Talk:Royal Rumble match

Records Being Manipulated

It looks like people are omitting record-holders, either in good faith or as I suspect for spite. Chris Jericho has the longest cumulative time in the Rumble but is not on the list. The Miz has 13 Rumble appearances but is not on the list. Also it says Brock Lesnar has 50 eliminations but is in the list sort as if he has 30. Please let’s clean up the records and be civil not to vandalize just because you do or do not like a certain wrestler. 107.217.228.177 (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Greatest Royal Rumble inclusion

Where is this consensus you mentioned Galatz? Yes, it was an "official" match, but it makes absolutely no sense to include it as it is now when it was not part of the annual event. It's not even part of the Royal Rumble chronology. It was a completely separate event and the match had no stakes or any affect on the product thereafter (with the one exception that at the event, we got new Raw Tag Team Champions). --JDC808 ♫ 22:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm on mobile right now but I think it was at the PPV page, can look later. The reason for this page split was the break away the chronology from the match. If you want the PPV chronology look at Royal Rumble. This page shouldn't duplicate that table. The table here should match the matches that contribute to the statistics below it, otherwise it's very misleading. Just like how Money In The Bank match page has more matches then the PPV chronology page does. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 23:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Royal Rumble match

i would like to see the same values added to the Women's section for the Royal Rumble, like the men. like 'Longest cumulative time spent in Royal Rumble' and 'Most Rumble appearances'. i would edit the document, but i do not know how to. Jdpastor666 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

== Females: Longest cumulative time spent in Royal Rumbles ==

Why Females section lacks those data when one of the cited sources provides them?

• "TOP 10 WOMEN'S LONGEST CUMULATIVE TOTAL ROYAL RUMBLE TIME: Natalya (01:21:35), Ember Moon (00:58:37), Sasha Banks (00:54:46), Charlotte Flair (00:50:01), Becky Lynch (00:44:14), Nia Jax (00:29:55), Mandy Rose (00:29:42), Lacey Evans (00:29:20), Carmella (00:25:57), Ruby Riott (00:24:40)" ^link

--Wario-Man (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Total number of competitors all-time?

What is this, yes?

there have been a total of 444 competitors Jeremyeyork (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Time spent in the women's Rumble

Shouldn't Rhea Ripley and Liv Morgan be tied for the longest time spent in a match? The match ends the second the last competitor (i.e. Liv) is eliminated so winning the match or not makes no difference to the overall time spent in the match. 2.27.219.132 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Winners from 1 & 2

Where is Benoit? 2A00:23C8:3346:1201:970F:3E44:8735:C3F0 (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Load of mistakes

Their are a load of mistakes where it says the fastest elimination records Wwe edge (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Removed Data

There used to be very easy to read sub headings, such as royal rumble records which had very useful and handy statistics which have been removed within the last few days 128.240.225.51 (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

lemonademan has removed a load of useful info and stats that didn't need to be removed 128.240.225.51 (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Bring back stats for rumble

Bring back the stats for the royal rumble matches like whos got th mkst eliminations and who entered the most. Someone delted it Themus3600 (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Rumble Records Missing

The page used to have a section featuring all the records from the matches, they have been removed for some reason. I don't see any reason why they would need to be removed. ~2025-37779-55 (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Because it's pure WP:FANCRUFT, all were unsourced, and pure filler. If Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia why does it have pure unencyclopedic content? Many fan wikis dissect the Rumble stats, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, we don't have stuff like that. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

well bring it back Themus3600 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

No, you are being very rude and demanding. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the "stats" as you call them were garbage dopamine addicting junk that are completely opposite as to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, go look on a fan wiki for them, there's plenty out there, Wikipedia is not the place for such unencyclopedic content. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The stats were facts mate dont get rude with me. They were there for for 20 years and you just got rid of them just leave them be people like reading then Themus3600 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

You are being rude by demanding some stats back. Also they were not there for 20, that is ridiculous, they were initially added in May 2018 which is not 20 years ago, also I didn't get rid of them because people liked reading them, I got rid of them because they were a load of garbage unencylopedic nonsense that are against Wikipedia's policy and they will not be returning. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

They were not against policy they 100 percent correct. And stop lying about 2018 they have been there way longer then that you cant just get rid of it. And you dont even work for Wikipedia so stop arguing with me and being rude with someone that is autismm. Themus3600 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The 2018 edit introduced the records, go back in the edit hisory.

Alas, I'm terminating this conversation as no constructive edits will be made because of it. I will not be speaking to you again and don't write on my talk page either. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lemonademan22 Please see WP:CLOSE before you do that... You have not come to a consensus and you are also not the owner of the article. You are also not being particularly nice to Themus3600. Also see WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS. SuperCode111 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you and I never called him autistic I was talking about me having autism Themus3600 (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The user in questions' entire existence on Wikipedia has been nagging me to restore edits that go against Wikipedia policy. Yes, I get fired up about this kind of stuff, but I don't edit to be nagged, I've been as cordial as I could have been, I'm not sure why I'm in the wrong here.

Although, yes I should get consensus, but my edits are for Wikipedia policy, not against. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You attacked me and said i called you autistic when I didn't I was talking about myself and you were rude to me i wasent even nagging you sorry if you feel that way i apologise Themus3600 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lemonademan22 Also, by the way, I am not saying the actual edits to the article are wrong or right, you need to come to consensus about that. What I am saying is wrong is your ownership of the talk page when saying Alas, I'm terminating this conversation and your arguing. SuperCode111 (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

What I am really saying is both of you need to stop arguing. I recommend that neither of you edit this page in this way until you reach consensus or get a third opinion. SuperCode111 (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing all I said was can you bring it back then he started being rude to me and then I said I have autism and he thoght I said he did which I never did. I just want to forget this its not that serious im sorry if I hurt him Themus3600 (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I never called autistic i was talking about my self Themus3600 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Bring it back who are you to say which tghings shouald stay in wikipedia and which things should not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAY1986 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I am serious. On Wikipedia, statistics can be found in many different sports articles, whether in football, tennis, or other sports. The statistics for one of WWE’s most important events are not fan fiction, nor are they what the author here claims them to be.

Furthermore, this content has existed in the article for many years. Why is a single user allowed to come in and remove everything simply because they personally consider it to be “unen­cyclopedic”? Instead of first discussing the matter on the talk page, the user deleted the content outright and then continued to re-remove it, despite multiple users restoring the text.

I would like to know which specific Wikipedia policy clearly justifies this removal, and why exactly this content is allegedly considered unencyclopedic. How does Wikipedia define what is encyclopedic, and what kind of knowledge is considered suitable for publication versus not?

Additionally, if this user continues to remove content based solely on personal convictions, a Wikipedia administrator may need to become involved, as this behavior could potentially be viewed as disruptive editing. TheAY1986 (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

"Furthermore, this content has existed in the article for many years." It has and it is:

-Unsourced (WP:RS)

-Fancruft WP:FANCRUFT

-Uses unreliable sources that are not in line with WP:PW/RS

-Original research (WP:OR)

-Not notable (WP:NOTABLE)

-Not newsworthy or notable (see above; WP:NOTNEWS)

-Disruptive and against PW MOS WP:PW/MOS.

The use of "X has been here a long time therefore removing it is unjustified" is a silly counterpoint, Wikipedia is about a project, and projects evolve, become refined, and ultimately better. If one was to leave old content then such a project could never be improve which is illogical and counterintuitive, especially when such content goes against the very policy that said project was founded upon.

"How does Wikipedia define what is encyclopedic, and what kind of knowledge is considered suitable for publication versus not?" It's called rules and policy, which are easily obtainable if you're serious about editing Wikipedia as a hobby, as I am, especially about pro wrestling, a hobby of mine also.

"a Wikipedia administrator may need to become involved, as this behavior could potentially be viewed as disruptive editing." That's really ironic, I'm removing disruptive edits and restoring the article to a clean state, but I'm the disruptive one for adhering to Wikipedia policy and sticking to what Wikipedia should be, not a dumping ground for meaningless, forgettable, subjective, and downright uninformitive edits instead of what Wikipedia is, which is an encyclopedia. That's why I call it unencyclopedic, because that's exactly what it is. Lemonademan22 (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

To move this forward constructively, I would like to propose a compromise.

Instead of a full statistics section, I suggest trimming the content down to a concise “Selected Royal Rumble records” section, limited to a small number of widely cited records (e.g. most wins, longest time, most eliminations, most appearances), all supported by reliable sources.

This would directly address WP:NOTSTATS, WP:WEIGHT, and sourcing concerns while still retaining notable, encyclopedic information.

As there is currently no consensus and repeated removals are occurring, I am also requesting a WP:Third Opinion so we can obtain neutral input and resolve this collaboratively before making further changes. TheAY1986 (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I propose a significantly trimmed “Selected Royal Rumble records” section limited to the most notable records only, with reliable sources.

This version avoids exhaustive statistics, addresses WP:NOTSTATS and WP:WEIGHT, and preserves only widely cited records for both the men’s and women’s matches.

I believe this represents a reasonable compromise. A WP:Third Opinion has been requested to help determine consensus before further removals.

Selected Royal Rumble records

Men’s Royal Rumble

Most Royal Rumble wins:

“Stone Cold” Steve Austin – 3 wins (1997, 1998, 2001)

Longest time spent in a Royal Rumble match:

Daniel Bryan – 1:16:05 (Greatest Royal Rumble, 2018, 50-man match)

Longest time spent in a standard 30-man Royal Rumble match:

Gunther – 1:11:40 (2023)

Longest cumulative time in Royal Rumble matches:

Chris Jericho – 4:59:33

Rey Mysterio – 4:39:17

Randy Orton – 4:34:09

Most eliminations in a Royal Rumble match:

Braun Strowman – 13 eliminations (Greatest Royal Rumble, 2018)

Most eliminations in a standard 30-man Royal Rumble match:

Brock Lesnar – 13 eliminations (2020)

Total eliminations:

Kane – 46 eliminations

The Undertaker – 40 eliminations

Shawn Michaels – 39 eliminations

Most Royal Rumble appearances:

Kane – 20 appearances

Kofi Kingston – 16 appearances

The Miz – 15 appearances

Highest number of wrestlers involved in eliminating one competitor:

Mabel (Viscera) – 9 wrestlers (2007)

Women’s Royal Rumble

Most Royal Rumble wins:

Charlotte Flair – 2 wins (2020, 2025)

Longest time spent in a Women’s Royal Rumble match:

Roxanne Perez – 1:07:47 (2025)

Longest cumulative time in Women’s Royal Rumble matches:

Bianca Belair – 3:54:45

Bayley – 3:05:50

Naomi – 3:05:38

Most eliminations in a Women’s Royal Rumble match:

Nia Jax – 9 eliminations (2025)

Total eliminations:

Nia Jax – 29 eliminations

Rhea Ripley – 20 eliminations

Charlotte Flair – 19 eliminations

Most Royal Rumble appearances:

Liv Morgan – 8 appearances

Natalya – 8 appearances

Naomi – 7 appearances

Highest number of wrestlers involved in eliminating one competitor:

Nia Jax – 11 wrestlers (2023)

This section highlights selected, widely cited Royal Rumble records and is not intended to be an exhaustive statistical archive. TheAY1986 (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I would actually be okay with this, but it would have to be sourced reliably and relevant, the only objections to your list I have is "cumulative time" and "Highest number of wrestlers involved in eliminating one competitor". I think that verges into fancruft territory.

As a side note: I wish other PW and even non-PW editors weighed on this, I know they're reading this. Lemonademan22 (talk) 13:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

TheAY1986 (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The Royal Rumble match is home to numerous accolades achieved by participants such include: Chris Jericho's 4:59:33 cumulative time in the match, Kane's combined 46 eliminations across his 20 Royal Rumble appearances which he also holds the record for, Brock Lesnar's 13 eliminations in one Royal Rumble which occured in 2020, Gunther's 1:11:04 for most time in one Royal Rumble match in 2023, an even rarer feat is Nia Jax's record for most amount of participants to eliminate one competitor with 11 which took place in 2025.

A single sentence added within a dense paragraph is likely to be overlooked by readers; briefly separating key records improves visibility and comprehension without expanding the content.

As WP:Third Opinion is not applicable due to multiple editors being involved, I will seek further input via formal dispute resolution to establish consensus before making further changes. TheAY1986 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

you're very obviously using a LLM for this talk page lol. ~2025-43680-52 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Please focus on the content and policy arguments being made rather than speculation about how a comment was drafted. TheAY1986 (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

you do realise that Wikipedia disallows LLMs for talk pages and discussions? See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#LLM I could report you for this offense as to reach a consensus is not to filter it through a chatbot but a human discussion which is the whole purpose of a talk page. ~2025-43901-08 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

What you are doing here is an ad hominem approach! TheAY1986 (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

"A single sentence added within a dense paragraph is likely to be overlooked by readers" Yes it is, do you want to know why?

Because predetermined scripted "records" aren't notable or newsworthy enough to feature, this is why I have been saying the same thing throughout all my discussions here, it's not notable and it's fancruft. A load of "records" that only means so much to so many people and that don't matter, the records don't even inherintly relate to the subject of the article with that being the match itself. The article should, in theory, be about the rules, winners, and the prize the winner gets upon winning, not the records which you could make up thousands if you wanted to. A whole section on a load of scripted records which have nothing to do with the article and are pure fancruft achieves nothing. It doesn't enhance the project, it worsens it, a load of filler that enriches nothing. It's not even "impressive" or "actual" wrestling accolades either, it's a load of niché sets of statistics that only a small minority of people like keeping track of, which by the way older messages here suggest that the editors whom put them there didn't even properly keep track of or maintain such records, so what's the point? No one can make the case that it's actual genuine records that are worthy to keep or maintain either. Lemonademan22 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that these records are inherently non-encyclopedic simply because the match outcome is scripted. Wikipedia routinely documents statistics and records from scripted or predetermined sports and entertainment formats (including professional wrestling, film awards, and television competitions), provided they are verifiable and covered by reliable sources.

The concern is not whether unlimited statistics could be created, but whether a limited, well-sourced, and clearly structured summary of widely cited Royal Rumble records improves reader understanding of the match’s historical significance. That is why I previously reduced the section to a minimal set of objectively defined records and added sources.

Since the article is currently protected due to a content dispute, I consider unilateral deletions such as the one you have done again before reaching a consensus to be unhelpful. TheAY1986 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

For example, virtually every professional wrestling championship article on Wikipedia includes a section listing all titleholders and the total number of days they held the championship. These championships are also predetermined and scripted within professional wrestling storylines, yet their records are widely documented and considered encyclopedic when reliably sourced.

This demonstrates that being predetermined does not, by itself, make records non-notable or unsuitable for inclusion; the key factors are verifiability, reliable sourcing, and due weight. TheAY1986 (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah here's the thing you're missing and what I've repeated constantly here, they don't mean anything, they're a fringe number of records, I could make up any sort of records with any time of professional wrestling match but that does not mean I can put them in said article which, might I remind you, has nothing to do with records.

Also again the argument that "X justifies Y", the championship reign articles don't justify the Royal Rumble records, both are completely different things in completely different facets in the art of professional wrestling.

Here's a reminder of why I am against "Royal Rumble records":

-Unsourced (WP:RS)

-Fancruft WP:FANCRUFT

-Uses unreliable sources that are not in line with WP:PW/RS

-Original research (WP:OR)

-Not notable (WP:NOTABLE)

-Not newsworthy or notable (see above; WP:NOTNEWS)

-Disruptive and against PW MOS WP:PW/MOS.

Also as the temp account who's also been discussing in this same thread pointed out, you're likely using AI or a LLM to formulate your arguments. While I am going to assume good faith here, it's quite tiresome talking essentially to a chatbot rather than another user, especially when I'm laying out why I disagree with the inclusion of the Royal Rumble records on my own merit, instead of using A or a LLM to do so.

Finally, I won't respond here anymore, for the reason above and also it's not going anywhere. I will if something changes but until then I'm stepping away from this discussion as this page is fully protected until March anyway. Lemonademan22 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Whether that is relevant or not is not for you alone to decide! That is my point. That is why I initiated a dispute resolution procedure.

Of course, I was annoyed at first, but then I thought I would work towards a compromise that would satisfy both parties, and at first I thought we had found a compromise, but then you changed everything again without first discussing it here. And looking at the history, I can see that the dispute has been going on since April or March with several editors. That's why it's time for someone external to take a look at it.

We'll wait and see what happens. Have a good start to the new year! TheAY1986 (talk) 02:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

3O Response: Procedural decline. 3O is generally for requesting a third opinion, but there are already more than two involved editors in this discussion. If you cannot reach a consensus, please consider other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

3rd Opinion I just now found this and read everything. I do agree that everything does need to be sourced, however, I do not believe all that has been removed to be fan cruft. And I also don't believe a single person should play gatekeeper on this page. Going through the history, the records had been added in May 2018, nearly eight years ago and the 23rd ever edit on this page and there have since been thousands of edits. My opinion would be to re-add the records to the page but add a "need sources" up at the top. This way, this gives editors a chance to find sources and citations instead of having to go digging for it and then adding little at a time which makes it even more difficult. Jeremyeyork (talk) 04:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Why don’t we just add the records that are featured in the WWE Royal Rumble By The Numbers Video? That way we know they are official WWE accurate records? Kylo47 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Kylo47 It's still WP:FANCRUFT. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jeremyeyork What!? I'm not gatekeeping anything, I have every right to remove things from Wikipedia that do not align with Wikipedia policy, and time and time again I have laid out numerous policies that conflict with such content. Also, what would be the point in putting a "need sources" template at the top if there's no sources, it's still unsourced! (one of the whole reasons why it ought to be removed in the first place!). Also the whole "X has been here a while" (an example of Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) isn't backed up by Wikipedia policy, and like I said previously here, if things weren't removed then Wikipedia as a whole could never be improved and be refined. I find such arguments to be an excuse to put needless records that are definitionally fancruft, might I add, so that people can drool over made up fictional records. Wikipedia isn't a wrestling magazine, it's an encyclopedia, and always has been.

Also putting a "need sources" template for over 30,000+ bytes of information is certainley questionable, as a clean up tag is used for when there is 15,000 bytes of information that needs cleaning up, so knowingly adding 30,000+ bytes of unsourced information is just ridiculous. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Except you are gate keeping. You do not own this page nor do you own Wikipedia. You have argued time and time again that the stats are “made up” “not sourced” and “not factual” etc. Even when others have tried to compromise with actual factual sources records such as adding the stats that are talked about in the by the numbers segment each PLE. Every single person here has been willing to compromise and tried to do this in a civil way but you want to come in a very much im superior to you and my word is law attitude when in reality you have no more rights and power then any other person on this thread. And quite frankly you’re (Personal attack removed). I don’t know who actually has the final say in this matter but I vote with the others that say bring it back. It literally does not hurt anything or anyone and if it bothers you so much then simply don’t look at it. Shua1993 (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@Shua1993 The "it's not hurting anyone" argument is not a rule, nor a good principle. Does that mean anyone could edit anything on Wikipedia because "i'ts not harming anyone"? Rules are rules, rules are meant to be followed. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine. It breaks numerous rules and nobody has attempted to compromise on any front with me, I should know I've tried, but I stand my ground on following Wikipedia's rules, we don't need these things. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok then since we’re going by the rules seeing as that’s what you like to quote constantly then we’ll go by the Consensus. And the definition of consensus being agreement by the collective or majority of the parties involved. In this case that you are the one person against and everyone else is for the stats coming back the majority wins and you are out voted. So there for the stats can come back. Problem solved issue resolved ~2026-26393-93 (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Idk why it didn’t post as my account but ya that Shua1993 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

So ya since the majority consensus was for it to comeback whoever wants to bring the stats back go for it he doesn’t have the authority to tell you that you can’t Shua1993 (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@Lemonademan22 I recommend that you stop editing this article. There has been many people who disagree with you and have reached a consensus that is different to your opinion, but you continue to edit it anyway. You have reverted it more than 8 times which absolutely breaches WP:3RR. SuperCode111 (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@SuperCode111 Except there is no consensus, and my points on, need I repeat, 50,000 bytes of unsourced information, should not be swept under the carpet. That is a legitamate concern, any editor who values Wikipedia as an encyclopedia would find such an addition highly alarming. Lemonademan22 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

No there very much was a consensus. Everyone of us involved except you agree and are on the same page that the stats stay. How come the rules apply to everyone but you? Shua1993 (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

If there was a consensus (and I'm not convinced of that given the lack of substantial arguments from the inclusionists), there certainly isn't now. — Czello ^(music) 12:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I can't see where he's breached 3RR at all. You realise that rule only applies to a 24-hour period, right? — Czello ^(music) 12:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Lemonademan22 here. There might be a case for some stats remaining, if it can be justified as being notable, but most of what I saw from earlier revisions is 1) arbitrary and 2) unsourced. Are proponents arguing a full restoration of vast swathes of unsourced content? Yes, that would be WP:FANCRUFT. — Czello ^(music) 20:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

A passing mention of perhaps most eliminations in a match or most appearances if backed by a reliable souce could work. But 50,000 bytes of unsourced information is just ridiculous. The page would be less about the match (rules, variants, history) and more on subjective records. As an encyclopedia, that can't be. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we may include some records, but notable records like longest time, most victories, most rumbles participation... I think se shouldn't include top 10 (just include the record holder), no record by year (longest time per year, shortest time per year), no runner up, no consecutive eliminations, no selfeliminations, no men/women participating on other match, no multiple participations in one night. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

After reading the entire thing, I don't see the problem with the stats tables on the page. It's only featured here. What was the actual problem? An encyclopedia is all about cataloging important things like statistics right? Isn't removing the stats a direct contradiction to the definition of an encyclopedia??? Evil Yugi (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

@Evil Yugi That is fundamentally not what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia a collection of information, a summary of notable facts, and an exploration into concepts of a wide variety of subjects. The statistics on this page are no such thing, no notable, not useful, not a summary, just words and numbers that don't mean a thing and appeal not to a casual reader but a subset of hardcore statistic savy people. They're especially unencyclopedic considering that 50,000 bytes of unsourced information and useless statistics is just sat there on the page, that has no encyclopedic value, and is fancruft. Read WP:FANCRUFT if you're interested. Lemonademan22 (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 February 2026 (2)

Change the "List of Royal Rumble dates, venues, and winners" table so that it includes the 2026 Royal Rumble, held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia at Riyadh Season Stadium at King Abdullah Financial District, on January 31st, 2026. The winner of the men's match was Roman Reigns, who entered at #26. The winner of the women's match was Liv Morgan, who entered at #14. LotemM (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Provide a good reference for the result. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The official website has a written overview of the event with all the relevant details - https://www.wwe.com/shows/royalrumble/royal-rumble-2026/results

The Netflix results page - https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/wwe-royal-rumble-2026-date-news-card-matches

And a Forbes article - https://www.forbes.com/sites/blakeoestriecher/2026/01/31/wwe-royal-rumble-2026-results-entrants-and-eliminations-as-roman-reigns-wins/

AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Reference used on the Royal Rumble (2026) page — https://prowrestling.net/site/2026/01/31/wwe-royal-rumble-results-powells-live-review-of-the-royal-rumble-matches-drew-mcintyre-vs-sami-zayn-for-the-wwe-championship-aj-styles-putting-his-career-on-the-line-against-gunther/

To be added on the citation column of the table - https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/wwe-royal-rumble-2026-take-place-saudi-arabia/

YeedyYaada (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 February 2026

Change "while Hulk Hogan, Shawn Michaels, John Cena, Batista, Triple H, Randy Orton, Edge, Brock Lesnar, Cody Rhodes, and Charlotte Flair have all won the match twice," to "while Hulk Hogan, Shawn Michaels, John Cena, Batista, Triple H, Randy Orton, Edge, Brock Lesnar, Cody Rhodes, Charlotte Flair, and Roman Reigns have all won the match twice," (in the lead)

Change "Most recent champions: Jey Uso (men's) Charlotte Flair (women's) (2025)" to "Roman Reigns (men's) Liv Morgan (women's) (2026)" (in the infobox) YeedyYaada (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could describe the changes you are proposing and give a brief rationale for them — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done the first change. The infobox was updated earlier. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 February 2026

Change most recent Royal Rumble winners from Jey Uso & Charlotte Flair (2025) to Roman Reigns & Liv Morgan (2026) so that the correct information is shown. https://www.wwe.com/shows/royalrumble/full-royal-rumble-2026-results ~2026-81255-0 (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC) Fredeme

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 18 March 2026

Ubaidullah2555 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Add

Selected Royal Rumble records Men’s Royal Rumble Most Royal Rumble wins:

Stone Cold Steve Austin – 3 wins (1997, 1998, 2001)

Longest time spent in a Royal Rumble match:↵

Daniel Bryan – 1:16:05 (Greatest Royal Rumble)

Longest time spent in a standard 30-man Royal Rumble match:↵

Gunther – 1:11:40 (2023)

Longest cumulative time in Royal Rumble matches:↵

Chris Jericho – 4:59:33

Rey Mysterio – 4:39:17

Randy Orton – 4:34:09

Most eliminations in a Royal Rumble match:↵

Braun Strowman – 13 eliminations (Greatest Royal Rumble)

Brock Lesnar – 13 eliminations (2020)

Total eliminations:↵

Kane – 46 eliminations

The Undertaker – 40 eliminations

Shawn Michaels – 39 eliminations

Most Royal Rumble appearances:↵

Kane – 20 appearances

Kofi Kingston – 16 appearances

The Miz – 16 appearances

Highest number of wrestlers involved in eliminating one competitor:↵

Viscera – 9 wrestlers (2007)

Women’s Royal Rumble Most Royal Rumble wins:↵

Charlotte Flair – 2 wins (2020, 2025)

Longest time spent in a Women’s Royal Rumble match:↵

Roxanne Perez – 1:07:47 (2025)

Longest cumulative time in Women’s Royal Rumble matches:↵

Bianca Belair – 3:54:45

Bayley – 3:05:50

Naomi – 3:05:38

Most eliminations in a Women’s Royal Rumble match:↵

Nia Jax – 9 eliminations (2025)

Total eliminations:↵

Nia Jax – 29 eliminations

Rhea Ripley – 20 eliminations

Charlotte Flair – 19 eliminations

Most Royal Rumble appearances:↵

Liv Morgan – 8 appearances

Natalya – 8 appearances

Naomi – 7 appearances

Highest number of wrestlers involved in eliminating one competitor:↵

Nia Jax – 11 wrestlers (2023)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Left guide (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

TheAY1986 (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)