Talk:Royal Rumble (2008)/Archive 3

Confusing Table
Is it just me or is anyone else confused by the table, whats the number next to eliminated by? cos Michaels did not get eliminated by Jamie Noble and Undertaker didn't eliminate himself? Can we make it clearer Jay794 (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the order of elimination. Marella was eliminated first, so he gets number one, and so on. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry
I did not realize I was vandalising,I started by typing something that was not vandalism and got caried away,I swear it will not happen again if you forgive me.--Lord Kass 05:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't vandalism. You seemed to be trying to improve the article (even if that wasn't the result). If you want to experiment, use WP:SANDBOX.  TJ   Spyke   06:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

talk to the user OWENx. and that is the 100000000000000000th time someone has told me about the fricken sandbox!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am an experianced editor, I just want to make the site better!!!!!!!!!! so stop treating me like a 6 year old who got on his dads computer and just started pressing buttons on wikipedia!!! I know lots about wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! please start treating me with respect!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--lord kass (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not exactly making yourself look mature or experienced when you use so many exclamation points.  TJ   Spyke   06:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, just calm down. However, please make constructive edits, not edits that could disrupt Wikipedia. D.M.N. (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this has nothing to do with anything and I'll probably get told it isn't. He says he isn't a 6 year old... but he sure throws a tantrum like one. WeLsHy (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Daddy V entered
I see he's on the announced superstar page on Wiki, but not on the WWE.com one. Is there a source to show that V is actually in the Rumble? But tbh I didn't watch ECW or SmackDown. Mark handscombe (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Video source here  Stormin' Foreman    Got something to say?  20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He's on wwe.com. 76.110.82.251 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not on January 20th when this section was made.  TJ   Spyke   02:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What sort of question is this? WATCH THE RUMBLE FOR A SOURCE. Goddamn wikipedia editors let their task of editing a free to use online tool that isn't even accepted as a reliable reference by any universities way too seriously. You don't need a bloody "source" for someone entering the royal rumble. The Royal Rumble IS the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.204.105 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Kennedy
Add Mr. Kennedy, he is officially a part of the Royal Rumble Match and is on the qualifiers page on WWE.com. 209.209.140.21 (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look at the article before you make a request. Mr. Kennedy was added earlier today. Thanks! NiciVampireHeart (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When I typed this request, he wasn't on there. ;/ 209.209.140.21 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes he was. According to the edit logs, he had been added 1 hour before you made this section saying to add him in.  TJ   Spyke   00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alumni
What is with Mick Foley being under Alumni he hasn't left the wwe if he was Alumni he would not be in the royle rumble —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.101.95 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He is listed under the Alumni section on WWE.com   Stormin' Foreman    Got something to say?  22:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But Alumni means thta someone has left mick hasen't on Smackdown vs Raw 2008 he is a ledgen why dont we put him under that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.101.95 (talk • contribs)
 * Technically he is an alumnus though. Occasional appearences doesn't change that.  TJ   Spyke   03:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But if was alumnus at the moment he wouln't be in the rumble i agree that most of the time he is alumnus but not now he is wrestling almost evry week —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.101.95 (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost every week? In the last 6 months, he has appeared 2 times (qualifying for the RR, and the RAW 15th Anniversary) and only wrestled at the second appearence.  TJ   Spyke   04:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost every week.... you're serious? What show are you watching? Foley is an alumnus and only makes occasional appearances and usually it's only to promote something. WeLsHy (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Big deal if he is under the "alumni" section of WWE.com. WWE.com is NOT accepted as a reliable source for WWE related articles. It simply gives storyline related news. Rewind time a bit. WWE.com: VINCE MCMAHON IS DEAD!. See what I mean?

entrants
triple h is in the rumble match220.240.141.19 (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For fuck sake, check the article first. He was added 1 hour 16 minutes before you posted this. I am sick of this. From now on, any posts stating to add something (a match or a wrestler) that is already in the article will be deleted. People should try checking the article first.  TJ   Spyke   05:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed  Stormin' Foreman    Got something to say?  05:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with TJ. Some people just state the obvious. D.M.N. (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I mean, why don't you just post a comment saying, "WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment." iMat  thew  21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah. Hold the phone. I thought it stood for World Wildlife Entertainment. I was hoping the next elimination chamber was gonna be 6 pandas fighting for survival. Tony2Times (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha!! And I don't agree with TJ. 76.110.82.251 (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that you have done this several times, including TONGHT, of coarse you would disagree.  TJ   Spyke   02:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Adamle
Should it be mention that Mike Adamle will make his WWE debut at the Royal Rumble 204.111.88.36 22:53, 26 January 2008
 * Uh-huh, somehow I doubt WWE will bring in a 58-year old former football player for the RR. I doubt it's true, but find a reliable source (and don't pretend to be a registered user).  TJ   Spyke   05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a registered user I just been busy building websites Source: WWE.com

As co-host of the original American Gladiators series, Mike Adamle has witnessed his fair share of punches, kicks and body slams. Good thing, too. All the better to prepare him for his latest role: WWE on-air personality.

Best known for his Gladiator role (1989 �" 1996), Adamle joins the WWE broadcast team this Sunday at the Royal Rumble, where he’ll get his feet wet interviewing Superstars. From there, Adamle will join team Raw on Monday nights doing, as he describes it, “a little bit of everything.”

Growing up near Chicago, the sportscaster says his ties to wrestling go way back. “I remember going to see matches with my Dad and my sister,” Adamle fondly recalls. “We would watch Bobo Brazil do his move called the Coco Butt, [a head butt].”

Adamle says he appreciates the innovation of Superstars such as “Stone Cold” Steve Austin and current American Gladiators co-host Hulk Hogan.

“Anytime you have an athlete who’s remembered years afterward, that’s special,” he says.

These days, Adamle admires a host of Superstars, but when pressed on which pair he’d particularly be thrilled to see clash, the man who’s covered two Olympic Games doesn’t hesitate.

“Triple H going up against Randy Orton would be a great match,” replies Adamle. “You’ve got two tremendous athletes and a lot of showmanship.”

As a former NFL running back in the early 1970s, Adamle says he’s encouraged by the showier aspects of sports-entertainment.

“Even as a [football player], I always felt I was an entertainer first,” he says. “After I’d make a great play on special teams, I’d try to wave to the crowd. Now, when someone scores a touchdown and celebrates, they’re penalized. In the WWE, they’re encouraged.”

Adamle’s NFL days may be behind him, but that doesn’t mean he’s confined to the couch. Several years ago, after feeling a few aches and pains and having put on some extra poundage, Adamle decided to refocus by training for a triathlon. “I finished in about 14 hours,” recalls Adamle of his first crack at the competition.

Since then, he’s competed in four more triathlons and shaved roughly two hours off his time. Despite being so fit, however, Adamle says he’s more comfortable interviewing Superstars as opposed to battling them.

“I feel like I’m not big enough to compete against these guys,” says the 5-foot-9-inch Adamle, with a chuckle. “They’d have to start me off against Hornswoggle.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.88.36 (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You made it sound like he was gonna wrestle. He will be mentioned, but after the PPV is over (see the "Other On-Screen Talent" section of Royal Rumble (2007) for an example). The comment about being a registered user is because User:Supermike hasn't made an edit since November.  TJ   Spyke   05:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ignore me, but I must say that another Triple H vs. Randy Orton feud would be stale and boring. Orton needs to lose a world title to someone who isn't frickin' Triple H. In any case, I agree, he did make it sound like Adamle would be wrestling. Interesting tidbit, I hadn't heard of this. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There you happy Supermike(talk) 12:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is why I don't come here anyone to edit because every time i do it get taken out Supermike(talk) 12:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AGAIN, more IDIOTS on this goddamn website who want a "source" first of all. Get off the Internet fools. You aren't needed on this open source website. We all saw that he DID indeed make his appearance. Yet some idiot at the start of this conversation would not accept this, even though EVERY wrestling site and even WWE.com said he would be making an appearance. Fools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.204.105 (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

CM Punk
I have put CM Punk in the Royal Rumble. I put in a reaible scouse which was www.wrestleview.com. Then it had supershow then it said CM Punk won Chavo Guerrero (Royal Rumble qualifying match) and i put it in the page and wikipedia deleted it twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispowellathome (talk • contribs) 12:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He IS on WWE.com now, so you can add them back. If any of the editing pricks remove it, that's their stupidity for not looking at the site first. 209.209.140.21 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no need to be rude. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rude? 76.110.82.251 (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Error
The bottom of the page is screwed up, needs to be repaired. EvWill (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted it. It's fine now. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

benoit
if I'm posting this at the rong place I'm sorry, but on WWE.COM in the past winners of the royal rumble section it does not include 2004 and I know why. It is because Chris benoit won! and if I am not mistaken WWE has said that they do not want to have anything to do with benoit anymore.--lord kass (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Old news and NN.  TJ   Spyke   00:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have never added all that up. thank you for pointing that out, I would have felt retarded without that all knowing information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.145.206 (talk • contribs)

woah dude, they made a mistake, you don't have to be mean L0W3R1D3R (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * TJ Spyke, what the hell is "old news" supposed to mean? The point of news is it is NEW. I don't care if it is old to you. It is new to other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.204.105 (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Dark Match
Jimmy Wang Yang & Shannon Moore defeated Deuce & Domino in a Dark Match b4 the PPV source http://www.wrestleview.com/pbp/1844.shtml & http://www.wrestleview.com/ APWFAN69 (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Talk 05:39, 27 January 2008 (PST)

JBL/Y2J match
I think that on the match for them, they should add that Y2J choked JBL with a camera cord and hanged him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.113.193 (talk • contribs)
 * It's not notable.  TJ   Spyke   02:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Facts
Where is the Proof that Edge beat rey. they didn't say it on wwe.com yet Baseball16 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The PPV itself, plus WON: http://www.wrestlingobserver.com/wo/news/headlines/default.asp?aID=21948.  TJ   Spyke   02:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They post it on WWE.com like 5 minutes after the match, and WWE.com needs to update their articles about the matches which will be by next morning.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 02:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I just saw wwe.com. Sorry for any problems I might have caused. Baseball16 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rumble Entrants
Is it OK to list the entrants here as the match goes on? Poison-System-X (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose.  TJ   Spyke   02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kool :) Here goes:
 * 1) Undertaker
 * 2) HBK
 * 3) (need filling in)
 * 4) (need filling in)
 * 5) (need filling in)
 * 6) (need filling in)
 * 7) (need filling in)
 * 8) (need filling in)
 * 9) Hornswoggle
 * 10) Chuck Palumbo
 * 11) Jamie Noble
 * 12) CM Punk (:D)
 * 13) Cody Rhodes


 * You can stop if you want, I am watching it and updating the entrants on the page (if you want) T r U C o 9 31 1 03:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll stop now then :) Poison-System-X (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why Are PEople Deleting the time off it???? Its Real Its Off Of WWE.comAPWFAN69 (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2008 (pst)
 * Source? I don't see anything on wwe.com about the times.  TJ   Spyke   03:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.wwe.com/shows/royalrumble/6164364/ VWG (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Supershow?
It says punk won at WWE SuperShow. What the heck is WWE SuperShow?--lord kass (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the term used when all 3 brands compete on the same show, it this case it was a househow. WWE sometimes uses this for TV tapings too (like the RAW/SmackDown supershow on the day of Eddie Guerrero's death).  TJ   Spyke   04:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A WWE Supershow is a house show that features all 3 brands. There was one held in New England on January 26th. JediYoda1120 (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! I am just glad it was not some huge wicked event that I missed.--lord kass (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edge Vs Rey
I was wondering if we should point out that Vickie took a 619 to the back of the head to protect edge and let him win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11rey619 (talk • contribs)
 * Nope. If Vickie had attacked Rey, then we would, but Vickie just sacrificed herself.  TJ   Spyke   04:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Finlay
Can someone who watched the event explain the Finlay situation? Did he even enter the match? If not, then we would list him as not entering the match (like we have for past wrestlers who didn't enter the match).  TJ   Spyke   04:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't hear his music. Nor was I was aware of the "fact" that someone could be disqualified in a Royal Rumble. Mjack32 (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Finlay illegaly entered early. He protected Hornswoggle then they both left.11rey619 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I guess Finlay would be listed as having not entered the RR (which has happened in the past). This would also drop the eliminated count (so Triple H would be #28 eliminated since only 28 eliminations happened).  TJ   Spyke   04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, on wwe.com's 2008 Royal Rumble Results, they list Finlay at entering at position 27, but DQ for shillelagh use, as well as DQ for "Eliminated By" and "Time In Match." JediYoda1120 (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was watching it and Hornswoggle tried to grab Mark Henry from the outside to elimnate him (like he did with The Miz) but got pulled in and then was about to be attacked by Henry and Big Daddy V but Finlay came out and hit them with a shillelagh. WeLsHy (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So do we agree on stating that he "Never officially entered" with a time of "0:00" in the table? JediYoda1120 (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have is the fact that this situation has happen more then once. 76.69.121.199 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Table
I reckon the table should list the order of elimination and not the order they came out. WeLsHy (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree since, for one, this table follows the same pattern (Order of Entrance) as previous Royal Rumbles, and two, John Cena won't even have a number; He wasn't the 30th man eliminated, he was the winner! JediYoda1120 (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well yeah at the bottom put the winner.... WeLsHy (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The current table works just fine has has worked fine for the several years we've been doing it. IMO, he makes more sense to list them in the order they enter.  TJ   Spyke   04:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus with the Finlay finastico, their would be no place for Finlay at all. JediYoda1120 (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hornswoggle
Should we put an asterik next to who elimated him (Himself), stating that "Finlay escorting him away." Also, shouldn't we put 0:33 as his time in the match, since the 26:57 was time spend under the ring. JediYoda1120 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The time indicates when they officially entered the match and when they were eliminated, not total time in the ring. Jerry Lawler spent most of the 1995 rumble hiding under the ring, and Vince spent maybe 2 minutes total in the 1999 rumble (he left at the beginning and came back at the end).  TJ   Spyke   04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad, I totally forgot he was the one that eliminated The Miz; I just got confused when I read wwe.com's 2008 Royal Rumble Statistics and Eliminations page, thats why I posted my above comment. JediYoda1120 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we explain his exit from the Rumble? He didn't leave the match via over the top rope but between the ropes and escorted away by Finlay. Simply saying "Himself" is saying he eliminated himself, but due to the basis of the rules, this isn't true. --Raderick (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the other problem is the Kayfabe rules change. In other rumbles the rules have been you are eliminated if you do not enter the ring before the next superstar enters (you may leave the ring, but you have to enter)  so its tough to say.  I would say the best line to use is that "he chose not to continue"LessThanClippers (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about counting time in the ring. A match only officially begins when the competitors lock up in the ring. In the Rumble, you're only officially entered when you enter the ring. Lawler and Vince weren't in the ring for their tenures, no; but they had been in the ring BEFORE they left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.219.134 (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Report
Down the road, when the Report section gains an Event and an Aftermath subsection, what do you see happening to list of the Royal Rumble qualification matches? I mean, for example, that in two years from now, do any of us see Umaga defeating Jim Duggan to qualify for 2008 Royal Rumble, for an event he did not end up winning, being notable. At best, I see a small paragraph in the Background subjection with some of the more notable qualifiers, such as Triple H, since he original lost his Royal Rumble spot. Do you agree? Also, since I'm new here, and also seeing that as of recent, PPVs are trying to have a written report intergrated into their page, hopefully to be FA-material, just like December to Dismember (ironicially), would it be okay if contribute to this page's report? JediYoda1120 (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, none of the previous RR's we have expanded had any qualifying matches (although we've only expanded a few of them). I would imagine keeping them, but moving the section. Maybe we should discuss this at WP:PW to see what others think.  TJ   Spyke   06:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think a little paragraph about the qualifying matches would be adequate, maybe using a site like this to reference the matches so people can look back at how people qualified if needed, without ultimatley cluttering up the article. 217.44.148.40 (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Match Lengths
Are we any closer to getting the length of each individual match? If not I'll watch it again tonight and time. Mark handscombe (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait till like a week or so, should get the timing of each match-- T r U  C o 9 31 1 15:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Flair vs. MVP
Who here has enough info, of their fued, to add to the Background subsection of the Report? JediYoda1120 (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Debut year
Is it worth noting that Shawn Michaels made his first rumble appearance the year before both of the legends, Roddy Piper and Jimmy Snuka? Michaels first appeared in 1989 whilst the other two first appeared in 1990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecoxon4 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be better at the Royal Rumble page. Not here. Z enlax  T C S 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
Should we mention that Jimmy Snuka is the oldest person to ever compete in a Royal Rumble match at 64 years of age?? Greggly Puff, January 28th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.166.75 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused
How did Finlay get DQ'd? because last year Edge and Orton used chairs, so can someone shine some light on the situation? L0W3R1D3R (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC) He came out before he was supposed to. WeLsHy (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We really are confused about this situation but according to WWE, and their booking, Finlay was disqualified for

A)Using the Shillelagh B)Coming into the match, before he was really supposed to.  T r U C o 9 31 1 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is because of reason #2. Baseball16 (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with that, as weapons have never been disallowed in the Rumble match. Going back to the 2001 Royal Rumble, when it became a "Hardcore Royal Rumble" from all the weapons being brought into the ring, no one was disqualified then. Why it should be applied now we'll never know. Then again, it is the WWE... EDIT: The official WWE RR results page says that Finlay was DQ'd for shillelagh use. Poison-System-X (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yuck. --Raderick (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They change their rules all the time. remember, in years past you ahd to enter the ring before the guy after you.  Under those rules, hornswoggle would have been dq'd prior to his entering the ring.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In 2001, the "hardcore royal rumble", obviously noone got DQ'd. And Al Snow entered the match before his time, and he was not DQ'd either. The real reason Finlay was DQ'd was because they needed a way to change the number 30 participant to John Cena (Finlay was originally number 30). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.204.105 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused (again)
Ok, so John Cena won the Royal Rumble but instead of using the title shot for Wrestlemania, he has decided to use the title shot at No Way Out. Now, I though you HAD to use the title shot at Wrestlemania. Apparently, there is a rule change of some kind. I think we should note this somewhere in the article.Milkman519 (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, this will have to be added on the Royal Rumble page because usually the RR winner waits till WM for his world title match, but I think because Cena is making his movie they are doing this. Wow, drastic changes in one event...-- T r U C o 9 31 1 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

So that means that This is the first Rumble since 1993 to not have the winner go on to Wresltmaina for the title. Both The Royal Rumble and John Cena's articles should be updated. WillB003
 * Not quite, if Cena does not go for the title match at WM, he would actually be the first Rumble winner since 1999 to not compete in a WM title match.  Vince McMahon won the 99 Rumble yet he did not compete for the WWF Championship at WrestleMania XV... neither did Stone Cold in 1997. (That would also make him the thirs RR winner overall to not compete in a title match at WM since the rule was insituted in 1993). --Andresg770 (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No future events, please. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This isnt future events, it's what happened on RAW a little while ago... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember, no week-by-week. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we are discussing a situation that effects the Royal Rumble pages...as we are uncertain what to note, as Will makes a point.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, but for the Cena article, no week-by-week. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, someone needs to add this to the article. For whatever reason, it was taken off and I don't feel like getting into an edit war. Milkman519 (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the Royal Rumble. MAYBE on the WrestleMania page, but Cena accepting his title shot early doesn't have anything to do with the Royal Rumble.  TJ   Spyke   22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WWE.com is NOT a source.
There is an editor here who keeps on asking people stupid questions such as "source?!?!?!? It's not on WWE.com!!! OMG!". WWE.com is NOT a reliable source. WWE.com is a website that gives the storyline news currently portrayed in its TV shows. EG: Mr McMahon is dead. According to your idiotic logic, because you love WWE.com so much, Vince McMahon's page should state that he is dead. There is only a very small section of the WWE website that gives any sort of backstage or company news, and they only give fairly major announcements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.204.105 (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sure the website for the this wrestling company is not a reliable source for it's articles, just as the official Harry Potter website is not a source for Harry Potter. Yup, that makes sense. WWE.com reports things in kayfabe, yes. Which is fine for the KAYFABE sections of the articles, as in wrestling careers. Backstage news has to be attributed to another source, naturally. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an editor here who keeps using far too many exclamation marks and question marks and doesn't sign their posts.Tony2Times (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Backstage news has to be attributed to another source, naturally" That is the point. For example, "Big Show" is returning to WWE soon. Yet the common reply from some silly editor is "It's not on WWE.com so it's not true!". That is not acceptable. WWE.com is NOT a reliable source, as it is trying to keep kayfabe while revealing minimal backstage details. Just because something is not on WWE doesn't mean it can't be included in an article. Ever think perhaps WWE are trying to hide things to stop spoiling storylines? "There is an editor here who keeps using far too many exclamation marks and question marks and doesn't sign their posts." That was the point. The exclamation marks were in QUOTATIONS to emphasize the stupid comments this editor keeps coming out with, all which involve no sources being allowed except the WWE website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.204.105 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the reason is because no reliable source is saying the The Big Show is returning WWE. Only rumors. Alosm WWE IS a reliable source, more than most of these dirtsheets (most of which report every rumor as fact).  TJ   Spyke   23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chavo?
Should it be noted that Chavo was ECW Champion while in the Rumble? This is kind of a first for the Rumble under the "Winner gets a World Title match of his choosing" stipulation. TonyFreakinAlmeida (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What a great way for the e to bury the ecw title. 142.162.207.230 (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's notable that a 'world' champion was in the Rumble itself, must be the first happened. Apparently the Cruiserweight isn't the only championship they're burying. Tony2Times (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's notable that he was a world champ and still in the Rumble, yes. This isn't a forum. Your opinions on Chavo do not belong here. Him having a title does not bury it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

^^ It is being buried. They're saying a world title doesn't mean as much as another world title. But, like you said, it's not a forum142.162.193.68 (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)