Talk:Royal Rumble/Archives/2011/January

Question

Why is Wade Barrett listed as the winner of Royal Rumble 2011 when it hasn't happened yet? The sourcing doesn't help either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Vanadalism. It said Dixie Carter-Salinas just now, until I reverted. NiciVampireHeart 22:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The #30 Draw

"Despite being the best draw possible, no wrestler has ever won the Royal Rumble from the #30 position. The closest was Brock Lesnar in 2003, who entered at number 29." this is wrong,i have a clip where michaels enters the rumble at #30 and wins the match (1996)so,i removed the fact above,because the video speaks for more thna thousand words Lord revan 09:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

---Shawn Michaels did not enter at #30 in 1995; he entered at #1 and won. If you REVERSE the number-scheme, then yes, #30, but that's not how it works.

-- sorry,i meant 1996,i just figured that the clip i saw was slightly edited and that michaels in fact entered at #16,i reverted my edits as soon as i realised it,sorry for my mistake Lord revan 14:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• im really confused here,because as i watch the clip again it does look like hes #30,because the entrance music bears with him as he is in the ring,and it does not look at all like it is edited (if it is, its nicely done). i suggest you use limewire and find this clip yourselves,search for "shawm michaels" or "royal rumble"12:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

-- You seem to be REALLY confused. #30 is not the first guy out, it is the LAST guy out. Michaels was #1 (FIRST GUY OUT)in 1995, and #18 in 1996. He was not #30. Get it? Got it? Good.

I have that Rumble on tape Michaels comes out either 16 or 18 (I forget exactly which) and not number 30. - MightyMightyFoe 16:05, 17th March 2006

It was 18. tv316 16:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

ok then,im too easily fooled. but that guy who edited it did a damn good job Lord revan 13:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what really baffles me, THE FACT THAT YOU CAN NOT BE BOTHERED TO TYPE IN WWE.COM AND CHECK THE INFO YOURSELVES INSTEAD OF GETTING ALL OF US TO DO IT FOR YOU AND TELL YOU LORD REVAN!! K-man-1 09:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

John Cena has just won the 08 rumble after entering at number 30 so you can all stop crying, pick up your dolly's and skip home. K-man i think you have anger issues and you're rather self centred, nobody asked you to check anything for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.107.6 (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

John Cena was the 2nd to win it at #30, Undertaker did it the year before.``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.13.235 (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Other Royal Rumble Matches

Owen Hart won a non-televised royal rumble match back in 1994 at Madison Square Garden. Shouldn't some reference be made to this??? --86.130.135.226 13:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If it wasn't televised, then it isnt part of a storyline, which means it didnt matter at all. K-man-1 09:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a difference between a regular battle royale and the actual Royal Rumble. The Royal Rumble only takes place, obviously at the Royal Rumble PPV. VelvetKevorkian 10:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be a 30 man battle royal and not the Royal Rumble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.165.234 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

By this logic, should some reference not be made to the 15-man Royal Rumble match on SmackDown in 2004, which determined the number one contender for No Way Out that year? It was televised, part of a storyline, and billed as a Royal Rumble match. 82.36.222.99 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It already is, see Royal Rumble (2004)#Aftermath. TJ Spyke 18:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rules

I notice that the rules section has it still listed that wrestlers come out every 2 minutes. sometime between 2002 and now that had been changed to 90 seconds (I cant remember the exact rumble it was changed). also, during the 1991 Royal Rumble, Roddy Piper stated that a wrestler could be eliminated if they didn't enter the ring before the next person came out. you have to scroll down, and it relates to entry number 18, but the source is here [1]. this also explains why Scotty Too Hotty (2002) and Spike Dudley (2004) were eliminated without entering the ring. Lynx Raven Raide 12:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Scotty 2 Hotty DID enter the ring in 2002, but he didn't in 2005, I think. Either way, it does makes sense, since it's kind of like losing via forfeit... If you didn't make it to the ring, then it's like not showing up and thus it means you are eliminated. --Andresg770 17:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if, under rules, we should just say "minor rules have changed over the years" and list the current rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I also heard somewhere (can't remember) that the 2008 Royal Rumble winner isn't going to have the opportunity to face any brands champion...I dunno if that has anything to do with the No Way Out rumoured match though...or whether it's even true...Can anyone confirm??Taker04 (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You say in the page that the contestants draw spots...this is true, but this year they've competed in matches and non-televised events for slots...shouldn't the rules page be changed to show that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.86.225 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt Hardy

Some idiot has put Matt Hardy as the winner of this year's Royal Rumble. Why? Michaelclarkc (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Because they are vandals with nothing better to do with their lives. Just remove the false information. There has been a lot of vandalism recently because the Rumble is coming up. Different IPs have added Triple H, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, etc as the winner of the Rumble already. If the vandalism keeps up at its current rate, I'll have to semi-protect the page. Nikki311 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mid-Importance???

Why is Royal Rumble assessed as Mid-importance? This is one of the Big 4 PPVs, with a long tradition, especially as it selects half of the main event at Wrestlemania each year?--Bedford (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It is Mid-importance in the over-all history of professional wrestling. It has little affect in other promotions, the independent circuit, and other countries. There is more to wrestling than WWE. Hope that explains it. Nikki311 22:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Draw Spots Vs Assigned Spots

In all honesty, I think the previous edit was correct. They are assigned spots, via draw, via punishment, via reward, spots have been assigned numerous ways. LessThanClippers (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I have requested semi protection due to the high level of andalism as the event draws nearLessThanClippers (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

CM Punk

Somebody want to change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.4.220 (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Length

I was just perusing some of the articles for the individual Royal Rumble events, and many of them are unreasonable long. We do not need a long diatribe about the background leading up to the PPVs, just basic event information and results will do. Unfortunately some of the pages seem to be protected by bots making it impossible to edit them to a reasonable length. Can someone more skilled then I clean up some of these articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spman (talk • contribs) 07:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Randy Orton

Shouldn't it be said that he is the did not win the title after winning the Rumble —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermike (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it is relevent. He is not the first Royal Rumble winner to lose at WrestleMania. TJ Spyke 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering since Cena loss was mention Super Mike 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cena's loss is mentioned because he was the first Rumble winner in eight years not to win the title at WrestleMaia. 144.173.212.114 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Mid-rumble mass eliminations

What's the deal with everyone except for 1 or 2 guys getting eliminated partially through the rumble? I've only seen the first 8 or so, and the 2007 Royal Rumble, but it seems to have happened at almost every one. Some I can it advances a storyline, like in 1989 with Savage & Hogan. Or in 1994 or whichever where Diesel came in and cleaned house. But others seem completely pointless, like with Ric Flair in 1992. Or in 1993 which seemed like an-unclever way of getting rid of the Undertaker. Or in 1995 which repeatedly saw Michaels & Bulldog alone. Maybe this was done away with in later rumbles, but what was the point of these? 118.42.219.133 (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.42.219.133 (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Stats sections?

There used to be a section for stats, such as the longevity record, the "shortevity" record, most eliminations, most RR participations, most participations in row, most wins, etc. What happened to those? And could there be a stats section for each RR? It would list that RR's longevity record, "shortevity" record, most eliminations, and whether any of these set the all-time records. 118.42.219.133 (talk) 05:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.42.219.133 (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is there only one paragraph?

Since the article size nears 32 kb, It is astounding that this got promoted to FA even though there is only one paragraph in the lede. Richard (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because it's not a FA (Featured Article), it's a FL (Featured List). FA and FL are different things. TJ Spyke 20:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah shit, you are completely right. I thought it was an FA. I am sorry for any inconvenience. Richard (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dolph Ziggler

where the hell did you get Dolph Ziggler from. how could Dolph Ziggler have already won the 2010 royal rumble where is the proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.35 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was vandalized. Calm Down... Its been fixed. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey u were right but 29 not 31 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.35 (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Triple H

During a promo prior to the 2009 Royal Rumble match, it was clearly said that Triple H total of 36 men during the Rumble matches he's competed in. As this is currently a record- and is of sentimental value, especially when Austin also holds the record for 3 Royal Rumble victories- shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.7.96 (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Records

would a section on rumble records be appropriate?82.14.68.114 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)BLACK6989

I was going to say the same thing. I think that this would be a good discussion to vote on and I would vote for it. Gibsonj338 (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rumble Records are cited every year by announcers and therefore significant enough to list here (even back to the early 90s with Gorilla Monsoon talking about 'Martel's record time of 52 minutes' and Bushwhacker Luke's brief time in the rumble). In recent years stats and records can be found on WWE.com and the WWE has shown a video package stating such records as Kane's 11 eliminations in a single rumble and Austin's 36 combined eliminations, among others. These were all properly sourced to the Rumble Stats page on WWE.com, so I am am not sure why some of them were removed. As for the tabulations, I can also source them to either the wikipedia rumble results pages or their original sources, as to where the numbers came from. If anything, more of the records that are talked about from year to year and found on WWE.com should be added. Perhaps lowering the limit to list all competitors who lasted over a half hour in a single rumble is an option (as to include notable rumble performances such as Flair's in 92, Martel's in 91, DiBiase's in 90 and multiple runs in 2009).User:Ramshackle Man (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

hey i think we could add a total appearances record and most consecutive appearances record kane has both of those with 12 consecutive and 14 total. we could list all over 5 consecutive appearances and all over 10 total or something like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black60dragon (talk • contribs) 00:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Most Eliminations

I'm not positive of the exact numbers, but I remember the commentators saying that after this year's Rumble, Shawn Michaels surpassed Kane as the person with the most eliminations in a career. I am also pretty sure Kane holds the record for most in 1 single Rumble at around 10 or 11. If someone has these stats, it would be a nice list to add like the times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNextSocrates (talk • contribs) 17:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The elimination statistics were on the site, but were deleted without discussion despite the numerous request to add them in this discussion page. As stated previously, these numbers are relevant, are on WWE.com and are referenced by announcers and video packages from year to year (Kane's 11 eliminations in a single rumble and Austin's combined 36 eliminations being the most recent and often referenced figures). So I will add them back onto this page and if there is reasonable disagreement as to why these stats should not be included, please state your case here on the discussion page.68.144.31.143 (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If anything, perhaps the limit for cumulative eliminations could be increased from 10 to 20 or something to keep the list size down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.31.143 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the stats are unsourced, and on table relies entirely on a site that is questionable at best in terms of reliability. To the IP, it doesn't matter if it's requested. If something is not sourced and it's not notable, then it doesn't belong in. It's the job of people claiming something is notable to prove it. TJ Spyke 22:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

DQs

I looked through the article and it doesn't mention that Finlay was eliminated from the Royal Rumble by DQ a few years back. In all of the years that the event has taken place, they always make sure to get the point across that there are no DQs, but for some odd reason, Finlay was DQed from the Royal Rumble in 2008. I think this should be noted as an exception to the rules in the rules section.TheGary (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Kane not winner of this yaer's Royal Rumble match

For those who don't or never watch WWE don't put Kane as the winner as this year's Royal Rumble match, Edge won the match at entry number 29 so don't revert it back to Kane. Kyrios320 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection?

Would it be possible to get some protection added to the page? There's a bunch of erroneous editing regarding the upcoming 2011 edition... Flyingcandyman (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

MondayNightWarriors Stats

I've noticed that this is the site being used to create the new tables on the page: http://www.mondaynightwarriors.com/other-royalrumblestats.php Are these numbers correct? How were they compiled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.194.17 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I looked back through the data. It looks pretty thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.194.17 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

40 men

The Royal Rumble has been updated to forty men says so on the WWE homepage. --109.78.87.34 (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Royal Rumble match with the least and most wrestlers

Should the records part of the article include the Royal Rumble match that had the least amount of wrestlers that was involved, 1988 with twenty, and include the Royal Rumble match that had the most amount of wrestlers that is going to be involved, 2011 with forty? Gibsonj338 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Its already been done.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 23:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)