View text source at Wikipedia

Template talk:WWE Championships

Title order

[edit]

I could just revert it back since there was no discussion to change it in the first place, but I will discuss it here first. WWE always goes in the order Raw/SmackDown/ECW. This is how they list the brands on their site, how they usually refer to the brands when talking about them, and (this one is a opinion) how WWE views the brands (i.e. Raw is the A brand, SmackDown the B brand, and ECW the C brand). This is how they should be listed here. There was no discussion to change this order, so I will support anyone who switches it back. TJ Spyke 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed per WWE.com; they list the brands on their red bar as "Raw/SmackDown/ECW".--TRUCO 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving this argument "This is how they list the brands on their site, how they usually refer to the brands when talking about them, and (this one is a opinion) how WWE views the brands (i.e. Raw is the A brand, SmackDown the B brand, and ECW the C brand)." How are you to know how WWE views the brands. How do you know they consider one to be superior to another? You are looking a things through a fans point of view not a neutral point of view. That is bias and per WP:NPOV your reasoning as to why wwe.com lists them in that order is not valid. WWE.com does list them in that order, but not everything has to revolve around wwe.com. On WWE programming WWE has always gone by the order of Raw ECW and SmackDown to reflect the weekly programming schedule. That is the most neutral argument and the most neutral reasoning for as to why WWE orders the brands as such.--UnquestionableTruth-- 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they have the titles listed as such "WWE [Raw]/World [SmackDown]/ECW [ECW]". In addition to how they have it here.--TRUCO 21:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They do have the titles listed as such. "WWE, World, ECW, IC, US, World Tag, WWE Tag, Women's, Divas." This template has to do with championships. You want them to be listed as WWE does, then I will format the template to reflect that. However, when it comes to programming, WWE uses the Raw, ECW, SD order to reflect their weekly schedule. --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No they don't.--TRUCO 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do in broadcasts.--UnquestionableTruth-- 23:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the subfields and formatted the template to reflect WWE.com's title order. However, I am considering re-adding subfields to mirror Template:Former WWE Championships/Template:WCW Championships/Template:ECW Championships, (World, Secondary, Tag Team, Divisional) --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please discuss these changes first, as you are making drastic changes. I don't agree with the new change since championships are brand exclusive not contested freely. Plus, they don't ever say that on broadcasts. Just because their schedule looks like that does not mean anything, the way WWE lists it is how it should be since its a published source.--TRUCO 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The changes can be reverted. I only made the change to reflect your argument on how WWE.com lists the titles. Yes championships are brand exclusive. Yes they belong to a specific brand. However, that has never stopped talent from a certain brand from competing for a championship of another brand. The WWE.com title history page does not separate the titles by brands.[1] Additionally, if you would like to argue the titles being featured on the Superstars page of the brand minisites on WWE.com, the World Tag Team Championship is listed under ECW's minisite. --UnquestionableTruth-- 23:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but this is why it is best to discuss this first before making such changes as it is a drastic change. I in a way agree with you, but it should be reformatted like the former titles template.--TRUCO 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the World, Secondary, Tag Team, Divisional subfields you say?--UnquestionableTruth-- 01:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya.--TRUCO 02:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like that?--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the same be done for the developmental field? (Heavyweight, Tag Team)--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it looks weird. There has to be another way to do this, maybe list the across the top?--TRUCO 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try something.--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think?--UnquestionableTruth-- 05:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NXT Championship

[edit]

The NXT Championship has just been created and awarded. Should it be added to the template? ekedolphin (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is a championship, so yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentiu laurentiu (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added but was revert'd back. Anyone agree w/ this? AARDJ (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never been in the WWE proper, not on WWE TV nor mentioned on the WWE.com website. So no, it's not a WWE championship. HEck, the reigning NXT champ has been on WWE TV for over a month now, and there's been not one mention of him holding the title!oknazevad (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's coz Nxt's tape delay'd. They'd not show the champ before he win it. And Nxt program's part o' WWE TV. Just coz it's not Raw or Smackdown or shown on United States television (but aired on U. S. on Hulu Plus) don't mean it's not WWE TV. AARDJ (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't change the fact that at no point have they acknowledged Langston as NXT champ on WWE TV, nor do they list the NXT titles anywhere on WWE.com. They are treated as part of a separate, but affiliated promotion. (PS, learn to spell! It's "of", not "o", "because", not "coz", and past tense is "-ed", not "'d". This is formal English, not Hickdom!) oknazevad (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nxt Wrestling ain't affiliated. It's part o' WWE. On the Nxt Wrestling main page u can find this information:
"All WWE programming, talent names, images, likenesses, slogans, wrestling moves, trademarks, logos and copyrights are the exclusive property of WWE, Inc. and its subsidiaries. All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. © 2012 WWE, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This website is based in the United States. By submitting personal information to this website you consent to your information being maintained in the U.S., subject to applicable U.S. laws. U.S. law may be different than the law of your home country."
Nxt is a trademark o' WWE. The logo 2. The talent names 2. AARDJ (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE lists both titles on WWE.com: http://www.wwe.com/shows/wwenxt AARDJ (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see them there. More importantly, the do NOT list them here, which is the definitive list! oknazevad (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How could developmental wrestlers being listed on the main roster page? AARDJ (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has never been mentioned or seen on WWE TV so they are not WWE championships. They are NXT championships. The current NXT champion has even been on TV for over a month and nothing. That is like listing OVW championships on TNA's page. STATic message me! 15:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

Note that I've just fully protected the article in response to the edit warring today. Please seek consensus for controversial changes here on the talk page. Also, you may want to consider WP:DR. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

[edit]

Recently, NXT has become more prevalent on WWE.com. WWE NXT has reappeared as one of the shows on the Shows tab. Clicking that link leads you to see that a new article profiling Bo Dallas' win of the NXT Championship; likewise it also lists the Wyatt Family winning the NXT Tag Team Championship. Also, from the profile list of WWE Superstars, it's possible to access a list of NXT wrestlers from the "Current" menu option. More and more NXT wrestlers have their bios appearing on WWE.com, even the jobbers like Knuckles Madsen and Judas Devlin. Given all this, I would just like to query, is it time to add the various NXT championships to Template:WWE Championships? I cannot understand the discrepancy with listing the NXT wrestlers in Template:WWE personnel but not having the championships listed under a "developmental" subsection of Template:WWE Championships. Starship.paint (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until they list them as champions at the superstars page, they aren't treating them as WWE championships. oknazevad (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether they want to admit it, the truth is easily verifiable (like Uncle Zeb's real name or whether McMahon died in that limo). The NXT champions are WWE contractors, wearing WWE property, working on shows by WWE, for WWE. We should have the NXT titles in their own section, though, just for clarity's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WWE can't decide if they're WWE championships? I think you also overestimate how integrated the NXT promotion is with the rest of WWE (and it is a distinct promotion, albeit one owned and overseen by WWE). But that still doesn't change the fact that the WWE doesn't consider them WWE titles. oknazevad (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply NXT TV and WWE TV are as integrated as WCW and nWo. Just that, like you say, it's owned and overseen by WWE (the company, not the show). There should be a distinction (like we have between championships and accomplishments), since they're different shows, but all under the same umbrella. It's the same reason we list NXT wrestlers in the WWE personnel article. Their contracts, like the belts, are owned by the same company. The show's even called WWE NXT. No different than WWE SmackDown, aside from storyline intermingling. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why should that (champions at the superstars page) be the criteria? WWE.com belongs to WWE - why can't the criteria be "featured on WWE.com", which they have fulfilled? Do we interpret (champions at the superstars page) as "WWE titles"? It can be interpreted as "WWE main roster titles", which is a subset of "WWE titles", whereas the NXT championships are "WWE developmental titles". How about the discrepancy with listing the NXT wrestlers in Template:WWE personnel? Or NXT wrestlers being accessible from the superstars page? So the NXT wrestlers are WWE personnel, but the NXT championships are not under WWE? The show is explicitly "WWE NXT" as well. Starship.paint (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see from the page history, we used to include FCW champions in the template so why not the NXT champions too? I am pretty sure that NXT definitly has a bigger presense on WWE TV and WWE.com than FCW did. I would also support inclusion per all the above reasons, so I believe we have consensus. STATic message me! 16:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change, and would like to point out that the nxtwrestling and fcwwrestling website has ceased to exist and now redirects to the NXT subpage on WWE.com. Starship.paint (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, definitely an improvement.LM2000 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However there is now the question on what to do with Template:NXT Championships. I sure think it is pretty unnecessary, the fact that it is mostly based around FCW does not help its inclusion at all. STATic message me! 00:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably can merge (which is essentially already done) and redirect to here. That way you don't need to change the template on any pages you missed either. oknazevad (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was willing to boldly redirect it, but I was making sure no one thought there was a need for the extra template. STATic message me! 05:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't really necessary anymore so there's no need for inclusion.LM2000 (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as redirecting a template is the same as redirecting an article than I took care of that. STATic message me! 06:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

205 Live

[edit]

Please leave the section for 205 Live alone, as it's apparent that the Cruiserweight division is becoming it's own entity within WWE...they have their own show, their own ring ropes, their own title.

Yes, they also apper on Raw, but this is more akin to the SD/ECW "working agreement" during the last brand split.

Vjmlhds (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It remains part of the Raw brand. And the NAVBOX is organized by brand. But I'm willing to hear others' opinions. oknazevad (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Addendum: This strikes me as more like what happened with the old Cruiserweight division under SmackDown during the last brand split, where they were most often on Velocity instead of the main show. oknazevad (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for a third set of eyes to give the template a look-see with my new changes in place to see if it stays or goes back to how it was...the only fair way to get a read on it is for people to see my idea so they can make a fair judgement on whether they like it or not. Again, WWE is clearly trying to make 205 Live it's own entity...their own show, their own ring ropes, their own championship. Basically a spinoff of Raw (and still has connections to Raw), but also branching out on their own as well (think Cheers--->Frasier) Vjmlhds (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The CW Title was defended on an NXT house show last night. This shows that the CW title is really a floating title that can be defended on Raw, 205 Live, and NXT - and not a "Raw exclusive" title (205 Live is not a "Raw" show...it's its own entity). Vjmlhds (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added this reference where HHH is talking about 205 Live having its own distinct feel. I feel it's important to bring up here to demonstrate that WWE is trying to present the show (and the CW division) as its own entity, and not just "part of Raw", or being "Raw guys". This I believe should dispel any notions that 205 Live is a show like "Superstars" or "Velocity" or "Sunday Night Heat" - merely an extension of a main show. So when added in with the reference I brought up one paragraph above, I feel I have shown that 1) the CW Title is not merely a Raw title, but floats among numerous different brands and 2) that 205 Live is being looked at by WWE as its own entity, and not merely "part of Raw", and as that title is the one 205 Live revolves around, it should be listed as such. User:Vjmlhds (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. HHH's job is to promote, so anything he says has to be viewed in the light of trying to make these brands as big of a deal as possible. It's hardly a definitive word, as those comments are most certainly part of that. As for the defense at one NXT house show, that's hardly definitive. The NXT Tag Titles were defended at Roadblock this past February; that doesn't make them main roster titles. So I've removed NXT from the description at List of current champions in WWE. oknazevad (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brands

[edit]

The WWE, Universal, and both sets of tag titles should be listed as dual brand as they are all jointly defended. Every match where those titles are on the line are basically 2 for the price of 1, and are not at this time brand specific. Now could they get separated again down the road, maybe, but for now, as long as they're jointly defended on both brands, they should be listed as dual brand. Vjmlhds 14:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The question is one of philosophical purpose. The Raw Tag titles, in addition to having Raw right in their name, represent being recognized by the Raw brand as the best tag team. The same for the SmackDown ones and that brand. So, in that regard, no matter whether they're co-held and co-defended, they're the titles for those brands specifically. Unless and until they are formally unified and separate titles are done away with, that's still true, and that's why they should be listed with their respective brands. oknazevad (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Tag Team Titles are jointly defended as the Undisputed WWE Tag Team Championship - an umbrella name encompassing 2 titles. Just as Roman Reigns defends the WWE and Universal Championships under the Undisputed WWE Universal Championship banner. This is like back in 2009, when the World (Raw) and WWE (SD) Tag Team Titles were defended jointly as the Unified WWE Tag Team Championship. Same exact situation we have today - 2 titles with separate lineages being defended at the same time across both brands under an umbrella name. You would have more of an argument if this were a Becky 2 Belts situation, where Becky Lynch defended her Raw and SD Women's titles individually in separate matches (like she did at Money in the Bank). But with both Reigns and the Usos, they are going by the 2009 model, thus the titles aren't wedded to a particular brand. May I also add that the Raw and SD Tag team titles swapped shows during the 2020 WWE Draft, so they don't necessarily always belong to their namesake show. I think we should just have an all purpose rule - if it's the 2009 2 titles for the price of 1 under an umbrella name situation, then the titles are dual branded. If it's a "Becky 2 Belts" titles defended separately deal, then the championships are still considered brand exclusive. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with oknazevad. Regardless if they're held and defended together, they should be listed to their home brand unless there is an official (actual) unification. Also, Vjmlhds, the titles didn't swap shows in 2020. The champions got drafted to the opposite brand and then had to trade the championships to keep the titles on their name brand. --JDC808 ♫ 01:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Oknazevad and JDC. No sources to support his claim.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can have our cake and eat it too, here. As I've seen this dispute on several different articles: on their individual article pages we can say that these titles belong to specific brands, but are also defended across both brands (the latter point being self-evident). For this article, though, I think they should be listed under the brand to which they belong. — Czello 22:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]