Talk:Royal Rumble (2013)

Punk vs Rock
With Punk sitting out TLC, and probably not wrestling at all until the Rumble, I think it's safe to go ahead with listing Punk as WWE Champion vs The Rock at the PPV.

Punk is the current champion, Rock is already locked into the match, and common sense tells us that Punk is more than likely gonna rest up and rehab so he'll be ready for his big match at the Rumble, which WWE has had brewing for 6 months (starting at Raw 1000 in July, when Punk nailed the Rock with the GTS).

Vjmlhds 19:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As much as I'm inclined to agree with you, we can't add it until we have an official confirmation. See my edit summary. –  Richard  BB  19:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Where's the love for R&B?Corabal (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * R&B? –  Richard  BB  20:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Add confirmed rumbke match participants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.215.175 (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

While I'm inclined to agree we however cant list Punk just yet as he could ether be force to drop the title due to his injury or loss it at some point during the next month. So nothing is set in stone just yet.-- Dcheagle   • talk • contribs 21:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Ryback has recently declared that he will fight Punk again for the title at the first RAW of the New Year. While I doubt that we will have a Rock Ryback match we need to wait at least until the end of that match before we add Punk.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the IP above. AARDJ (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I also agree; We know CM Punk will face the Rock for the WWE Title. The only other possible spin is a triple threat match or a fatal four way (with Cena). Problem is that it is not 100% confirmed or scheduled.


 * Really we should just list Punk, he's the reigning champion and the reigning champion will defend it. If it changes, it can be changed. Use common sense people. The wiki isn't permanent. As such, I'm going to invoke WP:IAR and add him. Per WP:IAR?, the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The spirit of WP:CRYSTAL is to prevent "out there" speculation that's unreasonable. Saying CM Punk will defend the title is not "out there" speculation that's unreasonable as it is what will happen baring a major last minute change, therefore, as I previously stated. He should be listed as the defending champion until a point at which this changes.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do not re-add it as you are the only one supporting the change. Anything can change at anytime and it is speculation to add Punk. Until it is officially announced by WWE it cannot be added such as the rule for any match. Which is in turn WP:COMMONSENSE.  STATic  message me!  18:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that stubbornness. Ignoring what's the current state of WWE is. Ignoring what historic precedent shows us. You can't really expect me to beleive that somehow they'll say John Cena for example will defend CM Punk's title? That's the logic you're advocating. And it's ridiculously stupid and it's WP:PW main problem. And before you say "Well CM Punk could be made to miss Royal Rumble." You're right he could but until that bridge is crossed with must address current FACT and that current fact is that CM Punk is the WWE Champion and to not list as such is stupid. In essence, either add CM Punk or remove the match completely until a source is available. As it stands, it's incredibly insulting to the reader's intelligence and lacks the common sense I mentioned previously. One last thing, Static, you should have looked at my reasoning for invoking IAR before reverting. Time stamps prove you didn't.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 18:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

All what you said is WP:OR. We go by what the sources say. At RAW 1000 Rock said he would face the WWE Champion who could be ANYONE. I also responded here after I reverted which would be another thing your wrong at. Keep in mind he has not even officially returned from injury yet and anything can happen on Monday with the title match coming up. We can not set anything in stone until the match competitors are officially announced.  STATic  message me!  18:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, there may have been a case if the Rock specifically mentioned Punk but he only mentioned the WWE champion and so far that is what the sources say. To be blunt we can't mention punk in this match unless there is a source stating that he is officially in the match and we can't declare that he will be in it based on personal opinion.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I continue to disagree. This spits in the face of current fact over a technicality. People are hung up over the match tomorrow night and while I can see that it's not a reason to leave the champion blank as if it changes the article can be updated. This wiki isn't permanent. and as for a source, it's not, I repeat, not a violation OR or CRYSTAL to put the current champion, even as a placeholder. I mean seriously, use common sense like I mentioned before. The only person that will defend the WWE Championship is the current WWE Champion who is CM Punk, if that changes tomorrow night react accordingly. But for now quit being stubborn and put CM Punk and quit insulting the readers intelligence. This is a perfect example of why WP:IAR exist.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 02:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don`t see this as a case of IAR. Declaring that Ryback will lose a match before it happens is not a case of IAR its a violation of WP:CRYSTAL and in this case WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS too. There are valid cases of IAR but this is not one of them.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with the above IP. The consensus seems to strongly be that we should leave it as it is (whereas if the consensus were to ignore all rules, then we'd change it). For the time being it is doing no harm having "WWE champion vs. The Rock". Altering it might be getting a bit ahead of ourselves: let's face it, WWE are probably going to make an official announcement any day now. –  Richard  BB  09:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the first thre sentences of my last response, I addressed the Ryback match and I never said ignore it or assume he'll lose. And whether or not you like it or agree with it, this really is the exact scenario IAR was created for. "There is no harm" I believe I explained that there is. It spits in the fact of the current happening in the WWE and it insults the reader's intelligence. But sure, you go ahead at wait for that announcement. It's all WP:PW does, wait for announcement on things that are already obvious and it essentially impossible to happen a different way. Thank you for demonstrating why I left said project.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 13:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Try to remain WP:COOL. This isn't something to get worked up over. You've suggested something and we all appreciate that — I fully understand that you wish to invoke IAR and are saying this is a matter of common sense — but the consensus seems to be against you. You're more than welcome to abstain from WP:PW discussions, but please respect and appreciate that they (we) have achieved a consensus. To then ignore their/our discussions and go over the Wikiproject's head seems to work contrary to what we are trying to achieve on these pages. Remember, WWE are almost certainly going to announce the match formally in the next few days (most probably after tonight's Raw), so there's no rush to change anything. –  Richard  BB  13:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Guys, Punk vs Rock is up on the Royal Rumble page of WWE.com. --86.10.184.51 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is here too if you had bothered to check.  STATic  message me!  20:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't when I posted that message-- or I wouldn't have posted it; the principle idea behind it therein being relatively obsolete, as you kindly pointed out. So there's that. --86.10.184.51 (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It was actually added 16 hours before your message.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)--174.93.160.57 (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Royal Rumble participants
List of confirmed participants(without number of entrance order) for the Rumble Match - John Cena.He announced that he will enter the Rumble match on December 31st in the episode of Monday Night Raw - Randy Orton. He announced it on January 4 episode of Smackdown. - Sheamus. He announced it on January 4 on Smackdown along with Randy Orton.

List of possible particpants for the Rumble match - The Miz - The Great Khali - Brodus Clay - Lord Tensai - Wade Barrett - Kofi Kingston - Santino Marella - Antonio Cesaro - Cody Rhodes - Damien Sandow - R-Truth - Justin Gabriel - Tyson Kidd - Dolph Ziggler - Zack Ryder - Primo - Epico - Mantaur InedibleHulk (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC) - Darren Young - Titus O'Neil - Alberto Del Rio - The Shield - 3MB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonarau (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The confirmed people are already added. The possible entrants is total speculation and will not be added. Thanks –  Richard  BB  09:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Background Section
Is it really necessary to include the fact that wrestling is pre-determined and features scripted plots, feuds and characters? No one that comes to this page is not going to aware of the fact taht wrestling is not real, and quite frankly the entire statement is condescending and insulting the reader. Spman (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It isn't, but there was some sort of consensus established a while back to dumb it down this way. Rules are rules, but if you'd like to change one like this, you would be better off complaining at the Wikiproject, instead of a specific article. On Wikipedia, like in video games, it's better to attack the head (civilly, of course). The tentacles will just regrow. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I brought it up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling if anyone wants to chime in. Ranze (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No one that comes to this page is not going to aware of the fact taht wrestling is not real <- not necessarily true. In fact, wrestling is very much real. Events are not utterly predetermined even if a plot/script guides them. UFC events have cards, so all sports involve pre-planning and chaotic events, the difference is moreso in the degree than in the absolute. I agree I would prefer not to see that there though. Ranze (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 January 2013
Can somebody post each individual's Royal Rumble times? It seems like it should be posted by now.

50.89.27.115 (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Participants in order of announcement
We currently list the known participants based on the chronological order that they announced they will be in the rumble. I don't believe we see this on previous rumble articles so I assume it gets replaced by the full list and in chronological order of entry (rather than announcement).

The announcement-order is interesting information though. I would like to propose that when we do replace this information, we perhaps copy the existing table to the talk page so that we can retain it? Ranze (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

WWE.com table error
I know we will be tempted to use this table as a reference, but we should not put too much faith in it. There are potential errors.

One of the more glaring ones: Daniel Bryan has nobody listed in the 'eliminated' column. But we know he eliminated Kane. It does say Daniel in Kane's 'eliminated by' column but Kane doesn't show up in Kane's 'eliminated' column.

There could be other potential errors here we should look out for. Ranze (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Time column
I don't think it's title is descriptive enough. "Time" could mean the time someone enters the rumble, the time they were eliminated, or the amount of time they were in the rumble (eliminated time minus entrance time). We should clarify with a more descriptive title.

I think it would also be useful to add the entrance/elimination times. Entrance is straightforward enough since it is draw number times 90 seconds (or 1.5 minutes). Elimination time would be draw time plus current 'time in rumble' column.

Even though this information is conveyed in a single column, it's simply not easy reference for people to do. For example, the 'elimination time' column would give us the order in which people were eliminated from the rumble. It would be very useful, especially since it would be easy to watch a video of the rumble and check the accuracy of these times.

It would be much harder to check the accuracy of 'entrance times' since it would involve beginning a new timer at each entrance. Ranze (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

NXT Qualifier Tournament
Would it be relevant information to list the tournament brackets on the main page? Excellence Of Execution (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, since it had no relevation on the Rumble PPV. TySoltaur (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why so little detail?
I find it hard to believe that this article is far shorter than our biographies of Paul of Tarsus, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Abraham Lincoln. Surely an article on a professional wrestling event featuring such enormous world figures as The Rock, The Big Show, John Cena, and the astoundingly gifted CM Punk, deserves several thousand more words than what we have in this stub of an article. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I... uh... what? —  Richard  BB  21:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)