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.

http://www.tnawrestling.com/stars/tna-world-title-histories

Shouldn't we follow what they have? They are TNA, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.1.102 (talk) 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...And we are Wikipedia. Our policies and guidelines ask that we include varified facts and only as they happened, not as they were later retconned, but present them from a neutral point of view. What that means is simple: TNA is free to recognize NWA world title reigns as part of the TNA title's history. The TNA title is their property and they are free to do what they want with it. However, as you know, the NWA world title and the TNA world title are not one and the same. They are two separate titles with two separate histories. The TNA title was created only after the NWA titles where stripped from TNA talent on May 13, 2007. Entering Sacrifice, Christian Cage was no longer NWA champion. Why? Because the NWA stripped him of their title prior to the TNA event. Again, just as TNA is free to do what they want with their property, the other side is free to do what they want with theirs. That's cool and that's fine. At the event, Kurt Angle won what was simply referred to as the "world heavyweight championship." He is then declared the first TNA World Heavyweight Champion (yes this title) on TNAwrestling.com. The physical belt is shown for the first time on the internet on May 15, 2007. The day before, on May 14, TNA tapes the episode of Impact which later airs on May 17. On that episode, Kurt Angle enters as the TNA World Heavyweight Champion with the belt and is referred to as such during the broadcast. Kurt Angle is then stripped of the title by Jim Cornette. Again; stripped. That means that no decision from the Sacrifice event was reversed, nothing was nullified. Angle was recognized as the TNA World Heavyweight Champion until May 14, 2007 by TNA. These events were then recorded and published by TNAwrestling.com [1] The title is then put on the line in a King of the Mountain match at Slammiversary on June 17, 2007. At the event Kurt Angle wins the title. From then on the title is retconned and TNA chooses to recognize Kurt Angle as the first TNA World Heavyweight Champion from June 17 on forward. Again, TNA is free to do what they want with their property. However, what cannot be ignored per Wikipedia policy is the fact that Angle was originally recognized as inaugural champion until May 14 by TNA itself, and that the NWA stripped TNA talent of the NWA titles prior to any of the events just noted. As such, it cannot be claimed that the NWA titles and the TNA titles are one and the same. Now, how does "include varified facts and only as they happened, not as they were later retconned, but present them from a neutral point of view" fit into all of this? Simple. In the article all sides are acknowledged. The article features the series of events that led to the title being established, notes TNA's retconning of the title, and explains TNA's recognition of NWA reigns; All sides acknowledged. As mentioned at the top, this is Wikipedia, not TNAwrestling.com or NWA and certainly not a fansite. If you think only a single side should be acknowledged, (what I'm really saying is if you think we should included NWA reigns in this title history page like TNA does on theirs...) that can be done on a fansite. Leave it at that. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the detail on the Wikipedia page is something I'd deem to be irrelevant. So much tiny nitpicking details on something that could have been explained on something much shorter and less headache causing. And, TNAWrestling.com is not a fansite. I can understand that they didn't actually HOLD the title, but that they were put into a bad situation at the time and had to solve the problem. The further away from that event we get, the more TNA will date its title history back to Ken Shamrock. As they do now. And, as a result, so should we. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.1.102 (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you see you don't understand what I'm telling you. I know what TNA's official website is. I know what they have up on their title history page. I know they recognize NWA reigns as part of the history of the TNA title. I know that you are arguing that we should include those reigns on this page as a result of that. But you missed the point I was making. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines that outline what makes it and doesn't into Wikipedia's articles. As such, these things prevent what you are trying to argue from actually happening. Why? The simple reason is this: The NWA and TNA titles are separate titles with separate histories, and while TNA can include NWA reigns on their website, we can't. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler: We can't add them because they weren't actual TNA World Title reigns, that would be inaccurate to the actual history. No matter what TNA says, that is false. We are based on fact, not belief. Also, this article is in bad shape listwise. It needs to be redone, since there is too much content forking. The problem should only be a few sentences. Once there is a tenth reign, I'll redo the list and send it to FLC.--WillC 12:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Redo" to the good format or redo to your format? Because it already uses your format (which is not good). Even though it uses your format, the article in its current state would pass FLC. Speaking of FLC, maybe I should start fixing the various tag title articles (since the consensus at WT:PW was to list the team name first). I do agree that there is no reason the include NWA World Heavyweight Championship reigns on this page because that is a different title. TJ Spyke 20:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then where is the "List of World Heavyweight Champions in TNA? With two related pages, "List of NWA World Heavyweight Champions" and "List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.1.102 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A page like that has been discussed before but for some reason nothing's happened past such talks.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be a very hard page to create. Considering TNA's trouble with the title history, I think such a page would be the only appropriate way to show the history of TNA in title form. And since all of the data already exists, it would not be hard at all to create. What has to happen to get such a page accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.1.102 (talk)

Hmm... I guess the topic could be brought up to WT:PW. That's the Wikiproject that handles professional wrestling related content on Wikipedia. Feel free to add your input to the bottom of the page. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TJ, I redid this article 6 months ago. Times change and formats change. I knew you would bring that up. That update was temporary. Why don't you quick bitching an do something for once. I expand articles, you bitch about others all day and do nothing but whine to get your way trying to own everything. Also, there was never an agreement on tag team articles. That discussion just died. You can't say there was a consensus since there never was an agreement worked out. No one has wanted to take the time to create it. I started on one in a subpage but it would probably only be allowed to exist if it was being done for a topic as well as the problem with TNA's history. With time one will be made, but this is good for now. I see AFD if one is created.--WillC 04:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus, and it was against you. When I have nothing better to do, I will go through and make the fixes (and revert as vandalism anyone who changes it back). You do nothing but pretend you know what is best for an article and make uneeded changes because you like it (even if the new format is worse than the old one and doesn't help at all). You make all these BS claims when you do it, I would like to to show how a article would fail FAC with the current format before claiming this other format is needed. TJ Spyke 19:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong TJ, it died. It was a few editors against a few editors. Numbers don't account for anything. There was no vote, there was just a standstill in argument which you weren't even apart of. Pretend? TJ I know what is better for an article more than you do because I have actually gotten an FL while you stand back acting like you think you do. Trying to get IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship to fail to prove a point. Just sad, when you would only return when Dabomb said your vote wouldn't be counted. Funny, how most of these format changes were either placed in by me and when I remove them, you can't stand it. I only remove them when there is a problem or a easy better way to do the samething. The "As of ???" has been removed from newer lists because you can't keep them accurate to the second. Titles change hands and aren't updated as quick. Plus reigns extend and articles are not always updated as soon as a record changes. You are adding a time limit, when Wikipedia is not supposed to have time limits. Plus, this article would fail due to contentforking and disagreement with history a.k.a. reliability, verification, and accuracy. Also TJ, if I am expanding an article it would make sense that I would choose my preference over other's because afterall I'm taking the time. Quit criticizing my work, and do some work of your own and maybe then your ideas and opinions would matter. No one really wants you around TJ, you are just a problem. You go by your own rules. That is why you've been under discussion so many times and been blocked. You are the problem, you aren't the solution.--WillC 22:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Will, it came to an end when everyone weighed in, 9 people supported team name first vs. 3 thinking it should be individuals first. That is consensus. With IWGP, I voiced legit concerns that you just wanted to ignore and then complained that my concerns should be ignored, the reason I didn't respond right away is because I didn't have the page on my watchlist and forgot about it. Me not liking the format has nothing to do with you, I would be saying the same things if a different user was intent on doing it. As for "As of", how would being used to the second be helpful? The only things I can think of that would need something that specific would be something like a article on a Super Bowl game, the current date is more than accurate enough. Title articles are usually updated as soon as thy happen (if anything, they happen too fast as it's usually by an IP who will not do a good job and result in a more experienced editor having to fix it), not sure what kind of time limit you are talking about. The only problem with this article would be the people claiming that the first reign was before Slammiversary. It would pass verification and accuracy, and I see no contentforking. If you are talking about the title articles when it comes to preferences, you are not expanding any of the WWE ones that you apply your preferred format to. I have done a lot of work on articles (for example, I was one of the biggest contributors to Wii and getting to TFA). Even if I didn't work on articles though, my opinions and though matter just as much as yours (whether you like it or not). I don't care what YOU think, I have no respect for you as an editor, and I frankly wouldn't be upset if you stopped coming to Wikipedia (hell, that would be a great day). I was trying to be nice to you, but I will react when people like you attack me and act like you are more than what you are. TJ Spyke 23:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a consensus TJ, that is a discussion. An agreement has to be established to make a consensus. Numbers don't matter here on wikipedia. If anything was established was editor's choice. Funny how when something seems to favor you, you push it to death. But when the ECW and SD thing was against with about 50 to You, you whined all day and changed anything you could, and still do. While I haven't even worked on a tag team article since that discussion because there was no consensus and you would bitch that there was one. Wow, TJ I finished all your concerns on the IWGP except for the tag team problem, which was still under discussion and still has yet to come to a conclusion. Right...didn't have it on your watchlist, but yet 4 messages from Dabomb made you return twice, only after he said it wasn't going to be counted. Yeah, you just decided to review the article I nominated right after an argument between You and I over format directly after I gave you the link and the said the same shit you've said to me for months. It had nothing to do with me and you trying to make a point....yeahhhh... Well the "as of" was proven faulty the other day when it took the next morning to actually get the Divas Championship list updated to be correct. So for a few hours, that article was incorrect when it said it was correct. A problem with format which should be avoided. Yet you are the only one with a problem with it being removed. While I nor MPJ use it anymore. Yes, and see even though Angle's reign can be verified, ips and other users still have a problem with it and believe the NWA reigns should be added. As such this article is not stable, a failure already. This list is supposed to be about the reigns, not the entire history. The main article is for the entire history. This list should summary the entire problem in a few lines, not 4 paragraphs. I don't have to expand WWE articles if I don't want too. But I have worked on them, yet your "ownership issues" remove everything I do because you "feel" you are right even when the proof is directly in front of you that you are wrong. The TNA and indy articles need more attention than the WWE stuff. I'll admit I'm wrong when I am wrong, yet you never have. My old expansion was wrong, but I'll fix that. No matter what pedia says, someone taking an article from nothing to featured is better than someone fixing a link because they were bored and arguing that they like a picture in an article. I haven't respected you in a year. I still thank you for helping me out in my early days on here though. And you know what, if you were to leave I'm sure many would return to editing more and would be ecstatic you are gone. I for one know several who can't stand you. Your ownership issues, your edit warring over the smallest things, etc. I've held my tounge for long enough.--WillC 00:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't want to risk getting blocked, I will avoid this argument you started and will only discuss the issues. However, there was a consensus on the tag team issue, you just don't like that it was overwhelmingly against you. I had checked out the IWGP article because I saw it had been nominated for promotion. TJ Spyke 16:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.6.84.110 (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was copyed and pasted from the same page "TNA World Heavyweight Championship/List of reigns"

"On the May 17, 2007 episode of TNA's primary television program, TNA Impact!, TNA announced that Kurt Angle was the new "TNA World Heavyweight Champion", making him the first "official" champion.[5] During the same episode, authority figure, or Management Director, Jim Cornette stripped Angle of the TNA World Heavyweight Championship and declared it vacant.[5][6] Cornette followed by announcing that at TNA's June PPV event Slammiversary that a King of the Mountain match would be held to determine the new and official first TNA World Heavyweight Champion.[5] At the event, Angle defeated Chris Harris, Christian Cage, Samoa Joe, and A.J. Styles to win the vacant championship.[7] "After the event, Angle's first reign was no longer recognized by TNA."

NO LONGER RECOGNIZED BY TNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Laides and gentleman... I rest my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James5872 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point? Who ever said we go by TNA's beliefs? We go by facts, they can recognize it or not, but the reign occurred and it is covered by reliable sources. Angle's reign is added because it is official by factual standards. That is the purpose of an encylopedia, to educate a reader with factual information. TNA trying to rewrite their history and going by that is not factual.--WillC 17:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, we go by facts, not OR from fans who think they know the facts (like how they think a wrestler can win a title that doesn't exist). IF TNA ever recognized it (which there is no solid proof of), then they only did so for 1 day because the next day they announced at the Impact tapings that the first TNA World Heavyweight Champion would be crowned at the next PPV. The only reason we even list Angle's unofficial reign was as a compromise to the people who think it counts. TJ Spyke 22:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TJ this is one of those times where you say the dumbest things. We have proof, Angle saying he is TNA Champion on a TNA broadcast with the freaking belt proves TNA were considering him champion the night after he won the three way. There is no way around that. Then the web archives that show TNA stating Angle was the new TNA World Heavyweight Champion. Cornette stripped Angle of the title (you can't strip a man of something he doesn't have) and set up a tournament to determine an undisputed champion, not the first champion. I have proof to back up the title reign, what proof do you have to dispute it?--WillC 22:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are making me laugh the BS you are spouting. Cornette did take away the belt, but TNA clearly said they would crown the first champion at Slammiversary. This issue (and all the sources) has been discussed ad nauseum. Consensus has been reached, why don't you just accept it? I don't feel like getting into this again, we already note Angle unofficial won the title (just deal with it, you don't have to like it). TJ Spyke 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you forgot what this section was about? It was about removing Angle's first reign. I am for leaving it in either as official or unofficial until the 10th reign when I take it to FL, but beforehand having a wide discussion on factual accuracy. Where is your proof TNA said first champion. I've told you where you can find my proof, you are just saying baseless claims.--WillC 05:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK their are alot of good points from both sides, but the bottom line is, and we forget... This is TNA's Championship, and they have that right to not recognize that win at sacrafice, Kurt angle won a Championship neither recognized by NWA or TNA, so for that matter it's almost as if the match never happend due to conflicting issues with TNA and NWA. I bet if you asked someone really smart in the wrestling business... other then my self of course... he/she would defiinitley concure with my allegations, and maybe... just maybe that would get you dumb people to pull your heads out of your own ass for just one damn minite to admit... your worng!.— Preceding unsigned comment added by James5872 (talk • contribs)

But that wouldn't matter. It is a matter of sourcing. We have proof that reign was recognized by TNA and that is occurred. That is that, this is an encyclopedia of facts. TNA can view it or not, but as long as we have proof that it occurred and it was recognized for even a belief time, then it is a reign. Please do not use my sig, it causes confusion and there are guideline articles for users that say that shouldn't be done.--WillC 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TNA does not recognize Angle winning the title at Sacrifice, plain and simple. The consensus that was reached after a year of discussion was to state that it was an unofficial reign. The fact is that the first TNA World Heavyweight Champion was crowned at Slammiversary. TJ Spyke 16:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And again you do not understand, we are based on reliable sources. It is verifible that Angle won the title at Sacrifice and that TNA recognized it. Them trying to rewrite history is not our problem. We post what the reliable sources say. The sources say TNA recognized the reign at the time but they don't now. Therefore, the reign is official. If you disagree, then you must provide the sources to show they never ever recognized the reign in a reliable standpoint. Not what they view now, what they viewed it as then, because there are two avaiable sources which say them announcing Angle at the TNA Champion and Cornette stripping Angle of said championship prior to Slammiversary directly from TNA. Plus, you'll have to show that discussion ending in a consensus. Not just ending, no an established consensus. The ball is all to you.--WillC 09:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just let it go already, this issue has been settled already but you are the only one who wants to keep it up. Guess what? If TNA doesn't recognize it (which they DON'T), then it's not official. Plain and simple. Even at the time of the PPV they didn't say it was for the "TNA" World Heavyweight Championship. The only reason his unofficial reign is even listed was because of a compromise that took a year to reach. You don't seem to understand what official means (I am looking at the GA-review for TNA World Heavyweight Championship). Whether he actually won the title at Sacrifice or not (which is debatable), that is not an official reign (I urge you to look up the definition of "official"). It also doesn't matter if TNA ever considered it official (which again is debatable), they don't know and have not for several years. Less than 1 week after Sacrifice they had on their website that the first TNA World Heavyweight Champion would be crowned at Slammiversary. TJ Spyke 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one reference proves you entirely wrong. You misunderstand the use of "official". I use it as it officially happened. You use it has not TNA's official view. Read bewteen the lines TJ. And it is not debatable, we have the proof. You can think it is debatable but it isn't at all. Wikipedia guidelines are against you TJ. I maybe be one person, but the sources all point towards the reign being recognized and happening.--WillC 00:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the guidelines are against you. As I said, what is official is what TNA currently recognizes. They do NOT recognize Angle winning the title at Sacrifice (and only did so for a few days), so it is NOT an official reign. Angle is officially a 3 time TNA World Heavyweight Champion, hence why Wikipedia also lists him as such. It's enough to mention his unofficial reign, claiming it is official would be intentionally presenting false info. TJ Spyke 00:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the unbiased view be that of the actual events? Yes the actual events may seem biased towards what people believe happened and against TNA but thats what happened and siding with TNA is biased towards the company. This is an encyclopedia of neutral information, not an encyclopedia of TNA's view or people's view. So in this case, wouldn't it be the unbiased decision to state the obvious events? In the past lists I've worked on, it has been viewed (well from my perspective) that Wikipedia should present the total overall reigns that actually did happen [thus neutral], and if its evident that it did, then its an official reign in the history of the title regardless of what TNA wants to view. Example, lets say WWE decided to eliminate Benoit from the title histories of titles he won, would we eliminate them because WWE doesnt recognize them anymore even though they happened?--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how I feel. State the actual events because we can back them up. Going by TNA's company view is inaccurate. Really it isn't about accuracy, more about the fact we got the proof. And TJ, I know you are going to state List of WWE Champions goes by company view and as such this should, but also remain you that list is in bad shape and this is an entirely different situation. Just because something is done one way 2 years ago, doesn't mean it should be done now.--WillC 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys guys.... let it gooooooooooooooooooo....^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me and you bullet get along well, but in this case, just letting it go is something I didn't expect of you. But I was just stating my opinion, if it matters.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. The topic was untouched since December 18 and it stayed that way until Will finally replied just yesterday! I just think this whole thing's a bit silly considering both TJ and Will actually agree with one another... they just don't know it yet. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the current format is too company view. This subject will never end most likely.--WillC 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The Impact! after Sacrifice: Angle walks out with the TNA Championship belt, announces he is the new TNA World Heavyweight Champion, and he won the title at Sacrifice. Got a written source from PWTorch in the main article to prove the fact as well. The title Angle won at Sacrifice was billed as the World Heavyweight Championship, didn't say whose; like it matters since NWA holds all the copyrights. That was cleared up the following night. Though the NWA Championship belt represented that accomplishment, that is all it is. Title belts are props. Shamrock was the first NWA Champion under TNA banner. In loose terms he was TNA's first World Heavyweight Champion.--WillC 17:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we even discussing this again? A compromise was already reached after months of debate, why bring this up again? At MOST, Angle's "first" reign is unofficial. TNA itself did not consider him champion and after the break with NWA, TNA changed their website and did not show Angle as champion. The current version of the article was the compromise that the majority agreed on: mention Angle's first reign as unofficial (the same way we list unofficial champions in every other title article). Angle is a 3-time TNA World Heavyweight Champion. As wrestling is scripted, the company in control of the title at the time gets to decide what is official (I say "at the time" because after WWE purchased WCW, for some strange reason they decided to pretend some WCW title changes never happened despite WCW recognizing them). TJ Spyke 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TNA recongizes Angle as TNA World Heavyweight Champion. Proof that his first reign is as official as it can get at that time. Now TNA no longer recognize his reign, but that doesn't matter. Facts are facts. Angle is a four time TNA World Heavyweight Champion, while TNA recognizes him just as a 3 time. We are held by facts, not beliefs. The source proves this. Can't argue with something directly from TNA.--WillC 23:35, 18 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]

If a wrestler does not win the title in a normal match for that title, it's noted (I say "for that title", because a match for the WWF Hardcore Championship would be different than a match for the US Championship). If a wrestler is awarded the title, it's noted. If they win the title in a normal match, it's not. How is it NOT notable when a title changes hands in a non-standard match? It's certainly more notable than the location of the title change and just as important as how many times the wrestler has held the title. TJ Spyke 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It these so called important facts were notable (which they aren't because TNA Legends Championship would've failed its GA review and every list I've done would've failed as well at FLC) I may see your point. Because saying "This was a TLC match" doesn't show importance. If it was "This was a TLC match, in which Wrestler A removed the title that hung above the ring." I would understand. But it seems people are too lazy to show significance to the title history. Wrestling is scripted, it would've either changed hands in a normal match or a gimmick match. The important fact in the situation is it changed, not who else was involved. It is called List of TNA World Heavyweights CHAMPIONS, not List of TNA World Heavyweight MATCHES. The match types are notable to the wrestlers and the PPVs. The match types are only notable imo is something major occcurred around the title. Like a double pin, match ended in a DQ and it changed, etc.--WillC 23:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ASSUME they would have failed, I doubt it. I bet they would have been promoted. Listen, I think we are at a stalemate here. You think that the match types are almost never worth nothing, I and several others think they are. Articles have been promoted both with and without them. Having them listed improves an article, having the info in does not harm a article in any way and sources showing notability can easily be found. TJ Spyke 02:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the GA criteria is broad in its coverage. If these notes are so important, then the article would've failed that criteria, meaning it would've failed its entire review, but it didn't. That is not assuming, that is fact. Use common sense man, God gave it to you, use it. The articles are meant to be focused, which is another GA criteria. Listing it was a No DQ match without any signifiance shown, is not helping the overall article or list. You are the only user that has shown they are needed. You have even been involved in edit wars over it and been blocked as a result. If I were you, I would just let it go. The style has changed. As such, things should be updated like this article. Just having a source on something, doesn't make it notable. I have a source that A.J. Styles threw a punch in a match, that doesn't mean I should add in his article the move "punch". You have yet to show any notability for these match types other than you like them.--WillC 02:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, stop ASSUMING the article would have failed. For one thing, it is a LOT easier to get Good Article status than Featured Article (the big reason being that ANYBODY can review a article and promote it to GA. Hell, I could pick and random GAC and review it even if I don't have a clue about it. I have never seen a cricket game and don't know a single thing about the sport, but I could review and promote a cricket article to GA). So yes, it is just you assuming things (and you know what they say about peopl who assume). You have not shown why they are not notable. The only reason I was blocked was because the 4th revert was restoring the image caption (it had nothing to do with this). You talking about sourcing not mattering, then why is that your main argument for keeping that cruft list about Raw guest hosts? I can find reliable sources to show that the match type was notable to the title change. TJ Spyke 02:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notes aren't in there, and it passed a review. Therefore the notes were not important because they were not included. The article must be read to pass a review. If you did what you state above, someone would bring it up on the GAN talk page because Final Resolution (2005) was passed in 7 minutes and people thought it was too short. I would be careful on calling me an ass. I have, they have no effect on the title history anymore than a normal match. No significance has been shown within the article. I wasn't talking about that block, I was talking about your entire block history. 4 reverts is still a violation of 3RR, no matter what you do. Anyway, that is besides the point. Then bring the sources, that say exactly why being a TLC match is more important to the history than a normal match. The guest host article has been covered by mainstream media and can be expanded far more than just being a list.--WillC 03:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a broken record because you aren't listening. You keep ASSUMING the article would have failed with the notes in (I never called you an ass, don't put words in my mouth). I mentioned GAR because someone who knows nothing about wrestling may review the article and not know important info is missing (thank you for pointing out the article, I may bring it up for re-review and point this out). TJ Spyke 16:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I never said the article would fail with them in it. I said the article would've failed its review if those notes were so important. They weren't in it and it passed already. Starting a GAR over comments that haven't been proved as important, would be closed quickly as a waste.--WillC 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]