Talk:WWE Championship/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

New name, December 2016

The title is once again being referred to as the WWE Championship on WWE's website. Move the page? HughMorris15 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

We probably should. WWE are a bunch of schmucks for making us do this some many times in such a short period of time.LM2000 (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

They don't make you do this. You chose to do it. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It is really annoying and there was no need to shorten its name back. WWE World Championship was a better name IMO and matched the naming of WWE Universal Championship, as in "WWE [title] Championship". They could have kept it WWE World Championship and just called it WWE Championship for short. Back when they changed the name to WWE World Championship, I went to every former champions article and corrected the target link to "WWE World Championship". I really don't wanna do that again..... --JDC808 ♫ 02:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Pous there's the whole fucked up renaming here. Seriously, are people so damn impatient they can't put in for a technical request at WP:RM and we get crap like a capital P at the end of the name?!? Really?!? Stupid. oknazevad (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup, and before that, he had it named as "WWE, Championship" (note the comma after WWE) before moving it again to the capital P. --JDC808 ♫ 03:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The page should have never been moved, not in June and not now, just because WWE (or some intern handling their webpage) or some announcer chose to abbreviate the full name of the title. (And least of all do we need this "change" to be recorded on every article the title pops up.) Can we now revert the most recent move? Str1977 ^(talk) 15:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Str1977: I disagree. If they officially rename the championship, then we should move the article accordingly. They just annoyingly happened to do it three times this year, as documented on TV, WWE.com, and other sources. It's not just some "intern", it's ultimately Vince and maybe Triple H who decide this. And what do you mean by the recent move? It's at the correct title of "WWE Championship". And can you explain what you mean by this: "And least of all do we need this 'change' to be recorded on every article the title pops up"? --JDC808 ♫ 00:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@JDC808: As usual, the basis for the claims that they "officially renamed" anything is meagre. You have the headline of a list on wwe.com and people on the show saying WWE Champion(ship) a few times. Annoyingly, some WP editors immediately jump and move articles. This might be justified if such usage persists over time (even then I don't think it necessary) but now it is way too early to tell.

@Str1977: It's not a mere "headline" though. It's the fact that they go and change it on practically every mention thereafter. Example, just yesterday, WWE posted a photo gallery of all wrestlers who became champion in 2016. When Triple H, Roman Reigns, and Dean Ambrose won this championship, it was the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, and then when AJ Styles won it, it was the WWE World Championship. However, in that photo gallery, they only called it the WWE Championship. It's not "way too early to tell" when multiple sources have clearly documented the change.

That they apparently renamed the championship three times this year might one to reconsider such editorial behaviour. Especially since there has never been any sourced "official" statement by WWE "We are renaming the title", only the disappearance of a few words from a list/TV, then reappearance of a word. If we went by that the article United States would be moved frequently, probably multiple times a day (United States > USA > United States of America > US).

One doesn't need to reconsider their editorial behavior just because WWE decided to rename it three times in a 6 month period. WWE doesn't always flat out say "we have changed the name". I give you the example of the original Cruiserweight Championship: WWE did not announce its deactivation and just quietly removed it on WWE.com from the active championships' page. And that is a very poor example you gave. This here is a case of an official name change and the name that WWE will here on out refer to it as (on occasion, they did refer to it as the WWE Championship when it officially had the longer name, but more so than not, they used the official name, whatever it was at the time). It's one thing if it was still officially named the WWE World Championship and they shorthanded it as the WWE Championship, but the fact that practically everywhere on WWE.com and TV now is WWE Championship, that says official name change.

As for your questions: Is it not a recent move from "WWE World Championship" to "WWE Championship".

It was, because WWE Championship is the correct title now.

By "least of all do we need this 'change' to be recorded on every article the title pops up" I meant exactly the insertion of this "renaming" at A.J. Styles or TLC 2016 (where it is even less on topic). Str1977 ^(talk) 06:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It should be documented there as well because if you state one name of the championship, then go and state another name for that same championship but don't state that it was renamed, an unfamiliar casual reader may interpret that as two different championships. --JDC808 ♫ 06:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2017

most times won held by (16 time WWE Champion Ric Flair) SeanyCPWCena1130 (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not Done Flair only held the WWE title 2 times. The others were 8 NWA and 6 WCW. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Youngest champion

I just wanna say Randy Orton was the youngest Champion at 24. Not Brock Lesnar. Sharju (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Orton won the World Heavyweight Championship, not the WWE Championship. Separate title, now defunct. Lesnar was the youngest ever to win this title. oknazevad (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Although Orton holds the record as the youngest world champion in the company, like oknazevad said, it was with the retired World Heavyweight Championship, not the WWE Championship. Although the two titles were unified, their title histories are separate. Lesnar still holds the record for this title. --JDC808 ♫ 08:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

African Americans not winning the WWE Championship

No African American has won the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. The Rock is the first mixed or biracial champion but not African American. Also no black person has won Money in the Bank briefcase. DezTebow (talk) 11:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Rocky is biracial but he still counts. Barack Obama is also biracial but is still recognized as the first African American US President.LM2000 (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2017

Change youngest champion: Randy Orton is the youngest WWE Champion, he won at age 24, unlike Brock Lesnar who won it at an older age. 2.14.249.207 (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Not done He won the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) at 24.LM2000 (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@2.14.249.207: You're confusing two different championships. Although Randy Orton holds the record for being the youngest world champion in WWE, he achieved this by winning the World Heavyweight Championship at 24, not the WWE Championship. Brock Lesnar still holds that record for the WWE Championship. Although both titles were unified in 2013, their lineage is still separate. --JDC808 ♫ 21:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The youngest champion

The youngest champion to win this title was Randy Orton at 24 years 136 days old Ntinga (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Although Brock Lesnar was the youngest to win the WWE champion at 27 years old, when the World Heavyweight Championship was decommissioned the titles were unified therefore their histories would have to be combined Ntinga (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No, he won a different title with a separate lineage. That the lineages remain separate is proven by looking at wwe.com. Unifying titles does not suddenly make their lineages and histor into a hash that cannot be sorted out. That's not how title lineages work. oknazevad (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2017

I noticed that that the belt for the Houston Astros winning the World Series isn't listed I would like to add it. Here is a picture from twitter the day after they won the world series https://twitter.com/TripleH/status/926109679213842432 Death30000 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This image does not comply with the Image Use Policy because it is a copyrighted work and there is no indication that the copyright owner has released it for use. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Eggishorn, Death30000 wasn't meaning to add the picture. He was meaning to list the recognition under the customized designs section, which I have done. --JDC808 ♫ 19:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@JDC808:, thank you for the help. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Bruno picture caption

The caption reads:"the title belt shown here is not the WWE Championship, or at that time, WWWF, although Pedro Morales held a design very similar to this during his first reign". If this is not the WWWF Championship, then what is it? According to Bruno's article, this is the only world heavyweight championship he won, and the fact that this belt is identical the the Pedro one makes this more conspicuous. Was he posing with a replica of the 1971 version of the belt for a photoshoot?LM2000 (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what belt he's holding in that pic, or if it is just a photoshoot like you said. To my knowledge, Bruno only held three versions of the WWWF Championship. The original one that was formerly a United States championship. That was replaced by the belt he held throughout his 7-year reign. Then he held the version that Pedro Morales introduced in 1973. The first design Pedro held was very similar looking to the one in the picture of Bruno here, however, Bruno was not holding that belt design when he lost the championship to Ivan Koloff (Koloff won and held the version linked for Bruno's 7-year reign). Unless by chance that during Bruno's 7-year reign, he briefly used that belt design in the picture, but decided to go back to the other. --JDC808 ♫ 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The creation of the World Wide Wrestling Federation (today's WWE) was officially announced by its new President, Willie Gilzenberg, on April 11, 1963 during the intermission of the regular Thursday night broadcast of "Capitol Wrestling From Washington, DC" hosted by iconic commentator Ray Morgan. I personally witnessed Gilzenberg relate to the fans the circumstances behind the creation of the new company and then present the title belt to Nature Boy Buddy Rogers. Wrestling historian Fred Hornby's "Buddy Rogers Record Book" backs me up on this.

Regarding the first WWWF (WWE) championship belt, Buddy Rogers was the NWA United States Champion prior to defeating Pat O'Connor for the NWA World Championship on June 30, 1961 at Comiskey Park in Chicago. Since he never lost his NWA U.S. Championship he was allowed to keep the belt. They put the WWWF together so quickly that they didn't have time to make a proper belt until after the title switch to Sammartino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batko10 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

We understand the very first design (the U.S. title belt). What this post is concerned about is the belt that Bruno is holding in the picture on the page. To my knowledge, he never held that design, only the original U.S. title belt, then the one designed specifically for him that he held for 7 years, and then the one in his second reign that Pedro Morales introduced. Any idea on the belt in the pic? --JDC808 ♫ 23:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, the caption was such an obscure point of trivia it was distracting from the point of including the image, namely including an image of Bruno as the longest-reigning champion. That it includes a non-standard belt is kinda irrelevant, and the sort of thing that, for railroad details, I call "rivet counting". Also, the mention that the second permanent belt was introdiced by Pedro Morales is definitely irrelevant to the image.

Also, looking at full resolution, the belt in the image says "World Heavyweight Champion" with a Maltese cross, which may give some hint to its provenance, but also makes the description of it being similar to the second permanent WWWF belt inaccurate. They're only vaguely similar in shape, and not really that close. "Very similar" is not a description I would use. (PS, the US belt was a stand in used quickly; it was returned to Rodgers after he dropped the title to Bruno in his sole defense, and wound up in another wrestler's attic where it was found a couple of years ago by his widow. Triple H now has it in his office. Because he's a belt mark.) oknazevad (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, it actually is very similar to the one Pedro had (his had the cross on it too). The biggest difference between them is the one Pedro wore had a horizontal plate below the center plate that said "WWWF" on it. The material for the belt also seems different; the black and white image here looks like it's leather, whereas this one doesn't. --JDC808 ♫ 05:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I found a message board awhile back that had a posting that said Bruno used 9 belts during his reign and the one we have a picture of was one of them. I can't find it now and it's really a moot point since the caption has been trimmed. It should remain that way, there's no reason for the caption to be that long either way.LM2000 (talk) 07:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm really curios about that now. If there were in fact more, I'd like to see them. --JDC808 ♫ 13:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1963 - ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CREATION OF THE WWWF

56 years ago today Willie Gilzenberg appeared on the regular Thursday night broadcast of "Capitol Wrestling From Washington, DC" and announced to host Ray Morgan and the wrestling world that the WORLD WIDE WRESTLING FEDERATION was created and officially a legal entity.

Gilzenberg, the first President of the WWWF, described how the organization was formed and that their first World Heavyweight Champion was Nature Boy Buddy Rogers. President Gilzenberg explained that Rogers was the victor of a (kayfabe) tournament in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and defeated Antonino Rocca in the finale to clinch the title.

At that point Nature Boy Buddy Rogers was brought out to receive the WWWF World Championship belt and do an interview segment with Ray Morgan and Willie Gilzenberg.

Even as a 13 year old, I immediately recognized the WWWF World Championship belt as Buddy's NWA United States Championship belt. Since Rogers was the NWA United States Champion when he defeated O'Connor for the NWA World Championship, he never gave up the U.S. Championship belt. At the time I was taken aback, but later realized that they had put the WWWF together relatively quickly and didn't have time to make a belt for their FIRST champ.

It seems that almost no one remembers this segment of Capitol Wrestling TV and some have tried to convince me that I never saw what I saw. Awhile back I contacted Bill Apter who is a few years older than me and he confirmed that he also saw that segment on TV and that I wasn't delusional or crazy. 65.128.152.147 (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so what edit are you requesting? --JDC808 ♫ 20:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Wikipedia is not a blog. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Block logo Undisputed Championship belt?

Why does the Undisputed WWE Championship belt image in the infobox feature the 80s/early 90s "block" WWF logo? That logo was never used on that belt (all versions of that belt always used the scratch logo), plus the belt reads "World Wrestling Entertainment" but is using a WWF logo. This looks like a fan edit or something like that and does not represent any version of the belt that has ever existed. I also know that the infobox previously featured a correct version of the belt with the scratch logo. Could somebody revert this back? 75.78.103.12 (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed them all. This has been discussed before, and including a gallery like that, whether in the infobox or a separate section, fails to fulfill the minimal use requirements of the non-free content criteria. Plus, as you noted, some of these are plain inaccurate, even made up. oknazevad (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

John Cenas regins

John’s reign as WWE champion isn’t 13 it’s 16 times please fix that mistake and who enabled semi protection an what for Jedijohn22 (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No, he has only held the WWE Championship 13 times. His other 3 world title reigns were with the now retired World Heavyweight Championship. As for the semi-protection, don't know who did it without looking at the edit history, but it's because of vandalism. --JDC808 ♫ 09:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

Article says Damian Priest is the current WWE champion where the actual champion is still Bobby Lashley 90.208.77.9 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

renamed?

they seemed to have renamed it?? at Hell In a Cell (2021) it was referred to as the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship". source (right at the end). their site still uses WWE Championship, but it seems for at least 1 day it was renamed?Muur (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

They're not consistent with that graphic (there's been a couple of times over the past couple of years where the graphic said "WWE World Championship"). The current championship belt was introduced when the title was fully called the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, and the physical belt still says that, but the official title history only lists it as WWE Championship (and has had this listing since December 2016). For the name here, we stick with how it's listed at their official title history. --JDC808 ♫ 06:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess you could argue the name is officially wwe championship but still sometimes gets referred to as previous names.Muur (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

John Cena WWE record of 16 times World titles brought him level with Ric Flair and also cemented his place in WWE history alongside the great wrestlers of all time. Udalachai (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Cena has 16 world title reigns total, but only 14 of them with this title. The other 2 were with the separate World Heavyweight Championship, not this title. Subsequently the article correctly lists him as a 14-time holder of this title. The request is malformed and incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Titles not unified

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

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

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

Vmlhds (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. This isn’t like the Becky 2 Belts situation at all. Becky held both titles at the same time, but she also defended them seperately. She never defended both of them at the same time. They never advertised that match as a unification match, nor did they change the name of the belts to the Undisputed WWE Women’s Title.

What we have right now with Reigns is the same thing that happened with the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship from 2009-2010. The tag titles were unified and defended together, not seperately, and renamed to the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, even though WWE.com continued to keep 2 seperate lineages for some reason, until one day they just decided to end the lineage of the then 39 year old World Tag Team title in favor of the then 8 year old WWE Tag Team Title. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which say that's the way WWE are going with it? As presently what Vjmlhds said stands per WWE.com (and even WON). — Czello 12:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources that say what exactly? That the WWE and Universal belts were unified and that it was a unification match? There’s a hundred different sources that say that. They said it a million times leading up to the match and during the match. And they changed the name to the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship.

As for the tag team belts, they did the exact same thing with those titles too. They announced a unification match between the World Tag titles and WWE Tag titles at WrestleMania 25, and after that match they changed the name to the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship, but WWE.com still listed the titles seperately for the next 16 months even though the belts were never defended seperately.

Same thing is happening now with Reigns. They haven’t made any suggestions or even hinted at the idea that he’s going to be defending the belts seperately. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

WON has reported that their use of "unification" is misleading and that they aren't intending to actually unify them. — Czello 15:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m a subscriber to the Observer site and listen to every one of their audio shows. What Dave and Bryan actually said is they feel eventually, whether it’s 6 months from now or a year from now, there’s gonna be a second world title again. They further said they may just create a brand new title. So as of now we go by what we know, not what may or may not happen down to the road. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I will again point you directly to the WWE.com Superstars page, where they clearly have Reigns listed separately as WWE Champion and Universal Champion. The titles are not unified. Reigns is a double champion, and nothing out there indicates that one title or the other is going away. So please stop saying the championships are unified, as that is incorrect and misleading. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong. There is already a precedence for this and I’ve mentioned it several times. This is not the first time WWE.com has done this. They did the exact same thing with the Unified tag team titles in 2009. The titles were unified, but WWE.com still listed them seperately on the title history page. You can even go to WWE.com right now and look at the history of the Raw tag team title and the World tag team title and see that from April 2009 through August 2010 they had the exact same title changes. If there wasn’t already a precedence for this then I’d agree with you. But there is. Not sure why this is so hard to understand. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Because assuming anything one way or the other is a mistake. Maybe it's like the tag titles. Or maybe it's like Becky Two-Belts. There's precedent that can be pointed at either way (and the latter is more recent). What it most certainly is not like is the unification of the WWE and World Heavyweight titles in 2013, where the latter was definitively retired immediately and Orton was listed as a single champion immediately. The plain fact is that at this point in time, the official website still lists both titles separately, so we shouldn't make any assumption about future events (WP:CRYSTALBALL) and just explain what we do know for certain. Roman is currently listed as holding two separate titles. So we should do the same. oknazevad (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You’re ignoring one big difference between Becky holding both women’s titles and what happened with the tag titles and currently the world titles. The difference is they never said the Raw and Smackdown Women’s titles would be unified. They never used the word unified, unification or undisputed when building up that match or even during that match. Becky continued to defend each title seperately. That was not the case with the tag titles in 2009, nor is it the case now. They’ve clearly and obviously used the word unification a ton of times when building up the tag title match at Mania 25 and the World/Universal title match at Mania 38. Even though the World and WWE tag titles were listed seperately on WWE.com, they were not defended seperately. They were defended together as a unified title. What’s happening now with Reigns is exactly what happened with the tag titles. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am ignoring it. Intentionally. Promotional hype to sell a match is not a reliable indication. You're ignoring that the last time this happened, with Orton/Cena and the WWE/WHC unification, they immediately listed Orton as a single champion, not someone holding two titles. It could be very well that they originally planned to separate the tag titles later and changed their minds, and they're not sure what course they will take now. That's why I say we wait and just list the facts as they stand. Reigns is listed as holding two titles. oknazevad (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It wasn’t just promotional hype. From day 1 they made it clear that the women’s titles were not going to be unified. Becky defended the titles seperately. She wrestled twice on a ppv, defending each title in a different match. That was never the case with the unified tag titles. They were always defended together in the same match. Unless WWE makes it clear that Reigns will be defending each title seperately, which they haven’t, then as of now it’s the same situation as the tag team titles. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

And again you're not addressing the point I've made multiple times about how it's not the same as Orton with the previous title unification. The fact that it is not being presented the same as that is exactly why we should not make any pronouncements, because we just don't know. You're making an inference, but it's only one possible one based on precedent. oknazevad (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes and in that situation they chose to discontinue the World Heavyweight Title lineage immediately and stick with the WWE Title lineage. Doesn’t mean the titles right now aren’t unified. For whatever reason, same reason probably as the Tag Team title situation, they’re choosing to continue listing both lineages simultaneously. Again, it comes down to whether or not the titles will be defended at the same time or be defended seperately. All we can go by right now is how they’ve presented it. They pushed very hard the unification aspect of it and they went and changed the name of the championship, just like they did with Orton and Cena. So just because both title lineages are still on WWE.com, doesn’t mean they’re not unified. They haven’t given any inclination whatsoever that Roman’s belts will be defended seperately. They have inclinated that the titles are indeed unified. Which is why we should handle this on WP exactly the same way we did back in 2009-2010 with the tag team titles. We still had seperate articles for the World Tag and WWE Tag titles, but we mentioned that they were unified. It’s the same exact situation right now. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Right now, it is unwise to ASS-U-ME anything. Titles are separate, WWE lists Reigns as a double champion, and we'll find out in due course if it's like the tag titles or Becky 2 Belts. Until then, put the unification stuff on ice, please, as it's becoming apparent on this page more editors are against it than for it. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is ASS-U-MING, anything. You guys are going by WWE.com listing both titles as seperate, yet go to the WWE Championship section and click on Reigns, it clearly says “By overcoming Brock Lesnar at WrestleMania 38, Roman Reigns unified the Universal and WWE Championships to become the Undisputed WWE Universal Champion”. You guys go by WWE.com on one thing, but ignore every other part of the site that refers to the belts as unified. I just don’t understand it. The facts, FACTS (since capitalizing words seems to be en vogue now) is that WWE advertised a unification match at WrestleMania. Fact. They announced Reigns as the new Undisputed WWE Universal Champion. Fact. The next night on Raw he was introduced as Undisputed WWE Universal Champion. Fact. All over WWE.com there are articles talking about the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship. Fact. Also, in 2009 and 2010 we (as in WP editors) referred to the tag team champions as Unified WWE Tag Team Champions. Fact. We also noted that both titles were still listed on WWE.com as independent of eachother, even though they were defended together, not seperately. Fact. WWE has not in any way indicated that Reigns will defend the titles seperately. Fact. My question is, how is what is happening today any different than what happened in 2009-2010? Why should we treat this different on WP when back then we treated it exactly the same way? OldSkool01 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Just want to also point out, since you guys are so intent on sticking with what WWE.com’s title history section says, let’s not forget last summer when Cameron Grimes forfeited the Million Dollar belt back to Ted DiBiase, after only being champion for a couple of days, WWE.com continued to list Grimes as Million Dollar champion for months until someone realized it was a mistake and went back and fixed it to recognize his short reign. WWE has monkeys running that website sometimes. Looking for consistancy on WWE.com will drive you nuts. OldSkool01 (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's just let the cards fall where they may, and go from there. As of now, WWE says they're separate, and it's 3-1 on this talk page saying keep them that way. If something happens to say otherwise, we'll get there when we get there. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No! WWE does NOT say they are seperate. They’re saying just the opposite. The commentators, the ring announcers, the on-screen graphics, the commercials, a ton of articles on WWE.com refer to the titles as unified! The one part of the site that you guys are going by, the title history section, is the only part of the site that is inconsistent. They still list the titles seperately, yet when you click on the current champion, Roman Reigns, it literally says he unified the titles to become Undisputed WWE Universal Champion. I feel like I’m being gaslighted here. And you still haven’t answered why we’re treating this different than how we (WP editors) treated the Unified Tag title situation. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Because they aren't treating it like that. Not yet, anyway. You're making an assumption, one no one else agrees with. Plus, again, we're paying more attention to the fact that they aren't treating it like the WWE/WHC title unification. You're fixating on one previous occasion at the expense of looking at all other precedents. I can't get behind that because, as you note, WWE is far from consistent. oknazevad (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree we can't pretend that this was a traditional unification. I know WWE hyped it up as one, and we need to note that they did that in appropriate places, but the current version which omits mentions of the "unification" are the best way to handle that on this article.LM2000 (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Oknazevad. Good lord. You said WWE aren’t treating the current situation like they treated the unified tag titles. That is false. They absolutely treated it the same way. The exact same way. They unified the tag team belts, yet they continued to list them seperately on WWE.com as 2 seperate belts in the title history section, even though on television they called them the unified championship and both sets of belts were defended simultaneously, not seperately. Unless, or until, or if, Reigns defends the belts seperately, then they should be considered unified with a note mentioning how WWE.com still lists them seperately. It’s exactly how we did it back then. It’s 100% the exact same situation. But don’t reply. Cause I’m banging my head against the wall here. Do whatever you guys want to do. This isn’t my hill to die on. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying that assuming that they will treat it like the unified tag titles (listing them separately for now, but eventually keeping only one) is WP:CRYSTALBALL projection and not appropriate for the articles. That is all I'm saying. oknazevad (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I’m not crystal balling anything. I have no idea whether or not they’re going to split the WWE and Universal belts or if they’re going to keep them together. What I’m suggesting is we handle this exactly how we handled it right after Mania 25. In April 2009 we had no idea that 16 months later they were going to discontinue the World Tag Team Title. But what we did in the meantime was mentioned, on their own seperate pages, that the World and WWE tag belts were unified, but noted that WWE.com continued to keep them seperate in their title history section. That’s what we did back then and I have no idea why we’re not doing it now. If they end up splitting the belts again then we no longer say they’re unified. If they end up dropping the lineage of one of the belts, then we continue on with the lineage that they keep. And knowing how incompetent WWE is, they’ll probably drop the 59 year WWE title lineage and keep the 6 year Universal title lineage. But whatever. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

A third of this page is supported by tweets as cites, mostly from Triple H. Per WP:RSPTWITTER, tweets shouldn't be used in most cases. About half of the sources are primary sources, IE, WWE match records. There's also the multiple self published sources and blogs. There's literally a link to a medium blog for the cite that this is the most prestigious championship in professional wrestling, which is an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary sources, and it's a blog for the cite. There are so many issues with this page and its citing that I don't know where to begin.

I'm not gonna come in and do anything on my own, since no one wants edit wars and talk page disputes, but like....y'all want some help actually citing this page in accordance with sourcing guidelines? I'm more than willing to help. FrederalBacon (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The Tweets aren't ideal as citations, but they are in line with WP:RSPTWITTER if they're just Triple H saying they've awarded an honorary championship to someone. However, we should replace them with something better if we can. I've removed the Medium blog, that one's egregious. I'll begin looking through other citations and seeing which ones can be removed/replaced. — Czello 08:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

From RSPTWITTER: Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. I don't know how this is different: Are the customized designs notable? If they were, they'd be covered in third party sources. I'm sure some of them are, certainly. But this is simply a list of a ton of various organizations they've given customized belts too, almost completely primarily sourced. FrederalBacon (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to removing the customised designs altogether, if I'm honest. If we're going to have them then I think a blue tick tweet is fine, but equally it seems to be a somewhat arbitrary collection of information. — Czello 11:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

In terms of reliable information, I have no reason to doubt that they are indeed legitimate promotional belts that they did. Honestly, I think it's cool. But if they aren't covered third party, I can't see their inclusion being merited simply because they exist. Like I said, some of them are big cross-sport promotions, so I'm sure that there are some that could be reliably sourced. I think this might just be a preference for using the tweets for cites as opposed to potentially looking for third party sources, due to the easy availability of the tweets (IE, Triple H tweets out a custom belt, it can get added here right away). FrederalBacon (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Im' sure reliable sources covered the customized designs for sports. However, I would prefer a few mentions as examples, not the full list of awarded teams. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe group sports together and list a couple of them for examples? One or two domestic US sports, one or two international sports? FrederalBacon (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. A few examples of each sport (US and International) would be fine. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a preference for which sports? I was thinking Super Bowl and World Series for domestic, Formula 1 and UEFA for international? And then Overwatch League for esports, the police officer, the For the troops, and the French announcers all should stay as a different kind of unique design. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

These comments are copied from my post at Talk:New Era (WWE). They are perhaps more relevant to the List of WWE Champions article, but perhaps they have some value here. I also see that there is a discussion of the list of presentations in the "customized designs" section. I agree that this could be trimmed and that the paragraph with 43 citations is overkill and makes the article look far too dependent on Twitter. Right. The comments: "FrederalBacon raises a concern about the use of primary sources for a championship article. The project tries to present both the company narrative as well as reality in discussing the lineage of a championship. (Hear me out.) Wrestling promotions play games with their numbers and dates in order to present a fictional and promotable narrative. I don't doubt that for a second. A championship may be "won" (I'll put that in quotation marks as a concession the first time I use it to dissuade anyone of the notion that I believe that championships are legitimately won in an athletic competition, although I still firmly believe that it is an accomplishment because the title indicates that the wrestler has developed their character and/or narrative and/or fan base to the point that that are being made the public face of the for-profit company) at an arena on a Wednesday, but the television footage may not air until Saturday. The company may state that the championship was won on Saturday. This becomes part of the company's official, recorded history, even though it's not true. In earlier years, a wrestler may go on a working tour of a foreign country to defend their championship. To please the local crowd, they may lose the championship to a local wrestler. Before returning to the United States, they may win the championship back, as the title change was only ever perceived as a promotional opportunity to increase ticket sales. The title changes may not be announced to audiences in the United States. This can create a narrative of a long, unbroken championship reign despite the fact that it isn't true. While these official company (read: sometimes deliberately incorrect) numbers are presented on Wikipedia, editors have taken efforts to indicate the truth alongside them. This isn't blurring fact and fiction or presenting an in-universe account. This is intentionally taking it out of universe to indicate to the reader that the company narrative with which they might be familiar is not factual. In order to present the company's official history, it is often essential to use their recorded timeline for the dates. This is why primary sources are often used. It is not to deceive readers, either intentionally or through insufficient attention to the manual of style. It is to state that there are two sets of numbers and to provide a source for one of them, all while clearly indicating the unbiased reality next to it." GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

although I still firmly believe that it is an accomplishment because the title indicates that the wrestler has developed their character and/or narrative and/or fan base to the point that that are being made the public face of the for-profit company Agree 100%, I would even argue that doing so is just as hard as becoming a successful professional in any sport, if not harder, due to the personality and entertainment aspects, along with the phsycial requirements.

This becomes part of the company's official, recorded history, even though it's not true Well good thing we're about verifiability, not truth. I have no problem with records being used to source this article. I just feel like they are being over used. In an article that has been primarily sourced, you're only getting one viewpoint. Has there been criticism of the WWE Championship? What do other people, other than the WWE, say about it? Stuff like that is missing from this article. FrederalBacon (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Corretion

When I searched for WWE Championship on your site, it showed that the youngest champion is Brock Lesnar who won it at the age of 25 years. And when I searched for Randy Orton on your site, the text stated that he won the WWE Championship at the age of 24 years and became the youngest WWE Champion. So you're contradicting your own information. Actually it's Randy Orton who won the WWE Championship at the age of 24 years and beqcame the youngest WWE Champion. Please rectify that information on your WWE Championship page. 2405:204:3482:376F:EDFF:BDC1:13D2:AB1D (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Orton became the youngest World Heavyweight Champion, not the youngest WWE champion. Orton is the second youngest WWE champion, I believe. As far as I can see the Orton article also says this. — Czello 08:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)