Talk:Royal Rumble (2010)

Were any records broken?

I know a few wrestlers were close to breaking Stone Cold's career record for eliminations (36). I think the record holder might be HHH or HBK or somebody now. Should be included in the article if its true. 71.187.159.58 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that Shawn Michaels is at 34 now or something like that. HHH is only around 20 all-time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.111.194 (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Michaels has broken the record. He has I believe 41 eliminations. Kane Hell (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Heavyweight championship Beat the clock

on SD there will be a beat the clock tournament to determine to #1 contender CM Punk looks like he is winning now with 7.20 UPDATE Rey beat jericho with one sec left on the clock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.110.35 (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article? Besides, the #1 contender will not be determined until next week (I won't reveal why because unlike the IP, I don't want to give away spoilers). This is not a news site. TJ Spyke 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with the article because it's to determine Taker's contender for the Rumble, as reported on the main page of wwe.com. Maybe someone could add Taker vs TBC to the card, as has been done for the ECW title match? But yeah, keep it spoiler-free folks.Opcws (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the WWE Championship match on the card?

Sheamus mentioned tonight on RAW that he would be putting his WWE Championship on the line, but NOT John Cena, because he'd already put John Cena through a table and taken his title from him, and challenged anyone besides Cena on the RAW roster to challenge him for an immediate title shot. Evan Bourne came out and responded to take the challenge, but Sheamus made the match non-title but promised him a title shot at WWE Royal Rumble IF Bourne could win a non-title match with him. However, despite mounting a fast and furious offense including nailing an Air Bourne maneuver on Sheamus in less than 30 seconds, Sheamus quickly rallied and hit a Border Toss/Razor's Edge on Bourne for the 3 count.

So, as Sheamus currently has no challengers lined up but we know there will be a WWE Championship match at Royal Rumble, Sheamus vs. TBD in a Singles match for the WWE Championship should be added to the card in the main article, even if it's not "confirmed" by WWE's Royal Rumble 2010 preview page that lists all the matches.

Thank-You for your time and consideration in this matter.98.209.57.0 (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As you probably have read in the article by now, Sheamus is defending his WWE Championship against Randy Orton at the Royal Rumble. The set-up for this match is explained in the article, and the match is listed in the matches table. Probably the reason it was not listed beforehand was that the set-up had not aired on television, and thus — and correct me if I'm wrong — contrary to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling guidelines regarding the listing of matches that have not been announced on TV. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)]]

That'd be fine, however, Raw airs live. 86.22.219.2 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

World Heavyweight Championship Match

{{editsemiprotected}}

On the January 8th episode of Smackdown, Rey Mysterio defeated Batista to earn a World Heavyweight Championship match against the Undertaker at the Royal Rumble.

Um, no he didn't. First, that page is just what that person PREDICTS matches will happen at the Royal Rumble (he even says they are just his predictions). Second, the match to determine who will face The Undertaker that will air on Friday went to a no-contest, so we won't know who faces Undertaker until next week's SmackDown (unless wwe.com says something sooner). I don't think anyone will change the page based on some random person just predicting what matches they think will happen. TJ Spyke 15:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and unsourced. Please ask again once it is sourced and verifiable. --Stroppolo^talk 18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention also there seems to be a conflict of sources for the result in spoiler reports (which I won't mention here). Because of this, the SmackDown airing on Friday is really the first reliable source we could possibly use. --  Θakster   09:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Source Royal Rumble match; http://www.wwe.com/shows/royalrumble/matches/9887158/preview/ 201.66.139.66 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Undertaker vs Rey Mysterio

I have added it but have been told off because I didnt add a source. I was only trying to help. Here is where I saw it: http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/article/spoilers-wwe-smackdown-taping-results-for-this-week-94409

Please add it to the article and put that as the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.153.177 (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrestlezon is considered unreliable. Also, stuff from the TV tapings don't get added until it airs (there are also conflicting spoiler reports, just like last week when different sites were giving different results for the main event). TJ Spyke 21:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I love how you called it a personal attack! LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.60.173 (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a idiot is a personal attack (especially for not believing a unverified rumor). TJ Spyke 20:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jack Swagger stated on Raw that he will be in the Royal Rumble...

as did Carlito, so they should both be added to the list of Rumble participants. also, Drew McIntyre said on Smackdown last week that he will be in the Rumble match. I suppose if any other Rumble entrants were announced on Smackdown this week, the three that I mentioned should be updated as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulk1hogan1 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

None of those have been confirmed to be in the match. Wrestlers say all the time that they will be in this match or that match. Unless they are confirmed to be in the match, then they are not in it. TJ Spyke 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It appearing on tv makes it confirmed TJ.--WillC 14:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Royal rumble participants

I think it´s obvious that there are missing a few names in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.172.72.41 (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the ones in the table are the only ones confirmed by WWE to be in the match. TJ Spyke 01:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

i have a source confirming more: http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/wwe/5983.html --JereMerr 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremerr (talk • contribs)

That list is BS, the first reason being that no ECW wrestlers have been confirmed yet. Also, Lords of Pain is considered unreliable and not allowed as a source (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Sources). TJ Spyke 22:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually JTG was not confirmed but he appeared although he's not in the table. William Regal was taken out without any explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.255.33 (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels

Shawn Michaels said that he will be at the rumble match this Raw episode, when he was confroting the Undertaker he said that he will be at the rumble and win it to face Undertaker at Wrestlemania 26, i don´t know if the WM26 is true, but HBK is gonna be at the rumble match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.172.72.41 (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it hasn't been mentioned yet...

...but it's pretty much a given that we will see Maryse vs. Gail Kim for the currently vacant WWE Divas' Championship at the Royal Rumble event, and as such, it should be added to the list of matches on the main article page.98.209.57.0 (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No it shouldn't (and won't be). The article only list matches confirmed to be happening, not rumored matches. TJ Spyke 20:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, proably on Feb.1 edition of RAW. GD1223 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

R-Truth NOT Confirmed

According to here http://www.wwe.com/shows/royalrumble/whosinroyalrumble2010/ R-Truth is not in. He is not on that list so he should be removed from this list.

This does not confirm R-Truth is in (from the WWE Superstars results from 1-28-10): "The rapping Superstar disputed Jericho’s claims at greatness, instead insisting that he would not only win the match but also be the one to eliminate the long-winded braggart."

He is not on the official list so he should be removed from this list. 98.229.52.169 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Check again. He's there Gamloverks (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Morrison and Ziggler are in the match

while not confirmed by the list of Rumble participants on WWE.com, John Morrison and Dolph Ziggler have still been confirmed by the Royal Rumble stats video that has been playing on tv all week. I know that them just appearing anywhere in the video doesn't necessarily confirm them, but the way they are shown, a quick shot of them along with all of the other Rumble participants, essentially does confirm them. and they obviously wouldn't be left out of the Rumble unless one of them got injured, so I think they should be added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulk1hogan1 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't confirm them at all, it's just you speculating they will be in. Neither are confirmed, so they won't be added to the list. TJ Spyke 20:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So has Santino Marella by that logic, but he's not in it anymore. Gamloverks (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming Some of the Numbers

Is it ok that I name some of the entrants numbers an what not but not all of them?--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 03:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The entrants can be added, but we must use cite episode to source them.--WillC 04:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW you can take that dispute notice off your sig now...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 04:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Error in Exit Order

I've watched the Royal Rumble and the exit order listed on this page is incorrect. This page lists Cody Rhodes as first being taken out by Michaels when in fact it was Carlito who was tossed out as soon as Michaels entered the ring. Then Rhodes. --Majushi 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.141.15 (talk)

Error in order

The article lists Big Show as having been eliminated before Mark Henry although his feet hit the ground after Henry's. I am going to edit it. Kane Hell (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone messed up the order of entrances with superstars from TNA and even legends. Someone please correct them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.131.248 (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Eliminations column

Mentally I'm only counting a total of 28 but there should be 29 so I'm wondering if anyone can figure out if I miscounted somewhere? Ranze (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Article style

This article is one of the few that are still written in the vein of the 2008 discussion. It does need updating, but updating in the style of removing some over analyzing. However, the use of jargon or eliminating of the pro wrestling explanation is not what the article needs. All moves have to be explained to give an idea as to what is happening. This is per consensus at WP:PW and the WP:MoS.--WillC 23:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The edits I made this morning were in the vein of removing over-explaining, which seems to be endemic in articles on 2000's WWE pay-per-views. I was mistaken to call it jargon. I'm afraid I don't know what 2008 discussion you're talking about; what is it? --Semicorrect 00:07 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The over explaining is in there because of a discussion at WP:PW which is to write articles for all audiences. The explanation of matches, moves, characters, etc is in there because not all readers know the ins and outs of wrestling. This is per the manual of style.--WillC 01:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess WP:PW/PPVG is what you're talking about. I'd note two examples of explaining moves either not helping general audiences or making awful prose:

"Undertaker eventually dominated Mysterio with a Last Ride attempt, but Mysterio tossed him into the ropes and hit his "619" (a tiger feint kick)."

"Undertaker quickly got control of Mysterio and tried to hit him with an Elevated Powerbomb, which he calls "Last Ride"."

General audiences would have no idea what a tiger feint kick is, so putting it in parentheses makes the prose worse. Hyperlinking "619" to a tiger feint kick description is more useful. And describing a failed move early in the match that didn't affect the outcome constitutes play-by-play, which the style guide says to avoid. This article's match descriptions have better prose than others NiciWildHeart has worked on, but the prose is still pretty bad. --Semicorrect (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The prose is pretty bad and the moves do not need to be explained this indepth but a general idea of what is happening does need to be stated. Someone was kicked in the face with a 619, etc. I was not referring to the project style guide, it is old and out of date. I was referring to the wikipedia style guide. Things like WP:FICTION, WP:IN-U, WP:JARGON, etc are reasons that wrestling needs to be explained. The disclaimer about wrestling was removed and that needs to remain.--WillC 17:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take greater caution with that in the future. Thank you.Semicorrect (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Aj2qu-88x1y (5).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)