Talk:World Tag Team Championship (WWE, 1971–2010)

Requested move

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

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC) World Tag-Team Championship → World Tag Team Championship – The more common version of the title is without the dash. Redirect at World Tag Team Championship has page history preventing simple renaming.

Voting

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support tv316 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support BionicWilliam 05:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Maestro25 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


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

Kenny is not the youngest person to hold the belt
He is over twenty now, Dupree held the belt at 19.

Heaviest Champions
Aren't the Natural Disasters the heaviest tag-team at 852 lbs.? I'm not sure if it counts because there are five of them, but the Spirit Squad weigh a combined 1144 lbs.

The Squad are the youngest.
Even though any 2 out of 5 could defend the belts, Kenny and Mikey were the ones who actually won the belts and were listed on WWE.com as the official champions.

So if one were to try to figure in Nicky, Johnny, or Mitch, it wouldn't count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlh (talk • contribs)
 * The official website lists the entire group as champions: . All 5 were recognized as champions, so all 5 would have to be combined for stats. Also, remember to sign your comments. TJ Spyke 22:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

hardies
hardys are the new champs add it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.225.114.108 (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

not only raw
these titles are now not exlusive to rawe= matt is on smackdown and will remain on smackdown als osince mcman wat to make wwe more interpromotional i recon in time most titles will be interpromotional —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.114.108 (talk • contribs)

The Gregory Helms Rule
When you win a Championship from whatever brand, you become part of that brand's roster.

Mr. Helms set the precedent when he (as a Raw wrestler) won Smackdown's Cruiserweight Title, and subsequently moved there. Same idea with Matt Hardy--Smackdown wrestler who wins Raw Title becomes Raw wrestler.

There is no "inter-promotional" anything. Matt is a Raw Wrestler who holds Raw's tag team belts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohgltxg (talk • contribs)
 * Nope. WWE.com still lists Matt Hardy as part of the SmackDown roster. Besides, weren't Paul London and Brian Kendrick, the WWE Tag Team Champions, in that battle royal as well?--sonicKAI 22:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WWE PPV events are no longer bland-specific, so this title (and all others in WWE) are no longer specific to any one brand. They are primarily defended on their respective brands, but the separation between the rosters is increasingly vague. King Of Cable 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ehh no. The fact that PPVs are no longer "brand"-specific has nothing to do with what show a title is defended on. Go take a good long read at http://www.wwe.com/inside/titlehistory/worldtagteam/ WWE's World Tag Team title history page.-- bullet proof  3:16 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cade and Murdoch Tag Champs.jpg
Image:Cade and Murdoch Tag Champs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WWF Tag Team Championship
Please stop reverting my changes before this turns into an editing war. The WWF never referd to any of there titels as world titles, if you look at any material befor the brand extintion you would see this. several writers might have referd to them as that but the wwf never did.
 * The Raw titles (those that were created in 1971) are the World Tag Team titles, those on Smackdown are referred to as the WWE Tag Team titles. I have a magazine by WWE published on 3/6/07 which lists all nine current championships, and it calls them, the World Tag Team Championship. You are vandalising this page if you revert. Darrenhusted 13:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

the source you sighted was published 4 and a half years after the nanme was changed. It is courently known as the world championship but before 2002 it was not referd to as that by the wwe. refering to it as that would be like refering to the WWF before that year as the WWE, it is commonly done but incerect. 216.162.144.26 14:44 22 July 2007

Oi oi oi. I love how the "premier" editors of wikipedia have no memory of events. The fact is that prior to 2002, WWE didn't refer to ANY of their championships as "World Titles" for several years. Perhaps early on in the 70's and 80's the words World and Heavyweight were used, but I can point back to at least 1999, my first year watching, where neither word was used in an official manner for any Federation championship.

Come 2002, with the need to have dual-level championships for two brands, WWE began refering to one championship of the Heavyweight and Tag Team ranks each as "World". For the Tag Team Titles, they decided to use the original WWE Tag Team Championship as it was already on the brand with the World Heavyweight Title.

Now as far as looking back at history, when it comes to title history, it's much easier for WWE to look back at the entire WWE Tag Team Championship history and just refer to the whole thing as World Tag Team Titles without having to explain goofy name changes. But that doesn't change the fact that the titles were NOT known as that at the time.

Darren, your "source" will list every regin as occuring under WWE (or the WWWF). By stating that all past reigns were known as "World Tag Team Titles" due to a WWE publication in 2007, then it would be hypocritical of you to leave the old reigns as "WWF", since that's not how WWE sees it today.

And before you say "it wasn't WWE at the time", hopefully you'll realize that "it wasn't the World Tag Team Titles" at the time. Mshake3 23:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mshake, if you look at the edits that 216 etc was trying to make you'll see whay I said what I said, they were trying to remove the word "World" from the title of the article all through, so that both tag title would have the same reign. I know the history but the IP was trying to vandalise the page. Darrenhusted 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mshake3 I am glad to know that I am not the only person here that douse not suffer from short term memery loss. I was not vandalissing the page or trying to remove the word world throught the artical, mearly trying to make it historicly acuret. it was referd to as the wwf championship when I started watching in the early 90 and i have seen tapes going back to the early 80's where it was not referd to as the world title. it might have been referd to as that at one point during the companies time as the wwwf, never as the wwf. 216.162.144.26 02:54 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what the original poster was trying to say was that there was a time during the attitude era and 90's era WWF specifically that they did not refer to them as the WWF World Tag Team Championship, rather just the WWF Tag Team Championship. WWF I think reduced their use of the word "world" in order to avoid confusion with WCW titles, for whatever reason, that's just my opinion on why they reduced use of "world". TonyFreakinAlmeida 15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's true. They just didn't use the World or Heavyweight qualifiers that most companies did. Mshake3
 * I agree with you in that, Mshake3; despite that it was officially known as the World Wrestling Federation/Entertainment (WWF/E) World Tag Team Championship.
 * P.S.: I think IMHO that both the heavyweight and tag team championships of both RAW and SmackDown! should be have "World title" status. For example:
 * RAW
 * WWE World Heavyweight Championship (original/RAW version)
 * WWE World Tag Team Championship (original/RAW version)
 * SmackDown!
 * WWE World Heavyweight Championship (alternate/SmackDown! version)
 * WWE World Tag Team Championship (alternate/SmackDown! version)
 * Or the WWE should try to revive WCW as a brand just like they did with ECW. Because WWE SmackDown is like almost exactly like of what WCW originally was (in terms of championship belts and action) while RAW should remain as WWE was during the Attitude era. Johnluisocasio (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Both sets of tag titles have recognized "World" status by the promotion and PWI (Illustrated). The name isn't needed to reflect that. See the WWE Championship for example. Just because the word "World" has been removed from its name doesn't mean its status has too. -- bullet proof  3:16 05:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was trying to help. Unless if all SmackDown! exclusive titles become to re-officialize as WCW titles if WCW could be revived as a brand and reverted from SmackDown! (since WCW was owned and purchase by the WWE), it would be a different story. Johnluisocasio (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

New champs: London and Kendrick, proof
So get over yourself and your "job."




 * WWE.com hasn't confirmed it yet, so it stays out until they do so. I'm sorry, but it's the rules. And, by the way, it looks like Kendrick was cropped out of a different picture in that image. -- Scorpion0422 23:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine, stay in denial. You just can't admit you're wrong and feel important patrolling a web site.
 * For your information, London and Kendrick are my favourite current tag team and I would be quite happy if this was true. But, Wikipedia's rules are that there are no spoilers, so this stays out until WWE or confirms it. -- Scorpion0422 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is on an international tour, right? I bet they lose the titles back tomorrow. Mshake3 03:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but it's also possible they could have taped the match for TV if they wanted, but you're probably right, it's just a title change to get the live crowd jumping. They will recognize it, and it's only proper IMO for a world championship to change hands overseas from the company's home country every once and a while. TonyFreakinAlmeida 15:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is 2007. WWE doesn't tape matches for TV at house shows. Mshake3 16:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you work for them? I don't care, it was just an assumption, I didn't say it was, but they're probably at least going to acknowledge the title change on TV. TonyFreakinAlmeida 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to point that out. WWE hasn`t announced the title change. According to me, it is a spoiler. We had to wait something like 4 days to say that Matt Hardy and MVP won the WWE Tag Team Championships. I don't care that a pro wrestling site said that we have new champs. I thought the rule was that it needed to be shown on their official website or on their programming. I did not see any of that. According to the no spoilers policy, Cade & Murdoch are still the champs. Soopafred 15:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And now you see what a stupid rule it is as it doesn't even consider live event title changes. And it's not a spoiler. You can't be spoiled by a match that won't air on TV. Mshake3 15:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to wonder if WWE will even acknowledge the change at all, it could go down as an unofficial reign... TonyFreakinAlmeida 17:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they have acknowledged it, plus a change back. http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/articles/5046390/tagtitlesswitch Max85 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max85 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo dispute.
Ther are two photo's that needed to decided on which to use one is fair use the other is free use.

Fair use: 200px|center|thumb| Free use:

Keep in mind the the free use cuts off the belt.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Free-use - it doesn't really matter whether it cuts off the belt or not. Davnel03 21:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It does when your trying to describe something and it cuts that thing off.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised your not complaining about the Womens title page where some of the belt is cut of. Does it really matter though? Really? Davnel03 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To some people yes.-- Mo nni te wa rs (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This should not be considered a dispute. This does not even warrant a discussion. If a free use picture is available, it must be used. Using a "fair use" picture when a free use picture is available is illegal. Case closed. Don't go causing disputes where they're not needed. Your constant edit wars don't help anything. GaryColemanFan 21:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. What GaryColemanFan says goes. Besides, why do we really need a televion capture in the article? Z enlax  Talk Contributions Signatures 19:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Titles"
If you want to say "Cade & Murdoch beat London & Kendrick for the titles," then we need to also say "They are the original World Tag Team titles of WWE" in the lead. Winners of the AJPW Triple Crown Championship aren't said to have won "the titles," even though the holder of that championship gets three belts. 69.7.37.69 09:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the entire article is on the "World Tag Team Championship (WWE)", who's going to be confused by the phrase "for the title" and not know which championship is being talking about? Nenog 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing my point. This is the edit I'm talking about 69.7.37.69 17:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to say the story is different because it's a tag team championship, it's not. Holders of the AJPW Unified World Tag Team Championship get two belts apiece, but it's just as wrong to call those "the titles" because they represent, just as two belts for a tag team do usually, one championship. 69.7.37.69 10:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

World Tag Team Championship (WWE)
Who supports a move to WWE World Team Team Championship? -- iMa tth ew  T. C. 12:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * -The result of the discussion was not move.-- S R X  00:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

 S R X  00:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The World Tag titles were once just the WWF tag team titles, which creates confusion with the new WWE tag titles. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support-per my reasons about the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE), the same principals apply here as well.-- S R X -- Latino Heat  20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support 1362talk 16:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per SRX SAVIOR_  SELF  .777  05:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Since the change in Oct 02, the company has never refered to the title with WWE in front of it. Mshake3 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per my reason regarding the World Heavyweight Championship (WWE). -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odin's Beard (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose per Gavyn and Mshake. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Title Change
Miz and Morrison beat Punk and Kingston for the title at a house show just recently (411mania.com). Probably non-canon seeing as how it was a house show, but since it is just before Armageddon, I don't know. Just giving you guys a heads-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.180.124 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In the article. WWE has acknowledged it. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 07:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

brand exclusive
on wwe.com the world tag team chapions are on the ecw page not the raw page. does this make it ecw exclusine not raw exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.111.12 (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't know yet, wait until WWE states it.--SRX 17:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policy has always been to list the titles under whatever brand that WWE.com puts them on.

Currently the Raw page features the World, I-C, and Women's belts.

SD has the WWE, U.S., WWE Tag, and Diva's belts.

ECW has the ECW Title, and the World Tag Team belts.

By placing the titles on ECW, that means that they are now ECW property.

Whatever brand that WWE.com puts the belts on, that's the brand that they go on here on Wiki.

Vjmlhds 19:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Show me that policy. There is none. In addition, show me the direct statement by WWE that the belts are now on ECW. You are making your own judgment by stating that the belts are now on ECW, you don't know how WWE.com management works, they may have just listed the belts on ECW because Morrison and Miz are there.--SRX 19:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so there's no misunderstandings:

The titles are shared by Raw and ECW due to the talent share.

They're not "exclusive" if they're being shared.

Thank You.

Vjmlhds 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Miz and Morrison also compete on SmackDown. Does this mean that the titles can be defended there too? They haven't even been defended on ECW and the article says that they are. Sorry but this is just stupid. The title is clearly on all 3 brands since SmackDown and Raw share ECW talent. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this discussion up again, but it turns out the titles can be defended on SD! too since next Friday they'll be facing The Colons for them. I guess the titles are tri-branded right now. 192.197.54.29 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Yep. Just pretty much solidifies my argument before. The belts are tri branded. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Official confirmation that the World Tag Team Championship is on ECW?
Click here for discussion at the pro wrestling wikiproject-- Tru co  01:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unified Tag Team Championship
Should a entirely new page be made for the Unified Tag team Championship? Or should it be like the WWE Undisputed championship and just stay with the current status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.167.109 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Edge/Jericho and Jericho/Show
Shouldn't this be two reigns seeing as WWE is counting it as such? BBoy (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If its listed by the wwe as two reigns then it should be listed as such--Dcheagle (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. WWE.com lists the Jericho/Show reign as having started on 7-26-09.

WWE counts this as a new reign that is different from Jericho/Edge.

Vjmlhds 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well no duh. There is no way to list it as Jericho with one reign with two different partners, so they have to list two reigns. However, Jericho himself was never stripped of the title or vacated the title during this time. If he never himself lost the title, that does not constitute a new reign for him. Its still the same reign with just a different partner. Its incorrect also how we handled the Rhodes situation with Holly and DiBiase last year as well, Rhodes' reign never ended either.-- T ru  c o  503  23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While it may be true that Jericho and Rhodes never lost the title, the reign of Jericho & Edge and Rhodes & Holly did come to an end (and reigns are counted by which two people are holding the titles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyNameIsChaos (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If Jericho is considered to be in one continuous reign...
on the basis that he never lost his share of the tag titles, should we then take away one reign from Stone Cold Steve Austin? Austin and Shawn Michaels won the tag titles in July of 1997, and then Michaels suffered an injury in September of that year. According to WWE.com's section on the history of the World Tag Team Championship, Shawn Michaels was forced to vacate his half of the titles. Then an 8-team tournament was set up to determine the No. 1 contender's to face Austin and a new partner of his choosing (which turned out to be Dude Love).67.181.55.148 (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, since this second reign was set off by an actual in-ring victory by the new team. Therefore, the new team actually won the titles - in contrast to the Jericho situation, where the new partner simply stepped in for the former. Str1977 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

NOT
The titles are not retired just renamed, look at WWE website, I don't think they would ever consider retiring one of the oldest belts in WWE and didn't this happen when the smackdown tag titles were created? They renamed it from WWE tag team championships to World tag team championships, now they just giving back the name.--Justakija (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Something that should be noted about these retired titles
They are indeed retired, but the World Tag Team titles lineage now lives on through the 2002 WWE Tag Team titles. The 2002 WWE Tag team titles are the sucessors to these now retired prestigous World Tag Team Titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.78.164 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Hart Dynasty
I want to know if the hart dynasty unifed the world tag team championships into the WWE tag team championships or was up to WWE. I heard Triple H unified his WCW championship into the WWE championship because he could not perform his stage act. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC) AnthonyTheGamer

ECW
When Morrison and Miz were the World Tag Team champs, they were on ECW, because of the talent exchange between Raw and ECW. This should be listed under Brand Designation, as a similar situation happened when they won the WWE Tag Team titles, where the titles were listed as being on ECW. 2601:195:1:7A71:794A:767B:55CF:5879 (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2016
Yxloging (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC) I will like to change the picture john cena is holding there is a new image of the world tag team championship
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Looks like you are autoconfirmed. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 15:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016
80.0.117.88 (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  08:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC).

opening parapgraph
What does this sentence mean? "...and the promotion's third tag team championship overall". Halbared (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)