Talk:Royal Rumble (2008)/Archive 1

The Rumble
'''Shelton benjamin is also in the rumble, as he stated on the last showing of ECW. Should addd him to the wikipedia site.. Thanks!''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rko316632 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

'''This just announced, MVP will take on Ric Flair at The Royal Rumble in a Career Threatening Match. I think MVP has this one in the bag. 1/2 man... 1/2 amazing! Its not up on wikipedia yet, but its confirmed through wwe.com''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.51.233 (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we add the Rumble itself to the card? It's fucking rediculous.209.247.21.121 08:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because we only add matches that have been announced, and WWE doesn't announce matches 6 months in advance. TJ Spyke 21:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

so are you saying there wont be a royal rumble match? 84.64.12.40 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, and I never implied it. I am just saying that we don't add matches until they are announced. TJ Spyke 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Its really not that hard 30 man over the top Royal Rumble Match for a shot at the wwe,world,or Ecw title its not that hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.185.92 (talk • contribs)
 * We've disputed this in the past. I personally agree that it's fucking ridiculous, but that's just the way it's going to be. Sorry, The Hybrid 18:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that difficul to understand really. We only add announced matches, and no matches have been announced. TJ Spyke 00:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The ppv itself is based on the match. It's named after it. We already know what to write, 30 man over-the-top-rope battle royal for #1 contendership of the WWE, World, or ECW title, or some variation of that. The Royal Rumble match is never officially announced by WWE, because they know that it doesn't need to be. (Sawyer 02:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC))
 * 1)Yes it is confirmed by WWE, usually in late December/early January. Second, we don't add matches before they are announced. TJ Spyke 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but remember Survivor Series was based around the Survivor Tag Team matches, and in 1998 and 2002, they didnt have a single Traditional Survivor Series tag match on the card, so just because somethings always been doesnt mean WWE wont try and "shake things up", though they'd be idiotic to do so. Masterofdestiny (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Match is still to be announced, so stop adding it! Allthough it is most likely to happen, we go by what wwe.com says. and they dont list it yet. Diivoo (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! Wikipedia is a place where you are allowed to site many sources, we are not just a shill from wwe.com, a reilable source is listing the match, so the match will take place. If you actually read the WWE.com posting under history it says "This pay-per-view is one of the most highly anticipated of the year because of the one-of-a-kind Royal Rumble Match. Scroll through the Royal Rumble results year by year and relive all the eliminations and winning moments." So look, everybody keeps on saying "Show a source" I finally found one, so quit your bitching, and leave it up, gosh a week or two before they actually post it on the "Matches Section" of your favorite website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.138.75 (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just saying, at the SummerSlam event, i provided an official wwe video as a source for a match and was told, that the match will not be added until announced on wwe.com - so i'm telling you the same. Diivoo (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Madison Square Garden
According to PWInsider, who we can't post links to on here, WWE have confirmed that the 2008 Rumble will be at Madison Square Garden. When should we add this to the main page? Steveweiser 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait until a reliable source (such as from WWE.com) comes up. Wrestling forum sites, like PWInsider, can sometimes deliver false information. For an important PPV like the Royal Rumble, I would think that the location would be officially announced on WWE.com first than that a forum site. MITB LS 03:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, unless it has been announced by WWE or a venue, it should not be cited. --Zii_XFS 21:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE HAS confirmed this when I call fan servcies at (203) 352-8600. Can we post it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.88.65 (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing confirmed in the city (New York) and that is because of a contest page at wwe.com, no venue has been announced yet. TJ Spyke 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WWE HAS CONFIRMED AT ITS MSG AND IM GONNA GO YEA MUTHAFUCKAAAAAAAAAAAA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.190.150 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll be reverted as a vandal if you add it, plain and simple. The Hyb rid  02:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fucking idiots, it doesn't need to be announced, the PPV itself already announces that. I wouldn't be surprised if the WWE did do a Royal Rumble PPV without the Royal Rumble match. Lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.84.42 (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble IS at MSG, a WWE competition has confirmed it. Plus it's also on WWE.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by SAH-DennyCrane (talk • contribs) 13:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Provide a actual source (i.e. the weblink). The only RR 2008 mentions I am seeing on their site are regarding the Jackass contest, which only mentions the city and not the arena. TJ Spyke 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Holiday 2007 issue of WWE Magazine, that has a certain returning superstar on the cover, has confirmed that it will be held at Madison Square Garden. If you have/will get the issue, it is on page 37. Patriot174 03:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble will be at MSG, tickets will go on sale December, 29th 2007 to the general public. And I can tell you from a first hand account that WWE Superstars were recently filmed in LA for the Royal Rumble Ad, fighting on a WWE/NYC subway car bound for Madison Square Garden. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.34.60 (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Subject to change"
That is ridiculous to have. First of all, ALL wrestling events are subject to change and they usually say this. Second, they have to list that in the source because the source is a contest page and legally have to be "subject to change" so that they can't get sued by anyone if they choose to move the event to a different location. TJ Spyke 03:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Poster
I took the liberty to add the poster, however, it doesn't seem to work. Could someone fix this? Thanks in advance. User:vinyldestination 11/27/07 1:22 AM GMT
 * Is it real? I have a hard time believing they'd put The Miz in the foreground... -- Scorpion0422 00:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your image has no source tag or copyright tag, so it can't go in. I put the messages on the image page, and they give you instructions on what to do.  TJ   Spyke   00:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Batista is in the poster does that mean he is going to loose the World Title at Armageddon ?? And Jeff is in it as well so is he going to loose to Triple H ?WeLsHy (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't the page for speculation.  TJ   Spyke   00:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of the poster not meaning much, Hardy beat Triple H tonight and will have a WWE Title match (likely against Orton since Orton had the title with him while taping the Tribute to the Troops special that airs next week).  TJ   Spyke   03:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

reliable source
I do not think the WWE.com should be consider a reliable source mean just look at the site their always changing their own history mean the only time the WWE site is a reliable source is when a wrestler dies or gets fire other then that we can not trust anything wwe says supermike}} —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by 204.111.122.70 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

When has WWE been reliable source Never beside for a wrestler death or getting fire Supermike  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.111.156 (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Match results, PPV theme songs, tattoos of wrestlers, etc. Yes wwe.com does have kayfabe stuff, but they are generally reliable.  TJ   Spyke   03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so if wwe.com is not a valid source then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.42.48 (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While WWE soemtimes changes things, how can you say they are not generally reliable?  TJ   Spyke   03:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Matches
I don't think people should add in the WWE Championhip match for several reasons. For instance, say Y2J wins and HHH wins. There is so much time between Armageddon an the RR and a lot could happen, title change, injury. I think we should wait until after Armageddon, or until it appears on WWE.com etc etc as always. Also, the RR match shouldnt be added. I know they will have one, that's obvious, but it still hasn't been announced. Mark handscombe (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the RR match, disagree about the WWE Title match. While the RR match hasn't been announced, it has been announced that the winner of the Triple H/Hardy match at Armageddon will get a match for the WWE Championship at the RR. Yes the match could change, but matches can change at any time (even the day of the event). All we can do is present the match as it currently is scheduled.  TJ   Spyke   00:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds fine to me actually. But, I don't think it should say "the winner of the Jericho/Orton match will face"...I think it should just be "the WWE Champion will face", Just because theres a title match at Armageddon doesn't mean there can't be another title change, like No Mercy 2007 Mark handscombe (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I second the "WWE Champion will defend their title against the winner of the Triple H vs Jeff Hardy match", because there could be (won't, but could be) a completely different champion by then and also it's more succinct and easier to read, yet still factually accurate.Tony2Times (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So after the PPV lets say for example that HHH beats Hardy and Orton beats Jericho, are you going to put HHH vs Randy Orton for the WWE Championship or wait until WWE officially announces it? Well either way they usually, not always, have big title matches at PPVs. So chances are that its going to be the winners at this ppv. But there is still the chance of injury are the guy could somehow lose his first contendorship.Stillboy2191 22:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, after Armageddon it will be changed to whoever the WWE champion is vs. whoever wins between Hardy and Orton. Matches can change, but they can change at any time (even the day of the PPV), and if the match somehow changes before the RR we can just update it.  TJ   Spyke   04:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

unification
Royal Rumble match is a unification for the ic and WWE Championships due to jsff hardy is the ic champ  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.251.16 (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Source? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)The Intercontinental Title is not on the line and 2)Even if both were on the line that doesn't mean it would be a unification match (unification in wrestling means two titles are combined into 1, whereas in boxing it just means someone has 2 or more seperate titles at the same time).  TJ   Spyke   02:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea for that match from ? For 1 I doubt they will get rid of the IC title and even if it was for both titles they would have announced it already. WeLsHy (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he got it from the fact that when 2 champions face of, it is sometimes a unifaction. (e.g. WWE Champion Triple H vs. Intercontinetal Champion Kane). Anyways, Hardy may lose the title before the Rumble, so it probably won't be a unifaction. MattC13 (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship Match
I have included the WHC match. It was announced on SmackDown tonight by Michael Cole just before a commerical break. The winner of next week's "Beat The Clock" will face Edge.Please do not remove it. Stormin&#39; Foreman (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Beat the Clock Competition will start next friday, but it'll go on for a few weeks. Just like it was at the Royal Rumble last year. I added the information about the Beat the Clock, so don't remove it. J@ro_Link 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did they say it would go on over a few weeks. In fact, both Cole (on SmackDown) and the preview for next week say that the BTC competition will take place next week (implying it's 1 night only).  TJ   Spyke   21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well Wikipedia should take this off becuase there is no actaul text on wwe.com saying that Mysterio is the new #1 contender. I know who the number 1 contender is but i would of not given it away. It spoils it to the people who do not go on Spoilers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispowellathome (talk • contribs) 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True that there is nothing saying who the #1 contender is (I know who it is because I read the spoiler reports), but it is confirmed that Edge will defend the title (announced on SmackDown last week, as well as wwe.com's preview of this weeks SmackDown).  TJ   Spyke   19:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

qualifying matches
With these qualifying matches, are we really going to list each week who has qualified, and against who. If so, I think we should make a table of it. But, i doubt all 30 participants will be set up by q matches. LessThanClippers (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eventually we will do something like Royal Rumble (2004), and list them in a seperate section.  TJ   Spyke   23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is highly unlikely that WWE will put all 30 entrants through royal rumble qualifier matches. Probably only about 10 superstars will undergo qualifier matches. Just announce them, we can delete it when the event occurs. GuffasBorgz7 (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2008 (EDST)

probably all the major superstars (batista, undertaker, shawn michaels etc.) will be in qualifying matches but then superstars like super crazy and great khali will just be put in the rumble —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaque jakester jake (talk • contribs) 05:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like it happened the other way around... --Andresg770 (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Australia before America
I live in Sydney, Australia and we get SmackDown before USA does. Am I allowed to post matches that are announced on television, but aren't yet on WWE.com because it hasn't yet aired in the States? GuffasBorgz7 (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2008 (EDST)
 * Not without a reliable source.  TJ   Spyke   04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've remembered certain editors adding things as soon as the US show added them. Look, a TV show is a TV show no matter where it airs. If you insist on this policy, then nothing can be added until it's in written form from a reliable source. Mshake3 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh...-- bullet  proof  3:16 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean, if an official broadcast in a foreign country isn't a reliable source, then why should an official broadcast here be any different? Mshake3 (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the original reason we agreed on was because WWE itself updates its site based on the US airing (i.e. they don't update matches/storylines/etc. until it airs on US TV, other than exceptions like when Kurt Angle and Edge won the WHC on SmackDown). Since WWE is a US based company and updates its website based on US the US airings, that was the original agreed reason.  TJ   Spyke   05:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all fine and dandy, but you're still jumping the gun. If you're going to post it three minutes early since it's in the US, why does it matter if it's posted a day earlier from another broadcast? Mshake3 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mshake3, that's why I asked. I used to do it all the time because I would get Smackdown earlier, and 5 minutes later someone would have deleted it. I always used to put in a comment saying to not delete it because I am in Australia and it has been broadcast here first etc, but it still gets deleted by someone. GuffasBorgz7 (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2008 (EDST)
 * Is there any kind of spoiler policy for PW? I know there is with movies.  I mean, I know wrestling is fake, but I enjoy being a "smart mark"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think it's stupid that Australians can't add stuff because we saw it first. When people add stuff about Raw and ECW it spoils for the Aussies. So why don't you just wait untill the weekend to add everything so then everyone has seen it and doesn't dispute it. WeLsHy (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you need to add it? to get the "honor" of adding something important? and a simple answer to your question - because the majority of the people watch it in america. so since i dont think that you just want to say "i am the one who added that!", you can just wait. or you can try to convince the wwe to launch an australian version of their website (wwe.au or so), where they post everything in australian time. then you can add everything you want with a reliable source. Diivoo (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If we look at the page on No Original Research we can find the following on sources:
 * '' * Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:


 * * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
 *  * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.


 *  Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. - Emphasis mine.


 * Therefore if the consensus is that the channel that Smackdown is shown on in Australia is a reliable source, then results may be put onto Wikipedia. As it would be a primary source, analysis would not be allowed as this would be OR, but the results would not be in dispute to the casual viewer without specialist knowledge. As the programme of Smackdown itself is a primary source, there is no need to wait for wwe.com to post the results. -- Iscariot (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as policy goes, it was recently determined that anything can be posted if it's backed up with a reliable source. "It's a spoiler" doesn't fly anymore. Mshake3 (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Are spoiler warnings still allowed? I think that would solve some of this.LessThanClippers (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what the tag at the top of the page is supposed to do. From my experiences though, many people will add what they want to articles regardless of what any tags or warnings exist on the page.  TJ   Spyke   08:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We update the article based on when WWE updates their site, which happens to be in accordance with the United States airings. This consensus has long been reached. Sorry Aussies. (Sawyer (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC))
 * Can you cite where this consensus was reached? Otherwise, it doesn't exist, and we instead follow policy. Mshake3 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * here. and like it says there, its not a consensus, its just following policy. Diivoo (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why then the quoted policy I placed above seems to be at odds with your 'policy'? -- Iscariot (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe because you posted a little part of the policy and obviously didn't read the whole text. WP:NOR and WP:V are two of the most important policys on wikipedia. And in WP:NOR it clearly says, that an unpublished eyewitness-report (and a user watching the show in australia is nothing more than that) is not enough to add it. If you want to read it yourself
 * Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and Verifiability, and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material.
 * that should be enough to end that discussion. Diivoo (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the section I posted, and highlighted? Saying unsourced eyewitness reports is fine, but it doesn't apply as Smackdown itself is a primary source as I established in my earlier extract. Ignoring this evidence does not make you right. -- Iscariot (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * yes i did, did you read mine? because i think you misunderstand things here. A video is a primary source, if you can provide it. so in your case for example, you record the smackdown episode and provide the video as a source. But just telling everyone that you saw it just isn't enough (as my qoute clearly says).Diivoo (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay to make fair post any spoilers at the end of the week so their wont this bitching going on so US users post on saturday and Aussies post it on Sunday because of the time difference.KTsuka (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)