Talk:World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002–2013)

message: On-air in the WWE, Big Show's brief reign as World Champion has been referred to as just 45 seconds in length but this is actually very inaccurate. Timing his reign from bell to bell, starting with the first bell after pinning Mark Henry and the second bell, after he got pinned by Daniel Bryan, the time totaling to 1:54 (One minute and Fifty Four Seconds).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.76 (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is the case, then the article should be consistent. The "Reigns" section says 45 seconds, but the sidebar says 2 minutes. I recommend that the "Reigns" section be edited to say 2 minutes, but WWE often refers to it as 45 seconds...or something like that. 129.62.65.238 (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Big Show's reign 

message: On the July 22nd edition of Smackdown, reigning World Heavyweight Champion Christian's belt strap seemed red from the back.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.76 (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Slight change in belt design for Christian's 2nd title reign?

message: If you view footage from Chris Jericho's most recent title reign onwards you will see that the World Title has undergone a slight cosmetic change. The wrestlers that use to be included as ornamental design pieces have been removed and are no longer visible on the center plate or side plates. The images on WWE.com also confirm this though not many images of the belt close-up exist. As such I feel the article needs to updated to reflect this change and a new photograph included on the main page.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.155.144 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of wrestlers from Belt Design

message: Is it not also the former WCW title though? If it carries the lineage due to a company merger, it should technically be considered the same title. Yes, it was merged into the Undisputed title, but the WWE Championship hasn't been called that since Bischoff brought BACK the Big Gold Belt. Being that Bischoff was the head of WCW and brought it back to award to Triple H - and was treated as having the lineage of the old WCW title by WWE - should it not be considered the same title? It seems to me that Bischoff merely split it off again after the merger, at least that's what I understood back when it happened. Are there sources saying otherwise? This article doesn't really cite why that isn't the case. 50.98.154.116 (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the CM Punk: Best in the World DVD, when they talk about Punk's first WHC reign, the documentary mentions "It's Ric Flair's title, it's Dusty Rhodes' title." Shouldn't that be considered a source that it shares lineage? 50.98.18.29 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take a look at the archives. This has been brought up time and time again and has been clarified just as many times as well. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: THey may be "equal in prestige" but JR still constanly says "an 12-time WWE Champion." Triple H calls himself that too. Can't they just say "12 time world champion?" They say "5 time world champion" when talking about Edge. I agree with Odin's Beard, it sometimes seems like they attempt to retcon the shit of things for no reason. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They add the world title reigns together and mean that say HHH is a 12 time world champion, but when a championship is involved they often slip up and say 12 time WWE champion 92.238.202.23 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WCW title

message: I was just at the show in Atlantic City tonight, and Vickie stripped Taker of the belt.  Do we update this now or when it airs? Linknumbers (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, until it airs in Australia. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it actually happened? So much for that much-deserved long-term reign everyone thought he would get. But ThinkBlue is right, we have to wait until it airs. -- Scorpion0422 04:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we wait until it airs in America tomorrow night, not Australia.Killswitch Engage (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, consensus was made that it was Australia. SexySeaShark 16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct, Australia is where it airs first, so thats when we're allowed to post it up, I understand.--76.104.252.229 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

text: But fact must be backed up by a reliable source to be established as fact! By your logic, I could come up with a convincing untrue statement and edit it in without a source. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those sources are NOT reliable per, WP:RS. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, why Australia? WWE is an American company. And posting it before airs in America would violate the spoiler policy, because the results wouldn't be up on WWE.com.Killswitch Engage (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no spoiler policy. That was abolished months ago! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy shit, I'm way out of the loop. But wouldn't that mean I could use a spoiler report off of lordsofpain.net? Killswitch Engage (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: No, since lordsofpain isn't a reliable source. A match can be added with a reliable source even i it is a spoiler. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it not reliable? Unless the person reporting is lying, I don't get it.Killswitch Engage (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dirtsheets are not reliable sources. WON and WWE.com are reliable. Pretty much anything else isn't. In other words, you can't remove something because it's a spoiler, but you can remove it because there's no RS. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

text: No, dirtsheets, are not reliable sources, per WP:PW and WP:RS. If you wish to present reasoning that dirtsheets ARE reliable sources, feel free to start a discussion here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still remember back in 1999 when several of these dirtsheets claimed that Jake The Snake Roberts returned to WWE and joined Undertaker's ministry by attacking Austin and Big Show on a taped episode of RAW.  Turned out to be total bullocks.  That is one example why dirtsheets are not to be taken as reliable sources, they tend to spread lies sometimes. 71.121.72.15 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stripped 

message: - The article was not renamed--S</font>RX</font> 15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it ever was, if we are talking about the big gold belt, it was brought in post-May 2002. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that that's not it's name. It's name is simply "World Heavyweight Championship. It was never called the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that is the "literal" name for it. Look at the article, if that articles were to ever go to a GA review or FA review (hypothetically) they would notice, why isn't World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) written anywhere else in the article? This is also sort of like a quantifier for the championship because so many championships out there use it's name. --S</font>RX</font>--LatinoHeat 21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's for disamg purposes. Notice in Get Smart (film) that the "(film)" part isn't repeated. Since when did the article title have to be exactly copied in the article. Mshake3 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It IS a quantifier and I realize I sound like a hypocrite for opposing a move for this and opposing moves to other quantifiers but I feel like the quantifier is the better option in this case. I would support a move to something without a quantifier if it's not "WWE World Heavyweight Championship." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably doesn't mean much but that's the way it is referred to as there. here as well The Sun is also using that name. Also, another reason, who owns the copyrights to all titles in WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Why do all of them have the WWE logo on them? Because they are owned by WWE, which is why every title begins with the WWE acronym, WWE doesn't say the "WWE World Tag Team Champions or the WWE World Heavyweight Champion because of storyline purposes to distinguish the titles of each brand.S</font>RX</font>--LatinoHeat 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, the NWA refers to it as the "WWE World Championship", per CM Punk winning,  (This is from 7/10/08)--S</font>RX</font>--LatinoHeat 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's gives a shit about the NWA and they call another company's championship? Mshake3 (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Oops, thats what I get for not reading it. But you see how the WWE Championship is incorrectly called that, thats not it's name, the WHC is the WWE WHC.S</font>RX</font> 21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)]]

message: How will we do this? List who comes out on top at the end and then mention how many times the title changed hands in the match? Because I think that matters since every time someone is pinned they are recognized as World Champion for that brief period and while they may or not be champion at the end there were title changes in that period. SuperSonicTH (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just how many times the title changed hands because the people who pin during the time limit are unofficial champions and only the 
guy who comes out last is the real official champion. The note section will be enough. I doubt the belt will change more than 3 times.--WillC 03:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approach for Championship Scramble... 

message: Do you really have to say the design was "replaced"? The belts are near identical, except for the wwe logo..
:But the plates themselves were changed, not altered, so in actuality it was replaced, and im sure someone like Ric Flair has the original design. 92.238.202.23 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belt design replaced? 

message: Shouldn't The Rock be known for the first World Heavyweight Champion? Does anyone not remember when the Alliance lost at Survivor Series '01 The Rock still held before then the WCW Championship, but after SS it was referred as the World Heavyweight Champion until it was merged with the WWF Championship at Vengeance '01.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killa Koz (talk • contribs) 04:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the same belt as the WCW Championship. WWE even says they are two different belts.--WillC 04:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's not the same, I'm stating that it was referred as the World Championship when The Rock had it, thus making him the first. Killa Koz (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: No it doesn't. If the belts aren't the same, no matter what it was called he is not the first since the belt was not created till late 2002. Plus all championships over history are called World Championship.--WillC 19:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Rock 

message: There's no more "Current Champion" section? SuperSonicTH (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's under the "Reigns" section, because the current champion is the wrestler with the current reign as World Heavyweight Champion. The page design was changed for Good article nomination purposes (WP:GAN).--Truco 03:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was the page design changed? 

message: At the following link, they refer to the title as the WWE World Heavyweight Title.
http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2004/2004_10_05.jsp
On the same page, they refer to the Intercontinental Title as the WWE Intercontinental Title. On the title history page of the WWE website, they refer to both titles without the WWE prefix.
http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldheavyweight/
So with that said, on Wikipedia, I believe that both pages should be name in the same manner. Either both should say, "WWE Title Name", or both should say, "Title Name (WWE)". TheGary (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was done that way to avoid confusion with the WWE Championship which has been called the WWF World Heavyweight Championship in the past. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change Suggestion... Again 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned that the title was called the World Championship, omitting the word "heavyweight" during Rey Mysterio's reign?  Tommyferrellhc08 (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As is the case with Bradshaw's Texas Hardcore Championship and Lance Storm's Canadian Heavyweight Championship, these reign exclusive names simply aren't notable. --UnquestionableTruth-- 05:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous name:  World Championship 

message: I timed his reign, starting when the bell was rang after the ladder match, and ending with the bell ringing in the MitB match. His reign was 3 minutes and 8 seconds. The statistics section says that his reign is 2 minutes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.251.100 (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeff Hardy's Reign 

message: Im sorry but under the descrpition of the belts history it say that the World Heavyweight Championship is the successor to the NWA and WCW Championships. I don't think this should be in it due to the fact that it holds a different lineage and therefore it can be confusing to say its the "successor". Thoughts? Approval of removing that statement?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected.--UnquestionableTruth-- 03:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor? 

message: Who wrote that Morrison was champ, i am reverting it back to Jeff.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShanRaj 10 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism that was missed. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Morrison? 

message: Although the photo description of the current World Heavyweight Championship design in the article stated that design is introduced in March 2003 but when I was watching Survivor Series 2002 (which took place Live on November 17 2002) on VCD I saw Triple H (with Ric Flair) was interviewed backstage by Marc Lyold, Triple H was wearing the "2003" and current design of the World Heavyweight Championship.
Any wikipedian who owned a copy of the Survivor Series 2002 DVD can see the belt's centerplate flashing the WWE's logo on the upper curve of its centerplate while looking closely at that title belt while watching that interview and change the belt's current design intro date. Kyrios320 (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats odd... If you watch the Survivor Series you can cleary see the belt Shawn is celebrating with has no logo. The belt also used at Armageddon, Royal Rumble, and No Way Out also didn't have a logo. The first time you the WWE logo on the belt at a pay-per-view event is at WrestleMania XIX. --UnquestionableTruth-- 03:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Something wrong with the introduction date of the World Heavyweight Championship with WWE's logo on it

message: undertaker is not the oldest champ cause king booker is older than him. also undertaker was 42 when he first won the wch title not 44.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.115.157 (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  oldest champ 

message: An image used in this article, , 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) 19:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:WHC Christian cropped.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: WWF was ALHEBSI is the greatest in WWE 
this statement seems to have been added and does not make sence ......either it needs to be removed or explained ...cos i dont know if its an acronym or a username  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.98.80.104 (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  added trolling? 

message: Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Stfg (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection request 

message: With the unification match at TLC, should it be noted that Cena is technically the final World Heavyweight Champion? Jedi Striker (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not until it actually happens. — Richard BB 20:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The World Heavyweight Championship is not abolished.  According to WWE, Orton is now dubbed as the first ever "WWE World Heavyweight Champion".  Also WWE lists Orton's reign as WHC as December 15, 2013 - present.  Just as a comparison to show the difference, WWE lists Ezekiel Jackson's ECW Championship reign as February 16, 2010 - February 16, 2010.  The fact that Orton's reign is listed as "present" shows that WWE considers Orton's reign (and thus the title) as active.  This appears on the surface as something similar to when the World Tag Team and WWE Tag Team titles were unified, in that the champion is lugging around both belts under an umbrella term ("Unified Tag Team Championship", "WWE World Heavyweight Championship"), and that the titles will be defended together. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes you got it right VJ. I believe I fixed all the related pages that were changed after the PPV to state the title had been abolished. That is all WP:OR and speculation at this point. STATic message me! 06:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Although we won't know for certain until Orton loses the title and either championship history is updated after a new champion is crowned the title history page at wwe.com seems to indicate at the very least that the WWE Championship has in fact been renamed. --UnquestionableTruth-- 12:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

text: That looks fairly conclusive. It seems that Orton has been declared the final champion and the belt was subsequently retired. — Richard BB 12:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We're getting mixed signals here (all from WWE)...on one hand the WHC is in the retired column, but on the other, Orton's WHC  reign is considered active.  The safe thing to do is consider Orton's WHC reign as active.  Once someone beats Orton for the title, we'll see if it counts as both a WWE and WH title reign (a la the Unified Tag Team Titles).  If it does, great..if not, then that would mean Orton was the final WHC and we can adjust accordingly.  Vjmlhds (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the implication that I got was that Orton is considered the final champion. Either way, perhaps the best course of action is to do nothing and hope Raw tonight clears up a few questions. — Richard BB 15:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like for the time Orton holds both belts he will be called the "WWE World Heavyweight champion", but there is not saying that when the storyline unfolds that one of them will be no more. We can wait till at least RAW tonight to make any darastic changes. Also someone take a look over at Template: WWE Championships and Template: Former WWE Championships, the same user edit warring on this page is edit warring there too. STATic message me! 18:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Another bit of info to throw in the hopper - WWE is referring to Orton as the "new World Heavyweight Champion".  Just by what's out there, WWE is making really hard to definitively say that the WHC is kaput. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Raw notes - Orton is lugging around both the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships, Orton's nameplate is on the WHC, and Orton's chyron features both belts.  So again for what it's worth, any thought that the WHC is kaput should be put on the back burner as long as Orton continues to have both belts in his hands. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree, this title should be retired. Also, http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wcwchampionship/3044541104 jericho stills the wcw championship, like orton--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing the Jericho/WCW thing, I've changed my mind.  The WHC is retired, but the big gold belt is used as part of the WWE World Heavyweight Championship.  1 title, 2 belts. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final champion? 

message: I propose a slight modification of the article title name. From the current World Heavyweight Champion (WWE) to World Heavyweight Championship (WWE version). I've proposed similar for similar articles that featured disputed title names. They're disputed whether two or more promotions has similar names for a title or one promotion recognition it with a name that another promotion. For example, see the Inoki Genome Federation (IGF) article about the International Grand Prix Wrestling (IGPW) Heavyweight Championship. The IGPW Heavyweight belongs to  New Japan Pro Wrestling (NJPW).  IGF previously had a version of that belt which it (and TNA) also recognized as  the IGPW Heavyweight Championship. I proposed that the IGF version has the notation IGF version by it. This is similar to how the multiple version of the NWA World Tag Team Championship has their version by it. I like to propose the same for this article. The World Heavyweight Championship, though different titles, many promotions recognize their World Heavyweight Championship as such. Even the original World Heavyweight Championship. So to distinct, this is WWE version, we make it clear that this is the WWE version. By having it around (), we know that it's not part of the official title as the company call it, just to distinct the different version. Not that it matter much anymore since this title is merge as the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, but I think for historical purpose. What do you guys think? --Seasrmar (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: IGF is a completely different situation. IGF actually acknowledged a different version of the IWGP's World title. It's similar to how in the old days, the different cities had different versions of the same title. That's why you'll see articles like AWA World Heavyweight Championship (Boston version). However, the WWE's world title isn't the "version" of anything. There aren't other versions of this title running about in other promotions. This is a title purely of WWE's creation. It just has the most generic name possible, requiring the "(WWE)" modifier at the end. Adding the word version to the article title would cause confusion to what the championship actually is. Feedback ☎ 14:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember IGF officially recognizing that they have a different version of the IWGP title. They seemed to book things as if the holder of that belt as the IWGP Heavyweight Champion. About "version," it's not so much about different version of the same belt, but to distinguished the name. Some companies, particularly some wrestlers, often call the holder, (wrestlers-themselves) of that belt as their World Heavyweight Champion, sometimes without the use of the name of the company before it. For example, some wrestler may say "I'm the World Heavyweight Champion." Ok, you're World Heavyweight Champion, but precisely you're (the company you work for) version of what is the World Heavyweight Champion. There isn't really the World Heavyweight Champion since the split of the original World Heavyweight Championship, with many different companies recognizing their to be World Heavyweight Champions. It's their version of it. But some guidelines. First, this only applicable to companies who insist using "World Heavyweight Championship" in the title of their name. Second, if not the word version in the article name, at least mention how the belt traced back to the original World Heavyweight Championship. Third, I think to be fair, not all suppose World Heavyweight Championship should be consider as a version of the World Heavyweight Championship. Only those that can be traced back to their linage back the original World Heavyweight Championship. The World Heavyweight Championship (WWE version) does so therefore should recognize as such. An example of not, the Ring of Honor World Heavyweight Championship, while a World Heavyweight Championship, it doesn't trace its linage to the original World Heavyweight Championship.  Seasrmar (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Heavyweight Championship (WWE version) 

message: Is Brock Lesnar technically the last person to have held the gold championship belt? They did give him a new title belt like they did with Triple H. That should be mention in the article. Gochyooo (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between the belt (the design having represented multiple titles) and the championship, which was retired after it was unified with the WWE Championship. What happened to the belt after that unification is already covered in the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. oknazevad (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On WWE Superstars Season 6 Episode 333, the WWE recognized Brock Lesnar as the final World Heavyweight champion. Gochyooo (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A single spoken reference by the announces doesn't count; they're often sloppy, and make many mistakes. That's why we use the title histories from the webpage, which ends the title's existence when it was unified by Orton, 8 months before Lesnar captured the title. oknazevad (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brock Lesnar 

message: I replaced the prose text with a concise and easy to read table without removing any information. The edit was reverted without comment. Is there any reason a table shouldn't be used to quickly convey the title's switching between brands? Ozdarka (talk) 07:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree tht the table was superior and have restored it. oknazevad (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table for brand designation history 

message: The article currently states Big Show has the shortest reign at 45 seconds. But if the title was retired as soon as it was unified with the WWE title, then that would make Orton's last reign even shorter, over as soon as it started. Does anyone have a source on how long this reign was supposed to have lasted? Ozdarka (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No source has been provided to indicate that the World Heavyweight title continued to exist after its unification with the WWE title, so I've made the edit to reflect that Orton's last reign ended as soon as it started. Ozdarka (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long was Randy Orton's final reign after winning the unification match? 

message: The WHC was retired years ago. There is no overlap between the belts. Also, no rational person would be able to confuse "WWE Universal" with "World Heavyweight" since the names are completely different. The WCW, ECW and USWA world titles were also contested in WWE - should we list those under "not to be confused" as well?
Removed, obviously. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try, vandal. Stop trying to WP:OWN everything and move on. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:WWE Universal Championship. Let's have one discussion, in one place, please. And try to get a broad consensus, instead of edit warring back and forth. oknazevad (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Not to be confused with WWE Universal Championship? Why on earth would anyone confuse these belts?

message: I remember it being so good that it's my favorite cash in 102.187.74.174 (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Dolph Ziggler cashing in that good as i remember 

message: Just wanted to point out that this article done by the USA Network often at times sounds like this and the new WHC are one in the same. Also I am not good at this Wikipedia stuff I just saw the article. --2001:579:8440:AD0:15E6:B694:1A7E:7A11 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @2001:579:8440:AD0:15E6:B694:1A7E:7A11 while USA does air WWE programs, that's not really a confirmation from WWE. We need a confirmation from WWE. JDC808 ♫ 06:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWE On Usa Article 

message: WWE.com has retroactively titled this championship the “World heavyweight title” 8-ballmrmunchjackskellington69 (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Source?  "Championship" and "Title" are typically used interchangeably, so I don't think we should look too far into this.LM2000 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  World heavyweight title