Talk:Royal Rumble (2024)

Orphaned references in Royal Rumble (2024)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Royal Rumble (2024)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "WomenRumble":

• From Royal Rumble (2023): Miller, Gregory (January 28, 2023). "Rhea Ripley won the Women's Royal Rumble Match to earn a Women's Championship Match at WrestleMania". WWE. Archived from the original on January 29, 2023. Retrieved January 29, 2023.
• From Royal Rumble: WWE.com Staff (December 18, 2017). "The first-ever 30-Woman Over-The-Top Royal Rumble Match". WWE.com. Retrieved December 1, 2021.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Alpha Academy not added to the Rumble yet

https://www.wwe.com/shows/royalrumble/2024/mens-and-womens-royal-rumble-matches

The YouTube video isn't an official confirmation, just the people training if they're in it. 32.220.223.138 (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

They literally each state that they're in the match further into the video? Also why would WWE just release a video of them training in kayfabe for a match they're not in? YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Told you so, man. 32.220.223.138 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Maxxine Dupri was in it soooooooooooooo YoloMc8562 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Either way its WWE being stupid again, why the hell did they release a video of them training for a match they weren't even in lmfao. YoloMc8562 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2024

Change main photo featuring offical event poster thumbnail to Royal Rumble 2024 Official Poster Cnahbzbwy418 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done

— Urro^{[talk][edits]}

18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Description as fiction

• diff

YoloMc8562, as I previously noted, per WP:PW/SG, MOS:FICTION is a project wide consensus. It is thus inappropriate to describe storylines from an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 09:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've invited others to weigh in at WT:PW — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 09:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

While I'm open to making it more clear that this is a fictional story being told (the pro wrestling corner of Wikipedia definitely suffers from WP:INUNIVERSE issues) – I do think it's a bit excessive in this case. We don't need to say "fictional theatre" as regularly as the current version does; we can establish it at the beginning and then just carry on. Similarly I don't think we need to say "wrestling performers" as it's a bit superfluous. A professional wrestler is a performer by definition, so we don't need to spell it out further. In short we don't need to clobber the reader over the head in spelling out it's not real. — Czello ^(music) 09:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As Czello said, it's ok to state that wrestling is a performance, but no to inlcude it in every sentence. No need to change wrestlers -> performers or fictional theatre. Also, storyline section is like a movie's plot, no need to state that a fictional plot is fiction. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm open to tweaks in language, but we need to follow MOS:FICTION. In particular, we need to always label fiction ([[WP:LABELFICTION).

I'm open to discussion on the verbiage. For example, I've replaced the term fictional theatre with athletic theater, per the overwhelming consensus at Professional wrestling

I agree that wrestling performers is a bit awkward and invite wordsmiths to suggest alternatives. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 10:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm also open for discussion. However, this is a discussion we have every few months. Most recently, April 2023. I agree, we must rewrite several articles to separate fictional storylines from the performer. Also, trying to not overcomplicated the text, 99% sources call them professional wrestlers or wrestlers, no need to include wrestling performers or similar. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

We already label it as fiction by stating that it is a professional wrestling event, just like the lead of an article about a film is sufficient to note that the plot is fictional. We don't need to talk down to readers. And we sure as hell don't need to do true smug "you know it's fake" crap in every sentence. These edits are disruptive to prove a point. oknazevad (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis of professional overwhelmingly focuses on the performance aspect. See for example this analysis of Shawn Michaels performances at past Royal Rumbles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHPike (talk • contribs)

Which is a suitable thing for the reception section. But just as a film article's plot summary doesn't make excessive reference to the story being fiction, and leaves the critical analysis to the appropriate reception section, so should pro wrestling event articles leave the analysis to the appropriate place in the article.

Look, the bottom line is that pro wrestling being scripted entertainment is common knowledge. The idea that we have to unduly emphasize that at every moment or that we need to include some awkward and poorly written disclaimer in every article is frankly insulting to the reader of the article and to the viewers of the shows. It's pointless nonsense. It's the old annoying "you know that's all fake?" junk. Of course we know. Don't treat us like idiots because you're too much of a snob to do some critical analysis of a pop culture art form. oknazevad (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that wrestling performers is a bit awkward and invite wordsmiths to suggest alternatives. I think we can just say "professional wrestler". Unlike amateur/Olympic wrestlers, a professional wrestler is specifically one who is part of this theatre. — Czello ^(music) 10:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to the term professional wrestler. Instead, my concern is about the use of freestanding wrestler in lieu of performer. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 10:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason to avoid the common and idiomatic usage in the obvious context just to prove a point. Professional wrestlers are called simply "wrestlers" for short in all variety of media. Why shouldn't we follow suit? oknazevad (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Worth noting that WP:LABELFICTION is regarding character articles. We don't label such plot sections in movies and video games as constantly explaining they aren't real people. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright well I've been asked to give my opinion here, so here it is, I think this whole thing is really un-necessary because we already say that it is scripted, for example, the Professional wrestling page (which has also been changed, for some reason) says that wrestling is scripted in the first sentence. I don't get why we are now changing everything to being overly labelled as "theatre", ngl it just feels like personally that it is being jammed down my throat that this isn't real and staged, which it is, but we don't have to say it or be told it every couple of lines. Also it's not like a consensus has been reached, even here not everyone agrees, infact it seems most people disagree. I just think you should only make changes if they are necessary, and this doesn't seem necessary to me tbh. Sorry if I annoyed anyone with my constant edit undoing without giving any response by the way, I was just frustrated at the time. YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to add on, as others said I think it's fine to state that the event in question is scripted at the beginning of the article, if I was doing it I would put it in the Short description template at the top of the article. YoloMc8562 (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As of the current writing, the definitely has severe in-universe problems: "Randy Orton had been feuding with The Bloodline (Roman Reigns, Jey Uso, and Jimmy Uso)"; this implies there is some actual real-world feud between real people, but this is scripted kayfabe fiction. "in November 2023, Reigns defeated LA Knight to retain": He didn't defeat anyone; a story was written in which his character defeated other characters. "fending off an attack by The Bloodline": There was no attack by anyone on anyone else, but the average reader easily gets the impression that this fictional-story stuff is referring to an actual illegal assault. "helped Knight and Orton fend off The Bloodline before attacking Knight": Ditto. "Logan Paul won his first WWE title ... his first appearance as champion ... The tournament was won by Kevin Owens ... thus earning him a match against Paul for the title at the Royal Rumble": More confusing nonsense; no one won anything or is really the champion of anything or actually earned anything or is in reality competing for a real sports title – all of this is pre-scripted fiction. Saying it is pre-scripted in a completely different paragraph, which any given reader may miss, isn't sufficient. This needs to be written about the same way we'd write about a movie or novel plot. PS: Don't capitalize "The" in mid-sentence per MOS:THECAPS; use "the Bloodline", just like we write "the Beatles" and "the United Kingdom" and "the Rohirrim".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish this is why we have a little lead paragraph of Storylines that explains that these are storylines and are predetermined by the company's writers. JDC808 ♫ 20:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

A short disclaimer is not sufficient to overcome WP:INUNIVERSE. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I'll repeat, since JDC808 missed it the first time: Saying it is pre-scripted in a completely different paragraph, which any given reader may miss, isn't sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish I did miss that (running off like 2 hours of sleep), so I apologize on that, but last I checked, people read top to bottom. Sure, they might skip a section, but why would someone randomly read the third paragraph of a section without having previously read at least the first? The disclaimer is there. We don't need to babysit our readers by telling them something that virtually every reader knows (that professional wrestling is "fake" or "scripted"). And as Lee Vilenski said, we don't do this on any other form of scripted entertainment, why is professional wrestling any different? JDC808 ♫ 01:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We have no control of any kind of what users choose to read, and eye-tracking studies of website usage since the 1990s demonstrate that users' eyes jump as fast as possible to material that seems to be what they are looking for (which in this context is likely to be names, not boilerplate beginning "The event will include ..."). And the fictive material is not the third paragraph, it's the second, is the bulk of the material, and is preceded by a "paragraph" that is just a single link of introductory wording (or two on a narrower device). We also have no control over WP:REUSE of our content, which may be partial; the material should not be written as if assertion of real-world facts.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish "third" wasn't being specific to here, just making a point of a multi-paragraph section. But again, this is essentially the "plot" section, but yet the plot sections of TV shows or movies don't have such disclaimers that you all are trying to enforce on professional wrestling articles. If other people REUSE what's written here, and treat it any differently than what it is, that's not our problem. JDC808 ♫ 02:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright, this is just turning circular and denialist. Its good that an RfC has opened on at least some aspects of the issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

We already do this for all forms of scripted entertainment, including wrestling. See, for example, the articles listed at WP:Featured articles#Wrestling. Regardless MOS:FICTION represents a project-wide consensus, so individual article talk pages are not an appropriate forum to seek exemption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillHPike (talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008) is probably the gold standard, doesn't go overboard with explaining, but does explain in the "storylines" section about it.

We don't necessarily need to treat the matches as if they aren't real things. Per Candlish above "in November 2023, Reigns defeated LA Knight to retain" is perfectly fine. The matches themselves, despite being pre-destined are actual things. The result of a match of badminton still happens even if both sides know what will happen. If we had a "this is pre-scripted" wording above every pro-wrestling match, how is that different from events where match-fixing took place in football or snooker? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, that's what I mean. While wrestling is scripted, we can't create over-elavorated sentences. Not even reliable sources outside pro wrestling write in that way. ESPN BBC or Britannica. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

References

RFC: "Scripted performance" in the lead

Should we describe the Royal Rumble 2024 professional wrestling event as a "scripted performance" in the first paragraph of the lead? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Diff in question: Special:diff/1199433942

Notices:

• WT:Manual of style#Royal_Rumble_2024
• WT:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Royal_Rumble_2024
• WP:Village pump (policy)#RFC on today's professional wrestling event

Discussion

• Support as proposer per the above discussion. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, and clean up the descriptive material to make it clearer that this is basically a plot summary of something with a fictive, scripted nature, not a description of real events and relationships. I've described some of the issues in the thread above this. Pro wrestling is not magically immune to MOS:FICTION.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – The lead already states it is "professional wrestling" which by definition tells the reader it's a scripted performance. We don't need to be redundant nor talk down to readers as if they're completely clueless. I brought this up a couple of times already (as did another editor), but articles about movies or TV shows don't go out of their way to tell readers that what they're reading is about something that is scripted and fictional. The fact that it states that it's a movie or TV show tells the reader that, as does saying it's a "professional wrestling event". --JDC808 ♫ 05:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  To me, "professional wrestling" sounds like, well, a wrestling competition, not a "scripted performance." Apparently that's what it is, but that's a really confusing name. So strong support per SMcCandlish. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Cremastra I admittedly have always found it odd that it's called "professional wrestling" since it's not a legitimate sport, but a personal opinion doesn't change what it means and has meant for well over a century. JDC808 ♫ 02:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with JDC808. Its scripted nature is inherent in what professional wrestling is. Are there any reliable sources that introduce this event, or this class of events, as scripted performances? Just because something is true, doesn't make it due. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Dozens of academic papers[1] refer to professional wrestling as scripted performance. So do less erudite sources like barstool sports [2] — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 08:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    Those academic papers are describing professional wrestling generally, not the 2024 Royal Rumble. I would agree it’s appropriate to describe professional wrestling generally as scripted, in the top level article about it. This article is like 2022 FIFA World Cup, where the underlying nature of Association football is elided, or like 24 Themis where we don’t explain what an asteroid is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

    That's an incredibly succinct explanation, point well-made CeltBrowne (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – Per the point made by Barnards.tar.gz. Additionally, while individual professional wrestling matches are "scripted performances" and should be freely acknowledged as such, it's clunky and not quite correct to describe the entire event itself as a "scripted performance". Heath Ledger's acting in Brokeback Mountain was a "scripted performance", but I wouldn't describe the entire film as a whole as a "scripted performance". CeltBrowne (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, I agree with these other guys that people understand that professional wrestling is scripted/fake/dramatized. I don't see the immunity to FICTION enumerated by OP, perhaps they can elaborate? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose we don't feel the need to put "a work of fiction" in our articles for Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Book of Genesis or Citizen Kane, so I don't see why we need to here. Yes, wrestling articles are trivia/fluff/cruft magnets. Treating everyone who reads them as if they are seven years old is not the answer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Professional wrestling being scripted is common knowledge. It does not need to be mentioned constantly. We don't need to treat our readers like idiots. oknazevad (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per JDC808 and Barnards.tar.gz, especially This article is like 2022 FIFA World Cup, where the underlying nature of Association football is elided. All articles about specific events assume a basic knowledge of the type of event in question, readers who don't have that can (and in my experience do) follow the links to our higher level articles. In the same way that we don't need to explain what a "musical" is at Guys and Dolls, what an "opening ceremony" is at 2012 Summer Olympics opening ceremony, etc. Most tellingly none of the nine featured articles about professional wresting events (December to Dismember (2006), Lockdown (2008), Money in the Bank (2011), No Way Out (2004), Over the Edge (1999), SummerSlam (2003), The Great American Bash (2005), Turning Point (2008 wrestling) and Wrestle Kingdom 9) mention in the lead that they are scripted events (although the word "storylines" is sometimes used and the last one includes a quote from a critic that describes it as "performance art"). Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Support. While I take the point of other editors that it's clunky to refer to it as a scripted event when it's already described as "professional wrestling", I think it's US-centric to assume readers will understand what that means (professional wrestling is much more niche than FIFA). This is specially true when the article as written does not clearly describe a work of fiction (another editor points to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, but I note that there is no bracket for the tournament described in that book). If the article otherwise reads like a description of a competition, it is worth being clear that it is describing a scripted theatrical performance of a competition. Carleas (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose It only needs to be in the BACKGROUND paragraph and no place else. The background gives the description of the event. Trying to put it in nearly every line in some of the articles you attempted to do so previously is overkill and simply shoving it down their throats. Jeremyeyork (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose readers do not need to be informed of the most foundational aspects of a topic in every single article relating to it. Mach61 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per many of the arguments above. The very first link in this article is to professional wrestling, whose first words are "...is a form of athletic theater", which seems clear enough to me. It may be US-centric to assume that everyone knows the nature of American "professional wrestling", but we are not assuming that, we are simply assuming that they are willing to click on the very first link if they are not sure what American "professional wrestling" is. I also couldn't find anything in MOS:FICTION requiring we specify that fictional works are fiction in the lead, but maybe I missed something. Toadspike (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Professional wrestling already explains the scripted nature of PW matches and predetermined results. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – It's redundant. We don't need to say films or tv shows are scripted either. Nemov (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
• Already discussed extensively - Consensus was reached in 2016 (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 98#Requests for comment). "The card featured ___ matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF". Simple. Straightforward. If that isn't enough reading for everyone, the extensive background discussion that preceded that RfC can be found above on the same page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive_98#Is this useful?. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Is there a corresponding project-wide consensus? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

    It was a widely publicized RFC. It represents standing consensus. Calling an RFC mere local consensus because you disagree with it is disingenuous. oknazevad (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

    If I'm reading the previous discussion correctly this has received more feedback. Perhaps the consensus has changed? Nemov (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think we can really suggest that we shouldn't discuss something because it had an RfC seven years ago. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed phrasing. Support "The card featured ___ matches, which resulted from scripted storylines and had results predetermined by the WWF" instead, as it fits with the flow of the prose, avoids being overly condescending, alleviates in-universe concerts, conveys useful information, and has received widespread support in a previous RfC. All that in one short sentence! GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

  If we have to, that sentence does a lot of heavy lifting without being a cudgel. But again, I don't think we have to. We don't need to explain what pro wrestling is in every article about a pro wrestling topic. It's common knowledge that's already explained in the linked article for the handful of people living under a rock. oknazevad (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The lead sentence currently states: The 2024 Royal Rumble was a professional wrestling event produced by WWE. (emphasis mine) Readers who are unfamiliar with WWE will click on the WWE wiki-link and read from the article's lead that WWE shows are not true contests but entertainment-based performance theater, featuring storyline-driven, scripted, and partially choreographed matches. We don't need to be redundant and specify in this article that this is a "scripted performance", when the article already says that it's an event produced by WWE. Some1 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per Some1. The article already implies this through its definition of the topic. Possibly WP:TMI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urropean (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support mentioning that it's scripted, because I don't think that we should assume that everyone knows that "professional wrestling" in the US context means it's scripted. We shouldn't assume it's common knowledge. We're supposed to write the lead for everyone, not just for Americans who are familiar with this entertainment form. We should not require readers to click on a link to find out key information about the subject. If you're curious, https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Royal_Rumble_%282024%29 indicates that most readers don't click through to any other page, and the ones who do click through to another page don't go to pages (such as the link to WWE that Some1 recommended above) that prominently display this fact. I have no strong views on exactly which words to use. The goal is to put the fact squarely in front of the reader. It won't hurt the feelings of the readers who already know it, and it will help those who don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe the readers don't click through to other links such as "professional wrestling" or "WWE" because they already know what those are. Some1 (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  Well, maybe I'll win the lottery tomorrow. Do you have an actual point? Can you demonstrate in some way that your assumption that everyone reading en.WP already knows all about this topic? I think not. Even if they did, that wouldn't magically invalidate MOS:FICTION. Everyone knows that Star Wars is fiction (even small children understand this), but we still do not write about its plot as if it described real-world events.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  Even if substantially all readers already know that professional wrestling is a form of theatre, that only militates stating so in the lead. Our leads must be accessible to users unfamiliar with a topic, so such common knowledge should be highlighted per WP:EXPLAINLEAD — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - there's a few things here. The one above about clicking links to find out info about this article fails WP:NOFORCELINK. We shouldn't expect either a user to click another link chasing information, nor not explain what the subject is about. However, is the lede paragraph where it's important to note that it's not a real show. Let's compare with other things that aren't exactly what they depict. Soap Operas (or dramas in general) don't have a "the product is fictitious" on the lede paragraph. Same for novels, whilst they are categorised by fiction/non-fiction, that's about it.

I do think articles on pro wrestling should mention that the events that take place are "predetirmed", and try our best to stay away from summaries such as "X attacked Y", but to state that the matches aren't real is a bit misleading. They do take place (well, almost all of them do), and they do have rules and winners (again, most of them do). I don't think the lede is necessarily the best place for this, but a background section covering a sentence or two of what the event was (where, when, who, etc) which has a piece on pre-detirmined winners is all I'd expect. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The Royal Rumble (2024)#Storylines section (underneath the Background section) already says: The event included four matches that resulted from scripted storylines. Results were predetermined by WWE's writers on the Raw and SmackDown brands, while storylines were played out on WWE's weekly television shows, Monday Night Raw and Friday Night SmackDown. Some1 (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I know that bit exists, but actually that doesn't quite go far enough. It only suggests that the storylines/results for previous matches were predetermined. Having something in the actual background bit makes more sense to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually that's more than enough. I'n surprised this is still going on. It's time to Close this discussion. Jeremyeyork (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

EASTEREGG in lede

Any reason why we keep reinserting [[List of WWE pay-per-view and livestreaming supercards|event]] into the lede? I don't see how this isn't an WP:EASTEREGG link. Specifically as well because we state "professional wrestling event", and link to a list that doesn't cover all professional wrestling events. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This does seem odd. All the articles referenced in Thryduulf's comment similarly link to the List of WWE pay-per-view and livestreaming supercards in the first sentence, but I agree that is WP:EASTEREGG and the list would be better as a See Also. Carleas (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It was continually re-added after I removed it. I've removed it again, I don't see why this link would be suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I think in articles about older events the piping makes it read "pay-per-view", as this sort of event used to be known as such before WWE switched to the direct streaming model. Even then it's pretty much an Easter egg link. I agree we should move that link to the see also section. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No McMahons involved = false

Article currently falsely states that:

"without the involvement of Vince McMahon or any member of the McMahon family at any capacity since its founding in 1953 after McMahon resigned as chairman of TKO Group Holdings following the sexual abuse allegiations involving him."

Vince is gone. Paul Levesque is not. Paul Levesque is specifically mentioned in the McMahon Family article. Therefore the statement that no members of the McMahon family are involved in the event is false. 2605:B100:142:1D80:6097:2324:54D:8CC6 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Also misspelled "allegations"

This user shouldnt be allowed to edit this page further. 2605:B100:142:1D80:6097:2324:54D:8CC6 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

User @Imperial meter spamming these false revisions with spelling mistakes. 2605:B100:142:1D80:6097:2324:54D:8CC6 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Truth and Valhalla times

Cole just said Truth lasted thirteen seconds and Valhalla lasted five seconds. 70.29.157.201 (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"Outer promotions"

Seems superfluous, there was only one woman from an outer promotion so couldn't we simply put in "Total Nonstop Action" or this kind of thing ? 2A01:CB05:C4D:D400:AB0:4DF5:A166:370E (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, could the color not be yellow? It's pretty much the same color as the NXT one. Maybe green or something? --Crushcastles23 (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

yeah, green would be similar to the AAA wrestlers in the crossover rumble so there's precedent for green 2A01:CB05:C4D:D400:3A98:5833:4F61:21A8 (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sami Zayn

The article lists notable returns and has Sami Zayn there. Sami wrestled weeks ago and wasn't a surprise entrant as he is a current active superstar. Jade is considered notable as she has been on tv but hasn't wrestled.

"The event marked the WWE in-ring debut of Jade Cargill, who signed with the company in September 2023. It was also notable for an appearance by Total Nonstop Action Wrestling Knockouts World Champion Jordynne Grace, as well as the returns of Naomi, Liv Morgan, Andrade, and Sami Zayn." Heddingite (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

He definitely was a surprise return, it's been almost 2 months since we've seen him and he wasn't announced to be in the match. YoloMc8562 (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Except he's been wrestling regularly on house shows, including the MSG show that was the highest grossing non-televised event in company history. I wouldn't really call him much of a surprise, unlike Andrade. oknazevad (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Oknazevad Agreed. A kayfabe injury doesn't merit a shoot return mention in the article. Liv was legit injured Heddingite (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

And the others were returning to WWE after being away for well over a year, or making their in-ring debut for the company. Or outright signed to and a champion in another company. Sami, as much as I like him, was not much of a surprise. oknazevad (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Nor was it a return. He last wrestled on Raw on 12/4 and then wrestled on 5 house shows. I think his name should be removed from the list of returning superstars. How do we get a vote or something on this? Heddingite (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Heddingite I mean everyone's in agreement here (except me) that its not a return so the consensus is there. YoloMc8562 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@YoloMc8562 excellent. Let's get it removed from the entry. Heddingite (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski thank you. Heddingite (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Big five

In the article It is one of the promotion's five biggest events of the year, along with WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and Money in the Bank, referred to as the "Big Five".

Where did the claim of a "Big Five" come from. The second source is just a press release about MITB from 2022. The other source has no date, but I doubt it would match this claim, because the book came out in 2006. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean Survivor Series, WrestleMania, SummerSlam, and Royal Rumble have been referred to a Big Four for years and years, with MITB joining in 2022. However there was conversation to do it in 2018. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/wwe-pay-per-view-set-11582947 YoloMc8562 (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Have you actually got a source that says that there is a "big five" and uses that phrase? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean I think it just started out as a group made by fans for the five biggest shows of the year, and I can't find an outright source, but usually when one of the Big 5 events go on sale, websites will usually say something like "WWE announced on (day) that one of its annual big five events, (event), will take place on (date) in (location)" like ESPN did for SummerSlam last year. https://www.espn.com/wwe/story/_/id/35609653/wwe-summerslam-headed-detro-ford-field-aug-5 YoloMc8562 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, we certainly can't use "Big Five" in that case. Using that source in its place would be fine. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean the term is used on WWE television as well, just because there is no explicit source doesn't mean it shouldn't stay. YoloMc8562 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thats not how wikipedia works @YoloMc8562. Heddingite (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Heddingite ok lol YoloMc8562 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hrddingite is correct. We also don't really care for WWE's branding.JDC's source is probably fine though. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to add to this, on the original source, it states “Money In The Bank, an appropriately titled event for Vegas and one of our five annual tentpoles, will bring the WWE Universe back to Allegiant Stadium July 4th weekend of 2022.”. YoloMc8562 (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski in 2021, when they originally announced Money in the Bank 2022 for Allegiant Stadium, Nick Khan called it one of their five annual tent poles (i.e., Big 5). But last year in London, it was explicitly called a Big 5 event by WWE: The O2 is one of the world's premier venues and the perfect home for Money In The Bank. We are excited to bring one of our 'Big 5' events to the UK and look forward to welcoming the WWE Universe to London on July 1. JDC808 ♫ 03:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 29th January 2024

I request that Sami Zayn be removed from this paragraph in the lead:

"The women's Royal Rumble match notably marked the WWE in-ring debut of Jade Cargill, who signed with the company in September 2023. TNA Knockouts World Championship holder Jordynne Grace from Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) also made a surprise appearance in the women's Rumble. The event also saw the returns of Naomi, Liv Morgan, Andrade, Omos, and Sami Zayn in the men's and women's Rumble matches, while the men's match was also notable for CM Punk's first WWE televised match since the 2014 Royal Rumble."

It was not a notable return as he wasn't really injured and wrestled on house shows during January 2024 and a tv match in December 2023. It was discussed above in another talk page entry Heddingite (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

this has been removed. disregard this edit request Heddingite (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)