Talk:Dream 1

Structure of results

Marty Rockatansky please stop undoing my edits for the DREAM results, the way I have edited it is the same as the UFC results are displayed as it looks more organized. The UFC's event pages are much better organized than the K-1 events, not to mention that K-1 and DREAM (while they are under the same banner) are technically not the same sports therefore they do not need to follow the same structures. It is better for things to be uniformly set out, in this case the results of MMA events. Plus, you way doesn't look as good, results of each fight are un-descriptive and often inaccurate or vague such as: winner by tko ref stoppage (ref stopage IS a TKO, it's like writing winner by: submission (tapout)) the results are ALWAYS structured as: winner by TKO (punches, strikes, knees etc..), not just on Wikipedia but other results sites. --SuzukS 21:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the "UFC-style" better, but the "K-1" style is just as good except the "Fight #" at the end makes it look messy.. Maybe you can take this up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and get a consensus about which style we should use? aktsu (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah thanks Aktsu. Suzuks before you make any moves like that you gotta discuss. only problem i have with "UFC style" is that everything is in bold. structure i got was from k-1 official site. by fight #'s. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean before I make moves like that? You actually edited my text first, but I agree with Aktsu in that having the fight #'s on the end makes it look even more messy. I also prefer the UFC style structure because it has less lines than your one, which again makes it look more organized too. --SuzukS 21:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

"the results are ALWAYS structured as: winner by TKO (punches, strikes, knees etc..), not just on Wikipedia but other results sites." - TKO could be either referee, doctor or corner stoppage. punches knees and kicks are methods. funny you say that may way was vague like by left hook, right high kick or spinning elbow... isn't "by strikes" less vague than that??? same goes with submissions, how many different kinds of submissions there is? before you say "un-descriptive and often inaccurate or vague" better know what you talking about.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright I probably wasn't being clear enough on what I meant, I thought that they way your results were described left a bit to be desired, such as: "Filipović defeated Mizuno at 0:56 in the 1 round by ground and pound KO.

"Two problems I got with this one, firstly 'in the one round'"? It doesn't sound so good, secondly, the way you wrote it out isn't really descriptive enough nor the correct method (which would be and is written: TKO (punches) also recorded on his Sherdog profile. Other than those things mentioned, your structure is fine.--SuzukS 21:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If i edit i try to be as accurate as possible and always use primary sources if possible, like specific promotions official site instead of sherdogs. to me "the punches" is less descriptive than "ground and pound", same with "strikes" what kinda strikes... anyway i agree with you on 'in the one round', "in the round 1" sounds way better.

Well you are right, as strikes is fairly un descriptive, therefore I think instead of G&P just writing the type of strikes used by the winner (knees, punches, kick etc..). With sources, promotions are sometimes better but they occasionally tend to have inaccurate information, if we were getting records of fighters from UFC.com we'd be under the impression that most guys have more wins than they actually do. Not the biggest fan of Sherdog, but I gotta say it's easily one of (if not the) most reliable source of information for MMA fight records on the net. --SuzukS 06:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Another thing are the titles of the fights if its listed as "Fight #8: Middle Weight Grand Prix 2008 2nd Round" we should go by that instead of just "Middleweight bout:". Every promotion has their differences and i think we should respect that. for example some dutch promotions that have half the card MMA and the other by stand-up rules.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How does it look now? Maybe the "Bout" at the end is a little redundant but I think it looked strange without it :P aktsu (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, although I kind of don't see the need of having the "Fight #" on each heading since it's kind of obvious (like, as long as you can count up to 10 then you shouldn't have too hard of a time figuring out which bout if first and last etc.) and I thought the results of the fight should be structured as: "Minowa defeats Lee by submission (kneebar) at 1:25 of round 1" as it's just easier to read and looks better. I'll try it out on D.1 and we can decide if that's how it should look. Also, Marty mentioned how the main thing he didn't like about the UFC style structure is how all the names are bolded, so I'll keep that part out.--SuzukS 06:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright I re-edited the structure, trying to keep within what people have agreed looks best. I kept the bold out of the fighters names like Marty said, and kept the fight results descriptive (thing is for this event, all fights were stopped on punches). All good? Any suggestions? Marty, if you still disagree, discuss further before just undoing my edits. I think this structure works perfectly and looks neater. Two lines looks better than three in my opinion. --SuzukS 07:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuzukS (talk • contribs)

Yeah its cool. leave the fight #s out, it look better. only if you add the names right after the fight titles like * Lightweight Grandprix 1st Round Bout: Luiz "Buscape" Firmino def. Kazuyuki Miyata it breaks the name and is still in three lines. i'd go with fight title first, then names and flags and then description. its up to you thou.

Marty Rockatansky (talk) 00:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out DREAM.2. the version i'd pefer. still in three lines but the description is the way Suzuki suggested. the reason i prefer three lines because we have three separate things -1. title of the fight. - 2. name and flag of the winner. - 3. description of the fight. its easier to read and it lines up the names of the winners better than adding them after the title of the fight. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the look, removed the repetitive fight titles. I don't see a point to keep typing the same thing if the following fight has the same title. thoughts?Marty Rockatansky (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well like that it only looks like someone has made a mistake in typing it, that's actually what I thought when I saw the page. I don't mind your structure of DREAM.2, I touched it up a little bit but that looks fine. --SuzukS (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

so you don't think its repetitive in DREAM.2 typing 7 times Middleweight Grand Prix 1st Round instead of once Middleweight Grand Prix 1st Round Bouts:Marty Rockatansky (talk) 00:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no. I mean I know what you're saying but the way you typed it out looks more confusing than anything. I prefer the DREAM.2 structure the most. --SuzukS (talk • contribs) 06:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dream 1. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815220159/http://www.k-1.co.jp/k-1gp/btop.htm to http://www.k-1.co.jp/k-1gp/btop.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)