Talk:Royal Rumble (2022)

Stop Removing Johnny Knoxville!

Knoxville WAS announced as a competitor at Day 1. Eurugby54 (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

- WWE have not confirmed this. Please see the following link, which shows the CONFIRMED ENTRANTS by WWE themselves https://www.wwe.com/shows/royalrumble/30-man-royal-rumble-match So.....where's Johnny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, they announced it during their show and numerous independent sources are also reporting it. — Czello 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Premium

I know WWE now promotes their PPVs as Premium Live Events, but... it doesn't sound too WP:Neutral. I think refering these events as premium live events falls into WP:Promotional. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree, "premium live events" aren't a real thing. It's a PPV. — Czello 21:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I just saw other articles with the same word. It's promotional for WWE, in the same way their wrestlers are "superstars". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Premium literally means you have to pay. It's a shorthand term to cover these events in which you have to pay to view, which are PPV and streaming services (Peacock and WWE Network). It's also much less of a mouthful than saying "PPV and Peacock/WWE Network event". And saying "it's not a real thing" is a bit shortsighted. This feels like a case of WP:DONTLIKEIT than an actual reason for removing it. --JDC808 ♫ 01:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

No Idontlikeit. WWE promotes their wrestlers as Superstars and now, their events as Premium. Falls into WP:PROMO "Wikipedia articles about [] organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The word premium used just by WWE (no other wrestling promotion) is a marketing word. It's also noted in the PW:MOS, "Avoid parroting branding and marketing terminology used by promotions." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Their events have always been "premium". Now, they're just using the word that's literally used by practically any company that has a paid service. They're doing this because A.) PPV is a bit outdated with the rise in streaming services, and B.) like I said before, this shorthand term covers their events airing across multiple outlets in which a viewer had to pay to be able to watch it. This isn't the same as "superstar", which is just their alternate word for wrestler (because they don't like using the word wrestler). This is no more "promo" than calling it a PPV event or a WWE Network event or a Peacock event (or an Impact Plus event, or any other premium service). By your assertion, we shouldn't even be calling their roster divisions "brands". JDC808 ♫ 11:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

They are just using the word = Avoid parroting branding and marketing terminology used by promotions." Again, marketing their events as some kind of" premium" event its WP:PROMO. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with HHH. Ultimately, the company has suddenly decided to rebrand what their PPVs are called, and if we started doing the same it'd fall into WP:PROMO territory as HHH says. Nothing about the shows has changed in the past month other than WWE's branding. — Czello 12:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree that this falls under promo (and again, if you're gonna say that, the exact same could be said about the word PPV or any other paid outlet). And also again HHH, their events have always been premium, so it's not "some kind of premium event". And it's actually more neutral to say this one common word than saying it's a "PPV and Peacock/WWE Network event" (that's actually much more promo and marketing than just saying it's a premium event). And Czello, you say nothing has changed, that's completely false. Other promotions have also taken to streaming platforms to air their "PPVs" because there's a much wider market there, and because they're on streaming services, the events can be watched on-demand, not just the one time in the case of ordering via PPV. That's not to mention how much of a hit the PPV market has taken due to streaming services. But it comes down to, they're not really PPVs anymore. Yes, it is still an option for people to order them on PPV, but those numbers are far less lower. Like I said in my original post, this just feels like a case of WP:DONTLIKEIT (and possibly because of some WWE bias) and not a real reason to remove it. JDC808 ♫ 00:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

if you're gonna say that, the exact same could be said about the word PPV or any other paid outlet This makes no sense. Pay-per-view is an actual thing, not a promotional buzzword, like premium live event. Ultimately if WWE decide to re-label their events and we immediately start renaming them here on Wikipedia, then we're indeed buying into their WP:PROMOTIONAL marketing. — Czello 13:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It actually does make sense as PPV and the streaming services are also for marketing, but it seems you all are too stubborn against some kind of change just because it's WWE. Again, the word premium literally means you pay, and that's exactly what you do for PPV and the streaming services. A bit strange you all are against concise and more neutral terminology, which is what we want on Wikipedia. JDC808 ♫ 00:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. We're not opposing this out of some WWE bias, we're doing it because it's not a real term and is just a marketing buzzword. No, it still doesn't make sense to compare it to PPVs because, again, PPV is the correct term for these events; it's a false equivalence to compare the two. WWE is just branding them as something else. — Czello 16:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Except a lot of objection on here (and I mean the project in general) is because of WWE bias. But the thing is, PPV is not the correct term, not anymore. PPV means you pay PER view. While yes, PPV is still an option, it is incorrect to label these as PPV events because they've really become live streaming events thanks to the WWE Network and now Peacock (I honestly wont be surprised if they soon just drop PPV altogether). That's literally why WWE started saying "premium" because it covers both PPV and the streaming services (because again, premium means you pay). We're just so used to calling them PPV that anything else seems wrong. JDC808 ♫ 09:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

is because of WWE bias. What are you basing this on? Again, please AGF -- I see no indication this is anti-WWE bias. I don't think anything you've said above really addresses mine or HHH's points though: ultimately a PPV is a real thing (and their monthly shows are indeed PPVs). A "premium live event" is a bit of weird branding from them. — Czello 10:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

As Czello caid, Assume good faith. Non of our editions are based on an anti-WWE feeling. "premium means you pay". No, anyone can pay for anything, but it doesn't mean it's premium. Something is premium after a company marketed it. PPV, on the other hand, is a real thing "Pay-per-view (PPV) is a type of pay television or webcast service that enables a viewer to pay to watch individual events via private telecast." --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Czello, what am I basing the WWE bias on? A lot of previous discussions throughout this project that have obviously been anti-WWE, but we are now getting too hung up on that.

I have addressed both of your all's points. Neither of you are understanding it because you both think it falls under PROMO. Many third parties agree that these events are not really PPVs anymore and the "premium" term makes since (and long overdue) given the fact that the focus has been on the streaming services for the past near decade now, even if the term sounds a little "weird" (which like I said in my last post, we are just so used to saying PPV).

HHH, it is context. In the context of these events and the means by which they are marketed (by having to pay to view), it means they are premium. Something is premium after a company marketed it. That is exactly what a PPV is (wrestling companies market these types of events on PPV in order to get people to pay to watch it, and that focus has now shifted to streaming services). JDC808 ♫ 10:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You might think there is anti-WWE bias, but accusing myself and HHH of opposing these changes based on alleged bias is unhelpful (and baseless). Please don't do it, it's an assumption of bad faith. We're not opposing PLE because it "sounds weird", we're opposing it because it's not a real thing: just a bit of WWE branding. However, you might have noticed all of the reversions that myself and HHH have made don't re-insert the PPV label but instead simply call them live events. This strikes me as a nice balance between the objections to both labels. They are, technically, still PPVs, but it seems a simple label of "live event" is the most neutral way of describing their monthly shows. — Czello 11:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

How is it not a real thing? Because it doesn't have a Wikipedia article? There are plenty of third party sources acknowledging the term now and what it means, but I guess we'll say it's "not real". I have noticed the edits. Only issue I see is that "live event" on its own usually means house show. Might be okay for the lead sentence since it's later stated that it's available on PPV/streaming, but the articles' short description should at least go back to the elongated "WWE pay-per-view and Peacock/WWE Network event" JDC808 ♫ 11:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Are there any sources that acknowledge the term outside of repeating WWE's branding? — Czello 12:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

These two sources [1] [2] (one of them included in the WWE PPVs article) report that WWE re-brands (Avoid parroting branding and marketing terminology used by promotions) their events as Premium live events (the first agrees that's part of WWE's dictionary). Outside WWE, you can find examples of several PPV, like TNA, WCW, Mixed Martial Arts or Boxing- --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

So both of these explicitly call it a rebranding; all the more reason to avoid the phrase in our PPV articles. Presently we mention on the List of WWE pay-per-view and WWE Network events article that WWE themselves brand them as "premium live events", which I think is enough. — Czello 12:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Irrespective of how WWE brands or names their bigger shows there should still be an adherence to what all other wrestling companies call their bigger shows, whether or not the event in question is on PPV or live streaming is irrelevant when considering what the general consensus is from wider fans and the general scope of wrestling. With live streaming and company specific streaming sites becoming more and more common the ways the access the event has moved away from a literal PPV, however they are still referred to as a PPV by the companies and fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:E947:6700:1D3C:5F04:123B:C2CB (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Roman Reigns vs Seth Rollins

Has Reigns vs Rollins officially been announced by WWE on either their official website or official social media feeds? I am considering removing it from the Matches section for now, till it is official. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

DO NOT ADD ROMAN REIGNS VS SETH ROLLINS UNTIL IT IS OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED ON WWE.COM OR A VERIFIED WWE SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT.

ONCE THE MATCH IS OFFICIALLY CONFIRMED, INCLUDE A CITATION TO AN OFFICIAL WWE SOURCE.

ANY ENTRY WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING CITATION WILL BE REMOVED. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

PLEASE LOCK THIS PAGE

Can you please lock this page, to prevent people from adding dumb and false entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have requested page protection, but it has not yet been given (though it will most likely be), this vandalism that keeps happening by some users, just has to stop. I hope it gets protected soon. --Zippo9310 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

MICKIE JAMES

OK, so I'm seeing Mickie James go back and forth on here as "Free Agent" and "Impact Wrestling". Whatever WWE class her as, is what she should be listed as on here, no questions. WWE acknowledged her as an Impact Superstar. Free Agent would imply she is un-signed which we know is not true. Please list her as Impact as WWE have done this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

So I think she's actually not signed to impact. I can't find a source that says she is, and I can find an article by sportskeeda that links a tweet from Sean Ross Sapp that says she is not signed as far as he knows. But since I can't actually find the tweet, it was probably deleted, so its too ambiguous and more accurate with the information we have right now to list her as a free agent. Link to sportskeeda (https://www.sportskeeda.com/wwe/news-wwe-news-reason-mickie-james-allowed-go-wwe-despite-impact-champion). Take the article with a grain of salt btw, I was really only focused on SRS's tweet. Mogar101 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Roman reigns

Reigns going to defend his title against McIntyre 106.76.76.25 (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't see this week's Smackdown. First, that's just speculation (which is untrue) and second, WWE went with Seth Rollins. The official announcement hasn't happenend but it will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Royal Rumbles are not gimmick events

Wrestling terms are over a hundred years old and the actual terminology is very important to preserving the history. Fall Guys was written in the 1930s and if the language was not universal matches could not be called in the ring and finishes couldn't be communicated over telegraph. I don't know who is writing these articles but they are consistently wrong. Gimmicks are a term for a wrestlers personal. Undertaker is the most famous gimmick for Mark Callous (although that's almost insulting at this point). Bray Wyatt as The Fiend or Terry Taylor as the Rooster come to mind as a gimmick. The Royal Rumble is referred to as a gimmick nowhere in WWE or fan circles. It's a PPV event or one of the 4 main events of the year. They need to unlock these articles for fans to edit. BuzzFW (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"They need to unlock these articles for fans to edit". Okay, so do you volunteer to clean up the amount of horrendous edits and vandalism that random IPs make who are supposedly "fans" (not all are bad, but it's a common trend among random IPs and they're why articles get locked)? And I guess the ones maintaining these articles aren't fans? Anyways, gimmick has more than one meaning. Here (and for others that the term applies to), it's referring to the event being based on a match, in this case, the Royal Rumble match. As for using that terminology on these articles, here's an article from just last year from a reliable source that refers to them as gimmick events: Why WWE Should Get Rid Of Hell In A Cell & Other Gimmick Match PPVs. And here's another reliable source explaining the difference between a regular event and a gimmick one: What is it that differentiates classic PPVs from "Gimmick PPVs"?.

You also said whoever is writing these articles are consistently wrong. Okay, so what else is wrong, or is it just your interpretation of the usage of "gimmick"? JDC808 ♫ 07:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Royal-Rumble-2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Winner

Who will win. 223.185.27.43 (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait and see. Wikipedia isn't for predicitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Big E is now Smackdown not RAW

Should Big E's colour be changed to blue as WWE confirmed last night that he is now part of the Smackdown Brand? Yes, he was on RAW when his participation was announced but he'll be representing Smackdown when he competes in the Royal Rumble Match. https://twitter.com/WWE/status/1487251641661370369?cxt=HHwWgsC9jaDf46MpAAAA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.25.151.30 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

Alex.ambrose (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I want acces to edit this page because i am watching it live right now and i can update infos asap.

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Shorthand

Just wanted to put out here that there is really no need to make use of shorthand to reference the Royal Rumble. Commentators on SmackDown and RAW have never mention ed the winner of the Royal Rumble as a Rumble winner, or he/she is a 2-time Rumble winner. It kind of feels the eponymous match is referred to as something else. According to JDC808, he stated for a Money in the Bank ladder match, we can use "ladder match" as shorthand, but by reading that, one would think that they are referring to an ordinary ladder match and not the MITB match. (2-time ladder match winner definitely sounds like the wrestler won two ladder matches instead of MITB). I disagree on the use of shorthand here, however, anyone feel free to voice your opinions about this. Zerobrains94 (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that "ladder match" could be used as shorthand for "Money in the Bank ladder match", but you completely left out the fact that I said "as long as it's understood that it's talking about the Money in the Bank ladder match". Don't twist my words to fit your narrative. That's also your opinion that we shouldn't use shorthand, when in fact, we should be making sentences concise without loosing meaning, and that includes shorthand. And yes, announcers etc. have in fact said Rumble instead of the full "Royal Rumble" name. And to quote something you said: "It kind of feels the eponymous match is referred to as something else." And what exactly is that something else? The way it was worded, it could only mean one thing. JDC808 ♫ 01:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)