Talk:List of WWE Championship reigns by length

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Professional wrestling Portal List of WWE Championship reigns by length is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.

NA

This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Flags 2 Reigns 3 Template 4 Average Length per reign 5 List of Top Combined Reigns 6 Probable vandalism 7 Orton

[edit] Flags

Should the flags be the legitimate birthplaces, or should we tend to Kayfabe. If there is a case like being billed from somewhere else, should we put two flags?

They should put kayfabe first, then in parenthesis, the real birthplace. AndarielHalo 23:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reigns

Look at the history of belt page. Many ppl have 'won' the belt, only for the win not to be upheld. Rob Van Dam, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho and Antonnio Inoki, there may be more, these are just the ones we know about. Like wise the it is similar to the dispute over AWA championships and IWGP championship won by Hogan, for a long time Hogan was not classed as a former AWA champion, because he was not recognised by the AWA as such, that was changed and reverted, and so now Hogan is a former AWA champ. Only the company involved can confer championship status, otherwise it's not valid, and the WWE does not confer that Inoki was never champ, he may have 'won' the belt (like Benoit), but he doesn't appear on the roll because it is not recognised, WWE still think of Backlund as the champ at that time, therefore Inoki did not hold the championship, that's how championships work(Halbared 08:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

RVD and Jericho did win the belt. Benoit never officially won it. Inoki won the title and then lost it in a re-match, WWE just never acknowledged it. Go to WP:PW and ask about this, wrestling companies don't always go by what actually happened, so we go by Pro Wrestling Illustrated. TJ Spyke 19:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Benoit never officially won it because WWE say he didn't. Belts have bene held up before and changed hands more than once on one night. It doesn't matter what anybody else other than the WWE say, because the official history of the belt is written by them. I know of at least 4 occasions when ppl 'won' the belt only for it not to be held up. If WWE altered their books and made Inoki's reign official, like the AWA did with Hogan, then fine, but until they do he was not champion. WWE still recognise B Backlund as champ in that time, whether Inoki had physical possession of the belt or not.(Halbared 19:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Benoit didn't win the belt because the match was re-started. Inoki's reign is not like Benoit(or the night Jericho "won" by a fast count). Inoki did win the belt and later lost it back in a re-match, there is a difference between a belt being returned to the champion and losing it back to them. TJ Spyke 20:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand the differences here. But the situation is the same as the Hogan/AWA one. Either way, if as you say protocol is to go off the PWI, then I'll abide by it, if you can direct me to it please?(Halbared 20:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Template

I went ahead and converted the current champion(John Cena)'s count to template form '''{{age in days|month1=9|day1=17|year1=2006}}'''. This is best, as it will not require daily updating. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 04:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow john cena has held the title for that long wow by the time The Great american Bash rolls arond he will be 8th all time on the list

No, actually, he'll only be 9th place sitting at a comfy 308 days. Btw, talk pages are not for discussions like this. Eric42 23:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

He will have the title for 344 days by the time Summerslam comes

Incorrect, actually. On the day of Summerslam, he will have held the title for 343 days. If he survives, he'll hit 344 the next day on RAW. Eric42 12:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

John Cena will have the title for 364 days by the time Unforgiven roles around almost a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.185.92 (talk) 15:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I hope John Cena wins tonight and loses the title tomorrow on Raw. It'd be a 365 day reign. That'd be Cool. Lex94 18:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Too bad for you, Cena and Orton will headline the next pay per view in a Last Man Standing match. pvegeta 22:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.240.214 (talk)

[edit] Average Length per reign

I added that section to the article, because it upset me that a wrestler like THE ROCK who wasted 7 reigns to get 297 days on his belt, is ranked higher than a wrestler like BILLY GRAHAM who got to defend and keep his belt for 296 days. With this section, you can know the average rank of each superstar Lex94 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been removed with no reasoning. --Jimmy Wang Yu: Version 2 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why it was removed? Lex94 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I explained why I made this section. And obviously, many people agreed with this section, so whoever erased it, may give HIS explanation because i want to see his POV. If the question above isn't answered by tomorrow, I shall paste the section back into the edit of this page. Lex94 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea seems kind of useless. After all, Wikipedia is not a fansite and average reign length is the kind of thing that anyone with a calculator and a third grade education can figure out for themselves. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your answer has no coherence. Of course anyone with a calculator could do the math,that is obvious. But if you want to go in that direction then anyone with access to wwe.com can find out title histories, ppv results and bios. <"So, would that would make wikipedia useles?">... I stated why this section should exist, and some people agreed, so why not just leave it be, because I find that it's a good section. Like I said before, it is unfair that someone like The Rock have 7 reigns to have 297 days under his belt be ranked higher then someone like Billy Graham who had his title and didn't lose it for 296 days. It is unreasonable and unrational. Lex94 23:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Your rationale has no coherence. What is this, an encyclopedia or a commentary on the lengths of some people's reigns? If you want to make a point about such things, go start a blog. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information and things like bios, results and reign histories are all important, where as the reign length is trivial because it is basically there for curiosities sack. Besides, if it's an average length table, then it should only contain those who had more than one reign. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Top Combined Reigns

I was curious as to why the listing of "ties" (in the cases of The Rock/Angle and Sid/Edge) goes on seperate ranks. I noticed they seem to go by older first, but I don't see as to why in these instances that they aren't listed as the same numbers. (For instance, Rock/Angle would both be #12 and Billy Graham would be #14. Sid/Edge would be #23 and Show #25. Also Sid and Edge have the same exact numbers, but in Rock and Angle's cases, Angle has done more with less which should account for something in this listing I believe (i.e. not just on the Average Days per Reign)... at the very least the same placing as The Rock.

I won't change this, but I simply figured the viewpoints for having it go by time period or going by an even playing field should be discussed. Jimmy Wang Yu: Version 2 03:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (wasn't signed in).

[edit] Probable vandalism

Can someone check this edit? I think it's probably vandalism because the IP changed a lot of numbers at once. delldot talk 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I remember this, it was very stupid because all he kept doing was moving the number of days a title reign lasted up a date if they were current I believe, even though the code does that itself..In fact check it's contributions, that is the only thing it contributes, unnecessary edits.TonyFreakinAlmeida 13:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orton

Why do people keep giving Orton's reign an extra day? He had two reigns on the same day, and they both count as one, not two. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the WWE counts it as two Supermike(talk) 12:22, 18 Febrary 2008 (UTC)