Talk:WWE Championship/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1 |

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →

Why are the WWE and WWE Undisputed Championships seperate?

According to WWE.com, they're the same title. The Undisputed Championship is part of the WWE Championship lineage, so what's the purpose of having two seperate articles for the same championship? http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/wwechampionship/ Odin's Beard 02:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's just to separate them - the Undisputed Title was a massive deal at the time as it unified the two most famous/prestigious ever North American World championships. It's kinda like having separate articles for each Wrestlemania as well as the main page - just to separate it up, so (1) there isn't a massive long page and (2) because they are each important on their own. --Andyroo316 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see a reason why it needs it's own article. A section devoted to it in the WWE Championship article would be sufficient considering the title was in circulation for less than a year and was only held by six wrestlers. It's merely a brief footnote in the WWE Championship's history and lineage. Odin's Beard 23:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree.(Halbared 01:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

Yes, but then why not put all of the Wrestlemania's into the same article? This isn't a "it's the same championship" issue, it's simply to cut down each article's size so a reader doesn't have to trawl through so much. And actually, it wasn't a brief footnote anyway. If we were to include it in this page, we'd also have to stick it into the WCW World Heavyweight Championship page, which is pointless because then each time we change it on this page, we'd have to change it on the WCW belt page too - it's much easier just to have a link on both pages to the WWE Undisputed Championship page. It is actually a major point in wrestling championship history and should be noted. Plus the size of articles issue. --Andyroo316 00:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. If the title's lineage is directly (and officially) linked to the WWE Championship, then it should be contained within that article regardless of whether we consider it important or not. Comparing it to the WCW World Heavyweight Championship is comparing apples to oranges: the WCW title existed in a seperate promotion and had a lengthier and much more detailed history than the WWE Undisputed Championship, which didn't even last nine months. It was perceived as notable at the time, but didn't pan out that way in the long-run. And, taken into current context, I think it's best suited as a sub-section for the WWE Championship entry. Deputy Marshall 23:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Undisputed championship is the same as belt as the origanal WWE championship yet the World Heavyweight championship is different than the WCW Heavyweight championship because the WWE version has the WWE logo therefore the Undisputed championship artcle should be merged into the WWE championship article. Sept.23 2006 21:04 BY: A WWE Fan

The Undisputed title is unique because a lot of title histories recognise the champion as carrying two belts at once, so not only was Hogan the last WWE champion but his Undisputed reign also counts as a WCW title reign, this page can help clarify that. Not only that but the list of champions is short and this page will help anyone who wants to know what happened once Jericho unified the titles, and how the World title was created, it will have to be duplicated on both the WWE championship and World championship pages, whereas as a seperate page it is more clear what happened. Darrenhusted 15:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

After Chris Jericho won both titles to merge them into the WWE Championship, the WCW World Title ceased to exist. After Brock Lesnar started wrestling exclusively for Smackdown, the Undisputed Championship reverted to being called the WWE Championship while the World Heavyweight Title was created and presented to Triple H. While it's design is virtually identical to that of the WCW Title, it's not. They don't have the same lineage. The whole lineage thing can be a bit confusing but I fail to see how Hulk Hogan's reign with the title counts as a WCW World Title reign. Odin's Beard 23:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The WWE Undisputed Championship is both the WWE and WCW Championships combined. When Triple H defeated Chris Jericho at WM18, he became the WWE and WCW Champion. Therefore when Hulk Hogan, The Undertaker, The Rock, and Brock Lesnar won the WWE Undisputed Championship, they were the WWE and WCW Champion combined with one belt. When Brock decided to exclusively defend the WWE Undisputed Championship only on Smackdown, the Title then became disputed. Brock was then only the WWE Champion, ½ of the Undisputed “Title”. In my opinion, that is when the WCW Championship either became defunct or “transformed” into the “World” Title exclusive to Raw. If you recall, the WCW Championship, after the Survivor Series in 2001, became known as the “World” Championship. Even though the WWE doesn’t say it, I think that the Championship you see today on Smackdown should have the linage of the WCW World Championship. Seriously, it looks the same with the exception of the WWE logo on top to show who is number 1.--Prince Patrick 18:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that the designs of the World Title and WCW World Titles are virtually identical. But, unless the WWE states that the titles have the same lineage, and the WWE hasn't, then it's just personal opinion on your part. Odin's Beard 23:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So who is the last WCW Champion??--Prince Patrick 00:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, I might be wrong, it was Chris Jericho. Jericho won both the WCW and WWE Championships when they were unified into the WWE Undisputed Championship. If I'm not mistaken, Jericho was annouced as the new WCW World Heavyweight Champion after winning that title from The Rock. If, for whatever reason, the actual last WCW Champion wasn't Jericho, then it'd have to have been The Rock. Odin's Beard 01:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it would either be Booker T or Triple H. I might have said Booker T, because he was the last Champion for Turner's WCW. I might have said Triple H because, he was the last to hold the actual "WCW" version of the belt at WM18, and Eric Bischoff mentioned that he was the last person to hold the "Big Gold Belt" (This being, of course, if the World Championship Title on Smackdown today doesn't, in fact, have anything to do with WCW's version). I see why you would say Chris Jericho, but I don't see why you would say the Rock, unless the WCW Title was abandoned after Jericho unified both Titles. I still think, without any real reasoning except for logic, that the Smackdown World Title is apart of the WCW lineage. I guess it doesn’t really matter as long as the WWE “revision” with no consistency. I don’t care. I still love WWE and hate TNA.--Prince Patrick 02:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The WCW World Title has been abandoned. When the WWE purchased WCW, they kept the WCW World Heavyweight Title around, possibly in the hopes of relaunching the franchise in some way. I'm not sure about that, but I do remember that they kept it around due to the fact that several WWE wrestlers won the title and it was still referred to as the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. While The Rock held it, and Jericho won it from him the night it was merged with the WWE Championship, it was still referred to as the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. After Brock Lesnar won the WWE Undisputed Championship, the "Undisputed" was dropped and it was simply referred to as the WWE Championship again. Now, during this time, the WWE stopped using the WCW World Title and created the World Heavyweight Title. It looks virtually identical, but it's recognized by the WWE as a completley seperate championship. On WWE.com, you can view the championship history and lineage of a number of different titles, some of which aren't used any longer. The WCW World Heavyweight Championship isn't listed. If you look under the history for the World Heavyweight Championship, you'll see that it's lineage began in 2002 when it was given to Triple H. It's the WWE's position that the they're not the same championship. Anything else is pure speculation or just personal opinion. Odin's Beard 23:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I’m still confused, but that was a great explanation. So, I guess Jericho was the last WCW Champion, being that the WCW Title was absorbed into the WWE Title. Thanks for the insight.--Prince Patrick 16:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh trust me, a lot of it still confuses me. The WWE just simply stopped using the WCW World Heavyweight Championship and created the World Championship. I know that they did it, but I don't exactly know why they did it. As far as I know, they've never made a statement about it. They have been known to just drop storylines, and occassionally titles, without really an explanation. Odin's Beard 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That is true. I’m still waiting for the WWE’s explanation as to what happened to the Light Heavyweight Title after X-Pac left and what happened to the Hardcore Title. Did Edge give it back to Mick Foley?? I guess we, as fans (Smart, Mark, or Smark) will never know.--Prince Patrick 16:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Rock and Chris Jericho were both recognised as WCW champions prior to the merging of the titles and from what I understand Booker T's fifth reign was under WWF's ownership. It should be noted that the Undisputed title represented both belts and before they removed it WWEtitlehistories.com added a WCW reign to all who held the Undisputed title and I think they even listed Undertaker and Brock Lesnar as being one time WCW champions in their 2004 preview magazine. However I think the article is important and should be kept as a seperate article. Darrenhusted 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Angle also won the WCW Title under WWE ownership. So by what you’re saying, as far as the Undisputed Title is concerned, in connection to the WCW Title, is Brock Lesner the last WCW Champion since the Title was then disputed, or is John Cena or Booker T technically the “current” WCW Champion?? In theory the WCW Championship lineage could have: 1) continued with the WWE ½ of the Undisputed Title, because the World Title today is supposed to be a newly created Title, or 2) became the World Title and took the WCW ½ of the Undisputed Title, and they just didn’t want to mention it. If nobody can explain this, it’s okay. We are all in agreement that WWE (Raw, Smackdown, and ECW) is better than TNA. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Prince Patrick 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this has been made a lot more complicated than it had to be I think. WWE redoes a storyline involving a title, or a title in and of itself, whenever the need arises for them to do so. I doubt that all of the facts surrounding some of the lineage controversies will be known to us. We're pretty much just going to have to go with the facts we have. Since the "Undisputed" was dropped from the WWE Championship, the WCW World Title doesn't exist anymore. I can only speculate that since WCW wasn't around any longer, and it wouldn't make much sense for them to keep using a world title of a different organization that no longer exists for one of their brands, they just figured to create a different title. Why they kept the same design, minus a logo change, I can only guess it's because of recognition. I'd say that it's the most recognized title design in pro wrestling history. As far as Brock Lesnar or the Undertaker being declared former WCW World Champions due to winning the WWE Undisputed Championship, I've never read or heard anything about that. If that were the case, then it would apply to the other wrestlers that won the championship and I've never heard any of them referred to as a former WCW World Champion, other than Hulk Hogan because he won it 6 times while working for WCW and The Rock because he held it after the WWE purchased WCW but before the creation of the WWE Undisputed Championship. Odin's Beard 23:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree with that answer.--Prince Patrick 07:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we all can still agree that the WCW title is still part of the WWE title. Vermon CaTaffy 8 00:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The WCW Championship has its own lineage history in the title history section on WWE.com. According to it, Chris Jericho was the last WCW Champion, winning it the night it was unified with the WWF Championship in order to make the "Undisputed" Championship. They're considered to be two seperate championships. Maybe the plan was for the WCW Championship's lineage to be unified with the WWE's at one time, but that's not the case any longer.Odin's Beard 22:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I added Macho Man Randy Savage's name to the list of WWF/E Champions who have held the title for more than a year. He won it for the first time at WrestleMania IV on March 27, 1988 and lost it to Hulk Hogan on April 2, 1989. I also removed the (twice) statement from Bruno Sammartino's name. Didn't really seem relavant and since he's the only wrestler in WWE history to have two world title reigns to last more than a year, it should have it's own mention.Odin's Beard 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It say's calendar tho, and Savage's wasn't a calendar year.(Halbared 08:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Could you clarify? I don't see how March 27th, 1988 to April 2nd, 1989 (371 days) isn't considered a calendar year. Deputy Marshall 21:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Last time I heard, 12 months equaled a year. From March 27, 1988 to March 27, 1989 is approximately 1 year. I really don't want to turn this into some sort of debate where we start splitting hairs. Odin's Beard 23:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Deputy Marshall 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Raw, ECW and Smackdown belts

ok this is just an idea, so Smackdown holds the old WCW title with minor change in design, ECW has the ECW championship belt. SO the Belt on Raw should be the old Adittude edition belt, to reflect the old rivaly that they had in the past?

Good thinking there. But I think the WWE looks at the Monday Night Wars way too much. --Raderick 11:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Upadate

the current WWE championship title belt design has chamged a lot over the days, i think someone should update the title belt picture and replace the old picture on the main page with the picture of the current pic.

Randy Orton Youngest Champion?

OK this page lists Randy Orton as the youngest person to hold the title, but Orton was never WWE Champion. Rather he was the WWE World Heavyweight Champion which is a seperate title currently defended on Smackdown!, NOT the belt Cena now has on RAW. Listing him as the youngest WWE Champion is thus not accurate and should be removed. 74.139.205.189 05:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Some editors do confuse Randy Orton's World Heavyweight Championship reign with the WWE Championship. A week or so ago on Raw, Jim Ross himself misspoke and called Orton the youngest WWE Champion ever, although he did correct himself a few moments later. Odin's Beard 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This may be confusion with generic terms of WWE champion and World Champion, Randy Orton now holds the record for youngest World Champion in WWE history, while he did hold the World Heavyweight Championship, it still makes him youngest World Champion in the WWE's history, younger then Brock Lesnar when he first won the WWE Championship. Triple H also referred to him as the youngest WWE champion, but as I typed before, it's in reference to both WWE World titles as being on the same level with each other. TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Either way, he never held this specific belt, and this page is for the belt designated the WWE Championship. Make a page called WWE World Champion and then you can call him the youngest. -- Scorpion 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

RVD no longer champ

I read that McMahon is rovoking the history books so that RVD is never considered the WWE Champion. get ready for some editing.

Where? And who are you? This comment just seems a bit random. And learn to spell, revoking. Darrenhusted 18:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I would like to believe you (I hate RVD so much!) show us some proof to your statement. Big Boss 0 14:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If it were true that would be interesting Vermon CaTaffy 8 00:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Parallel Belts

i believe that the parrallel belts should be merged with the consistant belts because it is harder to read and understand and there is reallt NO POINT in having it there!!!!!!!!!!!!

What parallel belts? What are you talking about? Darrenhusted 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

John Georgaloudis??

Who the heck is this guy? I never heard of him. Also, "The History of the WWE Championship DVD" and the timeline (which came withing the DVD) doesnt mention him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JesseOjala (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Oh wait. It just another case of vandalism. I fixed it and checked, and it looks like the user Wrestle Pals did it.

Yeah, this page gets vandalised quite a bit (although not enough to become protected). -- Scorpion 13:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's protected now, thank goodness. So much vandalism today. Anakinjmt 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

EG is the lightest

Is Shawn Michaels really the lightest champion? I watched the History of the WWE Championship DVD and it mentioned that Eddie Guerrero was the lightest WWE Champion of the history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JesseOjala (talk • contribs) 10:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I just checked the weights, and Eddie Guerrero was billed at 228, wherease Shawn Michaels is billed at 227, making him the lightest champion, albeit by a pound. Where exactly on the DVD was this mentioned? I'll go back and look through my own copy, but where did they say Eddie was the lightest? Anakinjmt 18:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After the Angle vs Benoit match. It also mentions that Eddie was the smallest champion. --JesseOjala 10:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Did it refer to him as the smallest or lightest? Because Eddie was the physically shortest WWE Champion. His billed height was 5'9", which did seem to be accurate when comparing him to someone of roughly the same height, such as Chris Benoit. Probably, the best source for determining whether Eddie was the lightest champion would be to listen to the weight announcement of his WWE Championship match with Brock Lesnar during WWE No Way Out 2004. Odin's Beard 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I also remember Eddie being mentioned as lightest on the DVD. As for 227 Vs. 228, is 227 HBKs weight at the time he won the WWE championships, or is it his weight today? -- Scorpion 02:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I would assume his weight when he won the title, but I'm not sure. If it is, any idea if we're going by first time he won the title, or any times? Or, would you be thought of as the lightest champion even if you're a former champion? Anyone know exactly? This may result in changing it to Eddie, good catch Jesse. Anakinjmt 06:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

HBK had a billed weight of 227 from 1994, way before he won the belt in '96. He has kept that same billed weight since, even though he has visibly gained and lost weight.Halbared 09:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll take a look at the Eddie/Angle match from WM XX and see what weight he was billed then. Anakinjmt 01:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Big Eagle belt logo

Anyone know when the logo on the Big Eagle belt was changed from to the Attitude one? --Aaru Bui ^DII 12:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The record for shortest title reign

I would like to present the question of who has the roecord for shortest title reign? On this site it goes to Andre the Giant but i would say it was Yokozuna who at Wrestlemania IX (9) won the title From Bret "The Hitman" Hart also lost it just 21 seconds later to Hulk Hogan! any other Opionions would be great —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.151.124 (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

As far as I know, the WWE's official stance is that Andre's reign is the shortest. Even if Yokozuna's reign is actually shorter, it isn't how they've chosen to interpret the history of their championship. The articles have to reflect the WWE's interpretation, whether or not their interpretation makes sense. Odin's Beard 01:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If Yokozuna's reign was actually shorter, it should be mentioned in the article along with WWE's denial of this. --Aaru Bui ^DII 06:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yokozuna was champion for about 2 minutes, not 21 seconds. After Yokozuna won, Mr. Fuji got in the ring and challenged Hulk Hogan. Hogan came out, Bret Hart gave Hogan the approval to go in the ring, and then Hogan had the quick match. Andre is considered to have officially forfeited the title as soon as he gave the belt to DiBiase, which was about 45 seconds after "pinning" Hogan. TJ Spyke 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use warning

Please note, that in accordance with our fair use guidelines, one of the requirements for use of a fair-use image is that it must be irreplaceable by a free image. The image of the belt in this article is clearly replaceable, and has already been replaced, by a free image. Anyone edit-warring to put a fair-use image back in when a free one is available is subject to being blocked from editing. (To be clear, it doesn't matter if the fair-use image is of higher quality.) Also, since this article is about the championship, I'll be cleaning up the fair-use galleries. They're effectively decorative (another thing the fair-use guideline prohibits), it's not needed to show every belt design in order to discuss the championship. Discussing that the belt design has changed over time should be sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with using free pics when possible, the gallery for previous belts designs should be used and I support putting it back in. TJ Spyke 01:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please state why it passes the fair use guidelines, with a special eye toward number 1 (are the belts still in existence and accessible to the public? If so, a free image could be created and the images are replaceable), 3 (how is the use of so many fair-use images minimal, especially when we already have one free image of a championship belt to use?), and 8 (how is the use essential rather than decorative? How would it significantly enhance the reader's understanding of what the WWE Championship is, rather than just making the page look pretty?). I'd certainly listen to your argument, but this is a Foundation issue. If the use fails the guidelines, it may not happen, regardless of how many people may support it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's essential because it illustrates the previous WWE belt designs which helps show the long history of the WWE championship. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That really doesn't answer the question of why this couldn't be accomplished with prose-"The belt has existed continuously since 19XX. Its design has been changed X times, and has been awarded to X number of people." And that's not even very good prose, you could certainly do a whole lot better than that. Just like we don't need a massive gallery of every design change of the Ford Mustang to illustrate the point that it's been around a while and has changed designs a lot, we don't need pictures of every instance of the belt to illustrate that point for it. We can simply say so, and source it. Now if this were free-use imagery, that would be simply an editorial decision, and I probably wouldn't honestly care that much. But it's fair-use images, and it's decorative and excessive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions needed

Image:WWE_Championship_animated.gif

People seem to think this photo is uneeded. I want to know everybody's opinion before I give up and ask for the images deletion.-- Hornetman16 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You say that the point of the image is to show that it's a spinner belt, but I think that can easily be mentioned in the article without the use of a copyrighted image. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And your point is?-- Hornetman16 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the image brings nothing to the article and we are supposed to trie to cut down on non-free images and use them only were necessary. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

When you were a kid what did you look at the most in an article? The pictures right? So why take it off so other kids can't look at it?-- Hornetman16 21:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a LOT to learn about Wikipedia. Read WP:NONFREE. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

the pic seemed fine to me. user:sub619 17:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Decades

John Cena Got 2 Regins As The Longest Champion Of The Decade

Yosi Hait,June 24,2007

Raw/Smackdown

Shouldn't there be an article mentioning that when John Cena was in Smackdown, the plate on the left of the spinner said "Smackdown", but when he was drafted to Raw, it changed to "Mon Nite Raw" User:inglewoodplz 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE Championship, the highest ranked chapionship in WWE

Isnt the WWE Championship the highest ranked title in WWE since at WWE PPV's, the WWE Championship is always defended in the main event of every PPV?Nosaints4life 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Overall, it probably is the more prestigious of the two singles World Titles that the company uses. However, I don't think I'd put anything in the article concerning it. It's just an edit war waiting to happen. Both the Raw and Smackdown brand commentators have stated that their brand is the top brand and all that. While the WWE Championship certainly has a prestigious lineage and history on its side, I don't think I've ever heard or read anything that "officially" declares the WWE Championship as "THE" top championship since the creation of the World Heavyweight Championship.Odin's Beard 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah probably but if you notice that when the World Title (SD!) is defended at a PPV it is either under the WWE title or the ECW title match and the ECW title didnt get much recognition by WWE only until the Lashley-Mcmahon fued. Look now, the CM punk-Nitro fued is that much of a big of deal, and during the promo packages of PPV's the WWE title match is always the last one (thus the main event)Nosaints4life 00:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The pic

Isn't the purpose of the pic to see the entire thing it's describing? I believe it does, which this 'free' is not.--Hornetman16 17:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately free images (regardless of quality) are preferred over fair use images. Buy a replica and take a picture yourself for a better quality free image.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I described a quality problem. please read my talk page--Hornetman16 17:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As it is you have 4 reverts so I would leave the current image (Revert 1 [1], Revert 2 [2], Revert 3 [3], Revert 4 [4]). Free is better than fair, and fair is better than copyright. Darrenhusted 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy Darrenhusted. Everyone just stop reverting. I am trying to clarify this copyright thing. Aaron, the look is copyrighted but that’s only if, for instance, another company made a belt of their own and it looked exactly the same as the WWE Championship. In this case it would be the same as taking a photograph of a building such as Ford Field. Sure the architectural look is copyrighted, but that does not mean it is restricted for a person to take a photograph of it and replicate the image on paper. If the photographer chooses to release their image into the public domain then it becomes a free image. So if you take a picture of the WWE Championship and release the image into the public domain then it becomes a free image as well. The rule about photographs of copyrighted things still being copyrighted regardless of who took the photo would only apply to logos. Hope that cleared up a few things.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We now have a better pic.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 01:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:300px-WWEchampbelt.jpg

Image:300px-WWEchampbelt.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not WWF "World Heavyweight Championship"

While the official name was "WWF World Heavyweight Wrestling Championship" (inscribed so on the belt), it was always referred to as the World Wrestling Federation Championship on all shows. Title matches involving Hulk Hogan Ric Flair, Randy Savage, Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels were always announced as for the WWF Championship. K a r n a 23:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that. It was never announced as the WWF World Heavyweight Championship. '''[[User: Vermon CaTaffy 8/Practical Joke|Vermon [[User:Vermon CaTaffy 8|CaTaffy]] [[User Talk:Vermon CaTaffy 8|8]]''']] 15:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The title isn't vacant yet.

WWE.com has confirmed that Cena will surrender the title, but they have not officially vacated the title yet, and I am not sure when this will happen. Until it happens, leave Cena as current champion with an added note that Cena will surrender the title due to pectoral injury. TonyFreakinAlmeida 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, the statement altogether shouldn't really be included in this article. Since Cena hasn't given up the title yet, telling when it's supposed to happen violates the WP:Crystal policy. Wikipedia's not meant to be a crystal ball. The information about Cena's injury really belongs in his article rather than this one.Odin's Beard 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I think its common sense it will happen Sunday but you are right.Supermike 23:09, 2 October 2007

Odin, it's not really a crystal ball kind of thing, the article on WWE.com states it right there that the title will be vacated, if it's documented on the official web site, sourced here, then what's the problem? Anyways, what's done is done. TonyFreakinAlmeida 00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The title IS vacant.

Mr. McMahon just vacated the title on ECW. Now what? — Chad "1m" Mosher ^Email Talk _Cont. 02:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank God! However, wikipedia will be extremely slow to update all because some "smart marks" can't except the fact that Cena isn't the champ. Notice that it's still not changed.

It is changed, and has been since before your comment. The Hyb rid 04:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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) 11:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

obviously it wasn't, because I made that comment after noticing it wasn't updated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.4.220 (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

should it be meantion

That the title has only been Vacent twics one in 1999 and then now supermike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been vacant more times than that... TonyFreakinAlmeida 23:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This current vacancy of the championship is unique as it occurred due to a legitimate injury rather than a planned storyline. Prior to this, there were five other occassions in which the title was vacated. However, only four of those other vacancies are officially recognized. The one that isn't involves Bob Backlund "losing" the title to Antonio Inoki on November 30, 1979. They had a rematch December 6th in which Inoki was pinned but the WWF President Hisashi Shinma declared the match a no contest due to outside interference. Due to Shinma's decision, Inoki refused the title and it was declared vacant. So, the WWE just decided to go on as if the title change and the vacancy that followed never happened. Taking note of the title's vacancies could be a useful contribution to the article I suppose.Odin's Beard 22:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The title's vacancies are already noted in the list of champions page. The original post here suggested this was only the second time the title has been vacant, which is totally false. Austin losing the title in the Triple Threat to Kane and Taker, Andre trying to sell the title to DiBiase and the title being vacated, Hogan being stripped, Michaels surrendering the title due to knee injury, etc. Even if this is supposedly the first "legit" injury vacation, kayfabe is followed, and this'd be the second time injury forced vacation, proof or not. TonyFreakinAlmeida 16:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Vacant anymore

Randy orton was awarded the title at no mercy and lost it to hhh the very same night and I can't post this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.223.166 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Triple H just lost the title back to Randy Orton67.189.185.73 10:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So, yeah, can someone please put in Orton as the new champion? I would, but it is locked and I can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.111.149.87 (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

actaully orton was awarded the title lost it to hh then won it back in the main event —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.88.13 (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Belt?

Will the old belt be restored now Cena is out? CandiceWalsh 13:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the belt awarded to Orton (then won by Triple H, then won by Orton) last night was a new belt that looked exactly like Cena's but doesn't spin (or perhaps just Cena's belt with the spinning mechanism removed). I've seen this mentioned on a "rumors" Web site, but can we find a legitimate source for this? It seems like something we should note in the custom belts section. Jeff Silvers 14:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to me, this is no longer a custom belt, it's one that was first custom, then was made the standard. Removal of the spinner gimmick pretty much solidifies that it's not Cena's and it's just THE belt of the title. TonyFreakinAlmeida 21:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives