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

Length of Big Show's reign
On-air in the WWE, Big Show's brief reign as World Champion has been referred to as just 45 seconds in length but this is actually very inaccurate. Timing his reign from bell to bell, starting with the first bell after pinning Mark Henry and the second bell, after he got pinned by Daniel Bryan, the time totaling to 1:54 (One minute and Fifty Four Seconds). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.76 (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 * If this is the case, then the article should be consistent. The "Reigns" section says 45 seconds, but the sidebar says 2 minutes. I recommend that the "Reigns" section be edited to say 2 minutes, but WWE often refers to it as 45 seconds...or something like that. 129.62.65.238 (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

one of the references (http://www.wwe.com/superstars/raw/tripleh/tentimestheking/reign6match/) is now a dead link 72.200.156.118 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The World Heavyweight Championship that has recently been carried by such greats as Batista and Triple H got its start in WWE back in 2002. But its prestigious lineage can actually be traced back all the way to George Hackenschmidt and 1904. For years, it was known as the NWA Championship; then when WCW pulled out of the NWA in the early 1990s, Ric Flair was recognized as the first-ever WCW Champion. Since that time, top names such as Hulk Hogan, Ron Simmons and Bret Hart carried the championship prior to WCW's demise.

so says the WCW title page now, also under WWE's WHC page, it has "historical photo" of old NWA & WCW champions. looks like it now carries the same lineage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.247.87 (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"For years it was known as the NWA Championship"? A belt is NOT a title, a belt only represents a title. The original Big Gold belt only represented the NWA World Title. The NWA and it's World Title never ceast to exist and still exist to this day. MrNWA4Life 08:47 25 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Please take a look at the archives. This has been brought up time and time again and has been clarified just as many times as well. -- bullet proof  3:16 03:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to rekindle an old discussion. It could very well be nothing than just a slip of the tongue. I just wonder why JR, Jerry Lawler, and Triple H refers to himself as an 11 time WWE Champion. I can understand a slip of the tongue a couple of times, but they keep saying over and over. On last night's edition of Raw, for example, both Lawler and JR said the same thing at least once each. It makes me wonder if they're now going to try to say that those 5 reigns with the World Championship are going to be consolidated with the 6 WWE Championship reigns to call him an 11 time WWE Champion. I might be paranoid, but I think of the times that WWE has rewritten history, regardless of how piss poor and senseless it is, to reflect a certain view for a storyline. Sounds like something that they'd do.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Triple H is in fact now a 12 time World Champion. 7 times with the WWE Championship and 5 times with the World Heavyweight. They are equivalent in prestige and so the title reigns are added together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.208.18 (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * THey may be "equal in prestige" but JR still constanly says "an 12-time WWE Champion." Triple H calls himself that too. Can't they just say "12 time world champion?" They say "5 time world champion" when talking about Edge. I agree with Odin's Beard, it sometimes seems like they attempt to retcon the shit of things for no reason. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

 * They add the world title reigns together and mean that say HHH is a 12 time world champion, but when a championship is involved they often slip up and say 12 time WWE champion 92.238.202.23 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Stripped
I was just at the show in Atlantic City tonight, and Vickie stripped Taker of the belt. Do we update this now or when it airs? Linknumbers (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, until it airs in Australia. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So it actually happened? So much for that much-deserved long-term reign everyone thought he would get. But ThinkBlue is right, we have to wait until it airs. -- Scorpion0422 04:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, we wait until it airs in America tomorrow night, not Australia.Killswitch Engage (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 * No, consensus was made that it was Australia.  Sexy Sea  Shark  16:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, Australia is where it airs first, so thats when we're allowed to post it up, I understand.--76.104.252.229 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not being allowed to update this page until Smackdown airs somewhere is all bollocks. This is an encyclopedia, it's job is to report fact. And the fact is that Undertaker is no longer World Heavyweight Champion. Doesn't matter when it airs, fact is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.208.18 (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But fact must be backed up by a reliable source to be established as fact! By your logic, I could come up with a convincing untrue statement and edit it in without a source. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then use a reliable source. There are many websites out there that provide the reliable source so we can update this page. www.gerweck.net and www.wrestlingrevealed.com will both confirm that Vicki Guerrero stripped the Undertaker of the World Title. There's your reliable source now can someone please update this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.184.35 (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of those sources are NOT reliable per, WP:RS. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, why Australia? WWE is an American company. And posting it before airs in America would violate the spoiler policy, because the results wouldn't be up on WWE.com.Killswitch Engage (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no spoiler policy. That was abolished months ago! Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, I'm way out of the loop. But wouldn't that mean I could use a spoiler report off of lordsofpain.net? Killswitch Engage (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, since lordsofpain isn't a reliable source. A match can be added with a reliable source even i it is a spoiler. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it not reliable? Unless the person reporting is lying, I don't get it.Killswitch Engage (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Dirtsheets are not reliable sources. WON and WWE.com are reliable. Pretty much anything else isn't. In other words, you can't remove something because it's a spoiler, but you can remove it because there's no RS. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What is with all of this fannying around. Will someone who has access to this page please update it? The fact is that Undertaker is no longer World Champion and you are mocking the idea of an encyclopedia. We allno the truth, we know it's not a lie and of course dirtsheets are reliable sources. Now will you all pull your head out of your arses and get on with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyChaos23 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, dirtsheets, are not reliable sources, per WP:PW and WP:RS. If you wish to present reasoning that dirtsheets ARE reliable sources, feel free to start a discussion here. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I still remember back in 1999 when several of these dirtsheets claimed that Jake The Snake Roberts returned to WWE and joined Undertaker's ministry by attacking Austin and Big Show on a taped episode of RAW. Turned out to be total bullocks.  That is one example why dirtsheets are not to be taken as reliable sources, they tend to spread lies sometimes. 71.121.72.15 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's also remember back in 1990 when The Rockers beat the Hart Foundation for the World Tag Team Titles during a taping of Saturday Night's Main Event. That match ended up being left off of the broadcast, and the title change was never acknowledged. In my opinion, title changes shouldn't be added to Wikipedia until they air on television. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.146.137 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)
- The article was not renamed-- S R X  15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Who supports a move to WWE World Heavyweight Championship? -- iMa tth ew  T. C. 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the WWE Championship once having been known as the WWF World Heavyweight Championship. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it ever was, if we are talking about the big gold belt, it was brought in post-May 2002. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Support SAVIOR_  SELF  .777  07:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since it would bring confusion since the WWE Championship is the WWE World Heavyweight Championship by a shorter name.-- Will C  09:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support-The WWF World Heavyweight Championship is the WWE Championship, but the WWE Championship has never been known as the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. After the attitude era, the title was known as the WWF Championship and then the WWE Championship. The proper name for the above title is the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) World Heavyweight Championship because the title is using the WWE name. We should just call the TNA World Heavyweight Championship the World Heavyweight Championship (TNA), plus this name brings to much confusion, as other titles use the same name. The WWE World Heavyweight Championship is it's name and the way it should be called.-- S R X -- Latino Heat  20:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that that's not it's name. It's name is simply "World Heavyweight Championship. It was never called the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is the "literal" name for it. Look at the article, if that articles were to ever go to a GA review or FA review (hypothetically) they would notice, why isn't World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) written anywhere else in the article? This is also sort of like a quantifier for the championship because so many championships out there use it's name. -- S R X -- Latino Heat  21:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's for disamg purposes. Notice in Get Smart (film) that the "(film)" part isn't repeated. Since when did the article title have to be exactly copied in the article. Mshake3 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It IS a quantifier and I realize I sound like a hypocrite for opposing a move for this and opposing moves to other quantifiers but I feel like the quantifier is the better option in this case. I would support a move to something without a quantifier if it's not "WWE World Heavyweight Championship." Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This probably doesn't mean much but that's the way it is referred to as there. here as well The Sun is also using that name. Also, another reason, who owns the copyrights to all titles in WWE, World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Why do all of them have the WWE logo on them? Because they are owned by WWE, which is why every title begins with the WWE acronym, WWE doesn't say the "WWE World Tag Team Champions or the WWE World Heavyweight Champion because of storyline purposes to distinguish the titles of each brand. S R X -- Latino Heat  22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, the NWA refers to it as the "WWE World Championship", per CM Punk winning, (This is from 7/10/08)-- S R X -- Latino  Heat  15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's gives a shit about the NWA and they call another company's championship? Mshake3 (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Support per SRX 1362talk 04:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I support the move, SRX, I have to point something out. this link you provided] is about the history of the WWE Championship not the World Heavyweight Championship. I still support the move. SAVIOR_  SELF  .777  20:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, thats what I get for not reading it. But you see how the WWE Championship is incorrectly called that, thats not it's name, the WHC is the WWE WHC. S R X  21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

-- S R X  15:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Before the company changed its name, the WWE Championship was referred to as both the WWF Championship and the WWF World Heavyweight Championship. Given the name change, WWE World Heavyweight Championship logically succeeds to have the same meaning as WWE Championship whereas the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) has never been called the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Tony2Times (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is true, but too many titles have world heavyweight championship in their name, and all of them are referred to it with the {acronym} World Heavyweight Championship. If we are going to keep it like this, we may as well rename the rest of the articles to quantifiers. S R X  19:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This has nothing to do with what is the "proper" term. It has to do with how the company promotes it. If WWE doesn't want it's initials in front of this championship name, who are we to say otherwise? It's similar to how numerous indy feds will use the term "World Champion" for their top title, even though they're not a recognized world championship among fans and magazines. We leave the title name as it because that's what it is called. Mshake3 (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Same reasons as Mshake3. Articles of this type should reflect the name of the championship as its named by the promotion that owns it. World Wrestling Entertainment calls it the World Heavyweight Championship, so that's what the title of the article should be. It's logical and it's simple.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gavyn and Mshake. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 06:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Approach for Championship Scramble...
How will we do this? List who comes out on top at the end and then mention how many times the title changed hands in the match? Because I think that matters since every time someone is pinned they are recognized as World Champion for that brief period and while they may or not be champion at the end there were title changes in that period. SuperSonicTH (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Just how many times the title changed hands because the people who pin during the time limit are unofficial champions and only the

guy who comes out last is the real official champion. The note section will be enough. I doubt the belt will change more than 3 times.-- Will C  03:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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

The Rock
Shouldn't The Rock be known for the first World Heavyweight Champion? Does anyone not remember when the Alliance lost at Survivor Series '01 The Rock still held before then the WCW Championship, but after SS it was referred as the World Heavyweight Champion until it was merged with the WWF Championship at Vengeance '01. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killa Koz (talk • contribs) 04:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * This is not the same belt as the WCW Championship. WWE even says they are two different belts.-- Will C  04:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I know it's not the same, I'm stating that it was referred as the World Championship when The Rock had it, thus making him the first. Killa Koz (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. Fact of the matter is the NWA never ceast to exist and still exists to this day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.123.53.88 (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Jeff Hardy Champıons Ulan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.180.74.165 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Something wrong with the introduction date of the World Heavyweight Championship with WWE's logo on it
Although the photo description of the current World Heavyweight Championship design in the article stated that design is introduced in March 2003 but when I was watching Survivor Series 2002 (which took place Live on November 17 2002) on VCD I saw Triple H (with Ric Flair) was interviewed backstage by Marc Lyold, Triple H was wearing the "2003" and current design of the World Heavyweight Championship.

Any wikipedian who owned a copy of the Survivor Series 2002 DVD can see the belt's centerplate flashing the WWE's logo on the upper curve of its centerplate while looking closely at that title belt while watching that interview and change the belt's current design intro date. Kyrios320 (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats odd... If you watch the Survivor Series you can cleary see the belt Shawn is celebrating with has no logo. The belt also used at Armageddon, Royal Rumble, and No Way Out also didn't have a logo. The first time you the WWE logo on the belt at a pay-per-view event is at WrestleMania XIX. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

added trolling?
WWF was ALHEBSI is the greatest in WWE

this statement seems to have been added and does not make sence ......either it needs to be removed or explained ...cos i dont know if its an acronym or a username — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.98.80.104 (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Final champion?
With the unification match at TLC, should it be noted that Cena is technically the final World Heavyweight Champion? Jedi Striker (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Not until it actually happens. —  Richard  BB  20:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

 * The World Heavyweight Championship is not abolished. According to WWE, Orton is now dubbed as the first ever "WWE World Heavyweight Champion".  Also WWE lists Orton's reign as WHC as December 15, 2013 - present.  Just as a comparison to show the difference, WWE lists Ezekiel Jackson's ECW Championship reign as February 16, 2010 - February 16, 2010.  The fact that Orton's reign is listed as "present" shows that WWE considers Orton's reign (and thus the title) as active.  This appears on the surface as something similar to when the World Tag Team and WWE Tag Team titles were unified, in that the champion is lugging around both belts under an umbrella term ("Unified Tag Team Championship", "WWE World Heavyweight Championship"), and that the titles will be defended together. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes you got it right VJ. I believe I fixed all the related pages that were changed after the PPV to state the title had been abolished. That is all WP:OR and speculation at this point.  STATic  message me!  06:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Although we won't know for certain until Orton loses the title and either championship history is updated after a new champion is crowned the title history page at wwe.com seems to indicate at the very least that the WWE Championship has in fact been renamed. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 12:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Strangely enough, it's on the list of retired championships. http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/retired-championships — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.209.139.83 (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * That looks fairly conclusive. It seems that Orton has been declared the final champion and the belt was subsequently retired. —  Richard  BB  12:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * We're getting mixed signals here (all from WWE)...on one hand the WHC is in the retired column, but on the other, Orton's WHC reign is considered active.  The safe thing to do is consider Orton's WHC reign as active.  Once someone beats Orton for the title, we'll see if it counts as both a WWE and WH title reign (a la the Unified Tag Team Titles).  If it does, great..if not, then that would mean Orton was the final WHC and we can adjust accordingly.  Vjmlhds (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Well the implication that I got was that Orton is considered the final champion. Either way, perhaps the best course of action is to do nothing and hope Raw tonight clears up a few questions. —  Richard  BB  15:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe today at RAW, WWE will help us. We can wait a few hours. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * It looks like for the time Orton holds both belts he will be called the "WWE World Heavyweight champion", but there is not saying that when the storyline unfolds that one of them will be no more. We can wait till at least RAW tonight to make any darastic changes. Also someone take a look over at Template: WWE Championships and Template: Former WWE Championships, the same user edit warring on this page is edit warring there too.  STATic  message me!  18:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Another bit of info to throw in the hopper - WWE is referring to Orton as the "new World Heavyweight Champion". Just by what's out there, WWE is making really hard to definitively say that the WHC is kaput. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Raw notes - Orton is lugging around both the WWE and World Heavyweight Championships, Orton's nameplate is on the WHC, and Orton's chyron features both belts. So again for what it's worth, any thought that the WHC is kaput should be put on the back burner as long as Orton continues to have both belts in his hands. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly safe conclusion to make now that the WHC is retired. The website officially declares it, and now Raw made only reference to there being one title, which is the "WWE World Heavyweight Championship". Yes, Orton is lugging around the Big Gold Belt, but that belt has represented many titles in its time. Remember, after all, that when Jericho unified the WCW title and the WWF title, he still carried both belts around for a few months. It seems to me that, for the time being, the single title is being represented by two belts, just as the undisputed championship was. I think that, unless a reliable source says anything to the contrary, it's now safe to assume that the WHC is no more. —  Richard  BB  08:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, this title should be retired. Also, http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wcwchampionship/3044541104 jericho stills the wcw championship, like orton--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seeing the Jericho/WCW thing, I've changed my mind. The WHC is retired, but the big gold belt is used as part of the WWE World Heavyweight Championship.  1 title, 2 belts. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Oldest Belt in the world?
This article contains this sentence ""Its heritage can be traced back to the first world heavyweight championship, thereby giving the belt a legacy over 100 years' old, the oldest in the world.""

How in the world can this title be traced back to the first world championship? How can this be the oldest championship in the world? Especially since the NWA World Title has actually existed since 1948, and this belt was only born in 2002. The belt design itself only goes back to the 80s.

I know there are a few WWE revisionist history statements out there, but I believe that if wikipedia is a truly accurate page, then someone needs to actual proof that this belt is the oldest belt in the world, especially since the NWA title still exists... and it is the oldest belt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.120.232 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 * The article explains this, as does the diagram. This belt is considered the successor to the WCW title, which is considered the successor to the NWA title, which grew out of the original WHC, over 100 years ago. —  Richard  BB  08:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

 * The problem with the theory is simple: Dan Severn. The WCW championship replaced the NWA one in WCW. In the non-WCW universe (who we're supposed to write for), life went on. Blue Demon Jr. existed. If a reader takes "traced back" loosely, like in a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon way, it's not entirely a lie. But it definitely implies a direct lineage, which is utter bullshit.

 * The problem with your diagram is also pretty simple: It's your diagram (unless the image info is wrong). We can't have original research here. Especially when the research ignores Sabu. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Yes, it is my image. However, this is not original research. All of the information represented by the diagram is presented by the WWE in numerous sources, most notably of which is their History of the World Heavyweight Championship DVD, which outright states everything claimed. The problem with the WHC is that its lineage works in a different way to other belts. This title started in 2002, sure, but its heritage is considered to descend from the original title that Frank Gotch held. Perhaps we should state the WWE consider the heritage to be linked. —  Richard  BB  16:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Not to be confused with WWE Universal Championship? Why on earth would anyone confuse these belts?
The WHC was retired years ago. There is no overlap between the belts. Also, no rational person would be able to confuse "WWE Universal" with "World Heavyweight" since the names are completely different. The WCW, ECW and USWA world titles were also contested in WWE - should we list those under "not to be confused" as well?

Removed, obviously. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been warned, reported and warned several times to stop removing. They are there for a reason Chris "WarMachineWildThing" (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice try, vandal. Stop trying to WP:OWN everything and move on. 185.54.163.137 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See Talk:WWE Universal Championship. Let's have one discussion, in one place, please. And try to get a broad consensus, instead of edit warring back and forth. oknazevad (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

So will this be updated
So Triple H just announced the reboot of this championship with a new look. Are we keeping this page or making a new “WWE WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP” page Trethezeldafan (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 * @Trethezeldafan nothing yet. This might be a revival of this title or it might be a brand new title. if it's a revival, then we'll just update this title to being active again, but if it's a brand new title, then we'll create a new article for the title. We just don't have enough concrete confirmation to know for sure which one it is yet. A post on WWE's Twitter makes it sound like Triple H brought back this title, but an article on WWE's website makes it sound like it's a brand new title, so we just got to wait and see. JDC808   ♫  01:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Only time will tell. GodofDemonwars (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely a revival. And I quote:
 * "@TripleH has brought back a legendary championship on #WWERaw    that The Game knows all too well!" right from the horse's twitter account Serouj2000 (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Nvm. On the other hand, the website calls it a new championship. Maybe they're talking about the new design Serouj2000 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Serouj2000 and that's the confusing part. Corey Graves on commentary also said they would crown the inaugural champion at Night of Champions. We just have to play the waiting game to find out for sure what's going on. JDC808   ♫  21:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The even more confusing part is that unlike, say, the Women's championship or the Cruiserweight Championship that were introduced in 2016, this one actually looks similar to the one from 2002-2013 Serouj2000 (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, the safest bet for now is to change this page's title to include its runtime and make a new page with the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) title with the new championship Serouj2000 (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the design is brand new but let’s be honest it’s still paying homage to the Big Gold Belt haha. Why do I feel like this probably won’t even be fully answered if both titles are related Trethezeldafan (talk) 02:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

 * @Trethezeldafan The design does pay homage to the Big Gold, but yeah, we just got to wait and see for sure what they're doing with this. JDC808   ♫  02:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A post on one of the official WWE pages on Facebook (I believe it is the WWE Raw page) says that the World Heavyweight Championship is back. That indicates a likely revival. 2600:4040:9DDB:4100:1468:CD7:7DC7:C0AC (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It all depends on the title history. If it picks up from where the old history left off, it's a revival. If not, it is a new title altogether. 2600:4040:9DDB:4100:8CC2:F3BF:3E79:AEFF (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW oppose. Much too soon for this. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Czello (music) 12:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) → World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002–2013) – On this past Monday on WWE Raw, Triple H opened a new WHC title. - St3095  (?)  15:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 * We don't know what the treatment of the title history is going to be yet. So, oppose for now. Wait. Revisit this in a couple of months.
 * The whole thing is stupid. They already have two titles, but they're too afraid to have a disputed decision allowing for them to be split back up. oknazevad (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I Support might as well do it Kevin  Talk 19:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose until reliable secondary sources are cited. 162 etc. (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose (for now). No need to look into our crystal balls. We don't known if the World Heavyweight Championship created for Raw will be considered a new championships or will maintain the lineage of the previous World Heavyweight Championship. Once WWE makes a decision, then article names can be changed and new articles should be created. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 * • Oppose; we don’t know if the new title is the same title. Until we are certain, strong oppose for now. PedigreeWWEFigz87V2 (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose until further confirmations are made. We don't know yet if the new WHC is going to continue the legacy of the old WHC. Hansen Sebastian Talk 03:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose until we get some further information. No need to rush into things just yet. Lachieshocker (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nobody knows wtf is going on.LM2000 (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WWE On Usa Article
Just wanted to point out that this article done by the USA Network often at times sounds like this and the new WHC are one in the same. Also I am not good at this Wikipedia stuff I just saw the article. --2001:579:8440:AD0:15E6:B694:1A7E:7A11 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 * @2001:579:8440:AD0:15E6:B694:1A7E:7A11 while USA does air WWE programs, that's not really a confirmation from WWE. We need a confirmation from WWE. JDC808   ♫  06:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Current title
message regarding the fact.its a revival. https://www.ringsidenews.com/2023/05/22/how-wwe-will-view-world-heavyweight-championship-in-company-history/ Crash Underride (mobile) (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, until WWE comes right out and says it, this can't be confirmed. Especially considering that when clicking on the previous WHC on WWE.com, it still says "Retired". https://www.wwe.com/titlehistory/world-heavyweight-championship 2600:1700:F680:3450:B4EC:5763:AFB0:6AF7 (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Crash Underride (mobile) neither Ringside News or BWE are considered reliable sources. We will find out Saturday (unless WWE confirms something sooner). JDC808   ♫  06:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WWE has yet to say anything that remotely links the new title to this one. Thus far, no mention of "1905," "WCW," "NWA," or any mention of past NWA, WCW, or World Champions who held the big gold belt between 1986 and 2013. John (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A new shirt released when won by Seth Rollins says "THE INAUGURAL WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION"
 * So it is not a revival. PedigreeWWEFigz87V2 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We can confirm that this is not a continuation of the old title. This is a completely new championship based on the title history's page. 2600:4040:9DDB:4100:14D1:5685:2379:2BE3 (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And as far as we know, it's not even a spinoff in the way that this title succeded the WCW title as a spinoff, and the WCW title was spun off from the NWA title. Whatever the case, the current title is a new title.￼ John (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WWE have now added the new World Heavyweight Championship to their website and IT IS NOT a continuation of the 2002-2013 Championship. Here is the new title history https://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/world-heavyweight-championship The old 2002-2013 has now been renamed "World Heavyweight Title" as shown here https://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/world-heavyweight-title So Seth Rollins is officially the first World Heavyweight Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedural close. World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) was moved to World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002–2013) by editor, and after was converted from a redirect to a dab page. The second proposal was moved to World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2023–present). Looks like all were in agreement about this, yet any editor can open a fresh move request at any time.  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'er there 00:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

– It has been established that there are now 2 distinct World Heavyweight Championships as the new one doesn't follow the lineage of the 2002 version. Thus, the (WWE) dab of the 2002 version's article is now redundant, but I cannot choose of a proper dab. Could it be (WWE, 2002–2013) or (WWE, original), or something else better? For the (New) dab of the current version's article, it's just plain bad and more redundant (there's no mention of WWE in the title), so that page should be moved as well with a name similar to what would be decided for the 2002 article. '''Engr. Smitty  Werben''' 22:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * World Heavyweight Championship (WWE) → ?
 * World Heavyweight Championship (WWE New) → ?
 * Note: redirects, such as World Heavyweight Championship (New), are ineligible to be current titles in move requests. The redirect was altered to its target, World Heavyweight Championship (WWE New), to remove the redirect from this request.  P.I. Ellsworth  , ed.  put'er there 06:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Similar Thing Happend When WWE Create The New Cruiserweight Championship in 2016.
 * In my suggestion:
 * For the New:
 * World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)
 * For the Old:
 * World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002-2013) 2600:6C64:667F:BC4B:D90D:A8A7:CC6E:809C (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * my solution is WWE World Heavyweight Championship (2002-2013 Version) for the title old belt and WWE World Heavyweight Championship (2023-present Version) as the title for the new belt. Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How about if the original belt has the title “World Heavyweight Championship (WWE; 2002)” and the current belt has “World Heavyweight Championship (WWE; 2023)” ? I think just using the year the belt debuted would be enough to differentiate the two. Megppg99 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * World Heavyweight Championship (2002-2013)
 * World Heavyweight Championship (2023-Present) 2A02:C7C:532C:8300:18A8:CD33:C951:6582 (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 * I think (WWE, 2002-2013) and (WWE, 2023-present) would be appropriate to match how WWE describes the titles. Original wouldn’t really fit because WWE considered the WCW title as the World title before it became defunct. C.M. Andersen 23:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

 * Just simply put World Heavyweight Championship (2002) for the original, and World Heavyweight Championship (2023) for the current one. Gotta get "New" out of there whatever we do, because anything can only be new for so long. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the New sounds crappy and not sure who changed it to WWE New. I’m down with the founding years C.M. Andersen 04:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 * How about naming the old title "World Heavyweight Championship (2002-2013)" and the new title "World Heavyweight Championship (2023)". Hansen Sebastian Talk 04:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguators should include "WWE", because there are multiple pro wrestling companies, and multiple sports, with World Heavyweight Championships, so including the WWE name as part of the disambiguation is 100% needed. Beyond that, to disambiguate between the 2002–2013 title and the new 2023 title, well, do what o just did in that sentence: use the dates. So World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002–2013) and World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2023) should be used. Those are also in line with Wikipedia-wide disambiguation guidelines, even beyond pro wrestling. oknazevad (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support everything oknazevad said in the post above.LM2000 (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002–2013)
 * World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2023–present)
 * That's my take and that is the most appropriate as per Wiki DAB guidelines. Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on this one. Hansen Sebastian Talk 07:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this option makes sense Margarte00 (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Makes this whole naming situation more clear, and will stop any confusion. Zippo9310 (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2002–2013) and World Heavyweight Championship (WWE, 2023–present) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SUPPORT. This is most sensible version of the titling that is appropriate given the circumstance. As per oknazevad. - retched (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. MushroomMan674 (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * • Support oknazevad and HHH Pedrigree’s comments. PedigreeWWEFigz87V2 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Cool beans with me. OK and HHH are 100% spot on. Vjmlhds (talk)  14:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Only thing is, the dash needs to be fixed (it's a date range) and there needs to be a comma. And we shouldn't use "–present" in titles. The exact titles I put above are needed to meet the guidelines. I'm moving both to those. oknazevad (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So I fixed the dashes. Left in "–present" after thinking it over oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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


text:
Talk:2005 papal conclave/Archive 3

Succession Order
In the Pope John Paul II article, it says that he was the 264th successor of Saint Peter. In this Papal conclave article, it says that they will be voting for the 265th pope. Wasn't John Paul II the 265th pope since he was the 264th successor? If this is true, then isn't the conclave voting for the 266th pope and not the 265th?
 * No...you are adding the same number twice.He was the 264th bishop of Rome as 263rd successor to St. Peter,and the new Pope will be 265th Bishop of Rome as 264th successor to St. Peter.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 05:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
Although John Paul II's successor has not yet been named, people have long said that "He who enters the conclave as pope, leaves it as a cardinal.
 * Maybe I'm being a bit thick today, but I don't understand this. Can someone provide some elaboration? Ben Arnold 07:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It means that the strongest "papabili" usually are not elected. For example Cardinal Siri, who was a "sure pope" in 1958 but was defeated by the surprise Angelo Roncalli, and Cardinal Benelli, front-runner in both 1978 election and defeated by Albino Luciani and Karol Wojtyla. On the other hand, Eugenio Pacelli and Giovanni Montini "entered the conclave as popes and leaved it as popes"

 * I expect that this is due to the most photogenic and media-ready Cardinals, who get far more exposure than those who are quieter, are often predicted to succeed–perhaps these types are counter to true papal expectations? --Oldak Quill 12:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Talk about media-ready Cardinals. Vow of Silence - Eyebrows have been raised at some cardinals behaviour. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, a former curial official who was appointed as the Archbishop of Genoa in 2002 has been visiting the long queue of pilgrims, accompanied by a camera crew which recorded his every handshake. Meanwhile, Cardinal Renato Martino, who heads the Vaticans Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has begun actively courting the press. -- KTC 00:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Carlo Maria Martini
I removed following sentence: The odds are against it, but it is theoretically possible that someone like the formerly papabile Cardinal Martini could be chosen by that route. Reason: Carlo Maria Martini is younger then 80, thus he takes part at the conclave! 83.65.250.91 12:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pronounciation
Norwegian television (NRK) has discovered Wikipedia, and as it turns out, one of the things they want is sound files with the pronounciation of the names of the papabili, especially the non-English names. Any chance that some native Spanish, Italian etc. speakers can make ogg-files of the names and upload them to Commons? Ctande 15:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Great idea - I'll get some people together. --Oldak Quill 15:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, this would be more easily accomplished, and far more useful, with .wav files, for which everyone has the software needed, rather than the rather limited but obligatory .ogg - Nunh-huh
 * Actually, I should have included Portuguese in my wishlist - Norwegian television just pronounced Claudio Hummes" in a way that sounds like a comment upon his sexual preferences. Ctande 09:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That one is easy: forget the h (it is not pronounced); u sounds like english oo; mm sounds like m; e is barely spoken, it sounds more or less like e in Hume; s sounds like french ge (english j without the d sound), but you can pronounce it like an english s.
 * Anyway, it isn't a Portuguese or Brasilian name...

Suggestion
To avoid the possibility of causing offence as mentioned at the top of this article, perhaps it might make more sense to have a "running list" of cardinals, indicating who would be eligible under the present rules etc, leading off the main conclave page and, perhaps, from the (current pope) page. Thus, except during an actual interregnum the page would acknowledge that it is a hypothetical construct.
 * There is currently the List of Cardinals. All Cardinals, indeed, all male Roman Catholics, are eligable to become Pope. Eligibility only concerns who can vote. --Oldak Quill 18:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The most comprehensive list of current Cardinals in Wikipedia is at College of Cardinals,giving birthdates,nationalities,and positions for all of them.The List of Cardinals and List of Cardinals by country are more bare-bones,while the Category:Cardinals is missing some and the List of notable cardinals to maintain independent usefulness needs to be restricted to those of particular significance;both the latter two cover past as well as present cardinals.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 20:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
I think that Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is the most likely to become the next Pope. In the Catholic Church alot of people loved this Pope unlike any other and the election of Ratzinger would show that Pope John Paul II's legacy will be continued.

Also, I think the fact that he looks like he could be from Brazil or Venezuala will play strongly in his favor. The Church wants to elect a Pope that appeals to Latin America but, they seem to be reluctant to have a Latin American Pope.

papabili
We have to be careful to avoid original research and not compile a papabili list based on our own "expertise". Names that we list as papabili should be sourced. there was a recent book on the "next" papal conclave relased last year which much of the media is quoting. I think we should copy the list from that book and source it and when we add any names not on the list, mention the source that considers that candidate papabile. Otherwise, our list will be a product of our own speculation and thereby unecnyclopedic. AndyL 17:04, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case, our guess is as good as the press'. But yes, such a list may be useful. Sadly, the variety of factors that come into play during the conclave are so diverse that the list of papabili varies widely. --Oldak Quill 18:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Peter Hebblethwaite wrote a book after the 1994 consistory assuming the conclave was imminent;he died soon,the Pope didn't.Frank Young (Francis A. Burkle-Young) wrote a book (ISBN 1568331304) after the 1998 consistory assuming the conclave was imminent;he died in January.John Allen wrote a book after the 2001 consistory,assuming the conclave was imminent;the 2003 consistory intervened and I don't think anyone has written a book since.Allen seems to be a prominent talking head,but he's clueless enough to have said in a speech that only two of the 1958 cardinals predated Pius XII (there were thirteen,including many key figures).In correspondence with Young after his book,he consistently leaned toward Tettamanzi,who had been one of his book's five candidates;of the other four,two are retired and one dead,the other is Danneels.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 20:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In Pectore cardinal
The 'add in' by an anonymous contributor, about what the papal spokesman said, is incorrect. He said he did not know if the document left by the pope named the in pectore cardinal. He also did not say such a naming would be invalid. Church spokespeople are uncertain whether the naming of the cardinal in written rather than oral form is adequate, but they have not said that is not. It would appear right now to be an absolute rule that says the pope must reveal the in pectore cardinal's name vocally. Some canon lawyers say that the 'vocal' tradition is simply a precedent and all precedents by definition can always be replaced by a new precedent. Precedents (unwritten rules) are, as they say, not worth the paper they are written on (ie, worthless). It is hard to see anyone in the College of Cardinals objecting to Pope John Paul's in pectore cardinal being accepted as legitimate because the pope wrote it down rather than saying it, considering the fact that the end the pope could barely speak. That would be seen as giving the proverbial two-fingers to the late pope and showing contempt towards his vocal limitations at the end. It would also be seen as attacking the local church whose leader had been made cardinal. So the odds are that if the pope did name the in pectore cardinal in his testament, the man will be universally accepted as a valid cardinal. Fear ÉIREANN 19:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am as "nonymous" as someone who objects in principle to registration for websites can be,I am Louis Epstein,controller of the server at 12.144.5.2 and no one but me has used it to edit Wikipedia.I think you are mischaracterizing the situation on the in pectore appointment;there is a long tradition that posthumous documents elevating someone to the cardinalate are not sufficient,and the spokesman did say that no revelation was made before John Paul's death even if there is a written document.At what point will you accept the appointment as having lapsed?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 02:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * But it's not elevating someone that wasn't in the cardinalate to being in it. It's making public the name of someone that was already in it. If Canon Law experts & Curie people can't agree upon themseleves whether a written name on his will is enough, and publicly whether there was even a name in his will, then we the public can't say for certain that 1) it's not in it 2) it's not enough. -- KTC 12:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well,there are still precedents that after death is too late to reveal a prior decisionl;I hope today's statement by Navarro-Valls puts this issue to rest. --Louis E./le@put.com/le@put.com

 * As they say, precedent can always be change by a new precedent. But yes, it doesn't matter either way now. -- KTC 14:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It was revealed today that Pope John Paul II's last will and testament did not name the in pectore cardinal. --Gerald Farinas 15:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE ARCHIVE PAGE
'BY THE WAY, COULD SOMEONE ARCHIVE THIS PAGE. I'M USING THE DAMNED I EXPLORER SO IT CUTS OUT AT 32K. SO I CANNOT DO THE ARCHIVE (THE PAGE IS 45K+). ALL I CAN DO IS ADD IN NEW SECTIONS. *Given the topic here I better not swear about explorer here!!! Fear ÉIREANN 19:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. I dare you to swear about explorer! Hehe. (This coming from an awful Catholic schoolboy who worked as a political advisor to the most ultra-conservative politician in the United States and ended up in bed with another guy in the bedroom adjacent to the candidate on Election Night at the hotel with an empty bottle of vodka.  Where did the "traditional Christian values" my boss campaigned on go?!)

 * Anyhoo, I moved the longer, non-active threads to a new archive page for you. --Gerald Farinas 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Ha! I once worked by a rather conservative politician and shocked him by bringing my boyfriend to the party's Christmas Party in Leinster House, the parliament building. He was even more shocked when three of his key male staff brought their boyfriends too, and his secretary brought her girlfriend! If his son had brought his secret boyfriend he would have dropped dead with shock!!! Fear ÉIREANN  20:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Avoid Exact Numbers of Nations!!
To maintain a neutral position on certain political/nationalist matters,it's important not to use exact numbers for nations represented.Whether England and Scotland are counted separately or as part of the United Kingdom,for example,will offend someone either way.--Louis E./12.144.5.2 16:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone tell me exactly how they manage to count 3 Cardinal-electors for UK? Fine if you want to put together England & Scotland's together to make 2 and get rid of the seperate count. But exactly how is the retired Archbishop of Dublin counted to UK and not Republic of Ireland? (And yes, this is ignorning the problem of the Primate of Ireland and Primate of All Ireland crossing the boundary of Northern Ireland & Republic of Ireland.) -- KTC 17:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think counting England and Scotland together as part of the UK is offensive to anybody. On the other hand, the Irish stuff is really complicated. john k 19:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we could list Cardinals from England, Scotland and Wales as Great Britain and Cardinals from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as Ireland. Isn't that what the Olympics do? (Alphaboi867 19:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))

 * If only it could be that simple. Olympics country are based on National Olympic Committees. There's "country" that's not really a country there as well, for example Hong Kong. And of course, there's country that isn't represented, most notably in related to this article Vatican City. Also, Ireland in turns of Olympics I think refers to Republic of Ireland only as Northern Ireland is included in Great Britain. -- KTC 19:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It is very simple. While politically Northern Ireland is part of the UK, in religion it is counted by all sides, both nationalist and unionist, as part of Ireland. The various churches, like some sports organisations (Irish Rugby Football Union, Gaelic Athletic Association, etc) never split with partition. So in the case of Ireland it is really simple. Bishops (both Anglican and Roman Catholic) from Northern Ireland dioceses are regarded as Irish bishops, never ever British bishops. In addition, many dioceses stretch across the border, again reflecting the fact that they don't in any way reflect the political divisions post 1922.

 * Contrary to general belief, the Primate of Ireland is not the primate of the Republic. Basically the Anglican and Roman Catholic Archbishops of Dublin found it irritating that, though based in the capital, they were of lower status than the Archbishop of Armagh, the Primate of all Ireland, even though the latter was based in what until recently was a town, not even a city, much less the capital city. The Primate of Ireland tag was simply a bit of ego massage for Dublin's archbishops. After partition, it allowed the Archbishop of Dublin to claim to be the head bishop in the south.

 * In doing articles on earlier conclaves, what I have done is to describe someone from their modern country if there is one, but with it stated in brackets what contemporary state that country existed as part of then. So Michael Cardinal Logue is described as (Ireland, part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) for the 1903 and 1914 conclaves, because in 1903 and 1914 Ireland was part of the UK of GB and I. But from 1922, when Ireland was split between two states, I'll simply say (Ireland). Similarly a polish cardinal in 1903 was from the part of Poland in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.So he is described as (Poland, part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire). He couldn't simply be called Polish as he was the person sent by the Austro-Hungarian Emperor to exercise the emperor's veto. So Austro-Hungarian Empire had to be mentioned for him, as did Poland.

We could use the same solution here regarding English and Scottish cardinals: Murphy-O'Connor could be called (England, part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). The only caveat would be that, given that the political unit called the UK has changed its name and boundaries, it is worth specifying which United Kingdom by using its full name. Fear ÉIREANN 20:07, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts - First, I think we should just use "Great Britain" and "Ireland" for the dignitaries from the British isles. This is what catholic-hierarchy.org does, and it seems to accord fairly well with reality. Secondly, for earlier conclaves, I think we should simply use the countries as they existed at the time. A Polish Archbishop of Cracow should be from "Austria-Hungary," one from the Russian part should be listed as from Russia, and one from the Prussian part as from Germany. Certainly, a Cardinal-Archbishop of Prague from the 19th century should not be referred to as from "the Czech Republic, part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire." john k 23:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair point, John. The reason I put in Poland is because of the old edit war syndrome here. If I left it out I felt sure someone was going say 'that's wrong - Krakow is in Poland and so change Austro-Hungarian Empire for Poland. As to Prague, I would instinctively put in Bohemia. (Pity they didn't keep that name instead of the repulsive 'Czech' stuff!) Fear ÉIREANN  23:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you're doing the right thing. "Poland" and "Bohemia" have been known as geographical names for centuries, even when they weren't independent; the same is not true of "Czech Republic". As far as why the modern state is not called "Bohemia", my guess is that that's because the modern Czech Republic includes the historical province of Moravia as well as Bohemia. --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 18:35, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this has to do with the UK issue, but the article's number of electors by country totals up to 118 rather than 117. I corrected the number of European electors from 78 to 58, though the list by country indicates 59 from Europe. I'm sure the number 117 is correct, as that has been widely reported; maybe someone can figure out which country has one too many indicated? MisfitToys 18:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile Susvolans went back to exact numbers (I went fuzzy again) saying "see talk" without putting any argument here on why an exact number would,as I contend,necessarily offend some nationalist or regionalist.The list by countries at Salvador Miranda's site counts 53,while the exact number often used here is 51...they are talking about the same 117 men's nationalities...where agreement is impossible,only a ballpark range is NPOV.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To solve the issue of whether Scottish or Northern Irish cardinals should be counted as hailing from separate nations or not, it seems like it'd be the best solution to list their origins as "Scotland, United Kingdom" much as in the United States we often include the state along with the country to account for regional differences. I know this is a bit of a stickier situation where there is more of a nationalist edge to things, but this is easily the best method of listing the exact numbers of countries from which the cardinals come without stepping on any toes. --PatadyBag 20:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So long as we say "Great Britain" I don't see why we need to do anything more to avoid ruffling the feathers of overly sensitive Scottish nationalists. john k 02:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * But the dispute (if any) is not about England and Scotland though. I'm sure even Scottish nationalists whatever they want, recoginze the fact that as it stands, England, Scotland, Wales, & Northen Ireland is recoginze worldwide together as United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland with the Queen as head of state and the British government at Westminster as the governing government.
 * The thing is with archdiocese such as the Irish's which crosses over national boundaries. Or maybe with area in which there is dispute by different sides as to the name/ownership. -- KTC 03:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually,the dispute IS about,among other things,treating England and Scotland as separate or one.Because this affects the use of an exact number of nations with voting cardinals,I have repeatedly removed insertions of an exact number in favor of "slightly over fifty",which is true enough whoever's count is used.The Salvador Miranda website counts England and Scotland separately and says there are 53 nations with cardinal electors.Others count 51 (UK as one and I'm not sure what other difference).AVOID USING AN EXACT NUMBER and nobody will say the number used is wrong!!--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 17:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing about using exact number or otherwise. I'm happy enough to use the "slightly over fifty". I live in England, go to university in Scotland. Whatever one wants otherwise, everyone I know recoginze the fact that Scotland is part of UK. HOW can people count othewise if they use country political border? If there's any disagreement, first it haves to be about Ireland. That one actually cover and crosses over the boundaries of 2 countries !!! -- KTC 18:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...yeah, this may be best. john k 17:11, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Saw the request for comment and thought I'd take a look... one suggestion is to defer to the existing article List of sovereign states, where this issue has been explored exhaustively and apparently resolved to everyone's satisfaction. - Bantman 04:10, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Arms
They cannot be the arms during the sede vacante as they have no shield. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * According to http://www.vatican.va/, there is. --Oldak Quill 10:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does the title really need a comma?
How about Papal conclave 2005 or 2005 Papal conclave? zen master   T  06:18, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The non comma version should be the acticle, the comma version should be the redirect but I guess it doesn't matter. zen master   T  06:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I always thought commas in titles were ugly. However, it is the accepted form for election articles chosen by Wikipedia editors. I hate it; but I'm a nobody.  --Gerald Farinas 14:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Many of the election articles have been changed to no comma I believe, I will check and fix further perhaps. We can make titles without commas the new standard if you want to? :-) zen master    T  19:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The version including comma is the agreed version used by everyone making articles on elections. If you want to change it, you'd better debate it and get a consensus. The consensus right now is to use the comma and has been used for hundreds, probably thousands of election articles. The reason was simple. Some people wanted to say in, as in Papal conclave in 2005, while other used of, as in Papal conclave of 2005. It was getting extremely messy. A comma was judged to be the best compromise that allowed us to ditch the of versus in battle. Leaving it out and writing Papal conclave 2005 was judged to be grammatically poor and ugly. The comma was judged to be the best way to construct a grammatically correct title that avoided endless of versus in battles.

 * It was also agreed that all elections would be in the format [location election-type, year] and no other form. Year is at the end because people categorise elections firstly by means of where, then what. When is merely a form of disambigulation. When people want, for example, to look at the list of US presidential elections, or British general elections, the key question is firstly where was the election, then what type of election was it. Few people want to look through lists of elections by year. That is done by category. Wikipedia would look like a right ass if some elections are in one format and others in another. The community agreed the logic of following the format of where what, when and rejected other versions which were seen as illogical and unworkable.

 * As that is the format overwhelmingly agreed any articles moved unilaterally to a version that conflicts with the agreed consensus form are automatically reverted. With over 500,000 articles wikipedia simply cannot operate on the basis of everyone doing the version they want and ignoring the agreed format. And with vast numbers of election articles it simply is impracticable at this stage to change. We tried to change the agreed format for referring to Japanese monarchs some a year ago and it proved a disaster. The person who decided to change the format openly admitted to regretting starting it, and that only involved less than 100 articles. But it involved changing thousands of links. The guy ended up exhausted at having to spend weeks doing it. And half way through a major technical problem was found that had left over five hundred broken links. So all the changes had to be undone, then restarted all over again. The poor guy ended up saying he wished he had never started the whole thing. And he was only dealing with a fraction of the number of articles, and a small fraction of the links, that would be involved in changing how elections worldwide are categorised.  Fear ÉIREANN  20:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:2005 papal conclave/Archive 3


text:
User talk:Sympleko

Welcome!

Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing! This is very late, I'm afraid, so you'll doubtless already know all the above — still, better a late welcome than none at all. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More welcome
Thank you for splitting locally in sections. Just a small remark. On Wikipedia, according to the Manual of Style, one should use capital letters sparingly in section titles. That is,

==Binary Relation==

should be

==Binary relation==

This is of course a minor thing. It is worth keeping with the style for consistency reasons though. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 03:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I have the worst problems with caps.

Signatures
Hello! You could either just copy or adapt someone else's signature, or play around until you've got one that you like. The place to look for the technical details is Sign your posts on talk pages. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Mel! Sympleko (Συμπλεκω) 16:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sympleko ( Συμπλεκω ) 16:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote for deletion alert
I see from the page history for Cut Ending to Knights of the Old Republic II that you once edited it. I thought you would like to know that there is a VfD on that page now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Cut_Ending_to_Knights_of_the_Old_Republic_II. Please stop in there and comment on this vote! --maru 15:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the heads-up. I think I only changed a template on that page, but I went ahead and voted anyway. Sympleko ( Συμπλεκω ) 12:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Harvey Kinkle

The article Harvey Kinkle has been proposed for deletion  because of the following concern:
 * Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neelix (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Custom signature fix needed
Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error, specifically formatting tags that are in the wrong order.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Change the signature as shown below, or make other edits to make the signature appear how you want it to appear.
 * Click Save to update to your newly fixed signature.

Current signature:

Fixed signature:

More information is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sympleko


text:
User talk:64.8.148.98

December 2022
Hello, I'm TartarTorte. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Nat Turner's slave rebellion—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. TartarTorte 15:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

February 2023
Hello, I'm Millahnna. I noticed that you recently removed content from Lava Butte without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Millahnna (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

April 2023
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Eocene have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Eocene was changed by 64.8.148.98 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.900911 on 2023-04-27T13:50:06+00:00

Please refrain from attempting to make unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been [ disallowed by an edit filter.] If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:64.8.148.98


text:
User talk:Avel791

Non-free use disputed for Image:Lord7b.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lord7b.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Lord7a.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lord7a.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Lord6b.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lord6b.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Lord6a.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lord6a.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Lord5b.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lord5b.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Lord5a.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lord5a.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Lord10a.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lord10a.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Earthling (album).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Earthling (album).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tonight (album).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tonight (album).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1OUTSIDE.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:1OUTSIDE.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Never_let_me_down.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Never_let_me_down.jpg. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Avel791


text:
Estreito de Câmara de Lobos

Estreito de Câmara de Lobos (Portuguese for strait of Câmara de Lobos) is a civil parish in the municipality of Câmara de Lobos in the archipelago of Madeira. The population in 2011 was 10,629, in an area of 7.87 km². Apart from its construction services and commerce, Estreito de Câmara do Lobos is important for its cultivation of grapes, for the production of Madeira wine.

History
The parishes name derives from oral tradition; although there are no dates affixed to the origin of the parish, the Estreito de Câmara de Lobos is associated with a small place situated near the parochial church, known for its physical characteristics as a strait; its history developed from there, and residents commonly referred to the area around the church as the estreito.

The parish was created in 1509, long after the first religious institutions were celebrated; parish records indicate that Franciscan clergy used to celebrate masses in an old chapel of wood around 1440 in the area of the parochial church.

On 14 September 1994, the parish was elevated to the status of town, published in the Diário da República (Series A, nº213/14 September 1994).

Geography
Estreito is bordered on the south and west by the parish of Câmara de Lobos, to the north by Jardim da Serra, to the west by Quinta Grande, and on its eastern border with the municipality of Funchal.

The north of the parish is primarily elevated mountains, where traditional levadas (earthen constructions) still function; these courses were used to transport water by gravity to the population centres and agricultural tracts along its course.

Many older manor homes still pepper the foothills of the parish, that were used as summer homes by nobles and merchants from old Funchal, marked by belvederes and lookouts, such Boca dos Namorados, Boca da Corrida and Jardim da Serra. It has a few schools, two churches and a civic centre.

The population of Estreito represents 29.6% the municipality's population, although this has varied considerably within the last 50 years: this includes the loss of many people from the de-annexation of Jardim da Serra, as well as emigration and population shifts within the island. Regardless, of the five parishes that make-up Câmara de Lobos, Estreito had the second largest birth rate (16.9%), along with a high percentage of youth 0–14 years of age (25.7% or 2630). This was attributed by the local parish government with the settling of more families in the region, with young children or by young adults. Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE) records indicate approximately 2715 families in 2001, mostly composed of large families with many children, similarly reflected in 3217 family homes established in the parish.

The main settlements of the parish are Barreiros, Cabo do Podão, Casa Caída, Castelejo, Covão, Fajã das Galinhas, Fontes, Foro, Garachico, Igreja, Marinheira, Panasqueira, Pomar do Meio, Picos e Salões, Quinta de Santo António, Ribeira da Caixa Ribeira Fernanda, Romeiras and Vargem.

Economy
At the time of its ascension to town, its population included 13000 inhabitants, dedicated to construction, commerce, horticulture and agriculture, specifically the cultivation of grapes for wine and cherries. The parish is important in Maderia wine production, being the heaviest producer of the spirit in the region, as well as its prime beef cattle. Weekly, the centre of Estreito is taken over on Sunday by merchants to sell products in the market, materials for construction, off-the-rack clothing, animals and the negotiation of services.

title: Estreito de Câmara de Lobos


text:
User talk:Armandae

Welcome!

'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Armandae


text: User talk:24.250.23.249

title: User talk:24.250.23.249