Talk:King of the Ring (1993)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleKing of the Ring (1993) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 1, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 10, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hulk Hogan lost the WWF Championship at King of the Ring 1993 after a ringside photographer's camera exploded in Hogan's face?


Explode[edit]

Now this may be me being naive. But when it says "the camera exploded in his face" was it like "KABOOM" or did it just flash? If it just flashed, I'd change explode to flash. Explode seems to overexaggerate and bias things a bit. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It exploded, as in a burst of flames shot out of the camera. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought, just wanted to be sure. The sources I checked didn't show what type of exploded. Thanks for the clarification. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally just your standard flash. No flames, no explosion.Gabenowicki (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Then the DYK hook has to be changed, as we don't need false info. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not. The camera exploded. Please check the sources. One says it shot a ball of flames into Hogan's face, and the other says that the camera "explodes". I also watched the event as I wrote the article, so I am confident that it is accurate. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not one to advocate copyright infringement, but if one wanted to verify this information by watching the match on a popular video hosting site, a search for "KOR '93 Hulk Hogan vs Yokozuna part 2 of 2" might prove useful (particularly around the 6:05 mark and the replay at 8:05). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my story. I saw the hook on the main page and thought, "damn I gotta see this exploding camera!" Imagine my disappointment when I looked it up on that hosting site and saw (confirmed) that it was a common flash. The 'flames' you're seeing is what happens when a flash gets taped. But I don't give a shit about wrestling and it's off the main page already so have it your way. I won't be back so it doesn't matter. A flash is a flash. I will assume good faith rather than suggesting you pull your head out of your ass.97.86.255.52 (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)this was me btwGabenowicki (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:King of the Ring (1993)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm comparing this to the The Great American Bash (2005) FA for reference as it was recently promoted. I can't provide a layman's point of view as my knowledge of wrestling was very acute in recent years past. However, I will look to ensure that everything is clear when taking a broad audience into consideration. Also, I apologise if this is a bit "peer review"-ish, I'm going to throw in any recommendations I have to ensure the article is clearly above GA. And off we go then:

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    A couple of awkward sentence constructions to iron out. Some in-universe style to discuss. Good mix up of verb usage when describing matches.
    B. MoS compliance:
    General MoS fine. Minor picture alignment and lead issues.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    I'm letting a variety of sources stand as reliable as the quality of the sources tend to be high and the details accurate.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    All fine except for one issue
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    As stable as they come!
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Poster non-free usage as standard
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Kudos to Garycolemanfan for the pictures. Photos not of exceptional quality but are most helpful as illustrations etc.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The following improvements need to be made to fully meet all criteria:


  • Lead
    • Some lead information is not in the body which shouldn't really occur.  Done
    • I'd mix two sentences in the first paragraph a bit to prevent repetition:"King of the Ring (1993) was a professional wrestling pay-per-view event produced by the World Wrestling Federation (WWF)." and "The WWF had held several King of the Ring tournaments in previous years but this edition signified its development into an annual pay-per-view event."  Done
    • I can see the main problem is the second paragraph which makes the article seem like it's about the King of the Ring tournament. It's not. It's about the King of the Ring pay per view and the televised first round only serves as background info. First sentence is fine but mention it was the central focus "and main event". Condense the rest to the ideas of a previous televised first round and the broadcast of the second, third and final rounds.  Done
    • Merge second and third paragraph info to form a "plot" paragraph.  Done
    • "the event also featured"  Done
    • Not enough is made of the fact that this was Hulk Hogan's final WWF PPV appearance until 2002. Mention this in the lead.  Done
    • I'd like to see a new third paragraph based on information from the "Reception" section. Main points to sum up: Mainly positive reviews. 6500 fans = record low. Had 1.1 buy rate = highest till 1999. Released on VHS in N America/UK.  Done
  • Background
    • I'd be tempted to copy/expand this from the American Bash as a brief intro:
"The King of the Ring event featured a card, which contained matches that involved different wrestlers from pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines. Wrestlers portrayed either a villainous or fan favorite gimmick as they followed a series of events which generally built tension, leading to a wrestling match."  Done
    • Follow this with a brief summary of how the 1993 King of the Ring tournament was conducted, noting the televised/PPV divide. Any sources to cite this would be a bonus.  Done
    • Restructure: After the summary detail the outline of the TV qualifiers, then the Hogan backstory, then Michaels and the tag match.  Done
    • I would remove "controversial" from Hart's loss. It wasn't the first nor last time a face had been "cheated" out of victory.
    • It needs to be made clear that Jack Tunney was not the real life "WWF President".  Done
    • I'd rephrase this:"Because the match was not a standard tag team match, the championship was not on the line, however."
To this: "However, the match was not a standard tag team match thus the championship was not on the line".
    • Wikilink "pin" on its first occasion.  Done
  • Event
    • Is there an appropriate link for "signature move"?  Done
    • The mention of Hughes' use of a stolen urn from the Undertaker seems awkward as this event (nor the Undertaker) is mentioned elsewhere. Maybe you could say he hit him with a "foreign object" for the sake of clarity and simplicity?
    • "followed it up by pushing him from the edge of the ring" I think off the edge of the ring would more accurately explain this.  Done
    • Perhaps describe the Hart/Perfect match as a "semi-final"  Done
    • "Bigelow's on-screen girlfriend" maybe saying "valet" instead could provide an interesting link. However, if she wasn't classed as his valet just ignore me.  Done
  • Aftermath
    • Clearly state and cite that this was Hogan's last PPV for WWF, at the moment this isn't entirely obvious. I imagine sources shouldn't be too difficult to find for that piece of information.
    • I think the details of Lawler's and Hart's feud are going in to a little too much depth here. Could this be reduced.
    • It isn't clear if the charges of rape and sodomy are storyline or real events. I for one know which one it is but edgier modern day storylines sometimes cover this kind of material, creating a bit of ambiguity.  Done
    • Right-align the Hakushi picture as it shouldn't be popping out the "Reception" title.  Done
  • Results
    • I would perhaps say that the dark match length is unknown rather than n/a.  Done
    • Provide a quick key for TV, PPV, and winner in bold in the tournament brackets section.
    • Bold and link Bret Hart in the first "bye" section.  Done
    • The "1" note against bye is inactive.  Done
  • Extras
    • Sourcing is fine – though is there a better source for Hogan's decision not to lose to Bret Hart? I'll take your word on TV referencing but to be honest I can't imagine a better way to reference some of that earlier "qualifiers" material.
    • Add List of WWE pay-per-view events to a "See also" section  Done
    • Is there no official external website link for this PPV?

If you resolve all these issues then I'll promote the article to GA. It's a good solid article as it stands now but the lead and the structure of the background section especially are currently lacking in places. Excellent work in avoiding bias and events are generally clear despite Pro-Wrestling's exhaustive "insider" jargon. As a bonus, I'll give the article a quick copyedit once you're done. Article now on hold. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have started addressing these points. I am placing  Done checks next to the the concerns that I have attempted to address, although I am not stating that they are fully resolved. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the majority of your concerns. A few that I wanted to discuss:
  1. The sentence to include from the Great American Bash (The King of the Ring event featured a card): I tried to work this in while sounding more natural. I didn't want to say the event featured a card, because that's not how the term is generally used. The event was a card. I did include the part about feuds and storylines, but I thought saying "plots and storylines" was redundant (I also linked "storyline" to "narrative" because I don't like wikilinking to disambiguation pages). I'm not sure if what I've done works, but I think it's at least a step toward what you were looking for. I would appreciate feedback on this one.
  2. I moved the back about the Hogan backstory, but I'm not sure if it's a little awkward now, as I have Hart's entry in the tournament separated from the rest of the entries. I had placed the part about Hogan first because it explained why Hart was in the tournament, so I'm not sure if this still need more work.
  3. The reason Hart was entered in the tournament was because the nature of his loss was controversial, so I thought keeping the word "controversial" in was important.
  4. I took out some detail about the Hart-Lawler feud, but I'm not sure if this is enough.
  5. I'm not sure what you mean by a "quick key" for TV, PPV, etc. in the tournament brackets. They are all labeled in the key above the brackets, but I'm not sure if you want more.
  6. WWE no longer holds King of the Ring tournaments, so they don't have a section for them on their website. Unfortunately, there is no official site.
  7. Regarding Hogan's decision not to lose to Hart, I have added a second source for the refusal, although it does not cover Hogan's decision to not lose cleanly. Regarding the first source, User:Ealdgyth has placed WrestleView on her listed of reliable sources for wrestling FAs, but please let me know if you think it is sufficiently sourced now. Update: I also added the source from The Sun, as it also mentions Hogan not wanting to lose to Hart.
  8. I'm having a hard time deciding how necessary the mention of Hughes hitting Perfect with the urn is. I agree that it is a little awkward, but that is the part of the event that I always remembered most clearly.
It would be great if you could provide feedback on these issues. I'm not opposed to making more changes, but I would appreciate some clarification as to whether or not I'm on the right track with some of these. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I pretty much fully agree with all your approaches to these issues. I think the Bret Hart qualification information is also part of the background to the main event so I can't think of a better way of approaching it. As background info it seems absolutely fine to me. I'll agree with that use of "controversial" too. Lawler info seems extensive but not excessive; it's fine as is but be prepared to strip down further if you take it to FA. Update Thanks for adding "the Sun" source, the quality citation is much appreciated.
One thing I will say is you should show the abbreviation of pay-per-view (PPV) in the lead and use that throughout. Thought it might seem a little easier written that way. I think your solutions to the issues I raised have been done with very well. The placement of the Undertaker's urn is still a little odd but it's only a minor issue so I'll let it pass.
For further improvement of this article I would recommend finding appropriate material from issues of Pro Wrestling Illustrated. I also know that the British magazine Power Slam offers extensive back issues and various PPV review supplements which are sure to help. The latter source I must say will help you very much as it unusual in its serious, critical approach to professional wrestling. It all depends how keen you are on the Wikipedia PW project as I'm sure that just one issue or supplement will help improve various articles.
I'll do a quick copyedit in a moment but otherwise I'm satisfied and will pass the article for GA. Good work on the improvements and, most of all, thanks for questioning and rationalising the issues and my suggestions! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Passed GA review. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you found this GA review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where I found this article, or take a look at WP:GAN.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on King of the Ring (1993). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King of the Ring (1993). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated source[edit]

The deprecated source (that is, a source that is generally prohibited and where the WP:BURDEN is very strong indeed) would only be usable, in the words of the RFC (which was claimed in the edit adding it back):

I also note that many have noted that any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute.

The cited piece is not "sports score-lines et al"- it's an opinion piece written by a pseudonym of unknown expertise, and seems to fail all excuses to use a deprecated source (permissible SPS, ABOUTSELF, etc).

As such, I think claiming this is a usable source really needs to go to RSN. 'Cos if that's the only source, the claim is not sourced to an RS, and I'm challenging it on that basis - David Gerard (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:King_of_the_Ring_(1993)&oldid=1207983141"