Talk:Royal Rumble (2023)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Red Sox[edit]

Rgk 70.49.57.246 (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do people keep saying the rumble is gonna have 40 entrants when it’s not confirmed what so ever?[edit]

It’s annoying as hell and I want it to stop 2603:7081:5902:BD0:7C37:690C:25EC:9178 (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tickets and seats[edit]

wwe has added some rows of seats as a result of good ticket sales. i think this should be added.171.51.131.201 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Storyline Section[edit]

“The event will include matches that result from scripted storylines, where wrestlers portray heroes, villains, or less distinguishable characters in scripted events that build tension and culminate in a wrestling match or series of matches. Results are predetermined by WWE's writers on the Raw and SmackDown brands,[9][10] while storylines are produced on WWE's weekly television shows, Monday Night Raw and Friday Night SmackDown.[11]”

What?! Wrestling is scripted and pre-determined?! No! Seriously, this is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read and we need to end this nonsense on ever pro wrestling related article 76.28.53.202 (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys not edit the page while the show is running?[edit]

Every year when the rumble starts the confirmed wrestlers list/rest of the card gets deleted and a the new list is edited as each wrestler enters the match/ has their match and it gets annoying that you can’t look it up during the show because it’s all been removed. 203.164.246.15 (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but No, The Page has to be updated while the event is ongoing. The way it's been every year. Untamed1910 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is no reason that the page HAS TO BE updated while the event is ongoing. In fact, it cannot actually be done since while the event is still ongoing, there are not reliable sources to base any changes on.
Str1977 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Refs were yelling at Shayna[edit]

The refs were yelling at Shayna that her feet hit the ground before she grabbed Natalya, her elimination should be Natalya 2600:4041:29F:3000:21DB:2E60:78EF:135D (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope it was Damage CTRL eliminate both Shayna and Natalya as they brawled. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you watch it back and see the refs clearly tell her shes eliminated, dont listen to Corey and watch the refs as Shayna pulls Natalya out of the ring. Shayna was already out 2600:4041:29F:3000:21DB:2E60:78EF:135D (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have to go what the sources said. Untamed1910 (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are the referees. Natalya eliminated Shayna. 2603:7080:4200:ECE3:7D2C:1495:B45F:1F7 (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No sources are not the referees, we have to have reliable sources such as prowrestling.net, also sources are not referees. Untamed1910 (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The referees can clearly be heard during the match telling Shayna that she was eliminated when she was on the ring apron with Natalya, before Damage CTRL knocked them both off of this. If "reliable" sources choose to ignore this fact, their reliability should be questioned. 2603:7080:4200:ECE3:7CE9:F91C:84A6:7E39 (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As wrestling is scripted, referees are not sources - they're participants in the art form. They're characters. What's official is what's presented/reported by WWE, and they say Baszler was eliminated by Damage CTRL. — Czello 10:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NXT title[edit]

Not that it's likely but they do have the option to challenge for the NXT titles as well. See: Charlotte 2020 76.152.187.181 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Lesnar and Logan Paul[edit]

Please keep Brock Lesnar and Logan Paul listed as a Free Agents. They are not assigned to any brand. Brock's "Free Agent" status was confirmed during the 2021 Draft and Logan was never drafted. If you insist on branding them, please show evidence to support why?

Wrong Elimination Count[edit]

In the Women's Royal Rumble chart, it shows Chelsea Green got 7 eliminations while lasted 5 seconds in the match. This is simply not true. She had 0 eliminations. 2603:6000:DB01:11CD:2DCF:E7C:5603:1C5 (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ripley / Morgan[edit]

They both started at the same time, the match finished upon the elimination of Morgan. How on earth does one of them last longer than the other? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically the match finishes when the bell is rung. WWE list that as happening 1 second after being eliminated, hence why they have Ripley at 1:01:08 and Morgan at 1:01:07. — Czello 19:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Technically we go off what reliable sources say, not primary ones. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually couldn't see where the cagematch.net source stated they spent an equal amount of time in the match / Morgan shares this accolade. Perhaps I just missed it - can you be clear on where I should be looking? — Czello 20:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the part where it says the match ends at 1:01:08 when Ripley eliminates Morgan. It doesn't say Morgan was eliminated at 1:01:07. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I actually couldn't see where the WWE.com source says that the bell was rung one second after Morgan was eliminated and that being the reason for the discrepancy. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like it's saying when the match ended, in line with the WWE source. However, if it doesn't specify when Morgan was eliminated then we have no alternative but to go with the WWE source for this, which is clear on the exact times someone was eliminated. — Czello 20:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It specifies when all 28 other women were eliminated. And the final elimination is when the match ends. Here's the 1999 Royal Rumble ending. Austin is eliminated at 3:03 of this video, the bell rings at 3:05. Are you arguing that McMahon stayed in the match ~2 seconds longer than Austin. What a load of contrived nonsense. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately all the cagematch source says is when the match ended. Without anything else concrete we enter into the realms of WP:OR. — Czello 20:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The match ends when the final person is eliminated. This isn't original research when it's literally how the Royal Rumble works. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The match ends when the bell rings. — Czello 21:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking for a source that the bell ends the match? This is WP:BLUESKY territory, and if you want to argue it ends before that point you're going to need a source that says so. Until then, WWE has been explicit about timings of eliminations. — Czello 21:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add to this that cagematch is down as an "unproven source" on WP:PW/RS, so there's no way it supplants WWE.com at this stage. — Czello 21:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking for a source that states that the pinfall/submission/final elimination isn't when the match ends. Because thata's how a match ends. That's how the Royal Rumble is promoted, the winner is the last person remaining in the ring after all 29 have been eliminated. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How WWE choose to qualify the ending of a match is up to them. Their source is clear that the final person can be eliminated and the match ends a second later. — Czello 22:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a no, then. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually a yes - WWE source the time that the match ends, which was 1:01:08. If it was when Morgan was eliminated, it would have been 1:01:07. — Czello 22:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So to clarify, you're arguing Rhea Ripley was in the match longer than the match itself took place. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you concluded that - the match lasted 1:01:08. — Czello 23:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except you've argued that Morgan was eliminated prior to that. So Ripley was having a match with herself? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a circular argument which depends on your assertion the match ends before the bell ends, which you've been unable to demonstrate. Ultimately, the source says Morgan was eliminated at .07, the bell was rung at .08, and consequently the match ended at .08. — Czello 23:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the source", no, "a source". This source mentions nothing about what second a bell was wrong, you're making that up. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It states when the match ended, very clearly, at 1:01:08. — Czello 23:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's WWE's match, WWE's record, and WWE's clock, so what they say goes. If they credit Rhea with an extra second, then that's what we go with. Matches are timed bell to bell - that's how we know when the match starts and when it ends...it's the whole reason a bell is there to begin with. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's now how Wikipedia works but go off. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way Wikipedia works is users add information and have sources to back it up, not just doing what they want because they feel like it, sources be damned. All my sincerest wishes, Vjmlhds (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way Wikipedia works is we don't blindly follow primary sources. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No other source has specific times for how long people lasted in the Rumble except WWE.com. What you are doing is assuming, and you know what happens when one endeavors to ASS-U-ME. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GodofDemonwars actually had the best compromise to this...he didn't blow up the chart or unilaterally declare it a tie on his own accord, but he did make a note and provided a source with the discrepancy. That's fine...acknowledge the dispute, but don't disregard A for the sake of B. A is the official record, but B has a fair gripe, everybody gets a little something. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My entire stake in this dispute which I've waded into is just to ensure good writing. "A says X but B says Y" is bad writing; see words to avoid: editorialising. Typically, as a matter of course, unless there's some major notable discrepancy (say, for example, recognised reigns vs. actual reigns due to tape delay, or PPV buy-rates/attendees) that's been documented as a discrepancy in reliable sources, we defer to WWE's "record books" as a matter of convenience.
For different Royal Rumble examples, see the 2009 Royal Rumble, in which we use the WWE's timing of 1.9 seconds for Santino Marella where other sources may have said, for example, 1.5, or the 2005 Royal Rumble, where we go with the narrative that both Cena and Batista touched the floor at the same time, instead of the real-life fact that Batista's feet touched first.
Although Wikipedia prefers the use of secondary sources, there are times when primary sources are perfectly acceptable. The only other source being used is PWTorch, which is recognised as reliable, but is not as precise as the WWE's timekeeping as for the match length (nor is it actually in conflict).
Finally, as regards to when the match ends – Czello is right. One of the core conceits of professional wrestling is that matches are "officially" bell-to-bell. So, yes, in kayfabe, Rhea was in the match by herself for that infinitesimal amount of time between Liv's feet touching the floor and the timekeeper ringing the bell. But honestly, we shouldn't be fighting over the matter of one second. Sceptre (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I just decided to go with what 2601:401:c400:711:20fd:5046:6dab:143c said. You will be pissed when you see this... GodofDemonwars (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we go with that, when the source says otherwise? — Czello 07:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the standard is verifiability, not truth. The source says 1:01:08 and 1:01:07; it's not really for us to be questioning the sources off our own backs. That would violate the WP:NOR policy. If there's a RS that brings up this discrepancy, then that's a different question. But as it stands now… the same time for both women isn't backed up by the sources. Sceptre (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I don't understand is how WWE.com says that the women's Royal Rumble match is at 1:01:08, but prowrestling.net says that the match is at 1:01:03. I wonder why... GodofDemonwars (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True time of the women's rumble match is one hour, one minute, and two seconds so the Pro Wrestling link would be closer to be being correct Jeremyeyork (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Rumble_(2023)&oldid=1217538458"