 2 times. He held the NWA and the WCW Titles a dozen times. So Flair is not a 16 WWE Champion but a 16 time World Heavyweight Champion in general. Unifying a title means to retire one of the titles. The WCW Title was unified in 2001. The WCW International WHC was unified in the 90s. The WHC was unified in 2013 and disappeared from tv a bit afterwards. They are all separate championships. There is more than one wrestling company. WWE is not the only one and Flair has been featured in close to a hundred different promotions.--WillC 03:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Really, kid. Didn't we just explain this to you two sections above when you last asked the question with the exact same section title? Do you really lack the ability to understand this simple fact that both Flair and Cena have held multiple different world titles in their career. Do you not get that the announcers are sloppy because they're just giving a quick mention of the history, and not writing an encyclopedia. Do you get that maybe you're the one making the mistake in hearing what they say? Or do you just lack the competency to edit, and should just stop? oknazevad (talk) 05:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2015

This article states that there have been 44 official WWE World Heavyweight Champions, when in actuality, there are 46 official champions. I only wish to make this one change. TheLastManOnEarth (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this change? Mega Z090 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done. The source is the official list of champions from WWE. It was just the one mention hadn't been updated in a while, since before Rollins won. A quick look at our own navbox template of champions shows it. oknazevad (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

Under the "Other name(s)" section in the article infobox, Undisputed WWE Championship (2002) should be changed to WWE Undisputed Championship (2002) as the title was known during that period of time. The section "Championship disputes" should also be edited to reflect that. [4]71.177.165.55 (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Both were used, rather inconsistently. Sometimes the announcers said "undisputed WWE champion", sometimes "WWE Undisputed champion". Honestly, I think we spend too much time worrying about what sloppy announcers say. That said, the name did officially switch order when the company switched from WWF to WWE, because the reason for the "undisputed" changed, as it was the only men's title that appeared on both Raw and Smackdown, meaning it was undisputedly the main title for the entire WWE. So the name order is correct. oknazevad (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually that is correct but it was the other way around. The title was known as the Undisputed WWF Championship until after the WWF/WWE name change. The acronym was then moved to the beginning of the name and became referred to as the WWE Undisputed Chanpionship. Its was discussed before and can be found in the archives of this talk page I think. If anything an episode site source can be used to cite the official name change.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

3 8 8 9 12 v 4 10 12 14 15

These numbers relate to my recent edits here.

The first set are the number of reigns listed at List_of_WWE_World_Heavyweight_Champions#Combined_reigns for Sheamus/Rock/Orton/Cena/HHH.

The second set are the numbers the WWE has actually stated to us in reliable sources, all of which I cited in the section I added.

WWE keeps adding to the mountain that they consider WCW Championship / World Championship / World Heavyweight Championship reigns as contributing to a reign total in respect to the WWE World Heavyweight Championship.

If we are going to present numbers which conflict with their own, we should explain why it is we do that. But even if you can't manage that, we should at least present the WWE's numbers and explain how they were reached, so that people are informed a contradiction in numbers exist between us (for whatever reason, I figure WP:OR) and them. Ranze (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dude Ranze, I get where you're coming from but I gotta be real with you - I'm coming out of semi-retirement for this thing - so lets shoot for a swift resolve to this little misconception you have going on. What you are looking at and obsessing about is a nomenclature issue. Lets establish two things Ranze; 1. According to WWE.com/ the WWE Encyclopedia/ and other official media, the title currently known as the WWE World Heavyweight Championship has its history clearly defined by its list of title holders. 2. According to WWE.com/ the WWE Encyclopedia/ and other official media, the title that existed from 2002-2013 known simply as the World Heavyweight Championship also has its history clearly defined by its list of title holders. We can agree this is fact correct?
• Now as it relates to this article, and now that we've established the two previous facts, lets look at the number of reigns Triple H has listed under the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. We clearly see he has had 9 reigns with this particular title. Fantastic! We have our number of title reigns under this particular championship. But now this thing we're dealing with isn't over is it? See, WWE hasn't always had one sole world heavyweight title. In fact it's had about 5. Its most recently retired one happens to be known simply as the World Heavyweight Championship and it existed between 2002 and 2013. Once again as it relates to this article, lets count the number of reigns Triple H has had with that particular title. We clearly see he has had 5 reigns with this particular title. Now I'm not going to insult your intelligence and ask you to add but we can clearly see that Triple H has been, according to WWE, a 14-time world champion under its promotion.
• With that established, you contend that WWE's online periodicals referring to Triple H as a 14-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion cements him or any other individual in a similar spot, like some of the ones you attempted to list in previous versions of another article, as having held the WWE World Heavyweight championship (the title we described from the 1st fact) a total of 14 times. Here is why you need to thoroughly reevaluate that standpoint.
• After laying out the 2 facts at the start of my nice little essay, we clearly see we have 2 separate histories of 2 titles, defined by a list of title holders for each of the 2 titles we talked about. Each list is essentially a record of history, in that the names that are noted on each list, however number of times, denotes the champion and accounts for each of their reigns. So, due to us clearly seeing that Triple H has held the WWE World Heavyweight Championship 9 times, there is no way anyone can correctly denote Triple has having held that particular title any more number of times within the context of Wikipedia (unless of course he actually wins that title a few more times).
• Why within the context of Wikipedia? Well mainly its policies. Here's why. Promotional Nomenclature. What we have with the whole 14-time fiasco written within WWE online periodicals and heard on commentary is simply promotional terminology, that is WWE-centric term-use operated upon for whatever reason. We can talk about these reasons but that would be irrelevant. Whatever their reason, whether it be to go about a simplistic approach in telling their history by calling all holders of two world titles one umbrella term, it really doesn't matter. What matters is identifying this terminology for what it is. Within the context of Wikipedia content policy WP:PROMO, we simply cannot follow suit and use that terminology. Articles simply cannot be written to read like it came directly from a company memo. With as many times as WWE's online periodicals and announcers follow company mandate and use their in-house terminology, its all irrelevant as it pertains to the terminology used here.
• Thus, with the facts we established at the start of this long ass response, knowing there are 2 separate titles we are talking about here, each recording its list of champions by which their histories are defined, we can unequivocally state as it pertains to Triple H, that he is in fact currently a 9-time holder of the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Haha of course having been here long enough, I'm prepared for the possibility of finding you to claim some sort of fault with the things I've laid out for. That's awesome too. To that I say, bring it on. I'll be happy to help you along the way. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice cut and paste, but I have a surprise for you bro:

Burdick, Michael (21 January 2016). "The New Day looked to cast a shadow on Y2J". WWE.com. Archived from the original on 22 January 2016. Still heartbroken over Jericho's destruction of their beloved trombone, Francesca, the WWE Tag Team Champions' attempt to get retribution on the six-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion was ultimately detoured

That brings it to 6 wrestlers with direct statements from the WWE about their cumulative reign which should lead us to re-examine our current presentation of the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Jericho is similar to Rock in that he supports counting WCW/World Reigns, but also similar to the other 4 in that he supports counting World Heavyweight reigns too. Jericho has never been WWE champ, he has never been WWE World Heavyweight champ, but he has 6 reigns in the lineage that make him a 6-time WWEWHW champ: 3 WHW reigns, a WCW reign, a World reign, and a WWF Undisputed reign. If people don't present reasonable counter-arguments I will add this expanded 6-man list for people to consider. 12:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A seventh to add:

Laboon, Jeff (29 March 2015). "Big Show won 2nd Annual Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal (Kickoff Match)". WWE.com. Archived from the original on 31 March 2015. Big Show has heard the Andre the Giant comparisons for 20 years. WCW announcers even labeled him as "Andre's son" when he first stepped inside a ring in 1995. At WrestleMania in Levi's® Stadium, though, the four-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion lived up to those lofty comparisons

Big Show held the WWE twice and the WHW twice, WWE considers him 4-time. They ignored his WCW reigns when with the competition though, so this is grounds (compared to Jericho/Rock) that WWE only counts WCW/World reigns post-merger, but none when they were with WCW before they got bought ought. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please just WP:DROPTHESTICK. You've been harping on this for months, and there's no one who agrees with you. That's a clear case of tilting at windmills if I've ever seen one. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WHW contributes to reign total

The announcers just said that Sheamus ia a 4-time WWE WHC. That means that they're not just counting his 2 prior reigns as WWE champ but also his 1 reign as WHW champ. I think we should restructure things to take account of this. Here is supporting ref:

Cole, Michael (22 November 2015). Survivor Series. Sheamus is now a four-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion. This is incredible. This is absolutely stunning. Fourteen thousand plus are stunned in Atlanta.

For this reason, the past WHW champs are just as much former WWE World Heavyweight Champions as the former WWE Champs. For that reason we should simply make an entirely new chart starting with Randy Orton. Ranze (talk) 04:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If that's what Cole said, he will get into trouble for it. Sheamus is a THREE time holder of this title. Practical fact. So don't make any predictions on the meaning of a commentator saying something that can be proven to be wrong. Your source is therefore not reliable. Mega Z090 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cole is described as the "Voice of the WWE". We should consider him an expert on this until other evidence contradicts it. What references do you have to support this alleged "practical fact"? Who are you saying is more reliable than Cole? Ranze (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Until WWE changes stuff officially we don't have to change anything.--WillC 04:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

They did. "Melding the lineages" means WHW counts, this is why they say Cena=15/Orton=12/Rock=10/Sheamus=4, all explicitly for the unified WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Evidence keeps getting removed. Linking the chart and misreading it to conflict with established facts is WP:OR. The chart would be messy if they included both histories so they only include the prime history, as it goes back the furthest. Heck even the Rock's 2 World Championship reigns count. Why do you censor this in favor of your unsourced personal opinions? 174.92.132.81 (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cole is wrong. No matter how many times he say so, Sheamus is in his third WWE World Heavyweight Championship reigns. And certain, Rock won the title 8 times, not 10. It feels like Cole said so counting all the World titles (OR: World Titles in WWE). However, as Will said, WWE didn't change anything. The WHC and WCW titles aren't merged into the WWE World Heavyweight Title champions list. No matter what, Rock won the title 8 times. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And Ric Flair won it twice. There are no unsourced opinions here. The source is the WWE website. That stands over everything else in this respect, and that includes the words of Michael Cole. Mega Z090 (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Had the encyclopedia reflected everything the announcers said back in 2008 I cannot imagine what these pages would have looked like when Mike Adamle was lead announcer on ECW. The name of the company would've been changed to WEDF, Umaga would've been "The Samoan Bulldog", the company's top star would have been Jeff Harvey, and his play-by-play guy would've been The Tazz. Announcers misspeak all the time, we have to wait for concrete proof (WP:V, WP:RS) before we make changes. Jerry Lawler called Miz a Grand Slam Champion when he first won the IC title and his WWE profile on Ion TV's website called him one as well; he didn't actually meet criteria for the Grand Slam until WWE updated it in 2015 and listed him.LM2000 (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The page for the title at the official website doesn't list the WHC reigns. http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-world-heavyweight-championship Michael Cole simply can't comprehend the difference between the number of times someone has been WWE WHC and the times they've merely been a world champion in WWE. Ozdarka (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a consensus. Ranze can not possibly edit to his version in the face of this. Mega Z090 (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mega Z090: readers ought to know that Cole/Sheamus/WWE.com are all calling him a 4-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion. I don't consider this consensus since I haven't agreed, but there's enough opposition that I will present it as heresay (albeit heresay from the only reliable sources we have) rather than fact. If anyone wants to present contradicting heresay as fact, it ought to have more reliable sources backing it. Ranze (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You are inventing an opinion now based on your interpretation. Go to the WWE World title page and count back. Where is Sheamus' fourth title? Not there. Why? Because it was the other World Title that he won. This is practical fact and you persist in ignoring it. Mega Z090 (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ozdarka: That page does say the lineages were merged. It doesn't have to list them on that chart for it to count, to assume so is WP:SYNTHESIS. You are not more expert than Michael Cole or the other WWE.com writers who have written numbers you disagree with. You use a phrase like "at the official website" but where do you think my citations have been from? Ranze (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to list them on that chart for it to count? That's the list that WWE have chosen to go with. Tell me, if the WHC is equally a "part" of the current title, why it lists only WWE Champions and not World Champions? And why is the WHC in the Retired Championships section, while the WWE title isn't? http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/worldheavyweight It's hardly synthesis to read the source as it is presented. What would be more odd would be reading title reigns into that list that aren't there. Keep in mind that both titles are/were world heavyweight championships in WWE, so it's not surprising that Sheamus for example is erroneously referred to as a 4 time WWE World Heavyweight Champion when he is more accurrately a 4 WWE world heavyweight champion, without the caps. Ozdarka (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@LM2000: this is not merely based upon what Cole said, that's only the first reliable source. Sheamus himself and also 2 WWE.com articles now say the same thing. Now point me to a place on WWE calling Sheamus merely a 3-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion. If you can't find that said anywhere: perhaps there's a reason? Ranze (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mega Z090: yes they are unsourced, the WWE website doesn't say anything about WHW reigns not counting, it says the opposite: MERGED LINEAGES. People keep pointing to that page and then making up data that's just not there.

There you go again with your interpretation. That's original research. Mega Z090 (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Now, Orton is a 12 times World Champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: Being a 12-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion would also make you a 12-time world champion. It does not directly contradict the claim. Ranze (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Glad you understand that, because that is the point. A 12 time WWE World Heavyweight Champion does not directly mean this title. It can refer to overall reigns in WWE. 12 time world heavyweight champion in WWE. That phrase has the same meaning as the other. The point is you are taking the phrase as very literal.--WillC 08:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It does directly mean that title when it is used in caps like that. If it had merely said "world heavyweight champion in WWE" or even "WWE world heavyweight champion" I might agree with you, but the W/H/C capitalization means it's referencing a title not a classification.

You mention there is no consensus on the change: but the change you reverted at Special:Diff/693240151 was one which was properly sourced. If you think we ought to interpret the sources I introduced that'd be one thing, but you are actually removing sources from the page, censoring the truth. WWE.com is a reliable source, why are you removing it? Ranze (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Because you are interpreting the page incorrectly, and are therefore guilty of original research. Mega Z090 (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Ranze, your interpretation is wrong. It is obvious that is the case. WWE in the pasted said Ric Flair was a 16 World Heavyweight Champion and many took that exact spelling and statement to mean he won the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) 16 times. That is not the case. The facts are the titles are not the same and do not share the same lineage because WWE has deactivated the WHC and has not merged the histories. You have taken a phrase too literal.--WillC 13:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. WWE has always said that Ric Flair is a 16-time World Champion, not WWE World Heavyweight champion, in fact he is only a 2-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion (he won 9 NWA, 2 WWE, and 5 WCW). But Maggle has said Sheamus is a 4-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion (3 WWE, 1 WH), and Triple H is a 14-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion (9 WWE, 5 WH). Hell, I heard him once say Booker T is a former WWE World Heavyweight Champion (only won the World Heavyweight Championship once). Now I'm not saying that they have combined the two titles for sure, but they did unify them and their names were merged at the end of the unification match. It just sounds like it. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What announces say doesn't matter at all. That's the point. They are not neutrally covering the match, but are alcharacters who exist to promote the story. Their scripts often gloss over details and events of the past in service of the current storyline. It serves WWE to both mention HHH's status as a 14-time world champion, and to gloss over the past era of two titles. So they refer to it by the current name of the one title, which has the added benefit of putting the WWE name out there some more. Doesn't change the fact that he's held two different titles, and only nine of his titles were with the current title, which they have confirmed (through their official championship history) is the only the direct continuation of their original world title from 1963. oknazevad (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2016

Ughthebooger (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2016 (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. Stickee (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2016

The article for whatever reason lists Daniel Bryan as the shortest reigning WWE Champion at four minutes, and lists a source from 2008 alongside it. However, Andre the Giant is the shortest reigning WWE Champion, officially holding the title for 30 seconds, and Daniel Bryan couldn't possibly be on the list from 2008, because he wasn't even in the company at the time.

Therefore the new line should read: Andre the Giant's first reign is the shortest in WWE history, having officially held the title for 30 seconds.

2001:8003:6005:8A00:DD0C:AFCD:A7FA:7C98 (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  08:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Technically Andre was WWF Champion for 1 minute, 46 seconds. Last night Seth Rollins was champion for 1 minute, 59 seconds. WWE.com is not 100% accurate in many places when it comes to their title histories. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What is your source for that? Some random fan site that sat there with a stop watch is not a reliable source and cannot be used. oknazevad (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Here you go, direct from WWE.com: http://www.wwe.com/classics/classic-lists/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-wwe-title They actually have his reign listed even shorter than the actual time. Regardless, he's still the shortest reigning champion.OldSkool01 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Shortest reign

Acording to the title history, André's reign lasted 59 minutes, making Daniel Bryan's 4 minutes reign the shortest in history. I think it needs to be changed, or at least, it needs a reliable source. --HHH (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

WWE.com is not accurate. Andre was WWF Champion for 1 minute, 46 seconds. He is indeed the shortest reigning WWF World Champion as of now. Even Seth Rollins' reign at Money In The Bank last night was only 1 minute, 59 seconds. Andre still has the shortest reign. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well its there site they do what they want to they rewrite stuff all the time.. its a Official Source. its not like there where random people change it. its not one of the fan sites, its coming from there mouth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salineb (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to tell what actually happened. Seperate fact from fiction. If WWE decided to list John Cena as the longest reigning champion all of a suddent, that doesn't make it true. But I'll play along. Here: http://www.wwe.com/classics/classic-lists/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-wwe-title Direct from WWE.com. They list Andre as the shortest reigning champion. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, in that case we need another source. The link you posted says 45 seconds, the title history says 59 minutes, and you said that is 1 minute, 46 seconds (with no source). If WWE.com "is not accurate" on both links, how can we provide a reliable source for André's 1 minute, 46 seconds reing?. --HHH (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.wwe.com/article/shortest-wwe-world-heavyweight-title-reigns?sf29694552=1-title As you can see, WWE.com has very lazy writers that don't know their correct history. Takes them a few tries before they get it right. Lol OldSkool01 (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship

It is listed as the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Until WWE changes it on their own site then the name should remain the same as that is what the source says http://www.wwe.com/superstars stop changing it. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's about the title User:NeilN as for The McMahon deal it falls under WP:Common Name which the other user has been told repeatedly and warned about on his talk page but continues to delete like he did your warning from earlier. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Chris "WarMachineWildThing", WP:COMMONNAME applies to article titles only. There may be reasons to use aliases in articles themselves - I take no position whether that's the case here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just going by what I was told by other users, clearly there is no consensus to change it as to many keep reverting it. It's been reverted several times Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The title officially went under the "WWE Championship" name on Raw last night which surely means something as the WWE wouldn't just change a titles name like that. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2016

The WWE World Heavyweight Championship was renamed as of Monday June 27. It is now refered as only "WWE Championship"

BRG0104 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done. It's still listed as the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship" on the WWE website. And the WWE made no such announcement. oknazevad (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WWE.com made the change at some point today. It's now WWE Championship Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Page move request on 29 June 2016

Now that this title is referred to as the WWE Championship, should the page be moved to "WWE Championship"? I've never moved a page before, so I was wondering if I needed a consensus before submitting the request. JTP ^(talk) 19:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Vince McMahon or Mr. McMahon???

Due to constant reverts We need to have a solid consensus. Which name should he be listed as, Mr. McMahon or Vince McMahon. Simple answers is all that is needed

• Vince McMahon

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Vince McMahon. That's what people actually call him, both on screen and in real life. The whole "Mr. McMahon is the character" bit never stuck. oknazevad (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. McMahon, Because Vince is recognized as Mr. McMahon. Please look at this page in 1990-1999 http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-world-heavyweight-championship --Shinkazamaturi (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Vince McMahon for three reasons. One, it is his WP:COMMONNAME. Two, "Vince McMahon" is mentioned on WWE TV. Three, to avoid confusion with Shane McMahon, who is also a "Mr. McMahon". starship.paint ~ KO 00:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is 3 to 1 Vince McMahon stop changing it Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No, No. This consensus is no meaning. Watch site. Are you headstrong? Don't you understand the source?--Shinkazamaturi (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus does have meaning here that is what most articles are based on, stop charging your borderline edit warring Which is why we were told by an admin to do a Consensus on the matter because it does matter. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Add me to those in favor of Vince McMahon, not Mr. McMahon. Because technically, when he won the title in September 1999, he was a babyface. He wasn't the heel Mr. McMahon. Go on the WWE Network and watch that match where he wins the title. Listen to Cole & Lawler on commentary and Tony Chimel doing the ring announcing. Everyone announces him as Vince. OldSkool01 (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thats 4 to 1,OldSkool01is correct just checked it.Like I said you need to stop changing it Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• 5 to 1, we don't carry "Mr.", "Dr.", "Prof.", "Sir", - so even if someone used "Mr." as part of his name, it would look confusing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why they Called Vince?　I tell you what. They distinguish between Vince and Shane. Therefore, Vince is still listed as Mr. McMahon in WWE Title history. And I have added WWE.com before.

• @Shinkazamaturi: - I have acknowledged the "Mr. McMahon" name in the Notes column on the List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions. starship.paint ~ KO 03:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• ... and I was reverted by Oknazevad. Oh well. Have you seen this? starship.paint ~ KO 03:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted based on the consensus of this discussion that we don't need to use the "Mr. McMahon" name. oknazevad (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• oknazevad's consensus is no meaning but, Source. I tell you again. Watch this web site.http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-championship

--Shinkazamaturi (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm supporting "Vince McMahon" here, because as OldSkool says, he wasn't billed as "Mr. McMahon" when he won the title. I am not for supporting WP:COMMONNAME usage in title histories though, had he won the title as Mr. McMahon we should have listed him as such and I think we need to refer to Vince as "Mr. McMahon" in articles where his heel character is mentioned. Mick Foley may be the common name of his three faces, but Mankind won this title three times and Dude Love won the tag titles, not Mick. Our articles should reflect this.LM2000 (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

• I can't believe this (very 1 sided)debate is still going on. Shinkazamaturi, whether or not you feel he should be called Vince McMahon or Mr. McMahon, the bottom line is that during this 6 day title reign from September 14, 1999 - September 20, 1999, he was not called Mr. McMahon in the storylines. It was during a time period where he turned face for a few months and everyone was just calling him Vince McMahon. Go watch any show that he was on during that time frame. The night he wins the title, the ring announcer says "Vince McMahon". This should be the easiest consensus. Open and shut. But Shinkazamaturi is the only one not understanding this at all. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2016

Nahid12345 (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC) Current champion is Seth Rollins. Won from Dean Ambrose after a double pin causing it to be announced that he is the champion.

:Wrong. Match was declared a draw, and Ambrose retains on WWE Network after-RAW broadcast.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.252.176 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC) 

Not done As noted, the decision was reversed into a draw. Ambrose retains. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on WWE Championship. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080215113326/http://www.wwe.com:80/inside/titlehistory/wcwchampionship/3044541104 to http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/wcwchampionship/3044541104

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) 18:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2016

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.

---

(non-admin closure) oknazevad (talk) 14:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE Championship → WWE World Championship – As per name change on WWE.com, WWE's official website, as well as was seen on their televised show SmackDown Live, where the championship is the show's top title. JDC808 ♫ 02:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I support this move to "WWE World Championship". Unlike yesterday when there was a request to move the page to "WWE World Heavyweight Championship", now we have confirmation from WWE themselves that the name has been changed, albeit without the word "Heavyweight". OldSkool01 (talk) 04:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree now that we have confirmation from WWE themselves. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I also support the requested move. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I support either kind of move, though it is wrong to make much of the inclusion of the word "Heavyweight" - all current male singles titles are "Heavyweight" titles (Intercontinental Heavyweight Champion, United States Heavyweight Champion), only the future Cruiserweight Championship will differ. Furthermore, the title belt still contains the word.

That the word was always mentioned over the last two years for the world title (but not for the others) stems from the title unification of the WWE (Heavyweight Championship) with the (stupidly named) World Heavyweight Championship. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support this is clearly the new name and the World/Universal distinction between the two top belts in each brand is very useful now. Personally I think our policy of listing previous Champions by the new names is a bad on though. We should have separate articles for each incarnation of the belt. Dean Ambrose is actually the INAUGURAL wrestler to hold this title. The page WWE Championship should effectively become a disambiguation page describing 2 periods in the company: the years when it existed alongside the World Heavyweight Championship, and then the recent couple of months when it was simply a renamed WWE World Heavyweight Championship (unified titles). Particularly since the phrase 'WWE Championship' could not refer to either the new "WWE World" or "WWE Universal" variations. JDC cites http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-world-championship but regardless of what that says, no Buddy Rogers was never awarded any "WWE" title because the company wasn't named WWE at the time. We shouldn't go retroactively changing names like this, we should actually list the titles as history reported them, not as WWE retitles them. We shouldn't report history solely as WWE paints it or we wouldn't have a Chris Benoit article at all. Actual names of the titles should be reported and we should have separate articles for each incarnation which is notable in its own right. Ranze (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"We should have separate articles for each incarnation of the belt. Dean Ambrose is actually the INAUGURAL wrestler to hold this title."

Actually, there are no separate incarnations of the title and Ambrose is not inaugural anything but has been holder of the same title also held by Buddy Rogers, Bruno, Hogan, Bret Hart, Steve Austin and so on since Money In The Bank. Just as the wrestling promotion is the same regardless of whether it's called WWWF, WWF or WWE. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Ranze can't seem to understand that there's an official title history and anything else is pure original research and that no one gives a flying fig about his opinions that are based on no sources or otherwise. Ignore him. oknazevad (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranze's logic is completely ridiculous. The WWWF Title and the WWE Title are not the same lineage because the name changed? So by that logic does that mean WWE itself has only existed since 2002? WWWF, WWF and WWE are 3 completely different companies? This whole thing is silly. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

WHW counting resurrection

Now that they renamed the title yet again I would like to draw attention to Talk:WWE_World_Heavyweight_Championship/Archive_3#WHW_contributes_to_reign_total which did not get totally resolved.

I provided copious reliable sources showing that World Heavyweight Championship reigns (and even WWE's WCW reigns per Rock) all were counted when totalling up a how-many-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion some people were. To reiterate an example:

Cole, Michael (22 November 2015). Survivor Series. Sheamus is now a four-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion. This is incredible. This is absolutely stunning. Fourteen thousand plus are stunned in Atlanta.

The others were even stronger since they were published in text on the website instead of a transcribed commentary.

Since the second incarnation of the WWE Championship is a renamed WWE World Heavyweight Championship (unified first-incarnation WWE Championship with World Heavyweight Championship) how many times someone was a WWE World Heavyweight Champion still seems relevant...

Although I guess their going back to the old name could signify a rejection of the WHW reigns, but that's still a 180 on their numbering so we should still discuss it somewhere. Ranze (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We can't go by what the commentators say. They constantly rewrite history at the drop of a dime. The WWE Championship(aka WWE World Heavyweight Championship, WWF Championship, Undisputed WWF Championship, WWWF World Heavyweight Championship, etc, etc) is its own lineage. The "World Heavyweight Championship" that existed between 2002 and 2013 is a completely seperate lineage. Both of them are considered World Titles. Just like the WCW, NWA, AWA, etc, etc are also considered "World Titles". Sheamus being a 4 time World Champion is accurate. Just like Hulk Hogan being a 12 time World Champion(6 WWF/6 WCW) is accurate. However, it doesn't make the lineages all one and the same. Cole saying Sheamus is a 4 time WWE World Heavyweight Champion is just a simplified way of explaining it to the average person watching the show. If Cole instead said he was a 3x WWE World Heavyweight Champion and 1x World Heavyweight Champion, that would sound awfully confusing, wouldn't it?. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The definitive reference of he title history at wwe.com remains the only appropriate reference. This is still the same load of WP:SYNTH you've been pushing for months. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Seriously. oknazevad (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranze, you seem to be the only person who thinks this wasn't resolved. Your proposals have been largely rejected by consensus and you've brought no new sources to the table which would change the conversation. LM2000 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I imagine WWE sent a memo to their announcers says "you're gonna call them WWE World Heavyweight Champions". WWE rewrites the history once again. However, we haven't sources about both titles being unified. Also, the WWE World Heavyweight title is over. Imagine wwe changes their names again and Sheamus is a 4 times World Champion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranze has been indefinitely blocked for violating his topic ban on gender issues. Hopefully if he ever gets unblocked he'll not only realize the error of his ways there, but in his edits across the encyclopedia. We've discussed this enough and consensus is against this. Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on.LM2000 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@OldSkool01: this is not just a matter of what Cole said, WWE.com repeatedly did this as well in its written articles. These were not simplified on-the-fly explanations, they were done by WWE.com staffers with offiical capitalization and everything. Ranze (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: please do not abuse the concept of WP:SYNTH in your accusations. This straw-manning to discredit me is probably to cover up the obvious fact that people relying exclusively on the 'title history' page were engaging in their own synthesis by drawing personal interpretations of the page's meaning. It is simply not synthesis to reference reliable sources (articles from WWE.com staff, the same authors of the history page) when describing how many times an individual wrestlers is considered to be a WWE World Heavyweight Champion. I dropped this for a while because I was tired of banging my head against a brick wall, but a few stubborn people insisting that a 'consensus' existed doesn't actually make a consensus. Ranze (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@LM2000: the original sources were basically ignored. The conversation about this got archived too quickly due to high activity in a page. I imagine the same would happen at the WikiProject. I think a task force dedicated to discussing this issue very thoroughly would be useful. Please avoid poisoning the well with unrelated information. If it is of interest to you: that block was an error which was quickly repealed when people realized that the topic ban had already expired months prior to editing the article someone blocked me for editing. The initial topic ban was also put in place by someone who lost their administrative privileges and was judged not to be impartial, so if I had spent more time on it, I could have had it overturned prior to its expiry, since I never violated BLP concerns to begin with. Considering this is an article about a championship and not BLP, I don't see how bringing it up is relevant here, it seems like an intent to distract from the issues. Ranze (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: this wasn't merely an announcer issue. Don't you remember the other sources? There were articles as well. The title name's period being over is exactly why it's a great time to address this issue now. Although we certainly have future articles/mentions to listen for now with there being 2 titles, like for example, if Seth were to become the new Universal Champion, if they start calling him a "1-time Universal Champion" or start adding up prior numbers without changing the wording. Ranze (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It is synth, and I explained exactly why to you previously. Ignoring things because they disagree with you is annoying. So is repeatedly trying to force through an issue that has been repeatedly rejected as being against the definitive sources. Seriously, stop badgering everyone (and bever ping me again, please) or I will seek a topic ban for you. oknazevad (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Dude, you are the only one trying to make this argument. That's the problem. Everyone else has the opposite opinion. Not to mention WWE.com themselves, in their title history section, have the WWE World Championship and the old World Heavyweight Championship in 2 seperate sections. There's a reason for that. This really isn't that complicated of an issue. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ranze, I'm glad you were given another chance but I am disappointed that you refuse to drop the stick here. I would support oknazevad's proposal if the tendentious edits don't stop.LM2000 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2016

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.

---

(non-admin closure) oknazevad (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WWE Championship → WWE World Heavyweight Championship – On the episode of RAW on July 25th, 2016 They renamed it back to the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. – ZupaaHD (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steven Crossin 00:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC) No personal objection to this - just doesn't appear to be supported by the information in the article. Steven Crossin 00:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: It is still the WWE Championship, as listed on WWE.com, the official website of the WWE. They did not "rename it back". It was Stephanie McMahon referring to it as World Heavyweight to emphasize the fact that Raw did not have a World Heavyweight championship. --JDC808 ♫ 01:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Until they change it officially on WWE.com it needs to stay WWE Championship. This argument got the page locked down when it went from World Heavyweight. I heard her say it too but Just wait until we have something to reference. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

'Oppose When did they rename it on Raw? I just watched the whole show. Because Stephanie misspoke, that doesn't mean they renamed the title only a month after just changing it. If WWE.com changes it on their site then we should follow suit here. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Until WP:RS is provided indicating a change.LM2000 (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Support There never was solid evidence for the previous change to begin with. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The change of name on the WWE website was definitive solid evidence. oknazevad (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That was no evidence for a change, just a list with a different heading. No one ever provided a WWE statement that they are changing the name. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

WWE World Championship

WWE.com now lists this title as the WWE World Championship. http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-world-championship Dohvahkiin (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

They also used it on the marquee for the title on SmackDown. I think it's safe to move the page accordingly. --JDC808 ♫ 01:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The article says: "On the June 27, 2016 episode of Raw, WWE World Heavyweight Champion Dean Ambrose was referred to as the WWE Champion.[17] WWE then officially renamed the title as the WWE Championship.[18][19]"

While the first sentence is undoubtedly true and the reference provides a source for this, the same isn't true for the second sentence whose links only give more evidence of a shortened name being used, not that there was any official change. Given that the title after Battleground reverted to the earlier name, it seems doubtful that the shortened usage is relevant at all. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, they did change the name on the website to simply "WWE Championship" from "WWE World Heavyweight Championship", and now have changed (again) to "WWE World Championship". I agree that we are making way too big of a deal of trying to create definitive names when it's clearly a situation in flux. And that's what allows for idiotic ideas like that seen below to creep in. oknazevad (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that during the three weeks or so they universally used the term "WWE championship" this smacked of a renaming of the title, arguably in keeping with the terminology of the previous brand split (WWE vs World Heavyweight championships) - maybe that was the plan but if so it has been supersede by other ideas. However, there never was a source for an official renaming at any time, just the observation of different usage. As of this week things are even less clear. On SD, the title was called WWE championship and WWE World Heavyweight Championship within a matter of minutes by the SD management team. To me it seems, there never was a change in the name, just longer or shorter forms of the same name. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the lack of a formal announcement means it is unsourced. oknazevad (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it does. There is no source for the title ever having been renamed. That's like trying to source the claim "Dean Ambrose beat Roman Reigns for the title at MITB" by pointing to a picture of champion Reigns before and one of champion Ambrose after the event.

Right now, there are only sources for announcers (not the most reliable sort of persons) saying "WWE championship" and the website reading "WWE championship" for a few weeks before doing the opposite.

May I ask you whether Ambrose's title was renamed four times this week as first he was announced as WWE champion on Battleground, then Stephanie said WWE World Heavyweight Championship on Raw, then Shane said WWE championship on Smackdown only for Daniel Bryan to speak of the WWE World Heavyweight Championship only seconds later. Later on, the title was referred to as the WWE World Championship, though not consistently: JBL called it the WWE championship again but that might either be a slip or, as I am suggesting it was all along, just a short form of the same name. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

PS. I have included the information from your edit - which was sourced but I deemed non-notable - into a different, slimmed down edit. Can you live with that? I could. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The Miz's Spinner Belt

I understand that the belt wasn't a new design per se, but the fact is, there is a visual difference between when he held the belt, and when others held the spinner belt. The logo was intentionally flipped upside down for him as champion and changed back to the correct position after he lost the title. Sure, a picture isn't necessary as that's easily visualized by reading a description and seeing what the regular one looked like, but there at least should be some mention as it was "different", even if minor. --JDC808 ♫ 03:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No new belt was made, unlike the colored straps. That's the difference. It was literally the exact same belt, even if he essentially wore it upside down.

But, in looking back through the prior discussions about this from the talk page archives, one thing jumped out at me. The consensus to not have a gallery of past designs. Let's talk brass tacks here. Too many non-free images in these. That's unacceptable per WP:NFCC. We have to really have a discussion as to whether or not this is appropriate. oknazevad (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've watched this section grow and am actually surprised none of the images have been deleted yet. It's only a matter of time before the whole lot of them get tagged for deletion.LM2000 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The title wasn't custom per say, they just locked the W upside down, same belt. Honestly it's no different than the current side plates they use. As for all the belt pics, I for see them all getting tagged before long. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on the subject. All I'm arguing for is to give it mention; no one else wore the title like that. As to WarMachineWildThing's comment of it being similar to the side plates, kinda, but the side plates were done to replace the name plates. The spinner belt already had a name plate, the upside down logo was to put his own mark of ownership per se on the belt. --JDC808 ♫ 17:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking over the archives, I didn't really see a consensus, just a worry of non-free. I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure all but a couple of those images (the early ones and the current) are of replicas as opposed to non-free images from WWE themselves (this whole non-free thing is one of the most annoying things about Wikipedia policy). I'll do some digging. --JDC808 ♫ 17:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

That non-free issue is a core policy. Especially necessary are the concerns about copyright, as respect for copyright is what keeps Wikipedia from being shut down. Even if the image itself is of a replica, the design itself is copyright, and that's a concern. Minimal use pretty much demands that we only use the current belt. We may have to torpedo the section, but I'd like to see some input from someone more knowledgable about the policies. oknazevad (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Oknazevad: Just wanted to give you an FYI for future reference. I just acquired a replica of the spinner belt and they didn't use a magnet to keep it from spinning. They used a different screw. One screw allows it to spin, the other doesn't. --JDC808 ♫ 02:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, a holding screw, not a magnet. Gotcha. Same idea, though. It's the same belt, just fixed into place. oknazevad (talk) 02:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

False: "for the first time in the championship's history, the WWE World Championship match opened the show"

Dear User:JDC808 and User:LM2000,

Regarding the claim that at No Mercy 2016 the WWE World Championship opened the show for the first time im history:

I have already argued that this is a detail that is not noteworthy in the 53-year-long history of this championship. It turns out that it is also not true, as at No_Mercy_(2007)#Results the pay-per-view opened with Triple H vs. Randy Orton for the WWE Championship. That the show closed a rematch doesn't change that fact.

We should all learn from this (me included because I believed it too) that WWE announcers say things that are patently false. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some research, I had made the decision years ago to pretend that No Mercy 2007 (along with most of WWE in 2007) never existed. Just now I remembered that Elimination Chamber (2012) also started with the WWE Championship in the opener too though. I'm sure if we do some digging we'll come up with other examples, making the addition totally insignificant.LM2000 (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder why they promoted it as such if it had happened before on more than one occasion? Grant it, at that time it was the "WWE Championship" and now it's the "WWE World Championship", but that shouldn't be their reasoning for promoting it as such since it's the same title. --JDC808 ♫ 05:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Because they're promoters. They make everything seem like the greatest, most important thing ever. It's part of the job. That said, those opening matches were during the first brand split, when the WHC was also around, so there was still a world title match in the final position. Indeed, those were during the periods when the WWE championship was on SmackDown while the WHC was on Raw, and so was a bit of a lesser title. oknazevad (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

In regards to your last sentence, it's in the same position now as it was then, just with the Universal title instead of the WHC. --JDC808 ♫ 15:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, LM2000, but I cannot take the credit. I heard it on a review of the event by King Ross from Whatculture.

Yes, because they are promoters always looking for the "first ever". Which is why I am so opposed to include these words in articles. If it is really the first, we should call it just that and not contribute to any hype.

Oknazevad, your explanation might be the reason (at No Mercy there also were two more title matches for the same championship in the middle and at the end of the show) but then it the novelty would change into a "the world title match is not the final match" and that (Wrestlemania VIII and XI, SummerSlam 1992) is even more false. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

PS. The WHC was not defended in the final match at Elimination Chamber (2012). Str1977 ^(talk) 11:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

So just watched another promotional video in regards to No Mercy (which was highlighting the fact that John Cena now has the most PPV main events). I believe the confusion came into how they promoted it. The new video was showing that it was the first "main event" to open the show, whereas the announcers were also saying it was the first time the WWE (World) Championship opened the show. I guess they were correct in a sense: it was the first time that the main event, which was also the WWE World Championship match, opened the show. Those previous times that the WWE (World) Championship opened the show, it wasn't the "main event". --JDC808 ♫ 15:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Lede dispute

There is some dispute as to how to summarize the most salient points in the article. I don't believe much of the bulky third paragraph explains to readers why this championship is notable, in particular I don't think detailed accounts of brand switches belong in the lede. I've retained a succinct summary on unifications in my version.[5] Any thoughts?LM2000 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I've done some trimming/revising, as seen here (which cut out how many times it was on each brand). In my opinion, the version you made didn't quite summarize the entire body of the article, and to me, had some ambiguity. For example, the mention of the other three championships all in the same sentence could be misconstrued that they existed at the same time. --JDC808 ♫ 23:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)