Talk:List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE, 2002–2013)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE, 2002–2013) is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 30, 2007Featured list candidatePromoted
September 1, 2007Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured list

2007[edit]

FL?[edit]

This page seems to be pretty good - is it ready for a run at becoming an FL? Although it may be best to wait a week because with the title likely to change hands soon, it will be hit with a wave of IP and new user edits, which could cause it to fail the stability criteria. -- Scorpion0422 03:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008[edit]

yes is true[edit]

Undertaker has been striped from the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.171.81.144 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Exclusive?[edit]

I know CM Punk was a Raw superstar when he cashed in Money in the Bank but how did that make the title a Raw Exclusive Championship. Remember when Edge cashed in his MITB Contract against The Undertaker. He was a Raw superstar then, so why did he get switched to the SD! roster. Shouldnt the title have come to Raw. Or now should CM Punk be a part of the SD! roster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.161.238 (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed that Edge wanted no part of Cena, so joined SmackDown! when he won the title. Punk didn't want to leave, so stuck with Raw. CyclopsScott (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vacancy?[edit]

Shouldn't there be a vacancy between Punk's and Jericho's reigns? I know WWE has yet to say the title was vacant, but I think it's implied by the fact Punk wasn't in the match. And there is precedence in that, in every similar situation in wrestling history, there has been a vacancy. Bmf 51 (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I initially had a brief vacancy down there also, but during the match Cole stated that Punk was still the champion. Kane then became interim champion, and Jericho was revealed to be replacing Punk at the 15min mark. I've never seen a title made vacant -during- a match being held for that very title, but the way I see it, by the time we found out that Punk was not in the match, Kane was the man to beat and the title never really became vacant. As you said, "in every similar situation in wrestling history" it goes vacant but, this situation is unique and sets a new precident. The title really was never made vacant, which admittedly sounds weird, though I -can- see an arguement for stating it was for exactly five minutes: between Jericho's introduction and the end of the match. I see it though as the match started with Punk as champ, and really can't be made vacant during said match. If no one had become temporary champ by the time Jericho replaced Punk, then there would be no real reigning champion, and THEN it could be vacant, but otherwise, Punk just wasn't part of the match that was for his own title. CyclopsScott (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually gave this a little more thought, and thankfully came up with a simpler way of defining it: the World Heavyweight Championship was defended in a match that didn't include the champion. Seems obvious yes but, it wasn't made vacant... Punk just wasn't included in the title match for his own title, sort of like how Helmsley lost the European title when Owen Hart pinned Goldust that one time... it wasn't made vacant, its just that the champ wasn't part of the match for his own title. CyclopsScott (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009[edit]

Match types[edit]

When a title changes hands in something other than a singles match, that IS worth noting. This information should be put back in the article because it IS notable. The article is not accurate if it is deliberately leaving out relevant information. For example, the article implies that Shawn Michaels beat Triple H one-on-on to win the title. TJ Spyke 21:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not relevant because the list is about the champions not the other participants in a match or the match type. A prime reason why we don't have a "match won" column. Take the WWE Hardcore Championship as an example, almost every match was a variation of a Hardcore match, listing all of those would just be trivial. --Truco 503 21:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Hardcore Title article is not comparable. That is taken care of by just writing at the top of the article something like "Unless noted, all title changes took place in hardcore matches". The match type does have an effect on the champion and so do the other wrestlers. The match type/other wrestlers is just as relevant as where/when it was won or how many total champions there have been. I know if I were to look up the title history for a title I am not familiar with (like ROH titles), I would be interested in what type of match they won it in and if there were other wrestlers in the match. The information is notable and relevant for each title change and should be included. A featured article can't leave out notable and relevant info, maybe it should be de-listed if people insist on leaving notable information out. TJ Spyke 21:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one, you can't say our Featured lists should be delisted when you haven't worked on them or seen the process it takes to create such lists. Another thing is that not every title has the necessary information or resources to get every match type and other contestants; as a result, we can't have some lists with matches and others without it. The only time we list the match types (if available) is when the title is vacant and it is contested for in some type of match. --Truco 503 22:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For one, I HAVE worked on all of the current WWE title lists and did substantial work on many of them. I would also like to point out that the article was promoted to FL with the NOTABLE and RELEVANT info. It was wrestlinglover who recently decided to remove the information on his own. Your logic is flawed about titles, there are some titles where we don't have the location of the change, does that mean we should remove that info from all articles? Except for this article, we ALWAYS listed the match type. TJ Spyke 22:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but "your WWE title lists" were promoted way before the FL criteria was enhanced and became more strict. If this were to go to FLC today, it would fail. Luckily no one has nominated them for FLRC. When a location is not known we use "N/A" and add a relevant note stating that the location is not found in reliable sources. The column called "Notes" is for notes regarding the "Reign" itself not for the match type. The match type did not have an overall effect on the reign that led to something else. I don't see what 'This match was a 3 Stages of Hell match' adds to the readers knowledge about the reign. WWE is one of the few companies that lists the match types for their current titles, other promotions like TNA or the NWA do not have this information, which is hard to source with specific reliable refs about event results.--Truco 503 22:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what other companies do don't matter. The NWA only lists the date of a title change, TNA only lists the date (although TNA is really out of date with their title lists). When a wrestler won a title has nothing to do with the reign, should we take that out to? No, because is important just like what kind of match they won it in is important. The list right now is inaccurate and should be de-listed if it isn't fixed. TJ Spyke 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean other companies don't matter? They all from the industry known as pro wrestling, and the title lists must be consistent with one another, a main attribute looked at during FLC. Currently, its consistent with the most recent promoted lists. If you want to nominate it for removal be my guest, but I know that it will not be delisted for that rationale that you mention, and it will speedily kept.--Truco 503 22:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article's name: List of World Heavyweight Champions, not List of World Heavyweight Champions and the matches they were won in. The relevant information in this article are the champions. Not the matches. Just the very important information. The day, location, wrestler, reign, length, done. Because a wrestler won the match in a ladder match does not effect the championship's history more than a singles match. If we list every match type the title changed in, then might as well list singles match. Because the only difference is another man was in the match for a multiple man match or the wrestler retrieved the belt instead of pinning to get it. They are simply not notable.--WillC 23:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is how they started their reign not important? Especially in cases like when Rey Mysterio's reign. He did not beat Kurt Angle, he pinned Randy Orton. The type of match the title is won in does have an effect. Sigh, looks like I will have to seek a review of the articles FL status since it doesn't like like the relevant and important info will be put back in the article (thus making the article incomplete and inaccurate, and not deserving of being considered one of the top lists on Wikipedia anymore). TJ Spyke 02:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well noting this was a Triple Threat match also involving Orton does not help the case of saying Rey pinned Orton. So, even adding what match does not cover him pinning Orton. And again it does not effect the history. You can note that in Rey's article, since it has more need there. It tells Rey won the belt, when, where, and that is all that is needed. Noting he pinned Orton is 50/50, it is significant to Rey's reign but not the actual title's history. Go ahead with your removal idea possibly, because at the moment the list only needs a few third party refs and a cut down on the lead to pass the criteria fully. I'll help you out, I've been wanting to start a removal for all the WWE Title lists. Tell you what, you take the World, Women's, IC, and WWE Tag, I'll take the rest.--WillC 02:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL is all I have to say for the above. There are some instances where the match maybe needed, not everytime.--Truco 503 03:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is funny? Yeah I can agree. At times the match is important. In this instance it is borderline, but just noting a three way match because it is different than a singles is no reason to include it.--WillC 03:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this discussion is over?--WillC 22:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You gonna admit that the relevant and important info should go back into the article? TJ Spyke 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that the relevant and important info is already in the article.--WillC 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's funny is how TJ wants to demote this article based on the matches. Anywho, the necessary information is already in the article. Articles needs consistency, which is not listing matches because not all of them have that information, and it doesn't take away from the list in any way because the lists should have a statement which states that the reigns were determined by professional wrestling match types, and that is enough to cover the article instead of listing every match.--Truco 503 23:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it, then, that on certain title changes, such as Chris Jericho's reign when he defeated Batista, it is noted to be a steel cage match? Why is Punk's current reign states to have been a Tables, Ladders, and Chairs Match? I feel that the match type (aside from singles matches) IS notable in the article because it states the sort of match the competitor won it in. I feel like I'm repeating everything that was already said above, but still, including it in SOME of the matches and not all is not right, simply put.--Lord Dagon (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to the person who won, but not to the overall title history. What sets aside a cage match from a singles match notability wise? Nothing, besides one had a cage over the ring and that didn't effect the title.--WillC 01:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think listing the match type is very important, especially when the champion is not pinned by the new champion (for example, couple years ago on Raw's Elimination Chamber, Cena became champion without pinning Sheamus, instead he pinned Triple H who had pinned Sheamus). This seems like it would be coverable under the rightmost 'notes' column, where we can list information like that. I found WL's List of World Heavyweight Champions and the matches they were won in comment pretty rude. Obviously the scope of this article goes beyond simply listing the champions. Rather, we cover the times of their reign, even though that is not in the titles. So covering other criteria (location, type of match, who defeated whom and how) is just as important. AweCo (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at WWE.com and I noticed that in Rey Mysterio's Championship Profile they say he pinned Randy Orton to win the title at WreslteMania 22 so I guess it could be 50/50 either way, I mean it doesn't change anything about Mysterio winning the title anyway. However I think we should give credit to both champion and challenger in a that situation (IE Rey defeated both Champion Kurt Angle and Randy Orton in a 3-way.)Peter (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant reigns[edit]

There was some error with the previous sorting method that was causing vacant title reigns to be sorted wrongly (when sorting from highest to lowest, the vacant reigns would show up at the TOP of the list instead of the bottom). The only reason why I think a editor has a problem with the current format is because Jeff Hardy's 2 minute reign is less than 1 day. If someone can get the vacant reigns to show up correctly in sorting, I am open to suggestions. As for the refs, I have seen many FA and FL reviews where the reviewer will be against a lot of refs for the same thing. The general consensus is that any individual fact (like a title reign) only needs 1 or 2 refs, any more than that is overkill. Do we really need 4 references that say "Wrestler A beat Wrestler B to win the title"? TJ Spyke 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More refs is always better than one. This article is not at FLC or FLRC. So at the moment, more is better than one.--WillC 23:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it already is FL. And I am just telling you from what I have seen other articles go through at FA and FL reviews (including, I think, some you have nominated) is that the reviewers think any individual facts don't need more than 2 refs. So while the ARTICLE in general can always use more refs, specific title changes don't need more than 2. TJ Spyke 23:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is already an FL, but a reviewer can have his opinions, but at the moment they don't mean a thing. I feel seeing that an editor took the time out of his day to make sure this article was accurate by introducing third party refs, we should keep them within the article. Simple as that. More is better, this isn't about what a reviewer at a nominations page would think. You are always against we having to change when a reviewer says his opinion, what made you change your mind now?--WillC 23:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for third party refs, and the article already has third party refs for each reign. 2 refs is plenty, one from WWE and one from a third party site. I am not saying I don't appreciate anyone who tries to improve any article. My issue with having 3 (or even 4 for a couple of the reigns) refs is partially aesthetic, it stretches the column and squeezes everything else together. However, I also already said I think it's redundant. We don't need 3 references that say John Cena beat Chris Jericho to win the title, it doesn't help the article anymore than having 2 refs for that same fact. It doesn't help the article and won't make a difference at any kind of review for the article. I would think the time spent doing that would be of better use working on the various title articles that are not FL yet. TJ Spyke 01:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010[edit]

Hardy, Orton and Michaels[edit]

I see that Orton, Hardy and Michaels are ranked as equal 17th instead of equal 15th. Does anyone know why? In other sports where there is a tie or dead heat (eg golf, horse racing), the participants that tie are equally ranked at the higher rather than lower ranking. For example, if there is a dead heat for 2nd in a horse race, both horses are ranked equal 2nd and there is no 3rd plaegetter prize awarded. Unless anyone can provide a valid reason, I'll change them to equal 15th instead of equal 17th. Thanks. MC Rocks 08:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it. I don't know why it was changed in the first place. –Turian (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With Jack Swagger bumping the 28-dayers down and Orton skyrocketing up with his current reign, it looks like we have just Michaels and Jeff tied at 17 now, with a vacant 18. One thing I was wondering: how come we don't just average the spot? Like in the previous situation, rather than 15 or 17, why not leave them vacant and rank all 16? In the current situation, why not rank HBK/Jeff as 17.5? Same with Kane and Benoit, could list them as 6.5. By the way, we should probably check up on that, are they really exactly the same length? We could consult sources other than WWE.com since they do sometimes get dates wrong. If there's even a day's discrepancy it would make this issue a lot easier. AweCo (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major Factual Errors On Page![edit]

This article is seriously screwed up!! Sorry fi that offends anyone, but it's simply the truth. The World Heavyweight Championship's lineage begins in 1905 with George Hackenschmidt, then passed to Frank Gotch in 1908. From 1908 to 1948 it was held by men like Charlie Cutler and Ed "Strangler" Lewis. From 1948 until 1988 it was the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. held by greats like Lou Thesz, Harley Race and Ric Flair. From 1988 until 2001 it was known as the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, held by men like Flair, Hulk Hogan, Sting and Bret Hart. From 2001 it has been known once again as simply the World Heavyweight Championship, and has been held by the likes of Triple-H, Chris Jericho, Edge and John Cena. However, this article only begins the Lineage in.....2002!!!!!!! This is seriously screwed up, and needs to be corrected if Wikipedia is to have any credibility. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't follow the WWE's kayfabe history. They were all completely different titles (well, except the NWA/WCW titles, they were basically the same thing) that all had the same name and were grouped together by the WWE for that one DVD release. The original belt belonged to the National Wrestling Association, which was then merged with the National Wrestling Alliance's belt. They were completely different titles. The NWA/WCW belt was merged with the WWE championship in 2001 to create the Undisputed Championship, which was simply renamed WWE championship. In 2002, a new World Heavyweight Championship was established for the Raw brand. I should also point out that the WWE's website lists the belt as starting in 2002. [1] -- Scorpion0422 00:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.--UnquestionableTruth-- 08:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, nay and thrice nay! The National Wrestling Association Title only came into existence in 1929, and was unified with the World Title in 1949. So that ain't the "original belt". And if there was indeed an "NWA/WCW belt" and "they were basically the same thing" then why does Wikipedia have separate articles listing the NWA and WCW World Titles as separate titles? Or are you simply choosing one form of revisionism over another? WWE's homepage is not the final word. What WWE announcers say, McMahon says, WWE Magazine says, DVDs say, books say, that's what counts. NOT some guy working in WWE's IT department who probably doesn't know George Steele from George Costanza. Wikipedia wrestling title articles are full of factual errors, because Wikipedia follows NWA and PWI revisionism rather than the truth. When people attempt to correct it, Wikipedia editors claim that "Wikipedia doesn't follow revisionism/kayfabe history"! Well, you are doing just that. I lived through this stuff, and can remember it firsthand, as can various people I know. But I guess that's not a reliable source, whereas some ten-year-old fanboy's website IS? Seeker of the Torch (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am against revisionist history, and I've had nothing to do with any of the other supposed revisionism you believe is on wikipedia. The fact is that they are not the same championship, although they are occasionally grouped together. This article is about the WWE's version of the World Heavyweight Championship which was established in 2002, and that's how it should remain. I should also point out that the NWA championship does, in fact, sill exist. Also, since when is WWE.com "some ten-year-old fanboy's website"? -- Scorpion0422 19:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you say that WWE uses revisionist, kayfabe history, but most of the sources on this article are from wwe.com? Doesn't that also clash with the idea of not (over)using Primary or Self-published Sources? And I never said that wwe.com was the kiddie fanboy site. I meant that many Wikipedia articles on Pro Wrestling use fansites as "Reliable" sources. This one doesn't seem to. However, many articles do. Some clear idea of what a Reliable Source for Pro Wrestling articles needs to be laid down. Personally, I wouldn't even consider somebody like Alvarez Reliable. But that's perhaps for a different Discussion Page. Seeker of the Torch (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011[edit]

Ziggler timing problem[edit]

I noticed that Ziggler's reign is only listed as 1 day, that he gained and lost the title on the same night, February 15, which aired on the 18th, friday, today. I don't think this is correct: the actual match was the previous week, the Smackdown on Feb11. That's when the match where Edge used the spear occurred. As such, while the official coronation ceremony was on Friday, Edge had already been disqualified and Ziggler officially took the championship previously. It was a week later when he won it back. So I'm going to change it, and I hope if there is a dispute we can talk it out here, will make a note on page. Dictabeard (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE's title history lists him as getting and losing it on the same day. So Edge was champion until that day, then he was stripped of the title, given to Ziggler, who lost it to Edge. All happened in one day.--WillC 16:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are wrong[edit]

According to WWE themselves, (See: http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/results/ ) Ziggler was never the champion at all. The title was vacant for a week. It should go "Edge > Vacant > Edge". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.44.219 (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WWE's title history includes Ziggler.--WillC 16:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christian2011.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Christian2011.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian's reign's length[edit]

How come this says 2 days? He won it at the Sunday pay-per-view and then lost it the following Smackdown. To viewers, this would make it seem like he held the title for 5 days, not 2. Is this because the smackdown was taped 3 days in advance, on the preceding Tuesday before it aired? Could this explain the Dolph Ziggler problem too, that perhaps they filmed that Smackdown on a Monday so even though he won the belt on the Sunday pay-per-view, IRL he lost it the next day even though it was only aired 5 days later? AweCo (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I too, must take issue with this. A link is provided to WWE.com's own section on the history of their 2002-2013 version of the belt with the link "Christian's First Reign.". When one is brought to that page, at the top it clearly reads "May 01, 2011 - May 06, 2011". By my math, this is 5 days and not 2. Furthermore, this means that entering reigns which have ended on SmackDown! should be counted via AIRING DATE, not the night of taping. The tapings may take place 2 or 3 days (depending on if you're talking 2002-2005 & 2015-present Thursday era or 2005-2015 "Friday Night" era...) before airing with various wrestling news sites providing the upcoming spoilers for the next episode, but until the show, and furthermore, the match itself, airs IT IS NOT OFFICIAL. As such, I would respectfully request that Christian's first reign length in the infobox be changed from 2-5 by a moderator or editor with permissions level whom is able to do so.107.4.62.227 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been fixed now. Thank-You both for your concern.ADg2k14 (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here on wikipedia we go by the date it actually happened, not when it aired. That is the fact of the matter. He was champion only for 2 days. He didn't hold the belt for 5, which is incorrect. It is official once it occurs. We have policies to adhere to such as WP:IN-U, WP:FICTION, etc.--WillC 11:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MARK HENRY[edit]

It's been a few days now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.251.19 (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Show Reign Length[edit]

On Raw this past monday they mentioned a few times Big Shows reign was only 45 seconds. It seemed longer to me watching it (closer to the time in this article) but I haven't timed it myself. But shouldn't we go with the "official" time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.29.90 (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should go by the official time, but it wouldn't hurt to make a note that Michael Cole screwed up (again) and quoted an inaccurate statistic. Also, I think we should verify whether or not it's actually true that Show's reign is the shortest. There are 2 things in recent memory which may qualify as shorter reigns. I do not know their offiical times, but if we can find out what they are, they should be listed for comparison. They are:
  • Jeff Hardy's first reign in June 7, 2009. CM Punk cashed in the Money in the Bank immediately on him after Jeff beat Edge. How long did this last?
  • Dolph Ziggler's reign on February 15, 2011. I personally think this one actually lasted a week because the stipulation would be if Edge used the spear, Ziggler would be awarded the title. So basically, Ziggler should count as champ from Sunday>Friday, or 5 days. But the records seem to say that it only lasted during that Smackdown when the stripping/awarding process happened, and then ended when Teddy Long returned and fired Vicky and gave it back to Edge. So how long did Ziggler's reign last?
Only by finding the length of Jeff and Dolph's first reigns (Jeff isn't at the bottom because he had a 2nd reign which lasted longer) can we figure out how these reigns compare to Show's reign and who deserves the title of 'shortest reign'. SeeTheInvisible (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Champion[edit]

Alberto Del Rio defeated the Big Show on January 8, 2013 in a Last Man Standing Match. Here is a link to the WWE website to prove it.

http://www.wwe.com/shows/smackdown/alberto-del-rio-wins-world-heavyweight-championship-26082615 208.76.160.102 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ties[edit]

A lot of strange ties on the table in terms of reign length. Kurt Angle and Jack Swagger both have 82 days, for example, just can't be a coincidence considering how Swagger was slightly modelled after Kurt Angle (amateur champion background, using ankle lock). Hardy having the same length as Michaels also is an eery coincidence considering the similar background as a tag team competitor, excelling in ladder matches.

I don't know what this says on Cena/Bryan or Kane/Benoit tying though. Ranze (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Youngest champs list[edit]

I made a list like this on the talk of the WWE title since that gets brought up. I got mixed up about Randy Orton since they made a deal about him being the youngest, but he wasn't for WWE, so it must be this one. So I'm going to figure it out for this. Here we go, list of youngests:

  1. September 2002 Triple H (born July 1969) is champ at 33 years old
  2. August 2004 Randy Orton (born April 1980) is champ at 24 years old

Other interesting mentions if we ignore Orton:

  1. April 2006 Rey Mysterio (born Dece 1974) is champ at 31 years 4 months old
  2. June 2008 CM Punk (born October 1978) is champ at 29 years 8 months old
  3. March 30 2010 Jack Swagger (born March 24 1982) is champ at 28 years, 6 days old

I guess since there was only 1 change in 'youngest' (different from WWE history) it may not be worth mentioning. Ranze (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Money in the Bank[edit]

Does it matter on the specifics of the MITB Cash-in (IE: Miz cashed in his Money in the Bank contract after Orton defended the title against Wade Barrett) or can we just say Miz cashed in his Money in the Bank contract71.235.161.49 (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please delete

Triple H[edit]

No. of Reigns says 6 but I count 5? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.216.130 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links[edit]

Hey, somebody should mark all the WWE.com site refs in the tables as the dead links. Cause they don't work now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.156.93.97 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_World_Heavyweight_Champions_(WWE,_2002–2013)&oldid=1202675140"