Talk:List of WWE 24/7 Champions

External links are not sources
Article content cannot be sourced by something in the "External links" sction, has to be a reference, inline in this case to match the general citation style. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you're being so picky, please go and fix every other WWE championship article. -- JDC808  ♫  23:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why? You are doing such a great job on that. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And List of WWE Champions disgrees with your argument. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, it is very much in line with my argument. -- JDC808  ♫  22:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Except the opposite, nothing in that article is sourced to "External links" but have appropriate inline citations. But nice try, wanna try again? MPJ-DK (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should go and double check, because I see a few that the inline citation is not correct to the days recognized by WWE; those recognized days are known because of the official title history. -- JDC808  ♫  22:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then those are actually unsourced, because, as everyone who actually know how this stuff works, "external links are not sources". MPJ-DK (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just looked at the first entry, everything in that line is cited via inline citations, not the external links. So seems like you are wrong. MPJ-DK (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "very first entry"? Is that it? Like I said, you need to actually look, which is apparently a trend of yours. -- JDC808  ♫  01:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And you keep ignoring the facts -"external links are not sources" - if other articles are so fucked up they do that, that's THEIR problem, not an indicator that this is actually the right thing to do. my "trend" is what the guidelines say about sourcing and external links. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Other crap exists" aside - this needed a citation in these articles, you removed the tag without addressing the issue in the most unconstrutive way and then start getting on your high horse about how External Links count as references because some other articles are not fully sourced. What it boils down to is, don't remove "citation needed" tags without adding sources while giving attitude in the Edit summary. Behavior like that is considered disruptive editing. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Like I said previously, your trend recently is not doing much work. You say you're big on the guidelines, yet when I said to go fix the others since you were having an issue with it, your response was to not do the work and instead have me do it. Re:attitude, don't act like you're innocent. -- JDC808  ♫  03:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Act innocent? What am I supposed to be guilty of? tagging this article? not tagging other articles? Disruptive editing? Oh, wait that one was you. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Re:attitude", which meant in response to your remark about me getting an attitude. You've done it just as well. Disruptive editing is a bullshit claim. -- JDC808  ♫  05:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Removal of legitimate "Citation needed" tags without supplying a source is disruptive, sorry that you are so unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works that you don't know this. So at this point I am just going to stop talking, it's falling on the deaf ears of someone that cares more about "their way" than the "right way". Repeated disruptive editing can end up a ANI, just saying. Toodles. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the thing though, the source was there, just not where it "needed" to be. Learn what disruptive editing actually is instead of what you're perceiving it to be. -- JDC808  ♫  22:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently I am not infalible, accidents happen when editing (signaure), don't be so touchy. And if it's not where it "needs to be" then it's not actually there because a random reader would have no idea. Disruptive editing = Removing tags that are legitimately added to a page without actually addressing the issue tagged and providing attitude in the edit summary. So I have already learnt it, and I've seen it as well. MPJ-DK (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Brands
Right now the list repeatedly indicates which brand a wrestler belongs to. IMO that is unncessary and makes the "Notes" column unwieldy. May I suggest two alternatives:
 * Either put the brand in brackets behind the champion's name - if it is really that important.
 * Or leave out the brands alltogeter.

I prefer the second option. Not only is it much simpler but as of now, brand allegiance has never played any role in rivalries, so why do we need to include it here. The championship is not about the silly Raw vs. Smackdown trope but about a couple of undercarders obsessively running after a belt. Str1977 (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Because the belt itself is not exclusive to a brand, but the champions are (despite the annoying wild card rule). I would prefer to be able to just add background color to the boxes for the champion's name with a color key at the top, but for coding reasons that I don't understand, colors can't be added to these reign tables. -- JDC808  ♫  08:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So you are saying "Because the belt itself is not exclusive to a brand" - i.e. because the brands are not relevant - the brands needs to be mentioned? Str1977 (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. I said the belt is not exclusive (because of the rules of the belt), but the champions are despite the wild card rule. -- JDC808  ♫  00:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * While colour coding wouldn't bloat the table, it highlights the non-existing importance of brands even more. Str1977 (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * According to reports with Heyman and Bischoff running Raw and SmackDown, respectively, there will be more importance to the brands. -- JDC808  ♫  00:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't care about speculations what Heyma or Bischoff might do, as of now the brand split is almost dead (which I don't mourn per se). It plays zero role in the chase after the 24/7 championship. No one has ever said: we here at Smackdown are proud to have the 24/7 champion in our roster - and that is not merely because the entire title is a joke.
 * And you say "the champions are" (exclusive). How many times has R-Truth appeared on Raw, lost or won the title on Raw? Even the table in this article speaks volumes. Str1977 (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They're exclusive to a brand, but are able to appear because of the stupid wild card rule. And no, the brand split is not ending anytime soon. -- JDC808  ♫  08:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say it is ending, I said that, as of now, it is almost dead. No doubt it will lead a zombie life for at least months to come. You still haven't provide any reasoning why wrestlers' brand assignment is relevant. R-Truth from Smackdown makes his joke appearance on every Raw show, so does Rick, who is inexplicably depicted as a 205 wrestler despite appearing on Raw before and engaging in all his shenanigans on Raw or Smackdown. So why is it relevant. Str1977 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC) PS. Please don't remove the space between this arm of the discussionand Galatz's comment.


 * Since the champion constantly appears across the brands, and their brand has not been really brought up on air, I am not so sure the importance. I get for something the US Championship which is brand specific, so when it switches its relevant. I am not so sure it matters here -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  12:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't see this discussion. I started a new thread in the project talk page, my mistake. I think the brand isn't relevant. Since it's across all brands and the title and the champion aren't drafted, I don't see the point to include if some champion is from raw, 205 or a legend. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It's completely irrelevant, and now it's been muddied even further with Kelly Kelly and Candice Michelle listed as "free agents". Totally unnecessary. Skudrafan1 (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it makes complete sense to note them (maybe not necessarily as free agents, but the fact that they're not on the active roster). -- JDC808  ♫  22:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Might help to just delete some of the notes. They aren't exactly important. Alundra getting the submission isn't special.-- Will C  20:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave the notes as is. There is nothing wrong with how it is.  The Ironman Heavymetalweight Championship does the exact same thing in the notes.  Sure not all notes have something, but if you were to say to remove what that notes say on that title's notes, that would be dumb.  If you really want the notes to be removed, you'd have to gain consensus.  I doubt you'd get that.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually no, there wouldn't need to be a consensus. As there never was a consensus to begin with that any of it is important. Normal functions doesn't mean consensus. For years, editors have tried to add absolutely everything possible to the notes section. Alot of it isn't even relevant or important at all. First reign note really just has to say Foley laid the belt in the ring and Titus picked up. It says all of the actual relevant information. Stating No Way Jose was there doesn't add anything other than trivia. Melina being referee doesn't change the title reign in anyway. Those are trivia notes and ip editors and newer ones have always thought they were needed. Basically due to wanting this due to fancruft. Usually, when a committee looks at the articles, they get removed as unnecessary.-- Will C  17:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Elias from SmackDown pinned R-Truth in the ring after R-Truth was attacked by Elias
Do we really need to have sentences like this in articles, let alone in tables? English has variations in syntax or even pronouns to avoid such monstrosities. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC) PS., this what you're reverting to. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ordering reigns according to time
Just wondering if ordering all the reigns that lasted less than a day by time is what should happen since it isn't noted anywhere by WWE or anywhere on the article itself. I think ordering by alphabetical would be better since that is what happens on most other articles regarding reigns that last less than a day. Also I would think someone watching and recording how long each title reign lasted would be OR but happy to be corrected on this thanks. Browndog91 (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is. Will C  09:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No someone has ordered it by time not by alphabetical order like I am suggesting.Browndog91 (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * are you talking about the combined reigns section?--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about the combined reigns section, it should be listed by ring name if al reigns are equal. Right now champions are positioned as they won the title (patterson, brisco, kelly, Candice...) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I fact, I saw something in the TNA World tag team title... first, is listed by days. If days are equal, are listed by number of reigns. If the number of reigns are equal, then by name. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes the mot sense to me. According to WP:PW/SG it should be sorted as If two or more wrestlers are tied in days, priority is given in this order: most reigns, most successful defenses, alphabetical. Successful defenses does not apply here, so resigns then alphabetical -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  21:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support that according to WP:PW/SG. StaticVapor message me!   20:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I may be wrong here, but shouldn't the 24/7 title be formatted like how the Hardcore title is? For the latter title, reigns that last less than a day are organized alphabetically, not by number of reigns. Should the Hardcore title format be updated to follow the current 24/7 format? Or vice-versa? Dakota.952 (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You gave an extra day to R Truth's combined reigns
There were actually 54 days before R Truth won the title on last week's Raw.176.36.57.234 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Multiple reigns same amount of days.
Hello I was wondering if Jinder Mahal and Mike Kanellis should be ranked separately or with the other wrestlers that have held the title less than 1 day? The way it is now Jinder and Mike are ranked as equal 5th and the others are all equal 6th, should it be that all the people who have held the title less than one day be all equal 5th? Browndog91 (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, because although they've held it less than a day, they both have held the title twice, while the rest have only held it once. -- JDC808  ♫  09:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The parameter is combined days, not number of reigns. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But how do you explain other combined reigns columns having people on the same amount of days but different number of reigns ranked equal? For example Roman Reigns and Ric Flair have both held the WWE title for 118 days but Roman has three reigns while Flair has two, yet they are ranked equally. If we are to go by this then reigns should be outright 31st while flair is 32nd not equal 31st. Browndog91 (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They are equal because the parameter is combined days. It's ordered by combined days, not number of reigns. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So Jinder and Kanellis should be equal 5th with everyone else who has held the title less than 1 day? Browndog91 (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. The parameter is combined days. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also it was StaticVapor who reverted my edit when I tried to correct it thanks. Browndog91 (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It's strange. he said the SG said so, but not quite. "If two or more wrestlers are tied in days, priority is given in this order: most reigns, most successful defenses, alphabetical." However, it doesn't say about the ranking. I mean, I understand as all wrestler are under the same ranking, just the people with more reigns are listed before the others, but in the same ranking since the parameter is combined days, not number of reigns. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The section is called "Combined reigns" so it sure sounds like reigns to me.... -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * But the first paramater is combined days. The section includes combined reigns as champion and is focused around combined days, no number of reigns. SG "The table is sorted by the most combined days as champion." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah but the next line is "If two or more wrestlers are tied in days, priority is given in this order: most reigns, most successful defenses, alphabetical." -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, inside the same ranking, not above. The table is about combined days, so wrestlers with the same days are equal. As I said, that's very grey, since we can read two different things. However, every other article (WWE Championship, TNA Tag Team Championship) is "most reigns, they're first, but in the same ranking". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * When you rank by different criteria, the ranking always follows. If you look at List of multiple Olympic medalists you will see they order them by number of total medals, but if someone has more gold medals they rank higher than someone with more bronze, this is basically the same thing. In the NFL you cannot have two teams ranked as #1, so if two teams have the same record they go by other criteria and rank one person #1 and another #2. No where else is ranking not changed by the secondary criteria. -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  14:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The thread above should have been continued, not start a new one. Anyways just because other articles do not follow the style guide, doesn't mean this one shouldn't follow it either. The table is called combined reigns, not combined days, so I see no problem in listing it this way. StaticVapor message me!   15:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we should change it, people with the same amount of days should be ranked equally and then number of reigns etc should be how we decide in which order they go in within said ranking. Browndog91 (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on what? Look at the examples I gave. Can you give an example of where something else tracks and shows it that way? -  Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk  13:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I feel like it looks best this way. Shouldn't multiple time champions be ranked higher then the rest of people that held it for five minutes? StaticVapor message me!   20:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Event section
Hi. The title is strange, I know. However, this is something it's very strange. The event section is for the event. Like TV show, PPVs, special cards. But it's something that aren't events in the title. Golfing session, a flight to arabia saudi, Drake Maverick's hotel room, Inside of an stadium, outside the arena. These are not events, are locations. There is no event called "Drake Maverick's room", it's a Location. (In fact, the information about the hotel room is in the notes section "Took place in Drake Maverick and his wife, Renee Michelle's hotel room.") Do you think we should include to Location and Notes? We can leave the event as N/A and the location or Note as "Inside of Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, TN" /. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

To changes
R truth is 17 time 24/7 champion Abhishek Gandha (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It's 81 days for R-Truth, not 82.
176.36.57.234 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Please fix
Why Ted DiBiase is listed as "The Million Dollar Man"? It's his nickname, not a ring name. His ring name is Ted DiBiase.176.36.57.234 (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the official title history lists him as "The Million Dollar Man". It's the same reason we have it listed as "Mayor Glenn Jacobs" instead of just "Glenn Jacobs" or even his ring name "Kane". -- JDC808  ♫  05:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Images - 2022-04-14T224958.549.jpg

Defunct
On 7 november, 2022 episode of raw, after winning the title Nikki seemingly tried to trash the championship(although she failed miserealy). so does that mean its retired or defunct? what do ya think?223.233.63.129 (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It's currently listed as active on WWE.com. Perhaps they are in the process of retiring it, but until it's made official we list it as active. — Czello 14:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Right now, she is listed as champion and the title is part of the active titles. I would wait. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * was listed as inactive a few hours ago but is now active again.Muur (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Are we sure it's retired?
When you go to the page for the title, it lists this.

https://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/24-7-championship

Says that Dana is the champion and it's still tracking days for her. Evil Yugi (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * most probably, a mistake. The article is listed as inactive and several sources pointed it was deactivated. Like the Million Dollar title, wwe takes its time. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Worth pointing out that WWE have removed it from https://www.wwe.com/superstars. It was there for a few days after Cross won it, then it disappeared. That seems to be a pretty clear indicator they no longer consider it active. As HHH points out, they're slow to update all parts of the site, which probably includes tracking days for Dana. — Czello 11:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll keep that in mind. Thanks Czello. Evil Yugi (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)