Talk:WWE Undisputed Championship

WWF to WWE Date

Regarding the edit conflict about on what day WWF changed to WWE, I found an archive of a news story posted on a site that is a respectable source for wrestling news. The article found at http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/2002/articles/1020644114.php was written on Sunday May 5, 2002 and states "As of this evening, the WWF has changed entirely to WWE." tv316 17:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

wrestling-titles.com (a non-mark archive of title histories) reports the change occuring on 6 May 2002. See http://www.wrestling-titles.com/wwf/ . - Chadbryant 00:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

wrestling-titles.com could be getting their info on the date change from any number of sites, just like you got your info from them. lordsofpain.net have an archived story dated May 5, 2002, which tells of the immediate change from WWF to WWE that would occur that day. The Wrestling Information Archive lists the change happening on May 5, 2002 at http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfother.htm and it is also on Obsessed With Wrestling at http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/promotions/wwe.html. A number of respectable wrestling sites have the date down as May 5, 2002 and are archived from that day. It's possible for someone to get the date wrong by one day later, but I don't see how a news site would predict it a day before. Please leave it as the 5th. tv316 02:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What you are citing as "respectable" wrestling sites are mark-sites that cut & paste the same rumors and half-truths from each other, passing it off as "inside journalism".

And of course, 5 May 2002 was a Sunday - it makes much more sense for a company to make a name change official on a business day, especially when that business day coincides with their most visible public function (that being the Raw telecast). - Chadbryant 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that you and I have very different views on what is a mark and non-mark site, as you call it. The Wrestling Information Archive is an unbiased non-markish site dedicated to documenting the history of WWE. The site you used as a source, wrestling-titles.com, looks to be just a site which copy and pasted its title histories from other sites. It's most definately not respectable. Above all else, I don't care whether you think lordsofpain.net is some mark site that cuts and pastes rumours and half truths; the fact of the matter is that there is an article stating that on May 5, 2002, WWF.com started redirecting people to WWE.com and all mentions of WWF were changed to WWE on that Sunday night. While Sunday may not be a business day, it was the day of the change. Yes, they sent the press release out on a Monday, but that's only because Sunday wasn't a business day, otherwise they would have. If they started changing WWF to WWE on the Sunday, then the WWF Undisputed title was renamed the WWE Undisputed title on that same Sunday. And as far as wrestling is concerned, the Wrestling Information Archive is surely repsectable. You have a right to your opinion, but if you don't find it respectable, I'd sure love to know what wrestling sites, if any, are respectable by your standards. tv316 21:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrestling "statistics" websites are marksites by their very nature. Hisaharu Tanabe's wrestling-titles.com is based almost entirely on the research of Gary Will, who is the premier expert on the history of professional wrestling titles.

Not that it matters, but other than websites run by Dave Meltzer and Wade Keller (who have legitimate sources and don't cut & paste "borrowed" material like the teenagers and college kids who run marksites, 99.999999% of pro wrestling websites are run from a kayfabe or mark perspective. That is the nature of the business, even in 2006 - if you're not behind the curtain, you're a mark. - Chadbryant 06:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to reach a compromise regarding the date of the WWF-to-WWE change, but one particular user seems to insist on reverting to a disputed date that he can only cite mark sources for. I'm not terribly interested in defending my wrestling-related credentials (nearly 24 years as a fan, and six years as an active participant in the business in a variety of roles), but I will insist that a general (and correct) date is a better fit than an exact (and disputed) one. - Chadbryant 16:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Saying that you have wrestling credentials because you've been a fan for 24 years is like saying you are a reporter because you've been reading the newspaper for 24 years. tv316 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can only cite sites that you call "mark" sites, but what else am I supposed to do? Call up Dave Meltzer or Wade Keller and ask them for a quote? Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer site only keeps archives back to 2003. The archives from lordsofpain may be markish by your standards, but they were copied from people like Meltzer and Keller on the 5th. For the time being, I'm not going to revert it back. I'm going to post this whole controversy on the Pro Wrestling Project page and see what everyone else has to say on the matter. tv316 16:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

-All of the above has nothing to do with the fact that you were asked to provide a legitimate, non-mark source to justify your edits, and you have failed to do so. - Chadbryant 17:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As I already said, I have no way of providing a source under your conditions. In a matter of who attacked who backstage, I agree that a Dave Meltzer article might be necessary. In the matter of the date WWF changed to WWE, Dave Meltzer is not the only one who can take notice of the fact that on Sunday May 5, 2002 WWF.com publicly announced the change on their website to not only Dave Meltzer, but to the entire world. tv316 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

An unregistered user with a dynamic DSL IP assigned by hstntx.swbell.net insists on re-inserting the incorrect date into this article with no justification. Chadbryant 19:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Further relevant discussion can be found here, with a consensus reached to leave the date referenced in this article as "May 2002". - Chadbryant 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I saw your little compromise, and decide to finally sign up to present my case, and maybe a revise compromise. You and I, are fortunate to live during the period of the change from WWF to WWE, so we can easily recall that event, even though you don't remember the exact date. Unfortunately, future generations fans didn't live through this change, so they rely on information encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. Some people, like me, like things in exact details. I remember when I was at the Naval Academy, and had to do research on Admiral John Paul Jones. I didn't get full credit for just putting dates using only month and year. So I made a promise that I will help future generations prevent the same problem I had. I will put exact date on events that I know the exact date on. I am sure there are and will be wrestling fans who will be like me. They want the exact dates on a certain event happen. Especially in the wrestling business, where one week can change a lot. As I have stated some fans wants exactness, so they will be looking for it. Why can't Wikipedia, the greatest information site, provide this for them? It will help get even more people to enjoy the great service of the site. Maybe you don't care about Wikipedia, but I'm sure there are those who care about it. I am one who care about it, because it provide me great information, and I want it to stay active and popular. One way to stay popular is to provide exact information. For your information, I was the one originally put the May 6th, way back then, when the article was a stub. I wasn't registered at the time, and yes, I've seen my IP address keep changing. I don't know why, maybe because of my DSL service. Now Chad, this argument started when I realize I made a mistake on saying it was the 6th. I remember that it was the 5th when I visited wwf.com, that it stated that WWF has change to WWE. I consider this is the first official acknowlegement of change. It may be just the site saying its changing, and not a press release; the website still belong to WWFE Inc, so that night change represents the first WWE initials usage. You've been stubbourn, keep changing it back to the 6th, and now no date. Why make other suffers because you disagree with the truth? I propose a compromise with you. In the article it should have this: On May 5th, WWF site announce that WWF has change to WWE, and the following night, May 6th on Raw, the title was first refer to as the WWE Undisputed Championship by announce. Think about the compromise, and get back to me.

Lt. Col. Robert Müller, USMC (Ret.)

As discussed on the Wiki pro wrestling project, the press release detailing the switch from WWF to WWE was dated 6 May 2002. Other articles on Wikipedia reflect this fact. The original compromise of a general date of May 2002 for this article is sufficent.

P.S. The only record I can find for an officer in the United States Marine Corps named "Robert Müller" is a First Lieutenant, not a Lieutenant Colonel. That, along with other obvious issues in your style and presentation, encourages me to strongly doubt your credentials as presented, and forces me to assume that you are not who you say you are, and not editing in good faith. - Chadbryant 22:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

My information cannot not be found on the internet, especially using your Google search. This proves another thing, you're not really in the Army. If you are, you would know that personnels informations are not release in public, unless he or she holds a public office, like Commandant of the Marine Corps or he or she does something outside of service time. Personnels informations are kept behind cryptic security, and nobody can access it except Officers. You said, you suppose to be a Sergeant, they don't trust you with such important information. From what you have said, I can get you charge you with trying to hack security information, and have you court martial. Now, "Sergeant" I see you turn down my compromise, know this, I will keep changing it until you stop or agree to my compromise.

military.com's DOD records search is not a hack. You're a fraud. - Chadbryant 22:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

That site is just like MySpace, Xanga, or any online group website. It has only the list of those who sign up for it, and not a complete list of all personnel. It is difficult to keep track of all personnell, but there is one master program does, and I know a public website like military.com, does not nor have access to it the program.

How about use the date the title was first refered to as the WWE Undisputed Championship on TV, even reword the article--JB 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That date would be 6 May 2002 - which was a Monday. - Chadbryant 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jbfraser, won't you rather have May 5th, the date where WWE first address their change on their official website.

The first show under the WWE banner was the Raw broadcast on Monday, 6 May 2002. The press release announcing the change was dated on Monday, 6 May 2002. The only reason to object to this easily verifiable fact is for the purposes of vandalism or troublemaking. - Chadbryant 15:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not the only reason. Some people want to know the exact date it happened and not the press release date. While I've since stopped reverting it back to the 5th, some other people seem to still disagree with you. It is not necessarily vandalism just because you run to Curps and he reverts everything without even looking. These people have a right to their opinion. Instead of talking it out with people like LtColMüller, you're more comfortable with trying to discredit him and then erasing his comments. tv316 16:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The date of 5 May 2002 has been proven incorrect. It is not my problem if people can not handle being proven wrong like mature adults.

BTW, nobody needs to "run to Curps" - he can take note of the abuse & vandalism of your new best friend from Jawwwjuh by himself. - Chadbryant 16:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The date of May 5, 2002 has not been proven incorrect. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.pro-wrestling?start=162615 shows that a certain wrestling newsgroup started posting messages about the WWF changing to WWE as of the evening of May 5, 2002. I put up with the whole press release date because I'm sick of arguing with you about it. The only reason I'm arguing with you now is because I'm sick of you thinking you can just walk on other people who don't agree with you. Oh, and those vandals are not my best friends. Please don't libel me. tv316 16:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:BB. This is Wikipedia; wear a cup. - Chadbryant 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between being bold in making edits and being sick of having an edit war on the internet. This is Wikipedia; use some of that maturity you claim you have. Please read WP:No personal attacks. tv316 17:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's an edit war you started based on erroneous information. It's an edit war your new best friend and a guy claiming to be a retired USMC Lt. Col. (both using multiple sockpuppets) have continued. I have stated my case with WP:PW and had my contentions agreed with by the majority who cared to respond, while you have done nothing but complain about being proven wrong. Pointing out the error of your choices and methods is not a personal attack. - Chadbryant 18:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of sockpuppeting, and you say you're not personal attacking. That is BS. First, you attack Mr. TV316 just because his username has the numbers 316 in it, then you accuse of people you disagree with of being sockpuppets, because you want to lower their recognitions, and finally you accuse of me sockpuppeting. I'm not going hypocrite, and say that I don't personal attack. I do personal attack you because you deserve it. If you're saying the reason you think its May 6th was the original date of change, and base your reason on the press release. WWE has release several press release a day or sometime even days after the events occurs. For example, one the latest press release was of Edge (Adam Copeland) winnning the WWE Championship. They release it on Monday, January 9, 2006, while Edge won the title on Sunday, January 8, 2006. So WWE does release press release later after the event.

Saying that the various sockpuppets are my best friends is completely false and is libelous. Stop trying to make it look like I'm the mastermind behind some conspiracy against you. I don't know those people. The only thing I have in common with those people is that you've gotten into conflicts with all of us.

I have not complained about being proven wrong because I have never been proven wrong. I'm not going to repeat my reasons why. They're up on this page somewhere. Pointing out any errors I may have is not a personal attack. Not agreeing with my views and then telling me to "wear a cup" is. It's an attack on my style of editing on Wikipedia and the way I deal with people in life. I prefer to avoid conflict and you're telling me I'm too soft and need a cup so my balls don't get hurt. tv316 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• You do not have the right to change my comments. I realize you haven't been editing here much longer than a few months, but you really should RTFM before you do that, or start edit wars when you are lacking in evidence and citations for your contentions.
• Inviting a repeat offender of Wiki vandalism to contact you via IM/e-mail gives off the appearance of condoning and sanctioning his actions. There's a reason Mr. Cain has blown through five dozen accounts in less than a year.
• You're still wrong. Have a nice day. - Chadbryant 21:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Fine. I'll leave your comments alone. People can check this and the history and know the truth anyways. Your troll tactics are getting tiresome.
• You probably know why I would invite someone like Alex Cain to contact me, but I'm not going to say it because that would just be another personal attack. I don't condone his actions, but I do agree with his views on you. That doesn't make him my best friend. You're trying to make it look like I'm also a sockpuppet out to get you, so when other people see this they see it from your view.
• You're still immature and antisocial. Grow up. tv316 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I do not know who Alex Cain is, nor whether he sockpuppet or not. I appreciate that he agree with me on May 5th, but I not endorse his sockpuppeting, if its indeed he's sockpuppeting. If it turn out to be different people who support my idea of the 5th, then I would like to thanks them. One in particular, TV316, even though I don't know you, I appreciate you supporting my idea in the past. You even went out of your way, to provide great links and argument, when I didn't sign up for an acount yet. Now, Chadbryant, let be professional about this. One retire soldier to a reserve soldier of the our country's greatest military. Like I have said when I was arguing, the reason we have this "war" because we have a disagreement over the 5th and 6th. Apparently, you must have seen this war wasn't go nowhere so you decide to just use the month of May. Why should we sacrafice exact dates for just general a general date. Like I have said earlier, I was willing to compromise on this. Incorporating both of ideas of what is the exact date. Consider it, Bryant, so we can end this "war."

Page Protection

The article has been protected with an incorrect date listed for the switch from "WWF" to "WWE". A multi-sock abuser and two willing accomplices have engineered an edit war to insert that incorrect date, in spite of several cites of evidence that proves their troublemaking stance incorrect. Their abuse should not be allowed to stand as the final word. - Chadbryant 02:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chadbryant&oldid=11016684 A guy I know once said, "What am I supposed to do with libelous comments?"

You make it sound as if we sat in a room together and planned the war out on paper. Chad, just to let you in on the next step of our evil dastardly plan of world ... Wikipedia ... minor page of Wikipedia domination, we're going to plant weapons of mass editing destruction in your contribution history. We have planted all of the instances where you deleted comments from various pages and altered comments to make it look like the user who posted it posted something stupid. I also personally planted that particular revision of your talk page and made you complain about alleged libelous comments against yourself. Alex Cain was personally responsible for the Personal Atttacks Department and, therefore, all the personal attacks against other people that were planted and are now vailable for all to see in your contribution history. You're completely innocent in all this. On behalf of Alex Cain, LtColMüller, myself, and any other vandals I may or may not have employed, we're all sorry for engineering the war. We just needed the oil on your user page.

Note to any admins: The above paragraph was a satire on what Chad's paranoid theories of the truth. It is not intended to attack Chadbryant. It is intended to discredit his theory that LtColMüller and I are conspiring with Alex Cain to cause edit wars just to annoy Chadbryant. Despite how he may try to twist my words around, I am not conspiring in any way with any sockpuppets or vandals to "engineer" an edit war for the sole reason of irritating Chadbryant. tv316 15:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of posting "satire", why not admit that your contentions regarding this article were proven false, and that you still insisted on creating an edit war? - Chadbryant 22:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of ignoring what I said and changing the subject, read the 3 paragraphs I posted. I did not create an edit war. We created an edit war together which ended a while ago. The current edit war is between you and some other people who share my beliefs but are in no way affiliated with me. Instead of trying to discredit them, you can try and talk it out with them. You've been nothing but hostile with them from the start. At least you kept in your hostility from me for about 3 replies. tv316 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just EMAIL the WWE and ask them the official date? I am sure they would be happy to oblige. WWE Corporate has always answered my emails so its not like they don't talk to people. How about I do it? TruthCrusader

It isn't needed - there's already a press release from WWE dated 6 May 2002 that confirms the date of the change. - Chadbryant 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You aren't the boss and cannot just decide what is or isn't needed. I have contacted the WWE and will paste their response and this stupid flame war BS will be settled. I personally don't care who is right in this matter. TruthCrusader

Will they send you a XPersonal attack removedX this time too? - Chadbryant 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As usual, your childish remarks to a serious solution to end another problem that you are part of has been noted.

TruthCrusader

As usual, you can't refute being exposed. - Chadbryant 14:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're acting childish again. Stop hiding behind excuses of vandalism for your deleting of comments that go against you. Georgia College & State University has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. You have violated the 3RR rule numerous times and have been warned by an admin about it, yet you continue to do so. The truth of your intentions and your intollerance of other people's opinions can be found in the history of this talk page, so I need not write about it again. tv316 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WWF-WWE Date Source: Jeff Marek, Live Audio Wrestling

liveaudiowrestling.com is the site which in 2002 hosted the Dave Meltzer-owned wrestlingobserver.com domain. It promotes a Canadian wrestling radio show, Live Audio Wrestling, which has been on the air for nearly 10 years now [1] and which Dave Meltzer has had a regular guest segment on for over 6 years. It airs every Sunday evening, and has since 1998.

On the Sunday of May 5, 2002, there was a Live Audio Wrestling radio programme, and the WWF-WWE change was discussed in detail.

Here is the Google cache of the show preview for May 5, 2002: [2]

``as teased above we`ll have the scoop about The World Wrestling Federation changing their name to World Wrestling Entertainment effective immediately.``

Jeff Marek has edited a book with Dave Meltzer (Top 100 Pro Wrestlers of All Time), has appeared on the TSN programme Off the Record with WWF wrestlers and management and acted as the main pro-wrestling consultant for the show. He is in general a very well-respected Canadian wrestling journalist.[3]

That's nice, except that the press release issued by WWE was dated the 6th. - Chadbryant 21:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

WWF to WWE change

WWE registered the domain names wwejudgmentday.com, wwewrestlemania.com, etc. on April 25, 2002.

Jim Ross first mentioned WWE in the May 3 Ross Report.

The official WWF Chat began using the WWE logo on May 4.

It was filed as an official Trademark with the Government on May 7.[4]

72.36.232.82 23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Its May 6th 2002 Official

As I promised, I contacted WWE Corporate and got an email back. Just to prove I am not lying, I have enclosed full headers (wiping out any ID to my address or name)

MIME-Version: 1.0

Received: from hqstfsgw2.wwecorp.net ([63.208.148.148]) by bay0-mc6-f9.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:56:58 -0800

Received: from HQSTFMBX1.wwecorp.net ([10.10.1.121]) by hqstfsgw2.wwecorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Fri, 3 Feb 2006 17:56:57 -0500

Sender: "Conetta, Kevin" <Kevin.Conetta@wwecorp.com>

X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jGE0Q02EboTeQ5Ous75lF+T5aWG/D9vi5k=

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message

X-MS-Has-Attach:

X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:

Thread-Topic: WWE Corporate Support

Thread-Index: AcYn2o3wjYIUyJsIQcaQlk2DhuNxJQBOm1Iw

Return-Path: Kevin.Conetta@wwecorp.com

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2006 22:56:57.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[228F3360:01C62915]

You may find the press release related to this topic on our corporate site. Please visit the News Section, and click on 2002 News Releases. The official date is May 6, 2002.

Thank you for your email.

This proves it, its May 6th 2002 and Im changing the date on the article page to it and I expect this stupid flame war to end NOW

TruthCrusader

Ok, May 6th it is. Thank you, TruthCrusader, for taking your time to email WWE Corporate and find out the truth. No pun intended. Even though the truth has proven me wrong, it's good to have it, instead of a general date. I'm also glad this "edit war" can now come to an end. Again, thanks.

LtColMüller

It is NOT May 6, officially

WWE is not a trustworthy or objective source of information for off-the-cuff information requests, as they are a deeply carny business with a history steeped in lying and kayfabe. See Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer Newsletter for March 1999, and the sidebar about WWF's claims about Wrestlemania III attendance -- they clearly have no compunction about dispensing falsehoods in response to inquiries.

The only objective sources of information about the official switch-over do not confirm the May 6 date.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office records that the official filing for protection did not occur until May 7, 2002: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=abhm2r.2.19

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission records that WWF stockholders were not polled for consent to amend WWF's Certificate of Incorporation until May 10, 2002, with the actual poll scheduled to close on June 12, 2002: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1091907/000095012302004929/0000950123-02-004929.txt

WWE's press release is valueless. The only objectively confirmable event of importance occuring on May 6, 2002 was the airing of the first WWE Raw. However, WWF had publicly begun the aesthetic transition long before the May 6 Raw, with WWF Canada President Carl DeMarco announcing the change on the May 5 Live audio wrestling radio show, the WWF website incorporating WWE into the public Chat on May 4, and the wwe domain name registrations which took place on April 25.

Unless the argument is that television broadcast is the only worthy public venue of announcement, May 6 is not noteworthy.

Dear idiot: Thank you for providing me with a laugh regarding your statement that the WWE is NOT a reliable source for information about themselves. You should be proud of yourself, this is the first time Chad Bryant and I are on the same side of an issue. The May 6th date stands. End of discussion. TruthCrusader

You don't seem too bright. Here, let's make it simpler for you. Check one:

Is WWE's history steeped in the carny world of 'working' and kayfabe? YES_ NO_

Has WWE lied about itself to the public before? YES_ NO_

Good luck. Don't forget to spell your name right, it's worth 200 points.

Conflicting information

I also made a personal email contact and got an email back regarding the WWF->WWE transition. In order to verify I am not lying, the headers follow:

MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from may5.wweeee.net ([63.201.128.144]) by eil0-bif-f9.remal.elohssa.com with Mozilla SMTP; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:36:58 -0800 Received: from f-out.wwemay5.net ([15.101.13.12]) by dudelove.wwemay5.net with Mozilla SMTP; Sat, 4 Feb 2006 10:36:57 -0500 Sender: "Fabe, Marcus K." <markfabe@wweeee.net> X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jGE0Q02EboTeQ5Ous75lF+T5aWG/D9vi5k= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: WWE Ministry of Truth Thread-Index: AcYn2o3wjYIUyJsIQcaQlk2DhuNxJQBOm1Iw Return-Path: markfabe@wweeee.net X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2006 10:56:57.0750 (UTC) FILETIME=[123F3360:01A32935]

It's May 5, 2002. Officially.

Thank you for your email.

72.36.250.130 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine HERE is the link to the WWE Corporate site that shows the f**king press release and date of MAY 6th 2002 [5]

And just in case you are SO f**king retarded that you dont know how to click a link, here is the text:

2002 News Releases World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Drops The "F" To Emphasize the "E" for Entertainment

New Name And Logo Reflects International Growth Plans and Increasing Diversity of Entertainment Properties May 6, 2002 STAMFORD, CONN., May 6, 2002 - To further capture a greater share of the global marketplace and to represent the growing diversity of its entertainment properties, World Wrestling Federation Entertainment today announced it is changing its name to World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE). The company's website, one of the most popular in the world, will now be found at WWE.com.

A new logo reflecting the name change will be introduced tonight on WWE's top-rated television show RAW( on TNN at 9 p.m. (ET).

"As World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, we have entertained millions of fans around the United States and around the globe," said Linda McMahon, CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment. "Our new name puts the emphasis on the "E" for entertainment, what our company does best. WWE provides us with a global identity that is distinct and unencumbered, which is critical to our U.S. and international growth plans."

Mrs. McMahon said the company began considering dropping the word "Federation" from its name when World Wildlife Fund (a/k/a World Wide Fund for Nature) prevailed in a recent court action in the United Kingdom. The court ruling prevents the World Wrestling Federation from the use of the logo it adopted in 1998 and the letters WWF in specified circumstances. The "Fund" has indicated that although the two organizations are very different, there is the likelihood of confusion in the market place by virtue of the fact that both organizations use the letters WWF. The Fund has indicated that it does not want to have any association with the World Wrestling Federation. "Therefore," said, Mrs.McMahon, "we will utilize this opportunity to position ourselves emphasizing the entertainment aspect of our company, and, at the same time, allay the concerns of the Fund."

Mrs. McMahon said the name change provides a distinct and unencumbered global identity that will further cast World Wrestling Entertainment as an integrated entertainment and media company. "World Wrestling Entertainment and WWE will now be the identity that we use from the television base we have established in 130 countries," she said. "As WWE, we will launch our further expanded U.S. and international touring, our international expansion of branded merchandise and licensed products, and our further integration into the film, publishing and music businesses."

The successful development of the "Tough Enough"( television series on MTV, a new book deal with Simon and Schuster, and the hit motion picture, "The Scorpion King," executive produced by WWE Chairman Vince McMahon and WWE, are examples of the types of activities the company plans to undertake as it expand its horizons in the global entertainment industry.

New logo art has been provided to business partners, licensees and vendors. The company expects that, for the most part, the changeover to the new name and logo will be completed within five months.

WWE will continue to trade as WWF on the New York Stock Exchange until a suitable replacement symbol is found. The company will be providing the appropriate documentation and filings with regulators to solicit shareholder approval of the name change.

In conjunction with the name change, WWE announced it has changed the name of its entertainment complex in New York City's Times Square from WWF New York to The World(, currently the name of its popular night club.

World Wrestling Entertainment (NYSE: WWF) is an integrated media and entertainment company headquartered in Stamford, Conn., with offices in New York City, Chicago, Toronto and London. Additional information on the company can be found at wwe.com and wwecorpbiz.com. Information on television ratings and community activities can be found at wweparents.com.

Editors Note: Copies of the new logo can be obtained from Business Wire.

Media Contact: Gary Davis, 203-353-5066

Investor Contact: Tom Gibbons, 203-328-2576

Forward-Looking Statements: This news release contains forward-looking statements which are subject to various risks and uncertainties. These risks and uncertainties include the conditions of the markets for live events, broadcast television, cable television, pay-per-view, Internet, food and beverage, entertainment, professional sports, and licensed merchandise; acceptance of the Company's brands, media and merchandise within those markets; and other risks and factors identified in the Company's documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Actual results could differ materially from those currently anticipated.

There....NOW....end of discussion TruthCrusader

New development

I was looking for a date for when the company changed from WWWF to WWF and I remembered about the non-mark title history archive site that Chadbryant used as a reference at the top of this page. While finding the date for that, I noticed something about the date WWF changed to WWE. It turns out that the non-marks now believe that the company changed names on May 5. See http://www.wrestling-titles.com/wwf/ tv316 14:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And according to WWE, they changed on 6 May. End of discussion. - Chadbryant 17:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Chad's precariously stacked deck of cards is about to come crashing down. Chad's sources have even turned against him. As WWE have a proven track record of dishonesty, can their word be trusted against that of multiple independent sources? --Sasaki 02:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

• Object. The Undisputed Championship is not the same title as the WWE Championship - the belt itself is different, the Undisputed Championship was defended across brands, and the lineage differs as the Undisputed Championship did not come into creation until December 2001. McPhail 23:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Object. As noted by McPhail, the Undisputed Championship and the WWE Championship are separate titles. The Undisputed Title is as much the WWE Championship as it is the WCW World Heavyweight Championship (as it is, of course, the result of the unification of those titles). Jeff Silvers 03:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. We don't have a seperate title listing for when the WCW World title and WCW International titles were listed. The WCW title was merges into the WWE Title, so this is part of the WWE Title history. TJ Spyke 04:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC))
• Object. For same reasons as Jeff Silvers, we cannot merge into BOTH WWE and WCW titles which it shares the lineage of, and as such is a separate title. PhatePunk 11:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support.For same reasons as TJ Spyke WWE does not recognized there seperation, the title was continued to be defended on SD! (now RAW) as the WWE Championship. While the WCW World Title was defunt and unified with the WWE Champion (same way as Euro & Hardcore with the IC, and the IC was temporaly with World Heavywieght Championship (WWE).

BionicWilliam 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The Undisputed Championship was created by the merger of the WWE title and WCW World Heavyweight Championship. That merger ceased once the titles were de-unified following Lesnar "signing" a contract to appear exclusively on Smackdown. - Chadbryant 03:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The merger didn't "cease" since the WWE and WCW Titles were still unified, the World Heavyweight Championship was a new title created in September 2002(I know it had a similiar belt design, but it's not the same lineage as the WCW Title). TJ Spyke 16:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is up for debate; there is evidence to support both sides. Jeff Silvers 00:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. When the WCW title was merged into the WWE title, it was called the Undisputed title. When Brock Lesnar would only defend it on SD!, it became the WWE title again. WWE acknowledges that the Undisputed title is part of the WWE title lineage, and so does this article. --James Duggan 00:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support.It seems illogical to insist they are seperate when the WWE does not recognise this, who is in charge of the product, fans or the WWE?(Halbared 15:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC))
• Suport. It's still the WWE Championship. They weren't creating a different title, just a different belt design that merged the WCW and WWE heavyweight titles into one belt. After it was decided that Raw and Smackdown! would have a world championship belt, the belt was split once more. The Undisputed WWE Championship was part of the lineage of the WWE, WWF, and WWWF World Heavyweight Championships. Odin's Beard 00:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Suport. As noted in earlier disputes regarding this article, WWE are deemed to have the final say. Halbared is fully correct. Sasaki 03:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Object per McPhail and Jeff Silvers. The Undisputed Championship lineage differs from the WWE Championship as the belt did not come into creation until late 2001. Both are separate titles. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment According to WWE.com, the Undisputed Championship shares the same lineage as the WWE Championship. The site provides a list of all the wrestlers who have one the title, where the title was won, and the date it was won on. Since WWE says it's part of the official lineage, it renders the discussion moot. No matter what personal opinions everone might have or from what other sources that they've gathered information with which they've based their opinion from is irrelevant. If the WWE's position is that the title is part of the WWE Championship lineage, than that's all there is to it. Stating otherwise in the article is substituting personal opinion in the place of a fact.http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/wwechampionship/ Odin's Beard 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Regardless of how the title was defended at the time, it's just another name for the WWE Title. Also, it has the same linneage as the WWE title, and it always has. ^---SilentRAGE! 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, the WWE Undisputed Championship is both the WWE Championship and the WCW Championship (also known as, for a short period of time on November 2001 to March 2002 (estimate), as the World Championship). When that “title” was disputed, the WWE Undisputed Championship became spilt into two titles: the WWE Championship and the World Championship. The physical belt representing the “Undisputed” Championship took on the WWE part of the title, while the “new” version of the Big Gold Belt took on the World Championship part of the title. Now you know where the “Big Gold Belt” came from, regardless if the WWE recognizes Ric Flair or Triple H as the first “World Champion”. In my opinion, the linage is continued as is the case with the US and the Cruiserweight titles. WWE owns WCW and ECW for that matter. The question I pose to you is, who is the last WCW champion?? Would you say Chris Jericho for unifying and therefore making the WCW Title defunct?? Would you say Brock Lesner for taking the “Undisputed Title” and making it exclusive to Smackdown, which would make John Cena the current WWE/WCW Champion?? Would you say Triple H for being the last person to hold the physical Big Gold Belt before the added the WWE logo to the top of the belt. Remember when Triple H was “awarded” the current version of the World Championship that is on Smackdown today, that belt did not have the logo on it initially. Sorry if I confused you more than we all already are. The WWE may as well just rename the World Tag Team Titles to the WWE Tag Team Titles since the linage is from the original WWE Tag Team Titles, and rename the WWE Tag Team Titles to the World Tag Team Titles and just “revision” it’s linage to the WCW Tag Team Titles. Just my opinion. --Prince Patrick 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

WCW reigns

The article lists the number of Undipsuted and WWF/E title reigns for each Undisputed Champion at the time of their reign, but shouldn't it also list WCW title reigns, as that was the other half of the championship? Jeff Silvers 00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's one thing I always wondered about as well, therefore the Undisputed Title should be its own seperate title.

No, the Undisputed title is just another name for the WWE title. It doesn't share lineage with the WCW title. ^---SilentRAGE! 22:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff. Every single "Undisputed” Champion is both WWE and WCW Champion, but it was split into two when Brock was just the WWE Champion (physically represented by the “Undisputed” belt) and Triple H became the World Champion (represented by the “Big Gold Belt”). Does anyone remember the WCW Championship being called the World Championship after Survivor Series 2001?? Does anyone remember the Big Gold Belt not having a WWE logo on top when Triple H was awarded the belt?? Coincidence?? I do not think so. Therefore I believe that King Booker is the SIX time WCW/ World Champion. Think about it.- Prince Patrick 00:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This probably isn't the proper place to get into the debate about the WCW/World Heavyweight Championship lineage dispute, but yeah, thanks for agreeing. This isn't so much about whether SmackDown!'s title is the same as WCW's, but whether the WCW title was officially part of the Undisputed Championship--which it was. Jeff Silvers 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was. --Prince Patrick 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

May 5/6, 2002

I'm holding a hard copy of Dave Meltzer's Wrestling Observer, cover date May 13, 2002 (the same issue with the Lou Thesz obituary):

"The new name, World Wrestling Entertainment, was unveiled on 5/5 with changes in the company's web site to wwe.com and all new references in every story on the site Some were hilarious, because it wasn't as if stories were edited, but all archives did a program change from all WWF letter patterns to WWE. It was announced at the beginning of the Raw show the next night..."

I hope you'll find this useful information about a very trivial detail.

There were actually 'WWF's already changed to 'WWE's on the Friday before which would be the 3rd. I remember seeing 'WWE Judgment Day' and thinking, "WWE?" because I didn't know about it until the night they announced it on Raw.-- FPAtl (holla) 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

64.131.196.233 04:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)It seems uninformative to cling to the May 6 date when such a concrete switch was already made the day before (and the effective WWF/WWE changeover was a process that took many weeks anyway). I hope the new wording satisfies all advocates on all sides.

It doesn't - this debate was settled months ago with a copy of WWE's press release on the subject, dated 6 May 2002. - Chadbryant 04:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The date is May 6th. A press release from the WWE trumps any wrestling "blog" for information about it. TruthCrusader 05:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

64.131.196.233 09:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Oops... I just checked the squabbling above. I hadn't fully realized I was stepping into a loon's minefield.

1.Meltzer's Observer is not an unreliable "blog," but the most respected news source covering the industry. But I suspect that anyone so invested in being proved right about a piece of wrestling minutia already knows all about the Observer.

2.The WWE press release states that "the company's website, one of the most popular in the world, will now be found at WWE.com." In fact, the website changeover was already 24 hours old, having already occurred on May 5, one day earlier.

3.Press releases are routinely issued following events. Have you seen the official WWE press release announcing the birth of Stephanie McMahon's daughter? It's dated Tuesday, July 25, 2006.

What's the explanation there? Was the birth announcement on the previous night's Raw telecast just another opinion that's "trumped" by a press release?

Of course, the above "settled" debate indicates that none of this will register. It took all of three minutes to show up and delete the more correct information? Forgive me if I don't join the exciting game of "revert war" with you boys.

-The date for the change has already been established as 6 May 2002.

-Your condescending attitude is not needed and could be interpreted as a personal attack.

-If you want to be taken seriously, register an account. - Chadbryant 13:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

64.131.196.233 23:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)I've contributed to Wikipedia for several years. I refuse to register because of "discussions" like the one higher on this talk page, and ridiculous battles of the kind detailed on your user pages. There's no winning turf wars with obsessed admins. Another reason: my assigned IP changes every week or three, rendering the standard threat to block (like the one you messaged me) ineffective.

So, with your abiding faith in "established" timelines built on WWE press releases, when was Stephanie McMahon's baby born, July 24, or July 25?

More to the point, was the wwf.com website hacked by psychics on May 5, 2002?

You may find the press release related to this topic on our corporate site. Please visit the News Section, and click on 2002 News Releases. The official date is May 6, 2002.

End of discussion. - Chadbryant 00:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

64.131.196.233 01:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)The pedantic compulsion to "win" is no discussion. Nor is it a substitute for real events.

The official date of America's entry into World War Two is December 8, 1941. So that's when hostilities started. End of discussion.

Again: was the wwf.com website hacked by psychics on May 5, 2002? I wouldn't answer that question, either, if I held your position.

Your question is irrelevant. There is nothing to discuss further. 6 May 2002 stands as the proven & official date for the WWf-to-WWE transition. - Chadbryant 01:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you say he had a condescending attitude, and then display one yourself? To simply dismiss him in the manner you have just concluded ("There is nothing to discuss further") is not a positive or proactive way of handling this dispute. I would suggest you work WITH the person rather than AGAINST him to attempt to resolve your differences regarding this issue. Otherwise, this will turn into another rec.sport.pro-wrestling fairly quickly. --Fountain of Truth 02:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Legal issues

This appeared and was reverted:

After a British court ruled that the WWF had violated an agreement with the World Wildlife Fund, the company was ordered to remove all "WWF" references from its product. The company's website was quietly renamed wwe.com on May 5, 2002. On May 6, 2002, the World Wrestling Federation was officially changed to World Wrestling Entertainment, and the WWF title was rechristened the WWE Undisputed Championship.

So is that true or not? And if it's true, why has it been reverted? Tyrenius 09:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The name change for the subject of the article took place on May 6 2002. Info regarding domain switches isn't relevant to the article, or needed. - Chadbryant 11:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

24.215.152.197 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)That reply addresses Tyrenius' second question. I'll answer the first question, since it was ignored.

Yes, it is true, Tyrenius. The initial public stages of the WWF/WWE changeover did occur before the May 6 date that's currently frozen onto this page.

The WWF/WWE transformation did not occur at an instant, like a stroke of lightning. It was a process. Hulk Hogan was officially listed by WWE as the WWE Undisputed Champion on wwe.com on May 5, 2002, but this was as much a clerical change as a ceremonial one. Clearly, this is terribly hurtful information.

Logically, listing a precise calendar date for the company's name change isn't "relevant" or "needed" to this article either-- good heavens, did it happen as soon as the 14th day of Hulk Hogan's 2002 title reign, or not until the 15th??? And in fact, no precise calendar date can be 100% correct.

But some Wikipedia contributors are heavily invested in past arguments, and do not want to consider the fact that neither side "won" them. They would rather declare "debate over" and "question irrelevant" and "your IP may be blocked" than allow two sentences of useful context to remain in a 6-paragraph-long article.

There isn't anything "frozen" on the page. The article is currently protected to keep new or anonymous users from disrupting the editing process by inserting erroneous information. If it means that much to you, register an account and play by the rules. - Chadbryant 22:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

24.215.152.197 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Your views regarding "erroneous information" and "the rules" are both mistaken. The May 5 prelims have already been well documented. As for playing by the rules, I give you Wikipedia's official policy:

When not to use semi-protection Semi-protection should NOT be used: 2. as a response to regular content disputes, since it may restrict some editors and not others (see the protection policy for how to deal with this); 5. to prohibit anonymous editing in general.

The semi-protection will be lifted soon enough. Ah, if only Wikipedia were "the free encyclopedia that anyone you like from rec.sport.pro-wrestling can edit."

Chadbryant: Hulk Hogan was officially listed by the WWE as their WWE Undisputed Champion on WWE.com on Sunday, May 5, 2002.

Do you regard this as more erroneous information?

Was the website hacked by psychics?

24.215.152.197 01:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Nothing, huh?

Bueller? Bueller?

If you are interested in being allowed to contribute in the future, please read WP:NPA. - Chadbryant 02:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

24.215.152.197 07:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)I have. I'm especially intrigued by the part that reads "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute."

Why don't you cite the particular NPA guideline you think I've violated? Otherwise, your comment could be interpreted as attempted bullying. And surely, that couldn't possibly be the impression you were hoping to make.

Also, in what was surely an unintentional oversight, you skipped this part. Any thoughts about the WWE's WWE.com officially calling Hulk Hogan the WWE Undisputed Champion on May 5, 2002?

It certainly would appear to muddy the chronology, no? Could this have been an example of time travel, like a hypothetical person's interest "in being allowed to contribute in the future"?

Why is Chadbryant claiming WWE are always a reliable source of information in this discussion, while disagreeing with official WWE history regarding the proposed merge? You can't have your cake and eat it Sasaki 18:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this on WP:LAME yet? Most of the debate is "is it May 5 or May 6?" Geez. Morgan Wick 05:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

24.215.152.197 09:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)During this dispute, Mr. Chadbryant's faith in the canonical nature of a dated WWE press release has been unshakable. It was therefore amusing to see CB's comment defending his edit in the Kurt Angle revert war: "(r/v - press release spin is not encyclopedic, either)"

The obvious solution has always been to report what happened on both dates, as both May 5 and 6 are merely touchpoints in a months-long namechange process. For unexplained reasons, the user finds this unacceptable.

Chadbryant: "(r/v - anonymous user who refuses to register continues to go against the consensus that only the 6 May 2002 date needs to be included)"

24.239.177.47 00:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)This page is proof enough that the "6 May consensus" Mr. Chadbryant describes is fictional.

Mr. Chadbryant also continues to castigate "anonymous" users as somehow suspect, despite Wikipedia's explicit guidelines stating that anonymous contributions are valid and should be regarded as such. Perhaps he should review this section of Wikipedia.

Sadly, the vast majority of registered users agree with him on this point. Morgan Wick 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

24.239.177.47 03:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Well, whether it's sad or happy, I've long since decided that the drawbacks of registration are more of a nuisance than the drawbacks of "anonymity." Perhaps because I have no interest in carving out a "Wiki reputation," or an administrator's role, or user page salutes, or whatever. Besides, registered names are often fronts or ciphers; a look at Mr. Chadbryant's user page history shows battle after battle with dozens of registered users. So clearly a Wikipedia ID is no protection against trouble, nor is it any guarantee of seriousness. And if someone who's been directly targeted by trolls and socks doesn't get that point, your assessment about the vast majority of Wiki users comes as no surprise.

Jericho as only WCW World Champion -

Not true. Chris Benoit (subjective, but Wikipedia includes his reign) and Bret Hart have both held the WCW World Heavyweight Championship at one point or another.

It's obviously referring to Jericho being the only Canadian to hold the undisputed championship, given that the article is about the undisputed championship....

Non-Notable, hardly

It seems an over-zealous editor seems intent on repeatedly reverting edits, claiming a piece of trivia which was incorrectly removed (see above) over a month ago is non-notable. This would make the entire trivia section non-notable. The information was incorrectly removed on this edit [6] on 26 October, after being in the article for some time. Perhaps the editor in question would like to check edit histories of pages before making rash and unnecessary edits?

Undisputed WWF Championship

There should be some mention of this, as that was how the title was being announced for awhile. I'm not sure which one came first, and I'm not calling for a title change, but there needs to be a mention. Mshake3 02:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously, I am now calling for a title change.
  • That wasn't the ame of the belt. The correct name was WWF/WWE Undisputed Championship. TJ Spyke 04:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was oppose move -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

---

WWE Undisputed Championship → Undisputed WWE Championship — About a month after the belt merger, this became the official name of the championship, and should be reflected as such Mshake3 02:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose... sigh... You do not base information on what you see on a video box art... Every single professional wrestling news site... INCLUDING... WWE.com name the belt the WWE Undisputed Championship... -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So you want me to trust professional wrestling sites as opposed to commercially released box art? Mshake3 05:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[7] "The Game became the Undisputed WWE Champion at WrestleMania X8, where he defeated Chris Jericho at Toronto’s SkyDome." Now we could list various articles from WWE.com that say both. Or we can agree that since WWE.com is inconsistant, we don't include it at all in the discussion. Mshake3 05:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Stong Oppose The correct name is WWE Undisputed Championship. That is what it was always called, I just watched the Vengeance 2001 title match (Rock/Undertaker/Angle) and they said WWE Undisputed Championship. TJ Spyke 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what the title was originally called when the belts merged. After about a month, they flipped the words around. Watch other PPVs, and tell me whether or not they call it that. Mshake3 05:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmm............... Jeff Hardy vs The Undertaker (WWE "UNDISPUTED" Championship. First thing you see on the video... Graphics that say... WWE Undisputed Championship. NOT Undisputed WWE Championship. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And it does say WWE Undisputed Champion for Summerslam 02. So it appears that that was the final name for the championship. So we can close the debate, HOWEVER, on the condition that the article at least include some mention of the other name. Mshake3 05:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed either. Both the WCW and NWA world titles have been called "Heavyweight Championship of the World" (rather than their official name of "World Heavyweight Championship"). Also, I meant to say Vengeance 2002 (which was July 2002) in my original post. TJ Spyke 06:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

With box art and on screen graphics, it's notable and official. I think the change was made during the WWF-WWE switch. I need to check a few PPVs from February and March. Mshake3 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 02, No Way Out 02, WrestleMania X8: Undisputed WWF Championship. You can't deny it, at that time it was a different name. Mshake3 04:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Like TJ said, announcers often call titles odd names despite knowing their offical name is different. like when JR use to refer to the World Heavyweight Championship as the Heavyweight Championship of the World. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What part about Box Art and On Screen Graphics do you not understand? `Mshake3 20:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What part of WP:POINT don't you understand? -- bulletproof ^3:16 01:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Oppose a pointless move - cases where the announces called it different things is hardly a case for a name change or Chris Jericho should be moved to Chris Benoit according to good ol' JR. MPJ-DK 02:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• No Way Out 2002 Box Art, showing official title name [8]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

lesner winning the title in 15 minutes

you say that lesner's title match was the qucikest at 15 minutes this is wrong because if you check wwe judgemnet day 2002 you will see taker and hogan's match lasted only 11 minutes — comment was added by Deadman lastride666 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Jericho Undisputed.jpg

Image:Jericho Undisputed.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 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 09:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)