Professional wrestling Mid‑importance

List of TNA World Champions 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.Professional wrestlingWikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestlingTemplate:WikiProject Professional wrestlingProfessional wrestling Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

If Kurt's first reign is unofficial/not recognised, how come there isn't the thing with other title histories where the larger number is bracketed and superscripted, while the official number is centred? Tony2Times (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlinglover keeps removing it despite the fact that this situation was debate for over a year on the title's talkpage (about whether the first champion was crowned at Sacrifice or Slammiversary). TJ Spyke 00:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? You make no sense Tony, sorry. See Angle's reign is unrecognized by TNA. We as an encyclopedia should be truthful and accurate. Angle's first reign was recognized by TNA for the brief time before Slammiversary and to show this there are sources in the article. They don't recognize it anymore, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It is an official reign and should count towards the official total. It is noted they don't recognize it, but we can't say it is not apart of the total history as such since that is inaccurate. If we go by what TNA thinks, then lets just add in the NWA Champions history as well.--WillC 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, this was discussed and I was apart of it. But the last discussion took place on the TNA Champion talk page where me, Truco, and Bulletproof decided that Angle's only is the only official one between him and Cage. We then decided to make this page and remove the history from that TNA Title.--WillC 00:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a huge difference here. TNA doesn't recognize Angle's title win at Sacrifice, and that is their choice since it's their title. There don't have any authority over the NWA title and can't decide those. Cornette said that the first TNA World Heavyweight Champion would be crowned at Slammiversary. There is also ample precende, every similar situation is handled the same way on Wikipedia. Take a look at articles like the WWE Championship and WWE United States Championship. Hell, WWE chooses not to recognize some US Title changes that WCW did. TJ Spyke 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't recognize it now, but they did. They are trying to take something back they said which they can't. That is a different title and different company. Because those articles are inaccurate is no reason to be inaccurate here. This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should be held down by no one or nothing. Because companies want to rewrite history does not mean we should as well. If TNA tomorrow said that A.J. Styles is not the first official TNA X Division Champion instead Low KI was, should we rewrite that list though we know that isn't true? We aren't accurate if we do what they say and say A.J's reign is not the first one any longer and place a cross in there. We are following a company's view. When we should follow an unbiased view.--WillC 01:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the unbiased view is the neutral view. That means that we recognize official stance of the company but also make note of the actual events. It’s been this way for as long as I can remember. I don't know what made you change it Will. Leave the note alone. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So why recognize Angle from Sacrifice but not Christian Cage? 70.68.139.248 (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats subject for another debate. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral view is not the view of the company. To be neutral with the company is to go by everything the company says. That means in your view, that we should go by TNA's official history then note none of the NWA reigns were actually TNA reigns. It seems we are choosing what to believe on certain instances. When it should be all or none. When it comes down to it, Angle is a four time champion and that is that. I feel the other version is better. Angle can't be a one time champion twice. TNA does not recognize his first reign, so be it. That is their opinion. An encyclopedia is going to go by facts. Not say he was the first champion, but since it is not recognized we are also going to note his second reign as his first reign as well.--WillC 05:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also since something has been that way forever does not mean it is right. Consensus can change if there was a consensus since there never seems to be one. An encyclopedia should be held by facts. Not the views of a company. WWE says Christian Cage is only a one world time champion, should we state in his article, the NWA Title history, and anything else those reigns had effect on that WWE does not recognize them? Yes that is a different company but all I'm hearing is views from WWE/WCW and other title histories. I feel we should be factual and note they don't recongize them, TNA doesn't write the book on history. If a real encyclpedia ever writes about TNA, the history of this title will have Angle come out as a four time champion.--WillC 06:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have anything to say?--WillC 04:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the TNA title didn't even exist until the Impact tapings 2 days after Angle "won" it (when Cornette said that the real first champion would be crowned at Slammiversary), kind of hard to say Angle is the first champion. If the Sacrifice win was ever considered the first reign, it was only for 1 or 2 days since I remember them quickly erasing the title history from their site a couple of days after Sacrifice. TJ Spyke 13:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The belt is not the championship and you can't say when the belt was made even if it was. They introduced the physical belt on TNA Today on May 15, 2007 to the entire world. The Impact! tapings was on May 14, 2007 less than one day after TNA Sacrifice so it wasn't two days afterwards. Cornette said the undisputed TNA Champion would be crowned, not the first champion. Plus I remember the history not changing till after Slammiversary, but even if it was for one or two days, they still recognized it. Plus it doesn't matter if they recognize it or not. It matters if it happened. What the deal is here, this article nor this encyclopedia should be held down by promotion's beliefs. It should be based on facts and the fact is Angle has been champion four times. TNA can recognize it or not. It happened so the article should reflect that.--WillC 14:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the championship didn't exist until after Sacrifice (which is your burden to prove that TNA considered the title to exist at that time), then Angle couldn't have won the title then. TJ Spyke 17:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By recognizing his first reign means it existed seeing as he won it at Sacrifice.--WillC 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page to display the record of the TNA championship, not the NWA championship, the first match for the offical TNA championship was at Slammiversery, I guess only a true wrestling fan would know that TNA does not consider that the first offical reign.

I disagree with this version completely. We should not follow any promotion's thoughts when it comes to history. We should state what is true, and Angle is a four time champion is what is true. It doesn't matter if TNA recognizes it today or not. If it happened, it happened, and it should be noted as such. The previous version followed this and stated it was not recognized. This version is solely based on following a promotion's thoughts, which is not correct. An encyclopedia should not be held back by trying to be like the company's views.--WillC 03:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article states the officially and factually correct info. If TNA ever recognized it, it was for only for about 1 day. The current version of the article both goes by the official list of champions and notes the unofficial reign. If you wanted to be technical we should list Christian Cage too. Cage went into the match as champion and Angle won the belt from him. Also, aren't you the one saying we should go by what a promotion says to determine if its title is a world title? The current version seems like a good compromise, it goes by the official lists and includes Angle's unofficial reign. If the article went only by the official list we would not even include any mention of the Slammiversary win. TJ Spyke 15:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, listen. What I am saying is this: the current version is going by TNA's beliefs. It is saying Angle is a 3 time but also a 4 time champion. He is really a 4 time champion. He can be called champion for a day, it doesn't matter. People have been called champions for less. Cage's reign is up in the air. Only Angle was called TNA World Heavyweight Champion. And this list isn't going by TNA's official history. Their history also includes the NWA Champions, but this one doesn't. I'm not saying add them, I'm just showing how there is inconsistency. What I'm purposing is to not go by TNA's beliefs. I'm saying list what is true, list the facts. List Angle as a four time champion, but also say TNA does not recognize his first reign. Have the table go, 1, 2,3,4 on his reigns, Not 1, 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4), which is trying to go by TNA's beliefs, which is incorrect. We are supposed to only be held by facts, not by beliefs of promotion's which try to change history because they wish. There are points you go by a promotion, and there is times you don't.--WillC 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Antonio Inoki on the List of WWE Champions page, "Company belief" very much goes towards what constitutes an "official champion" and what does not, listing facts also includes what is and is not officially recognized, you cannot just ignore that. Technically it should go "†, 1, 2, 3" MPJ-DK (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MPJ, company belief doesn't mean it is the proven fact. Again, facts over belief.--WillC 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I WIll KEEP EDITING THIS RELIGIOUSLY, THE FIRST TITLE REIGN STARTED AT SLAMMIVERSY IN THE KING OF THE MOUNTIAN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by James5871 (talk • contribs)

You are about to be blocked for your vandalism, your IP was already blocked. Any future accounts will be automatically blocked as sockpuppets. TJ Spyke 15:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, give it up. We have proof the first reign started at Sacrifice and was acknowledge on Impact! in May.--WillC 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you should show this proof you talk about. Kurt angle won the NWA championship at sacrafice, and it says on it NWA championship, watch the video, if winninga the NWA title on a TNA show makes that person the TNA champion then is reality the first TNA champion I beelive is Ken Shamrock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.6.84.110 (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this before. Matches are not important to the history unless something majorly resulted from them. There is no difference in importance in between a singles match and a KOTM.--WillC 17:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there IS a difference in importance and I don't get why you don't understand that. The match also had a major influence on TNA storylines as it resulted in Samoa Joe joining the MEM (which has been the central focus of TNA storylines for the last 9 months). Angle won when Joe deliberately let Angle win. Also, the type of match a title changes hands in is notable (usually more notable than the location of the change. Take Shawn Michaels first WWF Championship win, I bet more people remember that it was a Iron Man match than remember that it was in Anaheim). TJ Spyke 17:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the heavyweight title's history, not the storylines which go on in TNA. What effects storylines should be included in the PPVs and bios, not the title histories. And listing it was a KOTM involving other participants does not help say that Angle did not defeat Foley for the belt. It doesn't say how he won the belt either. If the type of match the person won the belt in is so important then lets add they were single matches as well. As for HBK's win, I don't even remember when he got the belt.--WillC 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't remember WrestleMania XII? Simple solution, add a small note that says something like "Unless otherwise noted, title changes occured in singles matches.". I gave you what major thing happened as a result of the match type Angle won it in. The match types is important in the titles history. TJ Spyke 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How? So far the only excuse is storylines, which has been proven useless. A note can also be noted that titles are won in singles matches as well as multiple manned matches where the champion does not have to be pinned to lose the belt.--WillC 18:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provide a major company wide storyline that was affected, which has NOT been proven useless. So far you haven't given a good reason for not including it. TJ Spyke 18:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple! the match types do not effect the title's history majorly. They are trivia outside of something significant being involved. Angle won the belt, that is the only important thing to the title's history. The storyline resulting from it is not important to this title's history. If this article was taken to FLC with that information within it, it would fail because it went off topic and added trivia. Face it, they are just not notable.--WillC 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is notable and relevant info "trivia"? What kind of match they won the title in is relevant to the title history. The article would not fail if the info was in, I think it would fail if it wasn't (I know I would oppose it's promotion and would be vocal about it). It has not prevented any title lisft from being promoted. TJ Spyke 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read more carefully next time, I was talking about storylines not the matches. Show me how they are notable. That would mean singles matches should be added to show the wrestlers were not awared the title or found it in a dumbster. It is trivia because it goes too much into detail and doesn't stay focused. The focus should be on the title primarly, not the matches the title is involved in. Well there have been plenty of lists where the matches are not noted. You make what to become vocal, because it seems excluding them is just fine.--WillC 19:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]