Talk:List of WWE Champions

List of WWE Champions is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

List of WWE Champions is part of the Lists of current World Wrestling Entertainment champions series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 3, 2007	Featured list candidate	Promoted
September 1, 2007	Featured topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured list

Professional wrestling FA‑class Low‑importance

	List of WWE Champions is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

End of Cena's reign

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

Comments re. Talk: List of WWE Champions

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

Hey Buddy,

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

Adam_sk 08:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unrecognised championships

Didn't Rob Van Damn win the belt one night only for it to be reverted ala Chris Benoit?(Halbared 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)) Yes he did, just found it in a wreslting magazine. Rob beat Undie, on RAW, but the magazine does not have any dates, anyone help with this? The decision was quashed, the match restarted.(Halbared 16:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

If your referring to the reign I'm thinking of, then RVD beat Taker in a match, but it was later revealed that Taker's feet were on the ropes and the result was reversed a minute later. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

atitude era

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

MITB Notes

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

Antonio Inoki & Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FL

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

Ray Stevens

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

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

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

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

"Federation"

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

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

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

wwe.com title histroy

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

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

Randy Orton

Is he the only superstart to win the title, and then lose it, and regain it in one night?