Jump to content

Talk:NXT Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title defenses

[edit]

Should we list title defenses here, since it's so early in the reign? Like how Rollins defended against Michael McGillicutty? Not even sure why that guy who Seth already beat in tournament got a shot before untried guys like Big E or Bray Wyatt. Ranze (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no here. Even though you posted this a long time ago, I'd just go ahead and answer it. NXT has house shows all the time and on those house shows, they put the title on the line in most of them, so it would be difficult to keep track. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no lists of successful title defenses for any wrestling championship. And it shouldn't, because even the WWE doesn't keep those. oknazevad (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We include the title defenses only when the promotion keeps track of them. WWE doesn't. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

Shouldnt this article have a photo of the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.66.76.254 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Zayn

[edit]

Should Zayn's reign really be counted? It's my understanding that a restarted match is basically treated as though it never ended, and thus it just goes down as a successful retain for Dallas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack Shadow (talk • contribs) 09:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've removed it for now, but I'd really like to see WWE's official list of champions. — Richard BB 09:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combined reigns section

[edit]

Before this page gets protected from edit warring, let's talk about the Combined reigns section and if this page needs it or not. Most of the reigns will be only one reign, but the WWE (or for this matter NXT) will make someone a two or more time champion one day. Right now we don't need it since everyone has only one reign and whoever won and lost it has been promoted to the main roster, with the exception of Sami Zayn. Zayn might become champion again if they want him to do it again.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

according to the project, we include th combined reigns table when the first two times champion appears. Until then, its pointless, its the same information we have in the main table--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I knew there was a consensus somewhere. I agree with this. It's pointless at least until there is a two time champion - and to be honest as it is a developmental promotion how likely is that to happen? Not impossible yes, but unlikely. Mega Z090 (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There will end up being like 20 champions in a few years and then maybe you all will think that it would be helpful for a combined reigns section. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The combined reigns section is included because of statistics. It shows the exact number of days each person held the title. It is not exactly about multiple reigns, it is about reigns in general. There is no consensus that it takes two reigns to have the table. The table is to exist as long as there are multiple champions.--WillC 21:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I remember, we include the table when we have a two times champion. For example, the IWGP IC Title hasn't a combined reigns table until Nakamura appeared. Same for the 2 times champion Jay Lethal. Or the AAA Latin American Championship. Or the Divas championship. It's the same information you'll find in the champions table. Click in the days cell and all reigns will be organized. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's my memory as well. Mega Z090 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, there was never a project discussion on the format to lists. The only discussion took place at FL, where all notable information is to be included. That includes all statistics regarding a championship. I should know, I've been dealing with championships and lists are years.--WillC 03:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But is this particular list notable without multiple champions? That's the key here. It's also clutter without the dual champion to make it worth it. Otherwise all you're doing is duplicating the list of champions generally. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Without a multi-times champion, the table doesn't include new information, only repeats the same information we have in the main table. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New information: Who held the title the most. That is the primary reason for the section. Not other reason. Reason is not multiple reigns. It is days person held the title.--WillC 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same information you have in the other table. Click in "days held " and all champions will be ordered. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You got in before me, HHH! Edit conflict! (and I corrected your typo if that's OK) Mega Z090 (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Thanks. Ordenar... freaking Spanish XD) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is taken into account because you don't have to perform an option to get the information. I could get the information that someone won the title twice without needing the table as well by doing the same function. You are arguing against yourself now for even having the table in general. I could add up all the reigns in my head and get the information the table would give in any list. Though the table still reflects it without me needing to do any action. As a reader I could get that information with a little work. We could list just who won the belt and get the rest of the info by looking at bios. Articles are meant to be informative and well done. This gives all information in an orderly fashion.--WillC 09:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following your argument now because you are arguing towards your personal view rather than obtaining a consensus. Who would add the reigns up in their head? You're supposed to have the info right there, even with one click as the days held would do. The key to a good article is to make it easy to follow, and repeating material within the same page doesn't help that. There is a difference between being informative and over doing it for no good reason. Mega Z090 (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the best idea is to open one more discussion in the project talk page. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No - bad idea. The problem is here so it should be discussed here. Project members should be coming here to help. Mega Z090 (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem affect many other articles. Also, it's easier. People usually discusses in the project talk page, it's hard to bring here other users. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we have a major problem as there are no other articles that I am aware of that this affects. Therefore the discussion should be here. Are project members afraid to come here? Mega Z090 (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They just don't know.--WillC 13:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we're not a superior entity like you.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be civil son. Stop taking this stuff so serious. It is an encyclopedia. Take it just as that. Articles and the quality is the important factor. You've been taking shots at me forever. I'm this close to reporting you over it when I don't do it to you.--WillC 14:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I said I respect you as user and ask you for advice in the past. However, you haven't give any reason why isn't the table pointless without multi time champions. Ribbon, Oka and MPJ agree it's a pointless table, also said your arguments are " reductio ad absurdam ". Maybe, you're wrong this time. You repeat your arguments, I repet my arguments, but we come to nowhere --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I respect you as an editor and as a person. I don't dislike anyone on here. GaryColemanFan, MPJ, and I are probably the oldest editors on here anymore. MPJ shows up rarely for discussion anymore. He is like I used to be, just absent and off doing what he wants. Gary is the same way. The project used to have a large large load of editors. They all left because all we did was discuss the same old discussions time and time again when the answer was already discovered. Part of what I do and probably why I get shit from people is to end discussions as soon as we can that aren't very productive since they are pointless and we can get to the more serious subjects. We are discussing a table that will end up in the article anyway with shots being taken at one another. I repeat my argument for clarification purposes. You all think I've taken it to absurdity levels. No, I'm looking at it logically. If I stated my argument in bare words with no fluff, it is very logical. My point is "The table will be in the article anyway. The current table has 7 rows and 4 columns, that is 28 boxes. 2 out of 28 boxes change from having one person get 2 reigns. That is a 7.1% change in the table. What is the point?" That is my secondary argument. My main argument is "The table is about combined reigns. There are no two reigns but it displays important information. Who has held the title, who has held it the longest, who has held it the shortest, etc. These are statistics and these statistics play a role in the summary for the title. Previous articles have been under the rule that all information is included. This information is important per previous discussions and FLs that passed." There is nothing absurd about my point. I took the logic behind the point y'all have stood behind and used it. You said that the reader could get that information from the table above. I said that with one person having 2 reigns you can get that same information from the table above. In half a second I can add 150 + 150 and we are done. Same logic. This very logic is used in FLs. The combined days is done with us adding them up.--WillC 14:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See, here you go again presenting points that in actuality don't work. For instance, you said; The table will be in the article anyway'. That's crystal balling because this is a developmental promotion with a high turnover of talent, not a core promotion with long term "residents" (for want of a better word). So the additional point of the make up of the table resembles snowballing. And you said The table is about combined reigns. There are no two reigns but it displays important information, ignoring the fact that the important information you speak of already exists in the main table with the list of champions. So it's duplicating existing information. One click on the arrow after days held is all that's needed. It's simple and renders the combined reigns table redundant until we get a two time champion. All information is there without the combined reigns table so there is nothing to add. To say otherwise is, as HHH pedigree said, absurd. Mega Z090 (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you said, I included in my argument. I used your statements against you and all you can do is repeat yourself and say my argument is absurd. Crystal balling? No, it is not when NXT is slated to exist for several more years per corporate reports by WWE that they are going to keep the promotion around for the long haul because it is the future of their promotional efforts. They don't use the indies to get talent anymore. They use NXT for talent entirely per Vince McMahon on the Austin podcast. Based on your logic that the information is not new. Guess what? Two time champion doesn't make the information new either. The previous table shows all the reign lengths. We add the days together for the second table. It is not sourced. It is not verifiable. We do it with a template. We add it together from the previous table. If a reader can click the sorting function, a reader can add 1 + 1. Do explain to me the difference between sorting function and adding basic integers you are taught in in grade school?--WillC 06:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't, you ignored what I said for convenience. It is crystal balling when you assume that there will be a two time champion in a developmental promotion. Logic says there won't be. So the rest of that point is irrelevant. A two time champion IS new information because for the first time we have a combined reign. In fact by your logic a reader can add two figures together from the first table which means we don't need the combined reigns table anyway! The sorting function places the reigns in length order. It doesn't do the adding. That is the difference, and there's no need for adding when you have no two time (or more) champions. You're talking yourself into a corner and you don't realise it. Mega Z090 (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About time you figured out I was arguing that 2 reigns makes no difference and the table wouldn't be needed then. I was wondering when you would finally catch on. I'm been arguing the table was pointless until multiple people have multiple reigns under your logic for several posts now. It took you this long to discover that.--WillC 04:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh 10 out of 10 for that back flip! Stick to one view and you might just get somewhere. Mega Z090 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is you've been arguing that it is needed when 2 reigns happen. I am arguing it is either needed now or not until 3 or 4 people have 2 reigns.--WillC 08:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two reigns at least, not two reigns specifically. Bottom line, it is NOT needed now and as you have left that option open we have a consensus. Mega Z090 (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"I am arguing it is either needed now or not until 3 or 4 people have 2 reigns" - Obviously this is not the case. A consensus is a clear agreement between multiple people. There is no agreement. We are now getting down to the specifics of an agreement. When exactly is this table needed? Is it now or when a specific number of reigns is done. I don't agree that it is one person with 2 reigns. I believe it is now. Otherwise it is when multiple people have multiple reigns. You have shown where you stand. No agreement or consensus has been struck.--WillC 11:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another back flip! You should be in the Olympic Games! I will make this clear. As long as we have no multiple champions, the table is not needed. And in the case of this title, it will never be needed. There won't be multiple champions as it is a developmental fed with a high turnover. That is the reality. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

cough cough.--WillC 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant - has an existence outside of developmental. FCW precedes WWE involvement and OVW has had both WWE and TNA involved with them as well as having a separate existence. Also, I'm reverting your addition due to the killer rule of your point. Too much weight. Mega Z090 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a neutral point of view. My view is based on having a well informed article with all necessary and useful information. You're view as previously is grounded on being certain of something despite no evidence. You are not basing your view on sources but on your own ideas. My previous comment was sarcasm.--WillC 02:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never invoked NPOV. I invoked WP:UNDUE because you are adding duplicated information that presents too much weight to the article that's not needed. I base my views in the WP rules and not my own views, and that includes balance in information. You're overdoing it, hence the application of the rule I have. Now discuss the rule, or it will become obvious that you aren't interested in a consensus and I will be the one to take it further - or disengage again as I have done before as this is getting tiresome. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The combined reigns table is redundant. Policy is immaterial. Including it makes the article look inept, as it comes across as an oversight. It's a waste of the reader's attention. Ozdarka (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really should look at the undue weight issue here. I'm not trying to give a minority view of the NXT Title undue weight over the majority view. The content of the article is largely unaffected with the table inclusion regarding neutrality. Arguing over that policy is pointless because it doesn't apply to this subject. Please explain how including the table is giving undue weight to any other view? What large view is against discussing all statistics of an article? Did you even look at that policy before citing it? Notability and including all information shouldn't be ignored. This discussion is at the main page over there and it appears that not everyone is in agreement with this issue. Most just don't care it appears.--WillC 06:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an idea. Lets restructure the section. Instead of it being called combined reigns, call it "Title statistics". The issue against having it is entirely based on the name of the section. This fixes that issue.--WillC 06:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't because you are still duplicating information, which is undue weight! It has nothing to do with NPOV. It has to do with adding redundant information as Ozdarka said. All the statistics are already there withOUT the combined reigns table. Nothing else is needed. Applying WP:IDONTCARE hurts your point. I think this is enough talk - time for a vote. Mega Z090 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As below Paint even shown you that you are wrong on your policy statements. I don't care about your whining. I care about the section. The information presented is on each wrestler. That is new information. It shows the amount of days each person has held the title. It shows how many reigns. It shows how they compare to other wrestlers. That last part is very new.--WillC 01:28, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus sought

[edit]

Should we keep the combined reigns table, or should it be deleted? Mega Z090 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Screw it. I'm done. I don't care what you do with this. I've got better things to do. Mega Z090 (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Claim of new information proven to be false. Just saying. Mega Z090 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Get over it. Table provides easy information of who has the most amount of days with an reader having to do nothing. New information.--WillC 02:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Easy" information that duplicates the previous table 100 percent. Not new. Redundant. Get over it. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is just too easy to annoy you. New information regardless. Based on your idea there is no need for a lead because the information exists in some form already. Might as well delete the table since the current champion is stated in the lead.--WillC 04:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in your snow job. You aren't annoying me anymore. You're amusing me with such ignorance of the obvious. Keep it up. I have a full bucket of popcorn. Mega Z090 (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

So why are the NXT championships not titled "WWE NXT Championship", "WWE NXT Women's Championship", and "WWE NXT Tag Team Championship"? The NXT article here is WWE NXT, not NXT. They are owned by WWE, NXT is just the "brand". WWE is included on all of the articles of all of their current main show titles, even the Raw and SmackDown exclusive ones are WWE Raw (Women's/Tag Team) Championship and WWE SmackDown (Women's/Tag Team) Championship. --JDC808 ♫ 21:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a split?

[edit]

Per WP:PW/SG, when a championship has 10+ reigns we can split into a list of champions article. Is it time for List of NXT Champions?LM2000 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, the WWE Raw Women's Championship should be split as well. Nickag989talk 17:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. WWE Cruiserweight Championship here soon too. --JDC808 ♫ 00:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a World Championship

[edit]

My edit was deleted. On the February 24, 2020 episode of Raw, during his sit down interview, Drew McIntyre himself said that he had never been a world champion in WWE. Please remove all references to this belt being a world title.

Please don't add the claim that this belt is a "world" championship without a source that isn't WWE itself. This doesn't pass the Wikipedia sourcing guidelines, sources need to be independent of the subject in this case. Egaoblai (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Each promotion decides what titles are world titles, like ROH or PWG proclaiming their titles as world titles. The information is sourced. It's not necessary another source since the promotion cntrols their own in-universe narrative. If other source says the title is a world title, it's just repeating what WWE says. Also, other sources, like Pro Wrestling Illustrated, PWInsider or WON are not goverment bodies who controls the world status of each title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of WWE referring to the NXT title as a world championship. The archived WWE.com reference failed to support the preceding "world title" claim. Amoeni (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NXT is not even considered main roster. The NXT title is the top title of NXT, but not a world title. Bo Dallas is not a former World Champion. Winning the NXT title would not make John Cena a 17-time World Champion.WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In his sit down interview on Raw tonight (2/24/20), Drew McIntyre said he has never won a world title. Please remove all references to this being a world title. Let's be honest it never was.
Indeed. I think WWE's show itself would outrank one website mentioned.Muur (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see there was a discussion about if this should be called a World title and it appeared to be agreed that it should not, however the opening line of the article stated the title as such, so I have since edited it. 68.196.72.173 (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to remove "world" championship 68.196.76.206 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit of removing "world" championship continues to be changed back. Not sure why as it was agreed to be removed. 68.196.76.206 (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're basing the assertion that it was "agreed to be removed" on an old discussion. There's been multiple discussions and the last, at the bottom of this talk page, agreed to include it. --JDC808 ♫ 05:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WWE is notorious for being inconsistent with stuff like this and other continuity. On February 24th 2020 Drew McIntyre flat out said that he has never been a world champion. Just because Edge showed up on NXT one night for a ratings pop and later gave his opinion to the Miz that it is world title shouldn't be the be all end all, its a world title again. Until WWE flat out acknowledges it themselves on TV or in writing, I think McIntyre's statement on his road to Mania 37 holds the most ground. Even Finn Balor, in his Bleacher Report interview in February 2021, said he "THINKS" all the titles "SHOULD" be held at the same level. 68.196.76.206 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they can be inconsistent, but WWE did acknowledge it on TV and in writing multiple times earlier this year. Edge explicitly called it a world championship on TV multiple times after he won the Rumble (WWE has certain verbiage for wrestlers to use, and if they didn't want him calling it a world title, they would have put a stop to that after the first time he said it). Then the WWE.com articles regarding Edge's decision called it a world championship. This is why it was decided to include world championship here. Some of the discussion that came to this most recent consensus was also done at the main project's talk page, which can be found in one of the archives there. --JDC808 ♫ 20:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And next year when Big E. wins his "first world championship" as per WWE, we'll change it back. Company is a joke. 68.196.76.206 (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinions on the company don't matter here. And assuming he wins his MITB cash-in match, it would be his first world championship, because the NXT Championship was not considered a world championship during the time he held it. --JDC808 ♫ 00:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment

[edit]
This RfC concerns whether, in professional wrestling, the NXT Championship could rightly be described as a "world championship". This is one of those difficult matters about which the sources disagree. Editors have evaluated the sources, and although there is some dissent, the rough consensus is that NXT cannot rightly be described as a world championship at this time. Accordingly, I shall remove this wording with my next edit.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the NXT Championship be described as a world championship?LM2000 (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No per the previous section. oknazevad (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - as it's now been established that NXT Titles can be options for Royal Rumble winners (WWE counts Charlotte Flair's current NXT Women's Title as her 11th title reign) Vjmlhds (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't know. One side, we have the previous discussion, where it was established a consensus. We have sources. However, I always feel (my Personal POV) the NXT title isn't a world title, even if NXT is the third brand. As LM 2000 says, source can be an anomaly, we know WWE writers are full of contradictions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought it should have been categorized as a world title after I saw the source in 2017 too, but since then I think more evidence has been against it being a world title than for it. As @Muur: said in the last discussion, the TV product continues to act as if Drew McIntyre never won a world title before WrestleMania, which means that the originally source was wrong. We should reflect that.LM2000 (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Its up to WWE to determine if its a World Championship, not us. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 00:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Drew said he had never won a world title in the lead up to wrestlemania.Muur (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, 10 days later, should we removed the World title part? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keith Lee (July 2020)

[edit]

I thought this site worked on facts only and not spoilers? Despite the picture going around that shows Keith Lee holding the NXT Title after the Great American Bash, there is no confirmation from WWE that he is Champion. It is possible that they filmed two endings. Please keep Adam Cole as the current champion until WWE show the next episode of NXT on July 8th. Any attempts to put Lee back as Champion before then will be changed back to Cole.

Wikipedia is not concerned with spoilers. If you don't want spoilers, don't read Wikipedia (or at least articles that deal with content that can contain spoilers). Of course WWE have not confirmed it yet to ensure that people tune in next Wednesday and watch it themselves. It is possible that they filmed two separate endings, and a source did in fact report that, but they are not a reliable source. This is honestly just another case for which why I hate our practice of going by "what really happened" (Lee winning the title on July 1) versus the narrative (WWE recognizing that Lee's reign officially begins on July 8). --JDC808 ♫ 05:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the censorship/spoiler argument isn't valid, I don't think we should be showing Keith Lee as champion for the simple fact that it's neither confirmed nor official. This is based on one tweet which would not be considered a reliable source. We need to wait until it's officially listed on WWE's site. — Czello 14:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the fact it was a tweet from an employee of the company and it was picture evidence. It would be one thing if it was just text, but this was picture evidence. --JDC808 ♫ 08:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A picture doesn't count as evidence -- it's not official until it's official. This leak ultimately does not count as being reliable. Please see the ongoing discussion at the WikiProject here. — Czello 08:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does, and I've already replied there. --JDC808 ♫ 08:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do know that WWE filmed an ending with Keith Lee celebrating in the ring, that is all we know. Did Adam Cole win, the celebration was his, but Keith Lee attacked up and held up the belt when the picture was taken? Did the do 2 endings (which they have done before)? We do not know these answers. We only have RS reporting that this picture was out there, no one has confirmed its a title change, from what I have seen. - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 18:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this context it doesn't, JDC808. — Czello 18:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World title Part II

[edit]

Now that some new info has been revealed, let's try this again.

NXT Title a World Title? Vjmlhds (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I'm going to post the paragraph from the link Vjmlhds posted above:

Returning from injury, Edge started this year’s Royal Rumble Match at No. 1 and outlasted 29 other Superstars to earn the right to to challenge the World Champion of his choosing at The Showcase of the Immortals. In the wake of his Herculean effort, The Rated-R Superstar traveled first to Raw to inform WWE Champion Drew McIntyre that whomever he decided to face, he would be walking out of The Show of Shows with the World Title. He then ventured to NXT and put both NXT Champion Finn Bálor and Pete Dunne on notice as well.

I think it's totally fair if you read this and conclude WWE just declared this a world title with this post. I think it's also fair to say that it says "Edge went to Raw and said he was going to fight a world champion. Then he went to NXT and confronted two of their top stars." The problem with this dispute, and the reason it keeps popping up year after year, is because WWE has contradicted themselves on whether this counts as a world title. I don't even know if WWE know if they count it as a world title at this point. But after a big part of last year's biggest angle included a storyline where former NXT Champion Drew chased after a world title because he never won one, while the women's Royal Rumble winner did decide to face the NXT Women's Champion, I think we just need better confirmation before we change things. LM2000 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A fair assessment. But to me it speaks to why we can't just copy WWE's current position. They are inconsistent because they will frame the status of anything for the story they are trying to tell (and sell) at any given moment. That's why it's an NPOV issue: WWE is in the business of selling shows, whether it be tickets (when that becomes possible again), ads for the weekly shows, PPV buys, WWE Network subscriptions (soon to be part of Peacock in the US), or merchandise, and the storylines are really about promoting those purchases. Unlike other forms of fiction, the product and the advertisement are the same thing. Every show is an ad for the next show in a continuous cycle, and so it does become something of an NPOV issue to state things in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. And why relying on third-party sources is needed, too.
Also, we have to keep in mind that, unlike legitimate unscripted sports, pro wrestling doesn't have objective criteria for determining winners and losers, so comparisons to say the Super Bowl are not really equivalent. oknazevad (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what Oknazevad says. WWE is nothing if not inconsistent. In addition, it's worth me reiterating what I said above: they didn't even imply it was a world title shot during the RR itself: they called it first a "championship opportunity" and later said that Edge can challenge for either the WWE title or the Universal title. The NXT thing, I think, was more of a swerve. They're hardly definitive in this being a world title. — Czello 22:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding McIntyre's statement - would that also say the Impact World Championship isn't a World Title, since he previously held that as well? When you get down to it, what carries more weight - a passing statement from a wrestler, or an article on the official website where it's in black and white for the world to see that you can reference at any time? (this includes both the past post about Drew had "made Mr. McMahon's declaration of him as a future world champion a reality by winning the NXT Title", and the one that I brought forth yesterday) Also, saying "I think it's just a swerve" doesn't really hold water, because only one title can be chosen anyway, making the other two decoys/swerves by default. It almost feels like we're trying to find reasons not to include the NXT Title just based on personal feelings toward it. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the Impact title to WWE titles is apples and oranges. I wouldn't be surprised if WWE didn't consider non-WWE titles to not be world titles. In general they tend not to acknowledge them at all unless they're from specific companies (and Impact isn't one of them). Also you miss my point re: the swerve comment -- the explicitly mentioned that Edge can challenge for one of two titles. The fact he challenged for a third is the swerve. — Czello 07:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict): LM2000, regardless if WWE contradict themselves, this is the most recent proof of WWE calling it a world championship, and the second time they've done it on their website (and even to an extent with the Royal Rumble where the winner gets a world championship match at WrestleMania—that has always been the prize since 1993 with the exception of 2016, as explained before). You say we need better confirmation, yet that source right there refers to all three titles being world championships, twice (that being the WWE, Universal, and NXT titles). What more confirmation do you need? You asked for it, you got it, but you still say "we need more". At this point, you're just moving the goal posts.

Also, Czello, you say the "NXT thing was more of a swerve." Okay, then what do you call last year when Charlotte Flair, who won the women's Royal Rumble to earn a women's world championship match, chose the NXT Women's Championship? Are we just gonna brush that under the rug as a "swerve" too? (And prior to that, WWE did not include Charlotte's previous NXT title reign in her total WWE women's championship reigns, but now they do.) Also, on SmackDown, Edge named all three champions as his choices, not just that "swerve angle" with him appearing on NXT (Bianca Belair also named all three women's champions as choices in her interview with Ryan Satin). --JDC808 ♫ 07:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are we just gonna brush that under the rug as a "swerve" too? Yes. I remember it pretty well and it was unexpected. More than anything, though, I think it shows that the women's division is even more consistent than the men's -- and it's very inconsistent in the men's. I'm starting to think WWE are less concerned about the "world" title than we are, and instead intend the RR to be challenging for one of the brands' top titles. — Czello 08:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To think it's a swerve is very subjective and even WP:OR if you're gonna try to base it's non-inclusion on that. They can't be a swerve when they're legitimate (in pro-wrestling terms, not reality terms) options, have been for two events now, and one was actually chosen (and possibly another this year). --JDC808 ♫ 09:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not objecting to inclusion based on just this, it's just my view to explain WWE's inconsistencies. Equally I find it to be WP:OR to justify the NXT title as a world title based on the RR result. Again, WWE are inconsistent and don't take the moniker of "world champion" as seriously as other sports might (which is why why have so many contradicting viewpoints). It's for this reason that I think we need more reliable sources that explicitly state the NXT title being a world title. — Czello 09:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But then we get to the point that outside sources don't get to dictate how an entity categorizes it's own property. It's not up to Dave Meltzer or PWI or 411 or ESPN to decide what is and isn't a World Title. He who owns it gets to decide, nobody else, because it is their property (kind of like how I don't get to decide which Wiki policies I can or can't follow...even though I think there are too many nit-picky policies and that some of those are outright dumb, I either have to follow them all or I don't get to play in the sandbox, because it isn't my call to make). Vjmlhds (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gone are the days when Vince McMahon and Pat Patterson would plan everything out six months ahead of time. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a WWE program from start to finish, but I still follow it on podcasts, news sites and here. Their shows are apparently often re-written even up to the day they air. There's no long term storytelling and many inconsistencies. In 2017, the website said this was a world title. It had been around since 2012, but this was the first mention of its status as such. Initially, I actually supported it being listed as one even though they never mentioned it again. Then, last year, their biggest storyline of the year made it clear the the company didn't actually consider it a world title. Now, Edge wins the Royal Rumble and shows up on NXT to pop a rating, and we're supposed to get excited about it.
If you're going to tell me that it's not up to reporters to recognize world titles, I'll agree with you. We had this discussion years ago... wrestling has no oversight committees, any organization that claims its belt is the World Heavyweight Championship has that right. Even Extreme Rising, where Stevie Richards defended his belt in a video game. But even Extreme Rising was consistently clear about its world title's status. While it's not up to Dave Meltzer or Bill Apter to assign world title status, it's not up to us make sense of these things either.LM2000 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right...it isn't up to us either. As of now, WWE has declared it a World title, so that's what we go with. If in 6 months they say something different, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. I think some of us are too busy looking for purity and absolution in something that just simply doesn't have it. All we can do is go with where it stands now, and that is the NXT Title is currently being promoted as a World Title, and it is backed up by a reference. Today, Joe Biden is president. In 6 months he may drop dead of a heart attack and Kamala Harris takes over - but then again maybe not, so all we can do is go by where it stands today, and that Biden is the current president. Today, the NXT Title is a World Title,...in 6 months, who knows, but we'll get there when we get there, so until then... Vjmlhds (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Always find it funny when people say there is no long-term storytelling in WWE. Couldn't be further from the truth. While yes, much of the week-to-week stuff is re-written, WWE does actually do long-term storytelling (though admittedly, this past year has been a bit odd in regard to that, for obvious reasons). And yeah, Edge popped up on NXT to say the NXT title was an option for him, but that wasn't his only time saying that. He also explicitly said it on SmackDown when he listed his choices. Anyways, the point of the matter, we now have a recent WWE source that explicitly refers to it as a world championship, not only once, but twice in that same source. Again, LM2000 (and anyone else still opposing on these grounds), you asked for a source, you got it, so what is the issue now? --JDC808 ♫ 08:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just stubbornness. Let's be honest - if you're editing a wrestling article, you're probably a smark, because wrestling is what you're into, and you yourself (not any one person specifically, but "you" in the general sense) don't see the NXT Title as a World title, because you still have the vision stuck in your head that NXT is "just a developmental brand" (never mind the fact that a major network like USA paid big bucks to air it in prime time - just like Raw and SD), so no amount of sources or convincing is gonna change your mind. Edge vs Finn Balor for the NXT Championship could main event WrestleMania, but you'd STILL say it's just developmental, because that's what it started out as, and you just won't budge off of that. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, tonight on Raw, Edge said "I'm keeping 3 world champions on high alert" in response to Miz's Money in the Bank threat. --JDC808 ♫ 06:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the beautiful bean footage to verify it So that leads to this...To McIntyre, it isn't a World title, but to Edge (and WWE as a whole) it is...since we're all about consensus here, I'd say the consensus within ThunderDome is that is IS a World title. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WWE is not a democracy. McIntyre is the only current champion with the experience to know how the NXT Championship feels within his grasp, relative to the one Hogan, Yokozuna and Sammartino embiggened. If Edge wants equal validity for his (or his stark raving groupies') opinion, he can take it the new normal way...with seven spears after shaking off five claymores, in the middle of the ring, facing the hard camera while the ThunderDome approximates an aura of awesomeness. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now we have 411 Wrestling straight up calling it the NXT World Championship. You wanted an outside source to back up WWE's claim that the NXT Championships was a World Title, well, now you got one. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the full interview with Balor from Bleacher Report. Interesting quote from the story - Balor says "I think all the titles should be held at the same level. That's definitely the way Edge sees it, and I think that's the way a lot of people see it". So let's review...WWE itself calls it a World Title, 411 flat out calls it the "NXT World Championship", Edge called it a World title, and the champ himself Finn Balor called it one as well - what more do you want? Vjmlhds (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to hear it from Meltzer. I don't know who Jeffrey Harris is. All I know is he also flat-out called his source Bleacher Reports. If he's wrong about that, it can happen again. And that interview is clearly marked "shoot", not canon, get me a ring announcer vouching for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Anyways, point of the matter, we have official sources calling it a world championship, and now we have third-party reliable sources reiterating that. --JDC808 ♫ 06:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JDC808 What do you think...think there's enough there that if I were to go ahead and change it, it would "hold up in court" so to speak? And BTW, I've been working with InedibleHulk at this pop stand for years...he's the king of snark (and that's a good thing...shows you can have a sense of humor around here) Vjmlhds (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a wise and just ruler, don't let the delightfully mad pageantry fool you. I don't know this Harris brother, don't trust he even knows more about wrestling than any of us do. Meltzer definitely does. And in the linked BR (by any name) interview, Graham Matthews (maybe that one?) refers to the championship seven times, and omits the "World" seven times. I know my powers are weak here, Wikipedia is a democracy, but still. I feebly command you to not be taken in by promos, work or shoot, during this intentionally hazy and swervy "Road to WrestleMania". This is a season of disbelief, suspend it at your own risk, my people! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like 411 and use it from time to time. This article is weird though. As Hulk points out, the author is talking about a Bleacher Report article (which he incorrectly calls Bleacher Reports), and he incorrectly calls this title the "NXT World Championship", which is not the same as saying "The NXT Championship is a world championship." The actual BR article in question doesn't mention any of this. For the record, if this championship was called the "NXT World Championship" then we wouldn't need to have this conversation every couple of months.LM2000 (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I swear someone at 411 is reading this discussion...just as soon as you mention them, here's another entry where they call it a world title. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I swear you two are conspiring to edit conflict me! I had a sweet political pun involving Gary Will and Calvin Coolidge in one, an olive branch in the other. But forget it, you guys can have self-determination if it's that important to you, seriously. Rob Stewart? Peace out! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who can name drop Calvin Coolidge in a wrestling discussion is a national treasure. InedibleHulk 2024! Vjmlhds (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your message that you pinged me on Vjmlhds. Having the two official WWE sources calling it a world championship should be enough (their stance on this trumps third-party sources anyways). But for whatever reason, it's still not enough for those opposing. The other opposers have yet to weigh in, but they'll probably still try to move the goal post. LM2000 is still doing that. We got an official WWE source calling it a world championship, but then he said we needed more (even though that official source was exactly what he and others asked for in their initial opposition). We then got a second official WWE source calling it a world championship, and then we have third-party reliable sources referring to it as a world championship, but yet, it's still not enough. And yes, the first 411mania sourced called it the "NXT World Championship"; although that technically is not its name, the important part here is the recognition of them acknowledging it as a world championship, which they explicitly did in their second source provided by Vjmlhds. Like I said before, it's just goal post moving at this point. It feels like those opposing will only accept it as a world championship if WWE puts out an official press release that explicitly states to the absolute t that they officially classify the NXT Championship as a world championship. --JDC808 ♫ 03:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do this fair and square...anyone who objects to have this info and this article join hands in holy matrimony has 24 hours to speak now, or forever hold their peace. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to include the world title label. Looks like finally, WWE cleared his mind and is consistent for several weeks. I hope to not have this discussion again--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I merely object to the insinuation that I am a real American, but see absolutely nothing wrong with accepting that national treasure title and fighting for the rights of every Canadian, Quebecer, Newfie, Inuit, Commonwealth subject and First Nations spirit, little dudes! And if any Americans, Armenians or Azerbaijjanis are scared, just hold on to the largest back in the Wikiworld and help dogpaddle me back to safety, man! To all you cruiserweights, midgets, bears, tag teams and ladies down there in NXT, don't cry for what the true legends of the ring think of you, but ask yourselves, whatcha gonna do for your company?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cole title reign

[edit]

Chubbybunny60, I have attempted to explain this to you several times now. Adam Cole has two dates listed for his title reign because he didn't lose his title on live television. WWE presents the kayfabe date, we provide the actual date. You're edit warring to only keep one: if you think your version should be accepted, you must seek WP:CONSENSUS. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 17:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Czello: Then stop going back and forth with me, and leave it at the fact he held the title for 403 days. Don’t believe me? Then go on Peacock and watch the June 1st, 2021 episode of WWE NXT, where in a confrontation with then-NXT Champion Karrion Kross, Adam Cole clearly states, he held the NXT Championship for 403 days. No one cares about whatever tape delay there appears to be. The fact of the matter is 403 days is the amount of time he held that championship. What is so hard to understand? Chubbybunny60 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We include both dates. The real number, and the broadcast number. Why do you oppose this? — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 18:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is longstanding consensus. We include both the date of the match actually taking place, that is, when the loss occurred, and mention that the promotion counts until the match aired on TV. Nothing new here, and nothing that needs to be changed. oknazevad (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NXT_Championship&oldid=1204368403"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy