Talk:Royal Rumble/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

The point made about the Rumble and Wrestlemania being the only 2 events, other than non televised, to have matches featuring Raw and Smackdown wrestlers is not true. Summerslam has featured several inter-brand matches as well as Taboo Tuesday.

I've editted the line you mention, however those Pay Per Views have not featured inter-promotional competition on a regular basis. Therefore, I simply qualified the statement originally put in.

--Darryl Hamlin 11:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Merging the 2004 and the 2005 to te Royal Rumble Page

I think what's best is the 2004 and the 2005 Royal Rumble Pages should be merged to the current Royal Rumble Main page so that the page can maitain its quality --Unsigned comment left by 203.167.66.132 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, in fact I was thinking more of the opposite and seperating all the Royal Rumble events into seperate articles so that we could include such things as elimination details which would clutter up the article if it was all in one article. --Oakster 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Facts and trivia

Ye gods. It has ~50 bits. Anyone want to shorten this? Some of this stuff is kind of pointless.--Toffile 04:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Merging the original rumble article with 2003-2007 articles was a good idea but you should put the boxes with the entrances and the eliminations. The way these rumbles are described now isn't a step forward camparing them with the separated articles. That's my opinion... SOAD KoRn 09:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving of Pages

Shouldn't every Rumble be moved into it's own seperate page, a la the Wrestlemania and SummerSlam pages? AWBricker

My edits

I trimmed out a lot of the storylines descriptions, as they were quite long and involved and most likely documented elsewhere. If someone really misses them, perhaps put them near the actual Rumble later in the entry or make a new one for the specific pay-per-view. Also added some sections, cause it was just feeling like a really long intro. The names/order is totally up for debate, but I figured it needed something. --Davetron5000 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Format

Can we revert to the format that it used to be? It looks really sloppy right now and the infoboxes arent next to their respective events.

Yes, I think we should do the same thing others are doing with the Summerslam articles--Andresg770 22:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

2007 Rumble

---To the question of whether the rumble winner gets a shot the ECW Title, if you look at this: [1] it merely says that the winner gets a "world championship" shot at Wrestlemanina.

Since WWE has shown that they consider the ECW Title on par with the WWE and World Heavyweight Titles (as evidenced by Cyber Sunday), that would appear to mean that any of the 3 titles can be chosen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.8.49 (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

there is an articalee on wwe.com thats says you can challng for the ecw title

Facts

Ok, I'm pretty sure that the 1998 Rumble had weapon use in the beginning, so 2001 isn't the only one.

Also, Owen Hart is not the only guy to compete in 7 straight. Rick Martel was in there from 1989-1995. I'm gonna edit the article to fix these points. --Scaryice 07:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right 1998 did have a weapon in the begining as Cactus Jack and Chainsaw Charlie exchanged either chairshots or trashcan-lid shots at the start of the match before and after #3 entrant Tom Brandy enetered the ring. The 2007 Rumble had chairs,canes,and tables involved.Lopeyter 00:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Box/Template

The last line of Royal Rumble box at the bottom of the page isn't properly aligned. I'd fix it myself if I knew how :/ -- blackThe Hiddeyblack 21:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried but couldn't do it. The Royal Rumble template looks fine by itself but gets misaligned when inserted in the PPV one. DrWarpMind 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So what is Plan B? -- blackThe Hiddeyblack 18:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's fixed now. I somehow missed a "text-align: left" when I looked at it before. DrWarpMind 01:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and good job -- blackThe Hiddeyblack 10:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shortest Lasting In The Rumble

I believe Mo (from Men on a Mission) has the "honor" of being in the Rumble the shortest. He was in and out within seconds in 1995 (ran into the ring, ran at King Kong Bundy and was flipped right out). I just don't have the exact time on me now so I post this in the hopes someone can change it... --SLWalsh 16:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mo did come close to breaking the record, as he was in the 1995 match for about 4 to 5 seconds. However, remember that it takes time for him to run across the ring, and notice the "hang time" that he had after being backdropped by Bundy (he's a big guy and all, but he was still mid-air for about 2 seconds!)

However, after viewing all of the Royal Rumble bouts, I am certain tha the Warlord set the record for "shortest lasting" in 1989. He stepped into the ring and was immediately clotheslined out by Hulk Hogan. The time he was in the ring to the time he hit the floor (after being knocked over the top) was about 2 seconds. That is the record, regardless of the WWE's steadyfast instance that Bushwacker Luke set the record in the 1991 bout (he lasted approximately 5 seconds in that match, again, not the record). 70.73.26.231 02:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm actually watching the '95 Rumble right now, and that's why I came here, because I didn't recall hearing Mo's name associated with the fastest elimination. I can't be sure about the Warlord, but Mo was in the match for roughly three seconds. The thing to remember is that you're eliminated ONLY when you hit the floor, not just when you go out of the ring. Mo was in the air for about a second and a half before he hit the floor, so, technically, he was still in the match until then. VelvetKevorkian 10:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've watch the Royal Rumbles in question and these are the time that I came up with. I started the count once the wrestler entered the ring until their feet hit the floor

Warlord - 3 seconds (step into the ring to be clotheslined out by Hogan) Bushwacker Luke - 4 seconds (walked across the ring by Earthquake and thrown over the top) Mo - 4 seconds (Ran at Bundy and was backdropped)

However, I may have found another person in the 1995 Rumble who may have tied Warlord and that was Owen Hart. When Owen was heading towards the ring he was attacked by Bret Hart, Owen was outside the ring for a bit and when he entered he ran at Bulldog and was backdropped to the outside. This was shown in slo-mo instant replay to be about 7 seconds. I'm guessing the film would be moving at about half speed, so that would put Owen in the ring for about 3-3.5 seconds, either tieing him with the Warlord or giving him second place. PG 13 19:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Owen possibly matching Warlord's record. You can actually see his ring entrance and subsequent elimination on the video wall when Timothy Well enters at #12 (the video wall is also how you can tell that Kwang was eliminated by Seone -- with a big boot). The huge pop that can be heard is obviously not for a jobber like Well...it was for when Owen was eliminated! 68.146.250.99 00:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

2 Seconds

the warlord lasted two seconds not three,proof is here[[2]]

Thanks anonymous guy :P The Hybrid 00:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Booking the Rumble

I've heard from various sources that Pat Patterson is in charge of booking the Rumble main event (the WWE seems to claim this when they had that Patterson sendoff at Taboo Tuesday). Is this true? kelvSYC 15:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Pat Paterson is the one that came up with the concept of the Royal Rumble, and yeah he usually has a hand in booking it Lynx Raven Raide 12:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Longest Lasting In The Rumble

If I am not mistaking,In 2001 Kane lasted around 63 minutes in the rumble,why is he not listed as the longest lasting? 204.212.120.129 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

-Because you are, indeed, mistaken. Adamaniac 14:00, 30 March, 2006 (UTC)

Watch the programs, check WWE.com, I am getting P****d off with telling people to look up the information themselves. K-man-1 09:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How long did Bob Backland survive for in 1993? I'm sure it was longer than Rey's record.. 194.66.191.23 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Checking WWE.com is virtually useless in terms of gathering accurate information,even about thier own product. Anyone who has watched their shows anytime since the mid-eighties should be keenly aware that WWE are big practicers of revisionist history,and their Rumble info is no exception. Chris Benoit holds the legit record for time spent in the ring for a single Rumble match being in there for 1:10 in 2004 (watch it and time it yourself from the moment he steps into the right up until the moment he eliminates Big show) The record he broke was indeed held by Bob Backlund in the 93 Rumble. Another note,in the 2001 version of the Royal Rumble Jim Ross is quoted as saying that it marked only "the second time" The Honky Tonk man had been in a Rumble match. This is more false information as he has been in a total of 4 (89,90,98,01) Inexplicibly,the WWE I guess has erased the 1989 Royal Rumble from its memory bank in terms of who actually participated in the match as in 1991,Gorilla Monsoon makes the claim that Rick Martel was making his Royal Rumble debut,so I guess not only did the 89 Rumble not occur,neither did the 1990 verion,which featured the first ever Hogan/Warrior confrontation.

According to OnlineWorldofWrestling.com (formerly ObsessedWithWrestling.com), Chris Benoit spent 1:01:35 in the ring in 2004 [3] Lynx Raven Raide 13:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Viscera was the most to be eliminated?

I think there's actually a tie for the most superstars required to perform a single elimination. This tie is between Viscera and Muhammed Hassan. I remember in 2005, Hassan did some kind of Islamic thing that pissed everyone off, so the other eight wrestlers in the ring ganged up on him and threw him over the top. Should that be put in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.184.211.114 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

In the 1991 Royal Rumble Macho Man, #18, never came out. And in 1994 Bastion Booger was to come out in the mid-twenties or so and never did. In these two Rumbles, there were only 29 participants. And again in 2005. Why isn't this mentioned in the footnotes?

Did Macho decide not to come out? I've always wondered about that.

Stats

Perhaps the stats such as most eliminations and the participant in the longest should be separated into the ones with 2min intervals and the ones with 1.5 min intervals, with exceptions being the 20-man Rumble and 1 min interval Rumble.

And maybe someone could put stats up for each Rumble on it's own page? So, for each Rumble, one can see who was in the longest, who had the most eliminations, etc., for that particular Rumble.

Elimination

The part were it says a worker can be eliminated by someone already eliminated is wrong. In the 1996 RR Vader is eliminated then comes back in and throws out Michaels, Owen Hart, Bob Holly and HHH but they are not counted as eliminations, so I reckon that line should be changed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MightyMightyFoe (talk • contribs)

I'm actually not to sure on that. I'm going to recheck, but I swear there was an elimination like that in the '92 Rumble. I'll go check though.--Toffile 18:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

- Yea I just remembered 'Taker eliminating Maven in one Rumble as well. So i guess it only counted for that one Rumble. MightyMightyFoe

Yeah, I just checked. That happened in the 2002 Royal Rumble. I think that Roberts eliminated Savage in 1992 (after Savage took out Roberts), but Savage was allowed back in. I think it's one of those things that's left up to the writers.--Toffile 18:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, Savage jumped over the top rope himself, and Monsoon and Heenan had to sell it as "you can't eliminate yourself," which of course would not be true in later editions (like Mil Mascaras in 1997). --Scaryice 11:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think how they ar eliminated is left up to the writers (and if i remember correctly,maven was thrown trough the ropes?) and scotty never made his way to the ring (hassan interfered)

Scotty is going to mania! (that was random)Lord revan 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

1. people can eliminate themselves. 2. when someone has been eliminated and they come back and eliminate other people, such as Vader, it does constitute as an elimination, but it does not count as theirs, it counts as a self elimination. 3. Maven's case counted as an elimination as he was declared unable to compete any longer (I mean he got his head smashed thrfough a popcorn machine). K-man-1 09:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Vader's eliminations didn't count as eliminations as all the people in the rumble (including Michaels, I believe) are allowed back into the ring to continue the match. But I agree with others, I guess it's just up to the writers discretionMightMightyFoe 22:43, 28 January 2007 (GMT)

Here is one that is forgotten. In the 1990 Royal Rumble,Bad News Brown was eliminated by Roddy Piper. In retaliation,Brown then climbs onto the apron and pulls Piper over the ropes by his hair,and they brawl down the aisle and to the back. Bad News is credited with eliminating Piper.

The thing to remember is that there's only ONE rule in the Rumble; over the top rope and you're gone. It doesn't make one bit of difference how. VelvetKevorkian 10:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The rules began to change when the WWF entered its Attitude era, and yes in the 1992 Rumble Savage eliminated himself, but it didnt count and in 96 Vader did eliminate 4 or 5 people, but it didnt count but since then the rules have changed (such as Mil Mascaras in 1997 eliminating himself, Shane McMahon eliminating HBK in 2006 etc.) 220.235.114.119 02:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia --- People not technically eliminated

I'm not sure so I need help from others; this is about the people who, according to the article, were not technically eliminated butI think they really were:

1. Mabel (1999): It says he was taken out thourhg the ropes by the Ministry of Darkness, but I remember watching the video and seeing Mabel's shadow (since the lights were out) going over the top rope. I haven't seen the video in a while, so I might be wrong.

2. Maven (2002): I have this one on DVD, and I am positively sure that The Undertaker returned Maven to the ring (before taking him through the crowd to the backstage area) and clotheslined him over the top rope. Jim Ross said that "he wasn't sure if that elimination counted," but never really dismissed it.

3. Chavo Guerrero (2006): I haven't seen this one yet, but it mentions that he went through the ropes (I guess to the outer part of the mat) and climbed over to the top rope, then he was pushed off by Triple H. I don't know, but I always thought that the top turnbuckles were considered part of the top rope. I guess I could put as an example Jeff Hardy (2003) when he ran from one corner of the ring to the opposite one and climbed over to the top turnbuckle. He was then pushed by Rob Van Dam and it was considered a legal elimination.

• • If anyone knows about any of these and can corroborate or dismiss my observations, please do, so we can keep this article as accurate as possible.

--Andresg770 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i have the mabel one on video, King clearly stated that the Acolytes and mideon had eliminated mabel and taken him to the Undertaker. The Maven one, i recorded on PPV, the Undertaker got back in the ring threw Maven THROUGH the ropes, took him backstage through the crowd, smashed his head through a popcorn machine (busting Maven open) and maven was declared unable to compete, constituting as an elimination. the chavo one im trying to find but cant so i cant help you yet but i will as soon as i find it. K-man-1 09:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Re: Chavo.........I don't think it matters how a turnbuckle elimination happens. Mil Mascaras did the same thing in '97 that Chavo did in '06; only Mils jumped out of the ring himself while HHH shoved Chavo. I guess "getting atop the corner" constitutes "getting back into the ring." Hey someone's gotta make sense of this stuff, so why not us fans who should probably be writing wrestling shows?! ;p --SLWalsh 16:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Regarding Mabel Incident*** I was actually at this Rumble, and had great seats. I honestly think he went over, only for the fact that it happened quickly, and it would be tough for Mabel/Vis to bend through the ropes, and would have been faster for him to go over. I honestly think it was an elimination. but this is just my opinion and orig. research and not wiki proper.LessThanClippers 22:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I've got the Rumble boxset and I've watched and zoomed and rewatched and I agree at Mabel's size, trying to get him through the ropes would have taken ages. 220.235.114.119 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

7th Straight win

I made a comment about this at the Wrestlemania 23 page but was told to try it here. I was wondering if it should be added that with his win at Mania, The Undertaker becomes the 7th Straight man to win the Royal Rumble match and go on to Mania and win the WWE/World Title? 24.239.158.35 02:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't think it should be added because the wrestler who wins the Rumble Match is whomever the WWE is going to have step up to the main event level. So, basically the guy who wins the Rumble will ALWAYS go on to win a world title at Mania. The only time I remember it not happening is at Wrestlemania 16. User:Darkdemon90 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there have been 4 cases in which the winner of the Royal Rumble didn't win the WWE Championship at WrestleMania: Shawn Michaels in 1995, Stone Cold Steve Austin in 1997, Vince McMahon in 1999, and The Rock in 2000. In the cases of McMahon and Austin, though, they did not even have a WWE Title match at Mania. These are all pretty notable, in my opinion, since the RR wins of Austin, Rock, and McMahon were very controversial and important to their storylines; while 95 is the year where Michaels won after entering at #1.

Still, I don't know if the bit of the "7th straight win" should be in the article, since all it takes is one person to win the Rumble but not the title for the entire bit to be taken off the article. --Andresg770 (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

3bullet

3bullet, why did you make those changes? None of them makes sense?

a) Kane has never won a Royal Rumble, so that bit of 'statistic/trivia' is incorrect b) You added about Kane eliminating 11 guys A SECOND TIME c) Its not a Video Box Set, its a DVD Box Set. Just like the WrestleMania ones. d) You replaced the part about them "announcing it", when that happaned a year ago, and it has since been released.

I am wondering why you made these changes, when they are all pretty much wrong. Rypcord 12:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

3bullet, also why do you keep changing the section on rewards for winning the Royal Rumble. If you are a old school fan, You should remember the events leading up to Feburary's Main Event, with the main angle being which of the 3 (Savage, Hogan and Warrior) would receive the WWE Title Match at WrestleMania VII

That’s basically what it says in the article. You're just adding too redundant stuff. Also please do not re-add the logo. It is a WP:FU violation per admin Yamla. Thank you -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it states that in 1991, the winner was officially given an opportunity to wrestle for the WWE Title. That is untrue. That stipulation wasn't added until the 1993 Royal Rumble. Hogan's title shot in 91 wasn't because he won the Rumble....that was a factor, but not the ultimate reason why.

On another note, the article says "This championship match is often the last event on the WrestleMania card (although it has not been since 2006) according to principles in the WWE that states that "the Royal Rumble winner gets a first-class ticket to WrestleMania"

If I remember correctly, the last time the Rumble winner went on last at Wrestlemania was Batista in 2005 at Wrestlemania 21. Rey won last years Rumble, however John Cena vs. Triple H went on last, and this year, it was Undertaker, and John Cena vs. Shawn Michaels went on last. I wont edit it however, apparently I only vandalize wiki, as all my edits seem to get reverted and I get warnings for it, fuck knows why. Is there something you guys aren't tellin me? :) Taker04 (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Entry Slots

Should some mention be made of particular entry spot rewards/punishments. Although, almost always entry slots are completely at random, havn't a few been handed out, or, in my tiredness of working with nothing to do all day, am I mixing facts with another event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I think even when the numbers are drawn (like they do every year) its booked in advance, not random as they would have us believe...Taker04 (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously, but I meant in universe, high entry spots have been used as a reward.LessThanClippers (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Runners-Up

Does anyone have a problem with a runner-up column on the Royal Rumble table? I'd previously put it in but it was reverted due to being classed as 'unnecessary info'. I personally think it's an interesting addition to the table and doesn't harm it in anyway... If there are positive responses to this, I'll revert back to the column, but if not, I'll leave it as is. Rick 50000 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just think that it is opening the door for all sorts of trivia additions to the table. If we have runners-up, why not have first entrant, second entrant, first eliminated, most eliminations, most time in the ring, etc, etc. If somebody really wanted to know the runner-up, all they have to do is click on the corresponding article. Nikki311 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Benoit

we should take him off as wwe has and we should 2 coz 2 them he NEVER won it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.2.81 (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

problem is he actually did win. Just because WWE has taken him off doesn't mean we should. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and reports the facts ,and if this means mentioning a guy who murdered his family, then so be it. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

i remeber something in the rules of wiki goes on sorces and that cing that on the wwe web page he never won so if they dont count it so should we.--124.181.34.76 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WWE as a primary source doesn't count it, but the general references used at the bottom do. Third party references trump primary sources. Nikki311 04:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

First High Definition PPV

I think it deserves some mention that the 2008 Royal Rumble will be the first WWE pay per view or WWE production to be broadcast in high definition. Kennyb08 (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states that? A WWE Corporate or WWE.com press release would be a really good source. If you can provide a link, I'd say it can be added. Nikki311 07:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Found a cite: http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/12/28/royal-rumble-to-be-wwes-first-hd-pay-per-view-event/ --Bedford (talk) 07:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Good enough. I've moved the info from the lead to under the PPV header as new info should not be located in the lead (per WP:LEAD). I also formatted the citation for you. Nikki311 07:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I found a cite from DirecTV as well. Not properly ref'ed, I guess, so you'll need to fix it (probably why I don't have any GA's yet :( .--Bedford (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2016

72.79.158.139 (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No request.LM2000 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

This website here (http://www.smarkoutmoment.com/p/wwe-royal-rumble-statistics-records.html) lists the missing 2016 Most Eliminations section (Roman Reigns, Braun Strowman and Brock Lesnar were all at 4 eliminations a piece) as well as some other facts that aren't included in this Wiki page. ToeKneeManGo (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Unreliable per WP:PW/RS. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Kanes cumulative elimination count

Does Kanes 44 cumulative eliminations include Daniel Bryans elimination in 2013 where Bryan was thrown over the top rope by Cesaro, caught by Kane and then dropped by Kane? Mobile mundo (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It should. The elimination was still caused and credited to Kane. retched (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Errors on Page

Thanks to the Semi-Protection, I couldn't make these changes, so I was hoping someone could make them for me. They are: Mark Henry has appeared in 9 Rumbles, not 10 (98,99,04,08,09,10,11,16,17). Dolph Ziggler has been in 9 Rumbles (09,10,11,,12,13,14,15,16,17). Kofi Kingston has been in 9 Rumbles (09,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17). Randy Orton has also reached 20 eliminations all-time. All of these were taken from tallying the results shown on every Rumble's wiki pages. I'll also add that somehow, I ended up with Kane having 45 eliminations, Big Show at 32, Triple H at 31, and Hulk Hogan at 26. Not sure how I ended up with different totals there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeyondLimitation (talk • contribs) 11:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017

I wish to edit this wikipedia page because of an important part missing. Triple H won the Royal Rumble in 2016 and went on to face Roman Reigns at Wrestlemania 32, yet this is missing from the Royal Rumble winner's championship opportunity section. Frogman417 (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering the match wasn't for a championship opportunity, but instead for the title itself, then it shouldn't go on that specific table. Maybe make a small note directly under the Championship Opportunity title itself that clarifies that this is just keeping track of the people who earned a title shot and does not take into account Rumble's that lacked that stipulation (1991 and older) nor the ones to actually determine the champion (1992 and 2016).BeyondLimitation (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2017

Orton's name should be highlighted as the winner of the 2017 Royal Rumble 2.222.103.94 (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Already done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Error regarding first Royal Rumble

The first Rumble should be listed in the Non-PPV Royal Rumble Matches. The first Rumble was broadcast on the USA network and did not become a PPV until the 2nd one the following year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.151.192.3 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

1st Royal Rumble Not a PPV

It is common knowledge, correctly stated on other Wiki pages, and clearly stated on WWE.com that the 1st Royal Rumble was not a PPV event. It was broadcast live on the USA network. It should be listed in the section for Non-PPV Events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.151.192.3 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How

How the flip is the citation I added unreliable. It's from someone who actually participated in a Royal Rumble match on a legally uploaded video.--TBBC (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Because YouTube itself is unreliable. If the article was about a YouTuber that required their own videos, it was different story. Nickag989^talk 07:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As I've explained, YouTube can not be taken as a reliable source because most videos are illegally uploaded, BUT, the copyright holder of the video citation has made those videos free to upload.--TBBC (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about a YouTube channel, this is a professional wrestling event, so of course it's not that useful. Nickag989^talk 08:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And the video tells you how the event is organised.--TBBC (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's already covered in the "Match" section. And the info that you added earlier shows Hornswoggle explaining from his point of view, how the Rumble match is organized. And yes, YouTube and Dailymotion videos are not relevant in these type of articles, so there's no consensus. Nickag989^talk 08:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not through Hornswoggle's P.O.V, he doesn't say "Well here's how I memorise when I get eliminated", he explains how the wrestlers know when their elimination is about to come. But I'll take what you said about it being covered in the match section, which it's not, as a suggestion to put it in the match section and not it's own section.--TBBC (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see the video so... I think how the Royal Rumble is organizated is somekind of relevant. At least, knowing the elimination (I don't see the "make a big deal"). About the source, we can use other format. cite AV media, for example. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

So do we have consensus?--TBBC (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as the former featured list goes, unreliable sources are still unreliable, so don't add it. Nickag989^talk 06:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, you tell me, what makes the source I gave unreliable?--TBBC (talk) 07:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:NOYT, "official [YouTube] channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace [sic] to a reliable publisher. Videos may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. In all cases, care should be undertaken to ensure that the video is genuinely authorised by the copyright holder." The video that you linked to was uploaded by Wrestling Hut, which is a fan page channel, not an official one. Nickag989^talk 08:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with HHH that the organization of the Rumble would be nice to include. However, the source just doesn't work. Copyrighted Youtube videos aside, I don't think that something Hornswoggle said in a shoot interview belongs in the article. We would need this confirmed by a source.LM2000 (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, we can include KC as the source. I'm pretty sure we can include a podcast or an interview without Youtube YouShoot Swoggle (Hornswoggle) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

So now do we have a compromise? --TBBC (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

There has been no agreement TBBC or concensus reached until there is don't add it with claims that one was reached. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 11:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Well how long do we have to wait for Nickag989 to get back until it's classified as he's not going to say anything. --TBBC (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Until there is a consensus it can't be added. To many issues with the addition have been brought up. There must be a consensus or compromise and as of now there isn't one. Not everyone is on here everyday. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

What about this? "Wrestlers learn their eliminations by knowing the two wrestlers who are eliminated before them and which wrestlers are entering the Royal Rumble in between their elimination.YouShoot Swoggle (Hornswoggle). Kayfabe Commentaries." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

That took a while for me to get back here due to school (yes, I'm human). I agree with HHH's propose, this would easily fit into the "Match" section than the previous disclaimer. Nickag989^talk 15:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, we have consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBBC (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Question.....So the link being used for a refrence for this can't be heard or seen unless you pay for it. How is the reliable when you can't prove what it says without​ paying?? The link used as a reference is technically advertising. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That link is to nothing but buying a DVD. That's advertising, not a reference. It can't be used. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 03:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Some newspapers hide articles behind paywalls and are still acceptable, I'm not sure if that works in this case since this isn't a newspaper. Rather than link to the site that sells the product, the DVD itself should be the source. I have mixed feelings about inclusion at all but I think we need to make it clear that anything added is attributed to Hornswoggle and that we don't present it as a verifiable fact.LM2000 (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hornswoggle was only used in two Royal Rumbles if I remember correctly. Who is to say that is how they determine eliminations still? It's almost been ten years since he has been in his first one and there's no verifiable truth that this was the method before he was ever in one. This whole mention stinks, so I'd like to see some more sources. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. Just because that's how they did it in Hornswoggle's Rumbles doesn't meant that's how they did it in '88 and doesn't mean that's how they're doing it nowadays. If the sourcing gets worked out perhaps it would be better to include that on the individual PPV articles rather than this one.LM2000 (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

First, a lot of sources are "hidden", like books or subscription articles. However, I never think about the 90's rumbles. It's a good point. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The "refrence" links to a DVD to buy. It doesn't show proof of anything, how can we say yes that's what he said and it's fact. We cant without being able to see the refrence so that linked refrence is useless as it proves nothing. There needs to be better sources or don't add the section. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As I said, we don't need to see the source online. A lot of reliable sources are book (in that case, buy the book) or subscription articles (like the WON). For example, the CMLL World Heavyweight Championship uses books and magazines as sources. Payment is not an obstacle --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As Moe and LM said above, there needs to be a better source found. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 14:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Then let's discuss the phrasing, not remove the reference. Regardless of the moving goalpost arguments against using the reference, it holds up to WP:RS. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It brings us back to the same issue Moe and LM stated before just because that's how they did it in rumbles Hornswoggle was in doesn't mean that's how they did it in any of the others. If anything that section should only be listed on the rumbles he was in not this article unless a source is found saying yes every rumble is like that. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 20:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but the referees/officials don't know what entrants were thrown over the top rope, if they are distracted by a brawl between the other participants who were eliminated, like in Steve Austin's case in Royal Rumble 1997. Nickag989^talk 21:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@WarMachine - Yes, that's why I said we should work on the phrasing. I suggest something like, "According to Hornswoggle, who participated in two Royal Rumbles, participants may..." GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think is a good idea. Maybe we can inclue "Hornswoggle, who worked for WWE from 2006 until 2016 and participated in two Rumbles... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

emmmm, the official known the brawls. It was a work.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

That's an example of form of distraction, but still. Nickag989^talk 21:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan HHH Pedrigree How about this, combination of both your suggestions? "According to Hornswoggle, who worked for WWE from 2006 until 2016 and participated in two Rumbles, participants may..." Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think is a good idea. :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

2004 Royal Rumble mistake

It's wrongly stated in the article that Brock Lesnar, not a participant in the Royal Rumble, eliminated Goldberg. That is an error. Although Brock Lesnar, not a participant in the match, did interfere and attack Goldberg, it was Kurt Angle who threw Goldberg over the top rope to the floor and eliminated Goldberg. You can watch the 2004 Royal Rumble and see it for yourself.

Fixed. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 07:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018

1. John cena currently has competed in 8 Royal Rumble Matches and not 9,

2. Randy Orton has become the 7th man to exceed above the 3 hour mark in the rumble match:

2004 : 33:43 2006 : 13:04 2007 : 27:15 2009 : 48:27 2011 : 08:18 2012 : 05:46 2013 : 10:20 2017 : 20:52 2018 : 13:34

Total: 181,19 3 hours, 1 minute and 19 seconds. 143.176.151.195 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

KFC Colonel Rumble

There was a KFC Colonel Rumble on SmackDown as a dark match on 1/16/18. Description says AJ Styles won. I haven't watched all of the video, but this should be added. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPkQnpG9PDI 184.157.56.41 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This was just a mock match to produce a KFC ad, no. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 17:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018

No Rumble winner has entered at number 9, it should be number 8 for Randy Orton in 2009 and Lex Luger co-won the 1994 Rumble Rumble with Bret Hart and he entered at 23, so there are 2 winners from number 23. 2A02:C7D:2588:7000:F1EC:E376:4712:D233 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Y Fixed it in the meantime. Nickag989^talk 22:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Rumble Records

Just a quick, small question. Will the records be included for the Greatest Royal Rumble match or are those only for the actual annual Rumble matches?

--UndertheDomefan (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The records here are based on how the WWE treats them, so if the WWE treats them different than I believe we should as well. - Galatz^Talk 01:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Like Galatz said, it depends on when the event occurs, we don't decide it. If WWE expands the existing statistics based on the results of the GRR, then it will be added. If they don't mention it, it is presumed different. WWE is very vocal about the statistics of the normal Royal Rumble, video packages and all, so if it is included, we will know. If I had to venture a guess, it will probably be kept different. The winner receives just a trophy similar to the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royal. There have been other "Royal Rumble" matches in the past like the article mentions and they are not included in the statistics. — Moe Epsilon 02:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I kind of understood WWE was in control of this, especially when they said Sheamus lasted 20 seconds in 2018. Thanks guys!! - UndertheDomefan (talk) 4:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

So what now? We list it under "other Royal Rumble matches" next to house show rumbles and Raw rumbles that don't get counted. Shouldn't it get a separate category or be put next to the real rumbles?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

WWE seem to be counting Bryan's ironman record and Strowman's elimination record as new Rumble records, so I'm assuming it counts as an official one. Sceptre (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, even Michael Cole stated that Goldust officially entered his 13th Royal Rumble match. Of course, also a new record. - UndertheDomefan (talk) 4:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Braun Strowman is missing one rumble appearance and some eliminations he entered in 2016 and eliminated multiple men they need to be added! Tinuskiller (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

Update statistics on Royal Rumble match as of the recent PPV, Greatest Royal Rumble. WWE has uploaded the official statistics on their website, so the source to be updated is credible. Kntx12 (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Where is that source? Str1977 ^(talk) 23:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Article split

I am suggesting we split this article between Royal Rumble match and Royal Rumble. Similar to WWE Money in the Bank and Money in the Bank ladder match. This article should be about the PPV series itself, and split off the stats about the matches. Any thoughts? - Galatz^Talk 13:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine. support --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Support Ron234 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Greatest Royal Rumble

Shouldn’t the greatest Royal Rumble be listed as another event since it wasn’t billed as the 32nd annual Royal Rumble as they do with the regular rumbles. Also shouldn’t the stats for the match be on their own “Royal Rumble match” page as opposed to the event, similar to Money in the Bank and Elimination Chamber matches. Separate pages for the match and PPVs. Ron234 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This is absolutely part of the Royal Rumble chronology. It is a Royal Rumble event with the name Royal Rumble in the Title. They wouldn’t call this the 32nd annual because annual means yearly. There were 2 Rumble events this year, thus they wouldn’t call one, held only a few months later, the next annual event. The 32nd edition, yes. 32nd annual, no. OldSkool01 (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely is not. It’s got a different page on wwe.com from the regular rumbles and on its own page it says first ever “greatest Royal Rumble”. Please check with the official site before making edits. Ron234 (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Question, how do we know it's apart of the Royal Rumble PPV? How WWE marketed the event, it seems to be it's own Pay-per-view/WWE Network event separate from the Royal Rumble PPV. Just because it has the name "Royal Rumble" in the PPV doesn't exactly mean it's apart of the Royal Rumble chronology. TheDeviantPro (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The Greatest Royal Rumble should NOT be in this page and the chronology should not reflect it as being after 2018. The WWE had treated them completely differently. Just because they both feature the Royal Rumble match, does not link them. The WWE has kept them completely separate, and there is no WP:RS used to say they are the same chronology. If you look here [4] there is no mention of GRR. Also on the WWE Network if you look for the RR shows here [5] its not listed - Galatz^Talk 11:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly GRR and RR are separate events and whoever keeps putting them back in the same event needs to stop. Ron234 (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Winners

This page should definitely show the winners for the respective years Rumble matches on the dates, venues and winners section. Ron234 (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Idk why was missing, but I've fixed it. Nickag989^talk 18:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That was on me, I figured it belonged in the match page, but if you guys think its best to duplicate it here too, no big deal. I guess MITB does list it both places too so it makes sense for consistency. - Galatz^Talk 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

|- |9 |scope=row|Royal Rumble (1996) |January 21, 1996 |Fresno, California |Selland Arena |Bret Hart (c) vs. Shawn Michaels for the WWF World Heavyweight Championship |18 | |- |10 |scope=row|Royal Rumble (1997) |January 19, 1997 |San Antonio, Texas |Alamodome |Sycho Sid (c) vs. The Undertaker for the WWF World Heavyweight Championship |rowspan="2"|Stone Cold Steve Austin |5 | Simplegamer003 (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Please make it clear what you want changed, it is unclear from this. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

Becky Lynch 2019 rumble Winner 2600:6C5E:487F:FE70:2492:234D:EADC:FDB8 (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 05:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The Greatest Royal Rumble match

The Greatest Royal Rumble match was an official royal rumble match, 50 participants , but still (also 2011 had 40). Even its new records are counted (Braun Strowman breaking Roman Reigns record for most Royal Rumbles eliminations, and Daniel Bryan breaking Rey Mysterio's record for lasting longest in a Royal Rumble match). So why is the Greatest Royal Rumble match not listed ? Dilbaggg (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg: Because its a different chronology. This is about the PPV series. It is listed at Royal Rumble match. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 17:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

OK Understood, but just to point out, you do not consider royal rumble 1988 a pay per view (as it was a television special) on the list of WWE pay per views but it is considered one here.... Regardless ok thanks for answering my query and I agree with the decision. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg: It is not considered a PPV anywhere. Its listed here as part of the chronology, but its not a PPV. The lead states After the initial event was broadcast as a television special on USA Network, the Royal Rumble has been shown on pay-per-view. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019

Royal Rumble 2015: 30-man Royal Rumble match WWE World Heavyweight Championship match at WrestleMania 31 Spydakevkev (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 05:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I think this comment was about inconsistent wording, and I have fixed it. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 18:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"Roayl rumble" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Roayl rumble. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 5#Roayl rumble until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 23:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Royal Rumble winner incorrect.

Someone recently changed the 2004 Royal Rumble winner, from Chris Benoit to 1 or nobody, which is not correct. Chris Benoit won the 04 Royal Rumble. I believe it was intended as a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CactusJ91104 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

fixed. thanks :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Royal Rumble Winners/Split genders

Starting from 2018 it lists both side by side, with the 2018 listing a women's championship match for both winner, and the two subsequent listing a world championship match for both winners.

Perhaps add another row to the columns and actually split the two winners from 2018 forward so it matches up with the correct gender and looks cleaner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:8100:BF90:2D1D:9DFB:595:6E52 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Fictional theater event?

Fictional theater event is an odd description. Why not use what WWE now calls it with a slight modification - premium live professional wrestling event. Using “fictional” sounds like it doesn’t actually exist. 68.9.96.16 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)