Talk:Royal Rumble (2007)/Archive 1

message: Does anyone knows if ECW wrestlers will join the royal rumble match? SOAD KoRn 21:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea, though by SummerSlam I think we'll have an idea of what will happen. --Oakster (Talk) 22:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was announced on ECW.com
"
For the first time ever, WWE's Royal Rumble will be taken to the extreme as ECW invades this 20th annual pay-per-view event
on Jan. 28. Read more
Also for the first time ever, Extremists will participate in the traditional 30-man Royal Rumble Match itself, the winner receiving a championship main event match at WrestleMania 23.
"
--Romis 01:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECW 

message: This is a big issue that seems to attract a lot of vandalism to upcoming wrestling event articles. The problem being that random people deliberately add matches to the upcoming event's card that have supposedly been announced on commercials aired during RAW, Smackdown!, or ECW. Once these people are confronted about their additions of these spoilers, they tend to use the commercials as their source. The problem is that they do not seem to realize that these promos shown when a WWE broadcast goes off the air during commercials are actually only airing on specific local areas and are NOT in fact being shown nation wide. WWE (at times) unintentionally releases commercials and promos on future events, spoiling matches and sometimes even their outcomes, to the specific local media outlet. This is stupidly done to attract interest from fans in that local area and increase possible attendance and buyrate figures for the upcoming event. The most recent case being the Vengeance DX promo notable for being released in some areas roughly two months before the actual event took place. Only when matches are announced on-screen by talent or during the actual WWE broadcast and NOT during commercials can this sort of information NOT be considered a spoiler. Some may argue, "So what if they aren't shown nation wide, they were still released by World Wrestling Entertainment which means they are legit and therefore all matches spoiled have a right to be added to articles!" Now the problem with that simply is this... It is unencyclopedic. You see, what these people fail to realize is that Wikipedia is NOT, I repeat, NOT a Wrestling News site. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and therefore cannot provide spoilers on future history or events that have yet to be. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, in other words, it's an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you honestly feel the need to be an Internet Troll and add content spoiling what has yet to occur (in this case about wrestling), then please do so elsewhere such as... oh wow! ...a Wrestling News site! As best stated on Wikipedia Policy... "Before adding any sort of content, ask yourself what would a reader expect to find in an encyclopedia." ...and I highly doubt that you would be expecting to find out who will be in the main event at WrestleMania 100, even if you do happen to find a promo somewhere right now announcing it to be Hulk Hogan vs. Vince McMahon's grandson. Content such as spoilers, rumors, and other nonsense will be removed on the spot for the reasons just explained. This content simply does not comply with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines and the addition of it is considered vandalism. Once again, please do NOT add any sort of content that even you would know is a spoiler (spoiling future history and events that have yet to be} and unencyclopedic. If you do in fact feel the need to be an Internet Troll, please do so elsewhere and not on Wikipedia. Thank you for reading and I honestly do hope that this clears up any confusion over spoilers and why they are being removed. Thank you. -- bulletproof 3:16 20:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Regarding local commercials revealing Spoilers'''

message: Do NOT add in a poster unless you have proof that it comes from an official website (like wwe.com). TJ Spyke 22:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will probably get denied since there isn't much vandalism yet. You are right though, this article will get a lot of vandalism though just like every WWE PPV article does in  the weeks leading up to the event, and this article will end up semi-protected just like the others. TJ Spyke 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poster 

message: why wait untill at least one participant has been announced? its going to be a definate match, so why wait?Cradle666 13:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just the way it's usually done, even WWE doesn't list the match this early either. TJ Spyke 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: But who says its gonna be a definate match the WWE may decide to shonk us and not include it for some reason ha ha, highly doubtful but hey anything can happen in the WWE. The Legendary One 04:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for the whole logic of "just the way it's usually done". The match will happen, and the whole warning note wasn't needed at all. RobJ1981 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be needed if people didn't keep adding the match in. TJ Spyke 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You are kinda late, that's why I didn't revert it since WWE officially announced it. Welcome BTW. TJ Spyke 03:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's just getting ahead of ourselves. Technically, we could put for the Royal Rumble of next year the Royal Rumble match down right now, but considering we still have an entire year to go through of PPV's, not to mention another New Year's Revolution, it just doesn't make much sense to add it in now. Plus, I know this is doubtful, but it's possible that there may not BE a Royal Rumble match at a Royal Rumble PPV. Wait, just wait, let me explain. We've had Survivor Series without traditional Survivor Series matches (2002, 1998 comes to mind). It's much rarer to not have a Rumble match than a traditional Survivor Series match, but, it could happen. But, overall, I think it is just tradition to wait until WWE.com posts the match or until we have one participant, whichever comes first. Personally, I have no problem with it. Anakinjmt 15:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the anons do care. Ignoring them without a good reason, tradition that has nothing to do with policy isn't a good reason, is a nasty habit that too many of us have started. Also, for more than a decade there has been a Royal Rumble matchup. To say that we shouldn't add it because it may not happen is just foolish IMO. Besides, Wikipedia hasn't been around long enough for any of these "traditions" to be set in stone. Also, it isn't just rare to not have a Royal Rumble match at the Royal Rumble PPV, it hasn't ever happened. As far as the next Royal Rumble PPV, that article shouldn't even exist yet IMO. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It also has to do with matches not being added until they are announced by WWE. WWE just finally announced it the other day, and that's why I stopped removing it. TJ Spyke 23:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case is waiting really necessary? There is a certain ammount of common sense that we are allowed to apply to this kind of thing. -- The Hybrid 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But again, you never know what they may pull in WWE. I think most people before the main event of December to Dismember was announced that that New Year's Revolution would have an Elimination Chamber match again (I certainly did). And, again, Survivor Series has had PPV's before where they haven't had traditional survival matches. I realize it hasn't happened yet with the Rumble, but better to be safe than sorry. Plus, technically, until WWE or WWE.com has announced the Rumble match, addition of the Rumble match could (I believe anyway) be considered speculation, which is most definitely not allowed. It's too late now to do this, but I'd suggest for next year's Royal Rumble (again, assuming they have it, which is pretty much a given, but still) that we put in a note saying something like "Please do not add the Rumble match until WWE or WWE.com has officially announced the match." Something to that effect. Anakinjmt 14:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on WWE.com now, so we can keep it on the page.Freebird Jackson 15:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I'm talking about next year's Rumble PPV. Anakinjmt 17:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, we're just planning ahead. -- The Hybrid
Anyway, as I said before there has never been a Royal Rumble PPV without a Royal Rumble Match. Common sense says that there never will be, as that is considered the biggest PPV other than Wrestlemania. The fan backlash would be tremendous, and the buyrate would be terrible. There will never ever be a Royal Rumble PPV without a Royal Rumble match. We do know that about what the WWE will pull, and it isn't speculation. No RR would be terrible for business, and it will never ever happen. That being said, leaving it out of the article until it is announced is pointless. -- The Hybrid 23:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll just state this once more, but I think again it's just to keep us from getting ahead of ourselves. I certainly agree with you on the odds of there being a Royal Rumble match, but again, it's just to keep from getting ahead of ourselves too much. Anakinjmt 20:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My response to this would be the same as my last paragraph, which means that we are just going in circles with no end in sight. I'll drop it. -- The Hybrid 23:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Rumble Match 

message: Given that it's not known that Batista will hold the title by the Royal Rumble, should we even be saying anything other than it's a title match? wwe.com  specifies that:
The World Heavyweight Championship, currently held by Batista, will be contested at the Royal Rumble. Per General Manager Theodore Long's orders, the winner of Friday's SmackDown Beat the Clock Sprint will get an opportunity to challenge the Animal, or whoever the Champion is at the annual January pay-per-view spectacular. [my emphasis]
--Dave. 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of right now he is the champ, if he loses the belt hen we will change it. Plus, Theodore Long said Batista would be happy to defend the belt against the winner. TJ Spyke 23:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. --Dave. 09:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: or at least "final" until next week's SmackDown!; we haven't seen Teddy Long's reaction to Kennedy's interference yet. --Dave. 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you were refering to the countless reverts, those were because Wikipedia doesn't use spoilers in wrestling articles. Now that it has aired most everywhere, it will not be removed. -- The Hybrid 16:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smackdown championship match 

message: Shouldn't we put now who will be the people evolved in the Royal Rumble match? That was based in this article http://www.wwe.com/shows/royalrumble/exclusives/39182221 on WWE.com who says that these wrestlers will be in the match:
Kenny Dykstra, Chris Masters, Viscera (and maybe Jeff Hardy, Shelton Benjamin, Carlito and Johnny Nitro, if I read well) Xbox6 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 25 have been announced:
1. Shelton Benjamin
2. Chris Benoit
3. Carlito
4. Kenny Dykstra
5. Edge
6. Finlay
7. Ric Flair
8. Chavo Guerrero
9. Jeff Hardy
10. Matt Hardy
11. Hardcore Holly
12. Kane
13. King Booker
14. Chris Masters
15. Shawn Michaels
16. The Miz
17. Johnny Nitro
18. Randy Orton
19. Montel Vontavious Porter
20. CM Punk
21. Sabu
22. The Sandman
23. Undertaker
24. Rob Van Dam
25. VisceraFreebird Jackson 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Rumble match 2

message: During Joey Styles' ECW Commentary on Tuesday he mentioned that both CM Punk and his opponent, Matt Striker will be in the Royal Rumble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavyn Sykes (talk • contribs) 
:No, he said they would represent ECW AT the Royal Rumble, which could mean that Striker just appears at the event. TJ Spyke 05:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striker 

message: Should we mention that the WWE Championship match is in jepordy de to Cena's injury on RAW.
User:Killswitch Engage
:Go to wwe.com and check their RAW review, it's obviously kayfabe (especially with statements like Cena refusing medical treatment) to make it seem more impressive if he wins or as an excuse if he loses. TJ Spyke 08:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WWE Championship

message: i have changed the order of matches, reason being so they suit the same order as shown on WWE.comCradle666 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it. After all the fuss that a certain editor named Rob made (that resulted in the Armageddon article being locked), it was agreed that matches will be listed in the order they are announced. TJ Spyke 23:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They do it differently for who knows what reason, probably in order of importance. Doesn't matter. We list matches in the order they are announced. Anakinjmt 20:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You'll find that we do a lot of things differently then the WWE. -- The Hybrid 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order Of Matches 

message: all the matches int the royal rumble are gone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.240.203 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  matches are gone 

message: I`m just reading this & I just don`t know how the ranking is done. It should be by order of name. Can you say me what is the order? --Soopafred 01:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was agreed that participants should be listed (by Brand) in the order they were announced. --Dave. 16:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct, they are listed in the order that they were announced. TJ Spyke 02:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Rumble participants. 

message: read that page.--Trick man01 22:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: They CAN Challange for the ECW World Title

message: There are 30 men listed for the Royal Rumble match, which i guess is correct because its the same on wwe.com. But on Smackdown this week Vladimir Kozlov was interviewed and said even though he isnt on any of the 3 brands yet he can still compete in The Royal Rumble. Don.-.J 14:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget - rumours, not fact... TheDingbat 02:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that it isn't in the article :) -- The Hybrid 02:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vladimir Kozlov 

message: Dark MatchJTG (Jayson Paul) defeated Lance Cade before the Royal Rumble —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PEDanger (talk • contribs) 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? TJ Spyke 07:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dark Match 

message: Can somebody remove the NN trivia (like Flair being #1 and the note about Gregory Helms)? TJ Spyke 07:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And Viscera too. TJ Spyke 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems pretty notable, though it would be better suited for the main Rumble page-- bulletproof 3:16 07:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. What about all 3 brands being in it? That is already mentioned at the top of the page. TJ Spyke 07:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True that, true that. -- bulletproof 3:16 07:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree trivia should be on the main RR page. - Weatherman289 16:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The rumor about HBK needs to go. Thankfully my computer should be fixed Friday so I can clean-up the page. TJ Spyke 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I call an NPOV/Weasel Word foul on the following section:
*This Royal Rumble was criticized heavily by smarks because all of the champions retained, a move that many predicted months in advance of the rumble, despite the controversial nature of an aged superstar like Batista holding the title.
a) Most (not all, but most) feedback on the show has been positive, including by myself who saw it and b) this seems to be one person's opinion under the guise of "many others have said it" without so much as citing a songle source.Wayman975 13:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV/Weasel Words?

message: I added Justin Roberts, the ECW ring announcer. Anyone think Kelly Kelly should be added as well? Gavyn Sykes 22:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She was the ball tumbler, right? Sure, make sure the link is right (so it should be like this: Barbie Blank|Kelly Kelly ). TJ Spyke 23:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, more accurately, Kelly Kelly.  --EazieCheeze 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is binjo? Shouldn't it be bingo? TJ Spyke 04:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other On-Screen Talent 

message: It's confusing. What does the time mean? How long they were in the ring for? I think it would be better to change the times to the time in the royal rumble match that they were eliminated. Also, in the article say that the time stands for blank blank.
:The time in the results section (where it says "The Undertaker won the...) is the total length of the match. The times in the table are how long that wrestler lasted before being eliminated. TJ Spyke 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of the Royal Rumble Match 

message: It says that Khali tied Kane's record of most consecutive elimination's with seven, but didn't Rikishi and Diesel also share this record? Donco 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding Khali's record. 

message: Randy Orton had no part of the Viscera elimination he was knelt in the corner at the time when the other 8 men got Viscera over the top. Check here http://www.wwe-zone.com/wwe/royal_rumble/match/2007/index.htm thats the correct eliminations. 217.42.255.223 08:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viscera elimination. 

message: I added Michael Cole as someone deleted him. Anyone think that we shold add that JR and King commentated the Tag Match between MNM and the Hardys? Gavyn Sykes 18:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no procedure, so I don't know why he moved them around. TJ Spyke 00:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they were supposed to be in alphabetical order when I wrote the other RR articles. --  oakster  TALK  23:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not policy, so it doesn't matter either way. TJ Spyke 23:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentators 

message: I remember him being elimanated via the combined efforts of Edge and Kenny. Someone edited the page to read just that but it was reverted. Am I remembering wrong? What's the deal? Gavyn Sykes 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am downloading the PPV now, but all the reports I have read say it was just Edge. TJ Spyke 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ric Flair

message: WWE Royal Rumble 2008 is live on January 27, 2008 at Anaheim, CA at the Honda Center. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.108.87.254 (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you hear this rumor? WWE themselves onlybriefly mentioned a date (and removed it the same day) and have not mentioned any location. TJ Spyke 01:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Rumble 2008- Anaheim, CA 

message: Should it be mentioned that this is the 1st WWE PPV to be released in SteelBook
Source: Silvervision.co.uk Don.-.J 10:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, no. Besides, do you have a source for it being the first one (not that it matters)? TJ Spyke 23:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steel Book 

message: For whoever added them, they were indeed there but only appeared for about ten seconds to help Kelly Kelly give Ric Flair a standing lap dance. Their presence for a few seconds in one backstage segment isn't notable enough to include them. Gavyn Sykes 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed them since they weren't on long enought to be worth noting. TJ Spyke 00:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layla and Brooke

message: :Image:Royal Rumble - 00hr 16min 36sec edited.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Royal Rumble - 00hr 16min 36sec edited.jpg