Talk:List of ECW World Heavyweight Champions

message: WWE's page on the history of the ECW title lists Shane Douglas as the first champion. (source). What happened is Douglas won the NWA title and then threw it down and proclaimed himself the ECW (E stood for Eastern at the time). So my question is, if this is the page about former ECW champions, why are several people included before Shane (Appearently NWA champions?) in the list? Romis 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this title also follows the history of the original Eastern Championship Wrestling Heavyweight Championship. The title then became the Eastern Championship Wrestling World Heavyweight Championship when Shane Douglas won the tournament but relinquished the NWA belt. It later became the Extreme Championship Wrestling World Heavyweight Championship after ECW left the NWA and changed its name. This article follows the belt's entire history from the days of the old Eastern Championship Wrestling, whether WWE.com chooses to recognize those champions or not. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok. I was under the impression that Shane Douglas was the first Eastern Championship Wrestling World Heavyweight Champion after proclaiming himself such, throwing down the NWA belt. Romis 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ECW Title vs. NWA Title

message: -- The title RVD was awarded on June 13 2006 is not the same as the WWE Championship.  He was awarded the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, the same one with the same lineage as this article.  It's clear as day now, please stop removing his name. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.251.31 (talk • contribs) .
:Some people just don't understand that, if you don't know something 100%, then you don't edit it in.  SilentRage 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RVD's First Reign

message: This page marks reigns as unrecognized by the WWE even though the WWE website clearly has all the names of the winners after Shane Douglas.  This page makes it seem as if they pick and choose who they recognize.  Look at wwe.com to see.
--68.193.135.2 05:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reigns need to be there untouched without the crosses, because WWE doesn't put the reigns in their title histories because those reigns are representative of when the title wasn't claimed to be a world title.  TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree on the WWE ECW getting it's own separate page for title reigns, as this is the ECW title, legitimately through WWE's ownership of the titles and the name brand, this isn't like Dale Gagner "restarting" the AWA and saying the heavyweight title of his promotion is the same as the real AWA's.  But if we don't give into the WWE's revisionism of the WWF Light Heavyweight Title, why do we have to give into it through the ECW title? TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let me use the WWF Light Heavyweight Title page for reference here.  You see those little crosses next to each title reign that WWE doesn't put on their web site?  Yeah, they're really f'ing annoying, and totally unncessary.  Why don't we just put a split in the title history that says, all reigns after x point are recognized by the WWE.  Just as the WWF Light Heavyweight Title page has?  Because we know the truth behind the WWE's revisionism, we know there were title reigns before Shane Douglas threw down the NWA title, why the hell do we have to make it look like the ECW title had all these "unofficial" title reigns and title changes.  It's confusing to the community and anyone who looks up the title's history.  TonyFreakinAlmeida 01:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It's still stupid that we give into the revisionism, even for Terry Funk's page we take the WWE's words as the official word.  There's a difference between revisionism and what actually happened.  The WWE doesn't recognize the Light Heavyweight Title reigns before Taka won it in their promotion, but yet we note that with just a simple split in the title history, here, we totally give into it and mark all these different reigns as somewhat unofficial just because the WWE doesn't reocgnize them anymore.  Yes, they actually used to recognize them, this is stupid. TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it's a title that also suffered through much revisionism by the WWE.  The fact is, we know there was a history before the WWE says there was and we don't give into the revisionism as much there as it is here. TonyFreakinAlmeida 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognized Reigns 

message: Perhaps the original ECW and the ECW Brand title reigns should be separated a bit more within the article.Killhammer (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  We went through this all before.  It's best that we just keep it this way.  Everything is noted.  There was actually a time when someone edited the page to say all the Pre-Extreme title reigns were unofficial just because the WWE said they were.  Page is fine the way it is. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre and post WWE 

message: Why is he highlighted and emboldened in the List of top combined reigns section? لennavecia 15:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he's the current champion. The current champ is always highlighted and bolded. TJ Spyke 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Late response here, sorry. Thanks for the answer. That makes sense. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a footnote, similar to what we place in discographies to explain what the emdashes represent in the tables. What is obvious to some may not be obvious to others. لennavecia 04:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Swagger 

message: Like the List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions and the List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) someone thinks it's funny to vandalise this page. Can't revert it for some reason. Can someone help? Thanks.Pigs Might Fly Music (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is this vandalism? -- Scorpion0422 00:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: He's probablt referring to the YouTube stuff. Pigs Might Fly, this was not specific to these articles. Somebody vandalized the template itself, so all articles that use the template were affected. Its been fixed. TJ Spyke 00:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: should it not say its been vacant for so many days instead of 0 days? 89.168.135.48 (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, the column is for how many days a person held the title. How many days it was vacant doesn't really matter much. TJ Spyke 16:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  vacant 

message: SHould Terry Funk get a third Title Reign listing prior to the ORiginal Deativation of the Title due to Paul Heymen declaring Him ECW Champion For life?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its not an official title reign.--Truco 503 16:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Truco, who says it is not an official reign? It is should be noting at the very least.--WillC 05:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says its not an official title reign? Extreme Championship Wrestling says so, oh wait, that's right, World Wrestling Entertainment owns that now, and they say he has only two official reigns. Its not worth mentioning because its just trivial information, if by all means you can find a source for it then place it in the main article, not this list.--Truco 503 19:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The last time I checked, we were held entirely by facts, not by WWE's opinion. The fact is, that Funk was credited as a lifetime champion, so defacto he should be listed as a lifetime champion. Not apart of the history, but listed as such.--WillC 19:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's BS, a "lifetime champion"? If by all means, like I stated again, you can find the source that states it, add it to the main article and a line in the intro to this one, but not into the table itself.--Truco 503 19:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

text: That is reasonable and pretty much what I was meaning. I'll do it when I update the entire article.--WillC 20:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's even worth mentioning at all as it's not an actual reign but just an honorary thing (like when a company names someone honorary chairman). It's not an actual reign. It should only be mentioned in Funk's article, MAYBE a brief 1 line mention in the ECW Championship article, but not this one as an honorary title doesn't belong in a list of champions. 04:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terry Funk 

message: error on entry 41 says sept 4 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.141.118 (talk • contribs) 
:Fixed, thanks. A editor added that when he decided to change the page to his template. TJ Spyke 15:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this too our attention. It was my mistake as I copy and pasted to keep the format continuous, I must've forgot to delete that note.--WillC 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: error on entry 41 says sept 4 2007 

message: Seeing that the WWE is changing their Tuesday show on Syfy from ECW to WWE NXT, will the ECW Championship remain the ECW Championship or be retiled NXT Championship?  If the title renaming is taking place, should this be added to the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibsonj338 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait and see, we don't know what they are doing. Could be a renaming or could be an entirely new thing. Possibly there could be no championship involved.--WillC 20:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: ECW Championship retitled NXT Championship

message: January 12, 2009? That was a Monday, ECW was taped before SmackDown, not Raw. Or was that some special occasion I don't remember?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Swagger date 

message: This list contains numerous unreferenced names, and the Combined reigns section is completely unsourced. If someone competent could fix these issues that would be appreciated; a featured list review would be necessary otherwise.
, , you are both very competent about the subject, so perhaps your help would be very valuable. Wretchskull (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured review may be needed 

message: Do we really need to put that on 10 separate lines on the table? Can't somebody make a foot note for this? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "WWE does not recognize this reign in the ECW title lineage. "