Talk:Royal Rumble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Royal Rumble is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
January 1, 2008 Featured list candidate Promoted

	Professional wrestling Portal Royal Rumble is within the scope of WikiProject Professional wrestling, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to professional wrestling. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project to-do page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to discussions.
FL	This article has been rated as FL-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Discussion 2 Booking the Rumble 3 Merging the 2004 and the 2005 to te Royal Rumble Page 4 Facts 5 Elimination 6 Facts and trivia 7 The #30 Draw 8 Longest Lasting In The Rumble 9 Shortest Lasting In The Rumble 10 Trivia --- People not technically eliminated 11 Merge 12 Moving of Pages 13 1994 MSG Royal Rumble 14 Format 15 My edits 16 Viscera was the most to be eliminated? 17 Footnotes 18 Stats 19 2007 Rumble 20 7th Straight win 21 3bullet 22 Royal Rumble Box/Template 23 2 Seconds 24 Rules 25 Entry Slots 26 Runners-Up 27 Benoit 28 First High Definition PPV 29 Matt Hardy 30 Mid-Importance??? 31 Draw Spots Vs Assigned Spots 32 Protection 33 CM Punk

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] Lynx Raven Raide 13:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Moving of Pages

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

[edit] 1994 MSG Royal Rumble

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 2007 Rumble

---To the question of whether the rumble winner gets a shot the ECW Title, if you look at this: [2] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 :/ -- _The Hiddey_ 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? -- _The Hiddey_ 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 -- _The Hiddey_ 10:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 Seconds

the warlord lasted two seconds not three,proof is here[[3]]

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

[edit] 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 [4]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] CM Punk

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