Talk:Royal Rumble (2016)

Locked

good thing its locked. you dont want just anyone to come to wikipedia and add information. go go keyboardwarriors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.238.122 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE

Can someone please update this article. News broke, last night on RAW, that the Royal Rumble Match is for the WWE World Championship.

Mark Hery was added to the Royal Rumble match over wwe.com Stjepan bisak (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

AJ Styles is NOT in the Rumble

We are not sure if he is going to WWE yet alone be in the Rumble, someone please remove him.

Entrant 3 Sultanified (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Participants

Is it really necessary that we list all the participants so soon? 67.140.126.98 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC) -- how is a week before the event "so soon"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.145.2.177 (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is necessary to list all the confirmed participants because the Royal Rumble event has inspired many fans to conduct betting-pools. Critics, fans, and pro wrestling analysts should have a reliable document to view statistics and confirmed details. WWE.com and other WWE sources are subject to change and therefore a Wiki article with the latest info would be of great service to the pro wrestling community. For example, on the Jan 18th episode of RAW, Michael Cole announced that all 8 men in the match between Titus, M. Henry, R-Truth, and Neville vs Stardust, The Ascention, and Tyler Breeze would all be included in the Royal Rumble match... then later The Ascention and Mark Henry were booked to compete for their spots during the kickoff show against 3 other teams which include the other member of the Prime Time Players tag team (this should be a clear indication that Titus' position in the Rumble is guaranteed).

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016

Theme Song - Footsteps by Pop Evil 139.216.184.111 (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm a rebel!

Participant

I may be wrong, but I'm going to assume that Goldberg's not in the rumble.

Where is list

I thought there was a list of people announced for the rumble. Going to find in history and restore. We should only get rid of it after the entire 30-man order is known. No use removing it until the new table is complete. --174.92.135.167 (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Found it. Page is locked so I can't add it back:

Announced Royal Rumble Match Participants

Entry	Date Announced	Notes
Big Show	December 28 (Raw)
Curtis Axel	January 1 (WWE.com)
Bray Wyatt	January 4 (Raw)
Braun Strowman
Luke Harper
Erick Rowan
Ryback
Dolph Ziggler
Chris Jericho
Roman Reigns (c)		#1 Entry
Brock Lesnar	January 11 (Raw)
Stardust	January 13 (WWE.com)
Sheamus	January 14 (SmackDown)
Kickoff Match Winner #1	January 24 (Kickoff Show)
Kickoff Match Winner #2

Can someone with rights please restore it? --174.92.135.167 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

oh wait, @Gloss: already did while I was in midst of asking, thanks! --174.92.135.167 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Roman Reigns

WWE has their criteria as for eliminations, but I stand by my edit that Reigns eliminated Reigns. If the paramedics had fully carted him out and he returned, that's excusable. If he'd walked back under his own power, that's fine. When he walked out on his own that should have constituted a willing forfeit self elimination. TimidObserver (talk) 03:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2016

Changes made to the time column (i.e. adding 0 to the front of the ones listed with times under 10 minutes) to enable correct sorting of the table. Currently sorts as, for example 0:15, 0:30, 0:37, 10:04, 10:46, etc.

!Eliminations |- | 1 || Roman Reigns (c) || 28 || Triple H || 59:50 || 4 |- | 2 || Rusev || 1 || Roman Reigns || 01:30 || 0 |- | 3 || AJ Styles || 11 || Kevin Owens || 27:53 || 2 |- | 4 || Tyler Breeze || 2 || AJ Styles || 01:00 || 0 |- | 5 || Curtis Axel || 3 || AJ Styles || 01:11 || 0 |- | 6 || Chris Jericho || 26 || Dean Ambrose || 50:50 || 1 |- | 7 || Kane || 9 || Braun Strowman || 18:44 || 1 |- | 8 || Goldust || 4 || Titus O'Neil || 05:55 || 0 |- | 9 || Ryback || 8 || Big Show || 12:21 || 0 |- | 10 || Kofi Kingston || 6 || Chris Jericho || 08:15 || 0 |- | 11 || Titus O'Neil || 7 || Big Show || 08:55 || 1 |- | 12 || R-Truth || 5 || Kane || 00:37 || 0 |- | 13 || Luke Harper || 19 || Brock Lesnar || 23:40 || 4 |- | 14 || Stardust || 14 || Luke Harper || 13:57 || 0 |- | 15 || Big Show || 10 || Braun Strowman || 04:31 || 1 |- | 16 || Neville || 13 || Luke Harper || 10:04 || 0 |- | 17 || Braun Strowman || 20 || Brock Lesnar || 16:44 || 5 |- | 18 || Kevin Owens || 12 || Sami Zayn || 04:28 || 1 |- | 19 || Dean Ambrose || 29 || Triple H || 29:36 || 1 |- | 20 || Sami Zayn || 16 || Braun Strowman || 04:33 || 1 |- | 21 || Erick Rowan || 17 || Brock Lesnar || 04:14 || 2 |- | 22 || Mark Henry || 15 || Braun Strowman, Luke Harper & Erick Rowan || 00:30 || 0 |- | 23 || Brock Lesnar || 21 || Braun Strowman, Luke Harper & Erick Rowan* || 08:13 || 4 |- | 24 || Jack Swagger || 18 || Brock Lesnar || 00:15 || 0 |- | 25 || The Miz || 22 || Roman Reigns || 08:23 || 0 |- | 26 || Alberto Del Rio || 23 || Roman Reigns || 06:46 || 0 |- | 27 || Bray Wyatt || 25 || Triple H & Sheamus || 10:46 || 0 |- | 28 || Dolph Ziggler || 24 || Triple H || 07:00 || 0 |- | 29 || Sheamus || 27 || Roman Reigns || 08:45 || 1 |-style="background:gold;" | 30||Triple H||-||Winner|| 08:05 || 4 |}

120.88.154.209 (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

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.  Be prosperous! Paine  01:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Please change this:

From: The Royal Rumble match and the event is most notable for featuring the highly anticipated WWE debut of longtime Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) mainstay A.J. Styles, who signed with the company a few weeks prior

To: The Royal Rumble match and the event is most notable for featuring the highly anticipated WWE debut of longtime Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) mainstay A.J. Styles, who signed with the company a few DAYS prior. He signed on January 20th and the Royal Rumble was on January 24th. Thanks.

Why does it say Dean Ambrose won the Royal Rumble? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrossfadeCF (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

To be a nitpick

In the lead section, shouldn't the line "This Royal Rumble was notable for the WWE debut of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) longtime mainstay AJ Styles." actually read return? Though the source to the line links to a video with a description that uses the words "in-ring debut", Styles did already have an in-ring performance back in 2002 with a televised match on Jakked. Even WWE.com has gone so far as to include Styles in an episode of their 5 things series, aptly titled "Superstars you didn't know were in WWE" (July 11, 2014). HidyHoTim (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

WWE calling the 2016 Rumble his "debut" is retconning, which has no place in an encyclopedia. His debut was absolutely in 2002. B. Mastino (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It was his debut nevertheless. Two dark matches over a decade ago - and was he actually called A.J. Styles back then? - doesn't invalidate that at the Rumble A.J. Styles, the big international star, debuted in the WWE. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Dark" nothing. He wrestled on WWE television, as AJ Styles. B. Mastino (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That's what the A.J. Sytles article said. In any case, his Rumble appearance is a debut nonetheless. The ubiquitous insertion of "return" also constitutes undue weight. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

So, the Rumble marked the debut of a character who already debuted on an internationally televised WWE program 14 years earlier? That doesn't make much sense. And there's no "insertion"; multiple users have replaced the innumerable references to a 2016 "debut" because they're patently incorrect. B. Mastino (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Debut" may not only refer to the very first time somebody appears. And the sources speak of "debut". Hence we say debut too. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Except the very massive problem of him debuting in 2002. B. Mastino (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The very massive problem is twofold: first, that you think that once a person has ever set foot in a WWE ring, he cannot ever have another debut, and second, that you are inserting your own opinion in contradiction to the sources.

Let's have a look at all those instances in the article which speak of debuting vs. returning. Most of them are unsourced but two of them actually have a source attached to them:

1. The current article says: "James Montgomery of Rolling Stone ... described the return of AJ Styles as "surreal" ..."

1. The linked source [1] actually says: "A.J. Styles made his much-rumored debut, popping the Orlando crowd big-time when he entered the Rumble match at Number 3. To say it was surreal to see the stalwart Styles in a WWE ring (and to hear Michael Cole say "Styles Clash,") would be an understatement, so while I could nitpick – his debut might have felt bigger on tonight's Raw, Styles could've eliminated a few more folks in the match – I won't."

2. The current article says: "Will Pruett of Pro Wrestling Dot Net ... wrote that the returning AJ Styles "instantly seemed like he fit on the roster",

2. The linked source [2] actually says: "Styles instantly seemed like he fit on the roster. He was given a long stay in the Rumble and a chance for fans to get to know him. It was fun. – With all of those positives about A.J. Styles’ debut mentioned, it is also worth noting WWE has slotted him already." The headline includes: "A.J. Styles debuts for WWE".

No word about a "return" of Styles. It's "debut" all over the place. (This is bordering on manipulating sources.) And these are not WWE pages (which wouldn't disqualify them anyway) but independent reviews of the event.

While I don't think all these instances in the article would have to say "debut", to insist that they must read "return" is even more over the top. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines 'debut' as "a first public appearance on a stage, on television, etc."[3] You can certainly have different gimmicks debuted by the same person, but the cold, brutal fact is that Allen Neal Jones, in the character of AJ Styles, had his first televised match for WWE in 2002. That a bunch of wrasslin' journalists don't know the difference between a debut and a return (or worse, don't actually know their wrestling history) means little, especially when WWE have publicly acknowledged that Styles performed for the company in 2002. B. Mastino (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why facts have to be "cold" and "brutal" but it is nevertheless a fact that Styles's Rumble appearance is called a "debut" by the sources. So far nobody calls it a return.

So either all these sources must be deluded or maybe the definition of debut is not as absolute as you might think. BTW, I don't disagrees with your dictionary or the fact that Styles had a couple of matches in 2002 - only with your conclusions from either. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

PS. "whom WWE has publicly acknowledged was in the company in 2002" (plus ref) seems pretty much like WP:SYNTH to me. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I again point you toward the clear-as-day video footage of AJ Styles (same guy, same character as the one currently on TV) previously performing in WWE. The world and his dog can call Rumble 2016 his "debut", or whatever else they please, but WWE published irrefutable footage of his actual debut for the world to see. B. Mastino (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Video footage can at best be a source for what they show. Your video footage cannot source your insistance on the word "return" as long as NO source supports your wording. If the world and his dog calls Styles's Rumble appearance his "debut" so does Wikipedia. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

"Video footage can at best be a source for what they show."

Couldn't agree more. The clip shows a young AJ Styles performing in WWE long ago, thus rendering the popular notion of Styles "debuting" in 2016 as utter bollocks. B. Mastino (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

So you are telling me that a 2002 video showing a young Styles in a WWE ring also speaks of his "return" and not "debut" in 2016! That is indeed bollacks.

Your video cannot tell us anything about 2016, only about 2002. Wikipedia has to follow what the sources say and that is that Styles "debuted". Thus far it is your opinion to contradict the sources, based on a narrow interpretation of the word "debut".

Your video is totally irrelevant to the Royal Rumble and has no business of being included here. In any case, such video are discouraged as sources.

OTOH, I think that that wording "pay per view debut", as suggested by an IP might be a feasily compromsíse in the upper part of te the article. But we have to stick to the sources in the "reception" section.

PS. Please mind WP:NPA, especially in edit summaries. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The video "speaks of" nothing. It shows, on film, Styles competing for WWE long before his Royal Rumble 2016 appearance. Hack journalists can interpret his return any way they want to, and you can interpret their interpretation. I'll stay footed in (cited) reality. B. Mastino (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion based on a video and on a dictionary vs. "hack journalists" - I'm afraid under Wikipedia policies (WP:V) the hack journalists win. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Your opinion based on a video"

I'm linking the infallible footage of Styles's debut, while you're pointing to journo opinions in print, thus my version scoops the win per the very policy you're using as part of your argument. I guess by your logic, if a hack writes that OJ's Ford Bronco was rainbow-coloured, then... B. Mastino (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Footage cannot be infallible, it can only be right or wrong. But the footage doesn't say anything about 2016, onnly about 2002. Any conclusions about 2016 are your own, your interpretation. Your interpretation is only consequential given your understanding of the word "debut" (as the first and only the first-ever for ever and ever, excluding any possibility of a second debut), but your understanding is not binding on others, not binding on Wikipedia and contradciting by sources that actually talk about 2016. They are the actual sources about the event, your video is about something else. You have provided zero sources to make your case. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, I link footage of history, while you point to subjective interpretations of history. So uh, yeah, I put forward "interpretation" and "zero sources", except well, footage of Styles debuting in 2002, not 2016. Every so often, someone helps remind me why Wikipedia is perceived by the public as a joke website. B. Mastino (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This debate is rather weird. On the one hand, I can't bring myself to calling this A.J. Styles's "return," but at the same time I understand why the word "debut" doesn't work per the dictionary definition. Ultimately, I think that the main issue here is that while A.J. had two matches back in 2002, he wasn't under contract with the WWE; the were tryouts of sorts. In fact --if his Wiki article is to be believed-- he was only offered a contract later in April, which he turned down. So as a compromise of sorts, is there any word or phrase that is used to mean "first appearance as a contracted performer"??? That's about the only thing I think could work... Andresg770 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The "no contract" angle is irrelevant. Lex Luger and Rick Rude were working without contracts in 1995 and 1997, respectively, and only a fool would say they weren't on TV. AJ Styles absolutely, unequivocally debuted on internationally televised WWE programming in 2002. B. Mastino (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The word "debut" works because after such a long time (and such an inconsequential first stint) a man certainly can have another debut. Anyway, the sources universally call this a debut.

I have already taken up a compromise solution: "WWE PPV debut". Str1977 ^(talk) 12:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If Royal Rumble 2016 was "another debut", then what was wrong with my addition of "re-debut"? B. Mastino (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Rude and Luger comparisons... Rude was on a pay-per-appearance basis, yes, but this was YEARS after his official WWE debut back in the 1980s. And Luger only worked on a handshake agreement after his WWE contract expired (and hence after his WWE debut, too). In fact, weren't the Luger and Rude debacles big parts of the reason why Vince McMahon became so insistent on having actual contracts for all official roster members?

What I was trying to get at was that I think that part of the reason why many people can't call this A.J. Styles' "return" is that his first two televised appearances were basically tryouts, on a non-contract basis. Whereas this Rumble was the first time Styles appeared in a WWE ring as a contracted performer, a.k.a. as a full-time member of the roster. You can call it a WWE PPV debut and be technically right, but that still omits why his appearance here was so notable for many, in my opinion. Andresg770 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If not being contracted somehow negates a televised WWE appearance, then Rick Rude was not part of DX. He was. I'm saying that contracted or not, AJ Styles performed on WWE television in 2002, and thus made his debut that year. The company unequivocally said he was "in WWE". B. Mastino (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that a lack of a contract "negates" a televised appearance. What I'm saying is that there is a big difference for people between your first match as an official member of the roster and some tryout match. In fact, saying that the event was "notable" because it was A.J. Styles' "WWE pay-per-view debut" is a bit misleading: it was notable because this was the first time he made an appearance as an official member of WWE roster.

P.S.: That "5 Things" show you keep putting down as proof has its own issues with the word debut, by the way. Because on this episode they clearly say: "Dean Ambrose made his very first WWE appearance all the way back in 2006, nearly 6 years before he debuted in The Shield." And later on in that same video, Tom Phillips says: "It's hard to believe that these Superstars competed in a WWE ring years before their official debuts..." So, are they "debuts" if they appeared on TV beforehand?? Andresg770 (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"what was wrong with my addition of "re-debut"?" -- In principle nothing. However, it is wrong if were relating the contents of a review that speaks about the "debuting AJ Styles" or the "debut of AJ Styles". That's (ever so slightly) misrepresenting the source, though not a grossly as returining.

What I won't accept is the latest attempt to shift the focus from "AJ Styles who hasn't been in WWE since 2016" to "AJ Styles who debuted/was in a WWE ring in 2002". His long absence might be relevant to our topic here, his two matches in 2002 aren't.

My issue in this conflict is not about contracts (handshake agreements BTW are contracts too - they just can end much quicker and their actual contents are much harder to prove) but the impact the Styles appearance had:

Yes, AJ Styles (under that name) had two, even televised WWE matches in 2002. The 5 points video clearly sources that and nobody is denying it. However Styles' first WWE stint (if we can call it that) was so short, so inconsequential and so long ago compared to what came later: he went to TNA and became a big international star whose appearance at the Royal Rumble had a huge impact, comparable to Sting's WWE debut (even though Sting really had never entered a WWE ring while Styles had in 2002). So for its impact it is rightly called a debut. I'm trying to think of a comparable case I would call a return and the first that springs to mind is the return of Chris Jericho in 2007 (the one with the code). Another one, though not involving a wrestler, is that of Elizabeth at Wrestlemania VII. Both had an impact but neither had the impact of "huge star who's (practically) never been here. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

PS. Re "its own issues with the word debut" - showcasing my point that the word is not restricted to the "very first ever appearance". Str1977 ^(talk) 13:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Bryan and Dudleys turn

Lest this change gets buried in the back and forth of the "debut" vs. "return" conflict, I wanted to highlight two small changes I made:

• Someone added Daniel Bryan's retirement to the aftermath section. However, since Bryan played no part in either the build-up of the Royal Rumble or the event itself. The Aftermath section is meant for noting how feuds and angles at the Rumble developed further, not for any post-Rumble events, even if they are as monumental as a retirement.
• The article said that the Dudleys attacked the Usos, turning them heel in the process" - it should read "turning heel" as such a them would refer to the Usos and make them the would-be heels when, of course, it was the Dudleys who were the heels afterwards. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Harper, Strowman, Rowan Elimination Totals

Shouldn't Harper and Strowman both have 1 more elimination each? Harper is credited as eliminating Stardust, Neville, Henry, and Lesnar. Strowman has Kane, Big Show, Sami Zayn, Henry, and Lesnar. I thought maybe it was Lesnar since it occurred after they were eliminated, but Rowan's total counts Lesnar since his 2 were just Henry and Lesnar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeyondLimitation (talk • contribs) 11:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Royal Rumble entrances and eliminations table

When I put back the most recent full version of the table, I fixed some old broken bits, e.g. the asterisks had disappeared at some point so I went back to versions that had them in. Hopefully the current version combines all the legit edits, at least as far as I could find them. Kurisumasen (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)