Jump to content

Talk:WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010)

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

Bollocks

[edit]

Moolah never held the title for 28 years. She was briefly recognized as NWA Womens Champion around about 1956-1958. Then in 1983/83 the WWF wanted to create a Womens Title, and got the rights to get the title(and Moolah) out of mothballs as their own. The idea of a continuous championship reign is pure bs. 41.245.185.66 (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trish Stratus

[edit]

Is it Really needed to List that She has had more then any other women on the page shouldnt that be on the rigns page Im just asking.--Dcheagle (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the standard agreed upon now. See World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) - it's a good article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see --Dcheagle (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divas Title

[edit]
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalla (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Female wrestlers are still divas. So it is still contested for by divas. This is the women's championship and it is on SD.--WillC 07:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<SWEET$babe118> WELL FOR ONE MICKIE JAMES LEFT THE COMPANY TO PURSUE HER MUSIC CAREER. ALSO the divas champion as of today is Eve Torres an only exclusive to RAW divas only.

Michelle McCool is the woman's champion NOT Layla.

[edit]

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.180.163 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly correct.

McCool used her championship rematch clause, and Vickie Guerrero made it a handicap match with Layla.

While Layla scored the pinfall, it was on behalf of McCool, not for herself, as she was McCool's partner.

This wasn't a triple threat, where Layla could have been in it for herself. She was in the match as McCool's partner to assist her in winning the title.

Vjmlhds 21:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


If you watch the match that has already aired in Australia, Layla is announced by Tony Chimel as the new Women's Champion, the on screen graphic says it and the announcers talk about her being the first British Women's Champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.173.231 (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 17th edition of RAW, Jerry Lawler said that they're both the WWE Women's Champion after they both came down wearing championship belts. However, the SmackDown superstars page on wwe.com (as well as Michael Cole) says it's Layla's only. So, with WWE giving two different answers which is it officially? Layla? McCool? Or both? 161.184.176.114 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to WT:PW, this needs to be discussed by more.--WillC 04:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As both have a copy of the belt--and per the comments during Raw--they're technically co-holders of the Women's Championship.98.154.85.43 (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On WWE's site, Layla is only counted as champion.--WillC 06:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Every reign in the article is referenced to WWE.com, not to episodes of "Raw" this being so, whatever WWE.com says is what the article should say,and the WWE.com doesn't list Michelle McCool as a co-champion, if this changes at some point in the feature, then the article should reflect the change, until then Layla is the sole Woman's Champion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackballoon222 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<SWEET$BABE118>: Team Laycool is the women's champion lol. But in all reality on the wwe women's champion site Layla El is listed as WWE Women's champion. sorry thats what they have her as not team laycool or michelle mccool but its ok layla been improving all these years now if beth wants a shot latter the wwe would be dirty to make it a 2-on-1 handicap because thats not fair.


Incorrect. The wwe website CLEARLY lists Layla as the last/latest Women's Champion (which is now retired) and Michelle McCool as the Unified Divas Champion.


Reference: http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/divas/

http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/women/

Srsrox (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site clearly lists the Women's Title history under the Unified Divas Championship. McCool never was Women's Champion so she has no reason to be listed. Layla's reign is clearly listed as still in existence since no end date has been omitted.--WillC 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title Is Retired

[edit]

Based on wwe.com, this title is no longer continuing and the Divas Championship, which is now called the Unified Divas Championship, is continuing. The history of the "Unified Divas Championship" shows the Divas Championship history confirming that the Women's title is no longer here.

Someone needs to edit this and move it to the retired titles list for WWE.

Reference: http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/divas/

http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/women/ (<- note this is NOT named the "Unified Divas Championship" nor does it actually recognize Michelle McCool as that champion, although is does show her picture on the top banner.)

Srsrox (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

retiring the women's title was the worst decision they ever made. It the oldest reiging title in wwe history. Retiring it brings a bad name to the women's championship linage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.17.34 (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


We still need someone to move it into the defunct/retired title list. Srsrox (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title is not listed in the retired section of WWE.com. Instead the title is listed under Unified Divas Championship, right next to the Divas Title history. McCool is not listed because she never was Women's Champion, she was co-champion in storyline, so Layla is still champion. Technically McCool is Divas Champion while Layla is Women's Champion. By checking Layla's reign you will see there is no date added to show when it ended, meaning it is still going.--WillC 18:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the Hall of Women's Champions photos and it clearly states Layla is the final champion.

http://www.wwe.com/inside/wwefeaturepage/features/mccoolhistory/womenschampions/

That makes a problem due to the title not being listed in the retired section. That probably means last champion so far.--WillC 21:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There really shouldn't be any confusion all terms referring to Layla as the final champion are past tense meaning she is no longer champion. There are no indications that Layla is still the champion on the any of the roster pages. Third only Michelle has been credited with a title reign and only the Divas title page has been updated. Fourth, I know the following are my own thoughts but are somewhat logical: if this title is still an active belt then Layla would enter with it not a replica Divas title. I know the title hasn't been moved to the retired section but it isn't hard to see that it clearly is retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemicalinxs (talk • contribs) 23:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

[edit]

WWE officially retired the title on September 21 2010. Many Divas including Mickie james and Beth phoenix have shared their regrets regarding this move of the company. Th lat diva to hold the title is Layla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.94.43.219 (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See these two links to show the title is not retired: [1] and [2]. Mickie James hasn't been with the company for months.--WillC 18:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is retired

[edit]

The title is retired, Michelle McCool is only listed as Divas Champion on wwe.com http://www.wwe.com/inside/wwefeaturepage/features/mccoolhistory/womenschampions/ according to the pic of Layla it's retired. It says "Layla was the last-ever Women's Champion." Thats enough proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amare135 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly seeing as the links above (above section) show that the title has not been listed in the Retired section, and is instead listed under Unified Divas Championship with the Divas Title. This situation is just like the tag team titles, and until one of them is moved to the Retired section it can't be called retired. That phrase could be interpreted as "last champion" or "last champion so far".--WillC 04:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, are you seriously going to sit here and go so far into technicalities? Use your common sense. Layla is no longer the Women's Champion, and the Championship has been RETIRED. It doesn't take a blind, deaf, dumb and deformed monkey to see that. You're trying to go too far into the details when everyone, including WWE themselves is saying it is retired. You guys continuing racking up days to Layla's "reign" is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.147.196 (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Women's Championship isn't retired. Technically, McCool is the Women's Champ. However, she only carries the Divas Championship belt with her. If you go to "Title History" on WWE.com, they don't list the Women's Championship under the "Retired Titles" section. -- CollisionCourse (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


McCool is NOT the Women's champ. Look at the link again. They CLEARLY say Layla is the last one and that McCool merged them. Come on guys, it's very clear. Yes, I recognize that Women's title isn't in the retired section, but McCool is NOT the champ clearly. Instead of saying we're wrong, I require you guys to prove that McCool is the Women's championship on the WWE website because we have enough proof and evidence that Layla was the last one. Opinons do not matter here, proof does. Srsrox (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC) @Srsrox .. Mhm, what he said, he brought up a great matter. Since you guys are all about facts, put up proof - real proof. And if you say Michelle is the champion, then why is Layla's reign continuing? Why isn't Michelle's name after Layla? Anyway, the issue is resolved, it's been fixed, now we can all move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.184.26 (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only undefeated Champion?

[edit]

In the article, it says: "Chyna is the only undefeated champion in WWE history as she retired during her first reign". Now, Layla never lost her WWE Women's Championship title, so that should mean that Chyna isn't the only undefeated champion, as Layla is also undefeated, since the title was technically retired to create the Unified Divas Championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.129.183 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Championship belt designs?

[edit]

I noticed that the WWE championship and other wrestling titles have information on the championship belt design, the women's title design has changed alot within its entire run, this should be included on this page, it will be good to add more information to the page. Davazchick (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Belt design

[edit]

Can I put this on the article?FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 22:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Women's Title 2016[reply]

I'm wondering if the Women's Title is in fact a revival of the old title or if it's a whole new title sharing its name with the original title. Lita was talking as if it's a whole new title. 107.9.209.149 (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! Also it appears there'ss a better image on the article so no need for this image. Thanks to the uploader. FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 23:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to WWE.com it is a brand new title. New: http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-womens-championship Old: http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/women Perhaps create an article for the new Women's Championship, and rename this one "WWE Women's Championship (1956-2010)".
I agree that the new title needs a new page. WWE went to great lengths to stress that this new WWE Women's Championship is not a continuation of the previous title. I think the original Women's Championship page should be called "Women's Championship (1956-2010)" (like the previous poster said) and the new title page should be called WWE Women's Championship. (Similar to how the World Heavyweight Championship that was recently retired has its own separate page.) Historicalemperor (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See here. The WWE Women's Championship contested for today is a completely new championship with a new lineage. Make a new page. Aleuuhhmsc (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I can see why there's confusion (especially since Michael Cole is an idiot and sent some rather confusing messages as to the status of the new title relative to both the original Women's title and the Divas title), but WWE.Com exists to clarify things, and, as noted, they've established that this new title DOES NOT carry the lineage of the previous Women's title.DigificWriter (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One, before making the page separate, there should have been more discussion. 2, I hope this helps: [3]. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. On WWE Shop and Euroshop, they have the new titles advertised for purchase as replicas. They are calling the title the "WWE Women's World Championship", perhaps further clarification on the name is coming soon?
The belt says "Women's Championship" with he word "World" nowhere in sight. oknazevad (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it doesn't say it on the actual belt but it does say WWE Women's World Championship on the Shop website here: http://euroshop.wwe.com/en_GB/title-belts-and-side-plates/ but it's just a name really.
In this interview, Stephanie said its just a brand new WWE Woman's Championship belt. This reminds me when the current Tag team championships came out and people on here created a separate page just for that, just to come to realize that it continued with the old wwe tag team titles.

It's just the same as was the situation with the World Heavyweight Title. When WWE ended the Alliance in 2001, the WCW Championship was renamed the World Heavyweight Championship. After Jericho unified it and the WWE Title, it was retired. The next year, Eric Bischoff brought the belt back and named it "The World Heavyweight Championship." Despite it being the same belt and bearing the same name it had after Survivor Series 2001, it represented a whole new championship. The only difference here is this Women's title is a new championship as well as a new belt. John (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merger

[edit]

I propose a merger. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to WWE.com, this version of the Women's Championship is not part of the original Women's Championship lineage http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-womens-championship therefor, this article should not be merged with the original Women's Championship article, and treated as completely separate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.33.230 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. According WWE.com, this is a new title. Isn't related with the old women's title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article for the original title should be named "Women's Championship (WWE)" and the current title "WWE Women's Championship" just like the website, it will also help the confusion. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just like every title in the titles section (except WCW and ECW) Divas Title, Hardcore Title... (WWE) isn't a good solution, the title was known as WWE Women's Title. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the current "Women's Championship (WWE)" and "WWE Women's Championship" as the best option to distinguish the two, just look at the WWE website the original title is displayed as just "Women's Championship" with the current being "WWE Women's Championship". Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the dates were a far better option. The former title was the "WWE Women's Championship", period, and dates are a standard way to disambiguate. Plus we had just fixed all the damn links. Please revert the move you did before you got any agreement on a talk page.
Oh, and I think it goes without saying I oppose the merger, as they are spectate titles, not the same one. oknazevad (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "current" title is known as the "WWE Women's Championship", the former Women's title was "once" known as the WWE Women's Championship but it's now displayed as just the "Women's Championship" on the WWE website making more sense for us to keep it how it is. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title was always known as WWF/E Women's Championship. All WWE titles usually delete the WWE part, just like the Cruiserweight, Divas... even the Intercontinental hasn't the WWE. These are two titles with the same name, it's better the date format. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't see how slapping the dates on the article titles is a better option its just lazy, the original title was once under the NWA name also, If you look in the "other names" section it displays that the title was also once called the "WWE Women's Championship". Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dates are a common way for disambiguation. Films with the same name or people with the same name and same profession (for example John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826) and John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1831). The point, the title never was called Women's Championship and the name didn't change. WWE.com doesn't include the WWE in their titles ("Michelle McCool was the first WWE Diva to claim the Divas Championship" "Since its inception in September 1979, many greats have captured the Intercontinental Championship"). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been called the "Women's Championship" even before the WWE by common name which is why its a suitable title for this article. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What HHH said. Dates are a standard way to disambiguate something. And the title always had WWE (and WWF/WWWF before that) as part of its name. This current title is made up and false. Please cease move warring so we can put the title back to the consensus version instead of moving it to your imposed title without consensus. Especially when the matter is in discussion it's really lousy, non-collaborative behavior to repeatedly move the article against consensus. oknazevad (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HOW is "Women's Championship" made up when its displayed that way on the WWE website it has also been called that due to common name for many years and its a pretty easy way of distinguishing the two titles. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WWE.com doesn't use the WWE prefix, like the Divas and Intercontinental. However, other sources and WWE itself call the title WWE Women's Championship. Example, the unification match, McCool was introduced as the WWE Women's Champion. However, dates are least confusing--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it distinguishes nothing because the old title was the WWE Women's Championship, too. Dates are the easiest, least confusing and most accurate way to disambiguate, and standard to Wikipedia guidelines and conventions. Anything else is poor. oknazevad (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the suggestion of renaming this page to "Women's Championship (WWE)" and the new championship article as "WWE Women's Championship". It would reflect the current championship used in the WWE, how WWE.com names these two titles, and would be a similar naming convention as WWE World Heavyweight Championship and World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). --JDC808 ♫ 21:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That page also leaves the "WWE" off the IC and US and Cruiserweight titles, so it's not a definitive renaming. Especially since, unlike the other titles on that page that leave off the "WWE", the WHC was never refered to with WWE as part of its name, whereas the old WWE Women's Championship, which always had the company name as part of its name. oknazevad (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a definitive renaming, however, it is a definitive differentiation between the two titles. --JDC808 ♫ 04:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I proposed the merger is because of the debacle with the WWE Heavyweight Championship belt. I just think it would be best to wait until there is clear clarification. Why have to delete pages and move pages until the clarification? I guess i was trying to not have all these moves and deleted pages. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WWE.com has called Charlotte the first winner of the title which would be impossible if it carried this titles' linage.--76.65.41.126 (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still like the idea of having this article named Women's Championship (WWE) with the new titles article being WWE Women's Championship, because people will most likely be searching for the current Women's title rather then the original one which will be linked off the new article. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that would work since (WWE) applies to both titles. The years makes more sense.--76.65.41.126 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WWE does apply to both titles, hence the reason WWE would still be in the title of both articles with the suggestion that Speedy Question Mark brought up, which I also like. Currently, the new title's Wikipedia article is titled "WWE Women's Championship (2016-present)". That isn't a good disambiguator in my opinion. Like Speedy said, people are now likely gonna be searching for the new title, so if they type in "WWE Women's Championship", it should take them to the new, current title, not the old. At the very least, if date disambiguation is decided, then "WWE Women's Championship" should redirect to the new title. --JDC808 ♫ 04:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a discussion to move the other article so you should reply there if you have not do so.--76.65.41.126 (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article lock

[edit]

I want to suggest that the article be edit-locked because somebody has been making erroneous edits to it (edits that I've now fixed).DigificWriter (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's needed. Clearly the anon was editing in good faith under the mistaken understanding of the relationships between the three WWE titles for women. The reverts here and at the new title's article are sufficient. If they repeat, then it's better served by a note at the anon's talk page pointing them to the official title history showing it as a separate championship is better and more educational than a lock that could disrupt appropriate edits, such as the inevitable page move that seems to be garnering unanimous support at WT:PW. oknazevad (talk) 03:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.DigificWriter (talk) 03:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:WWE Women's Championship (2016–present) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 06 April 2016

[edit]

WWE Women's Championship → Women's Championship (WWE) – This isn't intentionally to violate the page. Main reason for this page rename is because there is another page with the same name. I want this moved to stop confusion with the wiki readers/users about the lineage of the title belt. Also, it's real name is the Women's Championship, prior to WWE.com.  – ZupaaHD (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ZupaaHD: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it at one discussion!!!! Namely the one linked above. And the proposed title is crap, as it's was always the "WWE Women's Championship", and people are misinterpreting the WWE website, which leaves off the "WWE" from multiple titles, including the IC title. It's not a valid or definitive formatting. oknazevad (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting imediate deletion of this article as both titles have been merged into one article

[edit]

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WWE_Women%27s_Championship

reverted all moves and merges! Don't merge or move while discussion is ongoing. Learn how to use Wikipedia or you will be blocked. oknazevad (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bad merge since they are separate titles. Charlotte could not have been the inguaral winner if it was the existing title reactivated. --76.65.41.126 (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It's is just incorrect and has been reverted. oknazevad (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 16 September 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Withdraw by nominator. Discussion has gone off the rails with no support for this particular move. Other potential names can be hammered out on the talk page, WWE Women's Championship will be a dab page.LM2000 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010) → WWE Women's Championship – There's been some dissatisfaction with the current name on WT:PW and since the other women's championship changed names I believe that leaves this one as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This title had the name for eight years (and the similar WWF name from 83-02), the Raw Championship had it from April to September. WWE Women's Championship current redirects to the Raw Women's Championship, it seems to be agreed that if this move fails that will be turned into a dab page. LM2000 (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The undisambiguated name should be a disambiguation page. oknazevad (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --JDC808 ♫ 03:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Per previous comment in this talk page combined with my recent comment in WT:PW, it's dubious to assert that the WWE or predecessor entities controlled or recognized this title to anymore than a superficial extent prior to 1984. If anything, The Fabulous Moolah controlled the title during that timespan, with the National Wrestling Alliance recognizing it mainly for the purposes of storyline continuity. The WWE's predecessor entities, like many wrestling promotions of that era, were beholden to the whims and wishes of state or local athletic commissions, many of whom banned women wrestlers from appearing in their jurisdictions in the years following the first glory period of women's wrestling in the 1940s/1950s. I've spent too many years having to point out that we have editors willing to push the revisionist POV that WWE's present dominance of the market has always been the case and that this POV is hardly restricted to one particular topic or another. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite busy with other things in my life at present and a read of my watchlist reveals more of the usual appallingly low signal-to-noise ratio, so pardon the lateness in getting back to you. You're just begging for a snarky response, but I am willing to assume good faith. I'm also willing to assume that since you've participated in this discussion, you should already be familiar enough with the topic and my view on it and that you're making me repeat myself for no good reason. This is yet another example of Wikipedians being all too willing to accept the present-day controlled narrative offered by WWE as having always been the case, otherwise known as historical revisionism. I don't know about anyone else, but I do know that I'm not lobbying WWE for a job. The article starts out by claiming that WWE has recognized this championship since 1956, when WWE (or WWF, or WWWF) didn't exist in 1956. Vince McMahon Sr. was an NWA-affiliated local promoter, just like most major promoters in the United States were at the time. It's called factual accuracy. It's also called neutral point of view. There's also original research, which is the impression I get from reading this mess of a title lineage I'm seeing in the article. The WWF didn't recognize much of anything having to do with women's wrestling in general, let alone a championship, until Moolah came in to work the programs leading to her dropping the title to Richter. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioKAOS: I wasn't begging for a snarky response, I legitimately was unsure of what you're wanting (which is basically what I said in my first comment). I've seen two (now three) of your comments on this subject, both of which are long drawn out responses that seem to not really get to the point of what you want (my take anyways). The company didn't have to exist at that time for the current company to recognize it; when you become the owner of something, you recognize the history that comes with it, which is what the WWE did (since they own the championship and have since whenever it became their property). They acknowledge the fact that it existed before their company, and instead of creating a new championship/lineage for Moolah, they just kept the lineage from when she first became champion in 1956 (if that date is wrong, then that's on them). Now, if you want "factual accuracy", which you apparently know a lot of for this subject, then edit the article and make it factually accurate (however more so it can be). --JDC808 ♫ 17:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but make the target page a dab page. I'm not sure either page is primary topic here. The Raw one is certainly a contender.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sigh. Y'all realize how much work it was to implement this RM just five months ago? And now you want to move it back?? Most of the current links to WWE Women's Championship should be intended for the "Raw" championship. They could have saved us a lot of trouble if they'd just used that name from the get-go. With their changing the name of their championships on a whim every so often – when's the next name change coming? – we should just duck for cover and force any re-used common name like WWE Women's Championship to be a disambiguation page. wbm1058 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving to any title which doesn't amount to original research – I don't know if everyone is using my prior comments to play dumb so they can turn this into a dramafest or if they really just don't get it. The present title reflects OR, plain and simple. An editor back in 2007 cherry-picked a primary source, which currently resolves to a dead link, claiming a lineage of this title prior to late 1984. That history is all bogus and is far more accurately covered in another article, NWA World Women's Championship. Inheriting WWE's revisionist baggage simply because their website generally passes muster as an RS doesn't cut it; it makes us out to be shills for them and their curious reinterpretation of professional wrestling history. Shame on you for not getting that and for making me repeat myself like this. This is another example of killing off any hope for the encyclopedia's long-term survival; in a billion-website world, anyone wanting such POV is perfectly capable of going to WWE's website and getting it straight from the horse's mouth without having to come to this or any other website which mindlessly repeats it. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is OR, why don't you correct it? Instead of rambling on with these issues that you have about how WWE handles history, edit the articles. Make them as factual as they can be based on RS. Aside from voicing your opinions on these RMs, I haven't seen you take any action to correct the issues that you have. As to "shame on you", it's not my fault that your posts failed to get to the point. Your previous post above finally got to the point, although there was still a lot of rambling that cluttered it up (that was the issue with your other two posts on this subject; too much rambling that cluttered up your main point). --JDC808 ♫ 23:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on WWE Women's Championship (1956–2010). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 00:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

[edit]

Just change it to WWE Women’s Championship, since the one from 2016 is now the Raw Women’s Championship? PedigreeWWEFigz87V2 (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title removed?

[edit]

Why was the picture of the title removed? Aardwolf68 (talk) 09:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WWE_Women%27s_Championship_(1956–2010)&oldid=1201897960"