Talk:World Tag Team Championship (WWE, 1971–2010)

message: Even though any 2 out of 5 could defend the belts, Kenny and Mikey were the ones who actually won the belts and were listed on WWE.com as the official champions.
So if one were to try to figure in Nicky, Johnny, or Mitch, it wouldn't count.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlh (talk • contribs) 
:The official website lists the entire group as champions: . All 5 were recognized as champions, so all 5 would have to be combined for stats. Also, remember to sign your comments. TJ Spyke 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Squad are the youngest. 

message: hardys are the new champs add it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.114.108 (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hardies 

message: When you win a Championship from whatever brand, you become part of that brand's roster.
Mr. Helms set the precedent when he (as a Raw wrestler) won Smackdown's Cruiserweight Title, and subsequently moved there. Same idea with Matt Hardy--Smackdown wrestler who wins Raw Title becomes Raw wrestler.
There is no "inter-promotional" anything. Matt is a Raw Wrestler who holds Raw's tag team belts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohgltxg (talk • contribs) 
: Nope. WWE.com still lists Matt Hardy as part of the SmackDown roster. Besides, weren't Paul London and Brian Kendrick, the WWE Tag Team Champions, in that battle royal as well?--sonicKAI 22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh no. The fact that PPVs are no longer "brand"-specific has nothing to do with what show a title is defended on. Go take a good long read at http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldtagteam/ WWE's World Tag Team title history page.-- bulletproof 3:16 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gregory Helms Rule 

message: :Image:Cade and Murdoch Tag Champs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Cade and Murdoch Tag Champs.jpg

message: So get over yourself and your "job."
:WWE.com hasn't confirmed it yet, so it stays out until they do so. I'm sorry, but it's the rules. And, by the way, it looks like Kendrick was cropped out of a different picture in that image. -- Scorpion0422 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For your information, London and Kendrick are my favourite current tag team and I would be quite happy if this was true. But, Wikipedia's rules are that there are no spoilers, so this stays out until WWE or confirms it. -- Scorpion0422 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes but it's also possible they could have taped the match for TV if they wanted, but you're probably right, it's just a title change to get the live crowd jumping.  They will recognize it, and it's only proper IMO for a world championship to change hands overseas from the company's home country every once and a while. TonyFreakinAlmeida 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is 2007. WWE doesn't tape matches for TV at house shows. Mshake3 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you work for them? I don't care, it was just an assumption, I didn't say it was, but they're probably at least going to acknowledge the title change on TV. TonyFreakinAlmeida 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to point that out. WWE hasn`t announced the title change. According to me, it is a spoiler. We had to wait something like 4 days to say that Matt Hardy and MVP won the WWE Tag Team Championships. I don't care that a pro wrestling site said that we have new champs. I thought the rule was that it needed to be shown on their official website or on their programming. I did not see any of that. According to the no spoilers policy, Cade & Murdoch are still the champs. Soopafred 15:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now you see what a stupid rule it is as it doesn't even consider live event title changes. And it's not a spoiler. You can't be spoiled by a match that won't air on TV. Mshake3 15:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm starting to wonder if WWE will even acknowledge the change at all, it could go down as an unofficial reign... TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New champs: London and Kendrick, proof 

message: Ther are two photo's that needed to decided on which to use one is fair use the other is free use.
Fair use:
200px|center|thumb|
Free use:
Keep in mind the the free use cuts off the belt.--Monnitewars (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo dispute. 

message: If you want to say "Cade & Murdoch beat London & Kendrick for the titles," then we need to also say "They are the original World Tag Team titles of WWE" in the lead. Winners of the AJPW Triple Crown Championship aren't said to have won "the titles," even though the holder of that championship gets three belts. 69.7.37.69 09:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the entire article is on the "World Tag Team Championship (WWE)", who's going to be confused by the phrase "for the title" and not know which championship is being talking about? Nenog 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're missing my point. This is the edit I'm talking about 69.7.37.69 17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Titles" 

message: Who supports a move to WWE World Team Team Championship? -- iMatthew T.C. 12:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: -The result of the discussion was not move.--S</font>RX</font> 00:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World Tag Team Championship (WWE)]] 

message: Miz and Morrison beat Punk and Kingston for the title at a house show just recently (411mania.com). Probably non-canon seeing as how it was a house show, but since it is just before Armageddon, I don't know. Just giving you guys a heads-up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.180.124 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article. WWE has acknowledged it. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Change 

message: on wwe.com the world tag team chapions are on the ecw page not the raw page. does this make it ecw exclusine not raw exclusive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.111.12 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know yet, wait until WWE states it.-- 17:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Show me that policy. There is none. In addition, show me the direct statement by WWE that the belts are now on ECW. You are making your own judgment by stating that the belts are now on ECW, you don't know how WWE.com management works, they may have just listed the belts on ECW because Morrison and Miz are there.-- 19:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Miz and Morrison also compete on SmackDown. Does this mean that the titles can be defended there too? They haven't even been defended on ECW and the article says that they are. Sorry but this is just stupid. The title is clearly on all 3 brands since SmackDown and Raw share ECW talent. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep. Just pretty much solidifies my argument before. The belts are tri branded. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  brand exclusive 

message: Click here for discussion at the pro wrestling wikiproject--Truco 01:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official confirmation that the World Tag Team Championship is on ECW? 

message: Should a entirely new page be made for the Unified Tag team Championship? Or should it be like the WWE Undisputed championship and just stay with the current status?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified Tag Team Championship 

message: Shouldn't this be two reigns seeing as WWE is counting it as such? BBoy (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well no duh. There is no way to list it as Jericho with one reign with two different partners, so they have to list two reigns. However, Jericho himself was never stripped of the title or vacated the title during this time. If he never himself lost the title, that does not constitute a new reign for him. Its still the same reign with just a different partner. Its incorrect also how we handled the Rhodes situation with Holly and DiBiase last year as well, Rhodes' reign never ended either.--Truco 503 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may be true that Jericho and Rhodes never lost the title, the reign of Jericho & Edge and Rhodes & Holly did come to an end (and reigns are counted by which two people are holding the titles).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyNameIsChaos (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edge/Jericho and Jericho/Show 

message: on the basis that he never lost his share of the tag titles, should we then take away one reign from Stone Cold Steve Austin? Austin and Shawn Michaels won the tag titles in July of 1997, and then Michaels suffered an injury in September of that year. According to WWE.com's section on the history of the World Tag Team Championship, Shawn Michaels was forced to vacate his half of the titles. Then an 8-team tournament was set up to determine the No. 1 contender's to face Austin and a new partner of his choosing (which turned out to be Dude Love).67.181.55.148 (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, since this second reign was set off by an actual in-ring victory by the new team. Therefore, the new team actually won the titles - in contrast to the Jericho situation, where the new partner simply stepped in for the former. Str1977 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  If Jericho is considered to be in one continuous reign... 

message: The titles are not retired just renamed, look at WWE website, I don't think they would ever consider retiring one of the oldest belts in WWE and didn't this happen when the smackdown tag titles were created? They renamed it from WWE tag team championships to World tag team championships, now they just giving back the name.--Justakija (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT

message: They are indeed retired, but the World Tag Team titles lineage now lives on through the 2002 WWE Tag Team titles. The 2002 WWE Tag team titles are the sucessors to these now retired prestigous World Tag Team Titles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something that should be noted about these retired titles

message: I want to know if the hart dynasty unifed the world tag team championships into the WWE tag team championships or was up to WWE. I heard Triple H unified his WCW championship into the WWE championship because he could not perform his stage act. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hart Dynasty 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:WWF World Tag Team Championship (1980s-2002).jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: When Morrison and Miz were the World Tag Team champs, they were on ECW, because of the talent exchange between Raw and ECW. This should be listed under Brand Designation, as a similar situation happened when they won the WWE Tag Team titles, where the titles were listed as being on ECW. 2601:195:1:7A71:794A:767B:55CF:5879 (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECW 

message: Yxloging (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Looks like you are autoconfirmed. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016 

message: 80.0.117.88 (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 08:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016 

message: What does this sentence mean? "...and the promotion's third tag team championship overall". Halbared (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  opening parapgraph