Talk:Strikeforce (mixed martial arts)

List of Strikeforce events

I merged List of Strikeforce events here because the list was so small that there was no compelling need for a separate article. It can be factored out later if it gets too big. -SpuriousQ (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AlJ1dYXEwz3yDMFnbsDQdds9Eo14?slug=mmajunkie-Baroni_likely_for_Strikeforce_Seattle&prov=mmajunkie&type=lgns

This link has the proof that the may strikeforce event will be in seattle —Preceding unsigned comment added by N00dle17 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Created article Strikeforce in Seattle. Please help continue to update as more details are released about this card.Mmafan420 (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please reverse the order of the events listing? All the other major MMA event lists go from newest at the top to oldest at the bottom. 96.49.86.52 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't see why, both works equally well. You can sort it manually by clicking the "boxes" in the headers. --aktsu ^(t / c) 01:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please add an article for the event confirmed by scott coker for december 19th? rumored bouts include lindland vs jacare souza, muhammed lawal vs tba, robbie lawler vs tba (hopefully melvin manhoef), and scott smith vs tba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogofdeath (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason to list the Strikeforce ShoMMA events in a different section from the regular Strikeforce events. For example, on the UFC events list, the Ultimate Fight Nights are not separate. Udar55 (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

strikeforce on nbc

added note with source about strikeforce on nbc Bhcompy (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag on Cung Le

Do not put a Communist Vietnamese () flag next to Cung Le's name. According to MOS:ICONS, these flags next to people's name is to show their sporting nationality, and Le has never represented Socialist Republic of Vietnam as a sportsman. He has however fought with the South Vietnamese (Republic of Vietnam) flag, but that country does not exist anymore. And there's no easier way to piss off a S. Vietnamese refugee like Le than to associate them with the Communist Vietnamese banner. Cung Le is however an American citizen and has been credited as representing America in his fights before[1], and as such, the American flag is most appropriate. hateless 07:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC) I believe it would be pretty inappropriate to put the USA flag under Cung Li's name, if you have something communist Vietnam that's your personal problem, but they should at least put a Vietnamese flag. You know people outside USA tend to actually respect their roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.145.59 (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Re-creation of events page and creation of a champions page

I really think we should do this now that Strikeforce is turning into a major organization. I am requesting help in revamping the Strikeforce page and the creation of these requested pages, being that more people are going to start paying attention to the organization (due to their TV deals with Showtime, CBS and their purchasing of EliteXC's remaining assets). Eightbitlegend (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll try to help out where I can. Just let me know if you need help with anything specific. --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I will also help out as much as possible. Strikeforce related articles are what I plan on editing, creating, and following the most. Please keep me in the loop on Strikeforce related articles. Thanks! Mmafan420 (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues

In hindsight it would probably have been better to centralize discussion here, but I've posted about my issue with the "First female MMA championship bout"-section at WT:MMA and about my problem with the lead at WP:NPOV/N. --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Infringing material has removed, with the article restored to the last identifiably clean version in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations, and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting restructuring of the history section

While I think that all of the information in the history section is worth while information, I think it should all be under the heading "History" without the tedious subdivisions. I suggest two sections: (1) Origins and History: [Origins and kickboxing, emergence as mma org, popularity in California (profit and great live audience numbers) and the Showtime deal, ShoMMA, and acquiring of EliteXC assets] and (2) Beginning of mainstream emergence: (first major female champ, alliance with Dream + M-1 Global, and planned fights outside of Cali) this section is the stuff that is happening right now.Eightbitlegend (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, but I don't like the "mainstream emergence"-heading at all. What happened to the UFC with/after TUF is "mainstream emergence", while Strikeforce growing isn't something that fits under that at all. Call it what it is; expansion. --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources from the mainstream emergence is proof that the section should not be tampered with. Strikeforce is making global strides, not just in mainstream America.Sea888 (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any sources which use (or support) that exact wording? There is for the UFC, and if there isn't for Strikeforce it should be renamed. Making "global strides" is one thing, but "mainstream emergence" is something entirely different IMO. --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You got to be kidding me.Sea888 (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No? We don't decide what something should be described as, it -- as with everything on Wikipedia -- should be supported by sources. If no reliable sources has called it "mainstream emergence", neither should we. --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there is, there are plenty of sources that say so. Your lack of and unwillingness to search for it says something else.Sea888 (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I googled "strikefore mainstream emergence" and found nothing except mentions of MMA being mainstream and the emergence of Fedor. I might just suck at searching however, so feel free to educate me about these sources you mentioned. --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Strikeforce and Mainstream Emergence is wishful thinking at best and a joke at worse. The UFC which has far more US and global presence still hasn't achieved mainstream status and are still in their "mainstream emergence". Any emerging success that Strikeforce is experiencing is due to the bungee effect from the UFC. Showtime/CBS wants a piece of the UFC pie and is shoring Strikeforce up to fill that role. Will they get there someday? Perhaps, but that day is not today. We are all fans of the sport here and it may be difficult to look past our own biases, but we have to do that in order to provide quality encyclopedia articles. And taking an unbiased look at Strikeforce realy reveals that it isn't mainstream. It isn't even a close #2 to the UFC. And taking a good look at the UFC shows that even with their size and marketability, they too are not yet mainstream. When we still have newspapers likening the sport to human dogfighting that is a serious indication that the sport as a whole isn't mainstream. The UFC is pushing hard to get there, and is the closest to breaking through, but Strikeforce just isn't in the same league yet. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that mainstream emergence, is over egging it a bit for an organisation the size of Strikeforce, in Europe Pride and Dream would struggle to claim that. --Nate^t/_c 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Based on DREAM ratings I would say that in Japan they would have trouble claiming that as well. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I wont argue with you guys. I agree, but that was the wording already existing and I was more or less using is as an example of a "happening now" header. 68.51.205.117 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Eightbitlegend (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• MMA is questionably still emerging into the mainstream, so is Strikeforce. The CBS television deal is a clear indication of the "emergence" and there are sources out there that have expressed this, the section is needed here.Sea888 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• And yet you aren't bringing any of these sources forward to support your claim. And you can't cite a non-mainstream news source to support a claim of mainstream emergence... so that leaves out all dedicated MMA sites. Please enlighten us. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• A television deal is just that, a television deal. And Strikeforce hasn't even had a show on CBS yet, or even has one scheduled. It's obvious you chose this heading because it's used in UFC's article, but there's nothing about Strikeforce (or EliteXC for that matter) than justifies that description. What happened with MMA after Zuffa acquired the UFC is "mainstream emergence", Strikeforce now having shows outside California and possibly on CBS in the future isn't even remotely comparable. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• I would also like to point out google trends for certain items. HERE you can see NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, and UFC all compared to one another. UFC is roughly equal to MLB and NHL, half of NBA, and a third of NFL. Then look HERE which is comparing UFC and Strikeforce. Strikeforce is literally just a blip compared to the UFC. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Woah, that's quite the spike generated from UFC 100. I must say I'm surprised the UFC on level with MLB on both news references and search volume. I guess baseball really is in a decline... That Strikeforce just barely beat the UFC in news references with Carano vs. Cyborg (on a day nothing notable happened in the UFC) seems pretty telling IMO. Interesting stuff this, never really looked at it before. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to bash, you guys are hillarious, first making up new rules as to what should or shouldn't be used as sources, then ignoring your own logic as to what a network tv deal is. CBS is mainstream in itself. The Strikeforce affiliation with showtime/nbc/cbs constitutes at the very least "mainstream emergence". I have a feeling that your bias will lead to more obstacles towards expanding this article, yet here is a credible "mainstream news source" that mentions mma on network television as "clinching mainstream", better yet in my own words "mainstream emergence". It goes as far as mentioning the Strikeforce program on NBC. http://news.bostonherald.com/sports/other_sports/ultimate_fighting/view.bg?articleid=1097345&srvc=next_article.Sea888 (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I did notice in the article that they never once mentioned Strikeforce or EliteXC, instead referring to the sport as a whole as MMA. You and I know the NBC deal was obviously Strikeforce and the CBS deal was EliteXC, but EliteXC failed miserably and crumbled after 3 CBS shows. And the Strikeforce NBC deal was a infomercial spot. Strikeforce was paying NBC for a block of time. In the wee hours like the article states. Neither of these truly point to Strikeforce's mainstream emergence. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Funny to see the guy who edit warred to have the lead say "Strikeforce is a world class promotion" talk about people being biased. :) MMA is mainstream, Strikeforce is not. Strikeforce having a late-night show on NBC is an argument to help show MMA is mainstream, but it does not show Strikeforce as a promotion is. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement on infomercial, do you have a source? especially one from a non mma website? Strikeforce already has a t.v. deal with a major network NBC, Aktsu, I am not arguing to what is mainstream or not, it is what constitutes emergence and Strikeforce on NBC would qualify as mainstream emergence regardless if it were prime time or not. Strikeforce and mma are interchangeable.Sea888 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Something from the Houston Chronicle perhaps? --Drr-darkomen (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is a blog and opinion based through a credible source, sure, but my source was credible and wasn't a blog at all to the least it wasn't even an editorial.Sea888 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• And I disagree. "Mainstream emergence" does in my opinion imply something more than what we're talking about here, and that's why it shouldn't be used. Getting just one more viewer for something could also be considered "mainstream emergence" but that does not mean it should be used. It's misleading. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Look another source for paid programming. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not that it matters, but [MMAJunkie.com as well. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Does it say something other than "MMA in clinch with mainstream" (emph. mine) for you? --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• The source you provided states that MMA is "in the clinch" with mainstream pop culture. Not Strikeforce. MMA. See my newest link above for yet another source for the Strikeforce infomercial. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it mentions Strikeforce on NBC. It doesn't matter whether it's paid programming or not, otherwise the source I've provided would'nt have mentioned it. The source is valid and the header stays.Sea888 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think I commented on that a few comments up. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• YOU could be on NBC with the same exact deal they had as long as you could pony up the cash. That doesn't make you mainstream emergent either. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The section stays, you guys should try and expand the article.Sea888 (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, so that's that then? Please... --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Really, you don't like the way the evidence is going so you are just done. Put your foot down and whatnot? --Drr-darkomen (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• They still have to regard what you're putting on TV as acceptable though. That's why the deal was a somewhat big deal since they didn't simply disregard MMA as cockfighting etc. Doesn't mean there's any notable emergence here, just that NBC is willing to let MMA-companies pay them. Also, there's probably a joke here, somewhere, but I'm not going to explain it. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, but there's a world of difference between Strikeforce paying NBC for a timeslot in the early morning and CBS paying EliteXC to be on in primetime. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• And if I remember correct they didn't, did they? I seem to remember EliteXC having to pay for the timeslot and attempting to sell commercials for it, but a quick search didn't verify it. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I can't be sure. I know Showtime/CBS floated them a substantial loan in order to put on their last show. I'm a little more fuzzy on the exact details of that particular relationship. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if the thing wasn't that EliteXC was making so little from the deal (under $1 mill. per show it seems) that they were basically paying to stay on TV. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) Wow, this conversation has certainly exploded during the course of the day. I'd personally consider myself pretty neutral in my interest and opinions about Strikeforce. I would agree with the comments by several people above that the section titled "Mainstream Emergence" is not the best to choose. I think a title focusing on the expansion of the promotion would be better ("Promotional expansion"?). The section discusses holding events outside California, televising events on CBS, and getting additional sponsors. All of which is an expansion of the promotion, and why I believe a title along those lines would be better. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing the comments just now, the comment that started this discussion may be a good idea. A history section without subsections. At least until the history becomes longer and is really in need of them. I don't see anyone in this section arguing against taking out the sub-headings --TreyGeek (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd say keep it the way it is now because it is structured to point out the important events. The sections are getting more contributions by the day. There are many sources that would support the mainstream emergence section and subsequently the other headers. Why go back and change it when there's more contributions?Sea888 (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, geez, what does Gina being featured in Maxim have to do with Strikeforce's notability as a promotion? Is this the sort of important events you're talking about? Looking at separate events and drawing your own conclusions of what those means are original research. You haven't presented any reliable sources which even remotely validate a claim that Strikeforce is even close to being mainstream, but you seem to think that because of this and this, and because this happened and they did this and they have this person signed -- clearly they are. Everyone besides you who have commented -- myself, Drr-darkomen, TreyGeek, Nate1481 and Eightbitlegend -- have agreed "mainstream emergence" is not a good description, so please recognize there is a consensus against it. None of us have removed it in the hope that you would see the problem here, but you refuse to do so. I don't want this to be an edit war which results in you being blocked, but it's looking more and more like that's what's going to happen. Now, I noticed you've spammed a bunch of people to chime in and I'll wait as see what they have to say, but please recognize that your arguments might not be making the impact you're hoping and that the consensus is currently for changing it. --aktsu ^(t / c) 01:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the title of the section "Mainstream emergence", perhaps a title change is in order for this section. Although I would disagree with Aktsu's use of notability as an argument, this brings up[[6]] issues, and I don't think that that's can of worms we need to open at all especially with MMA articles. However, the question of what is "mainstream" is very subjective. I would argue that the UFC isn't even mainstream at this point in time, as much a fan of MMA as I am, but my idea of mainstream is a little different from another person's which is why it's probably not efficient to have a heading that is so open to individual interpretation. I would have to agree with a re-name, to offer a few suggestions perhaps "Breakout year", or "Increasing notoriety" because such terms only base their estimation on the prior history of the promotion itself and thus cannot be refuted. Even naming it "Mainstream notoriety" would be accurate suggest such a compromise suggests that they are getting notice in mainstream publications, which is accurate. The term "emergence" insinuates that they've arrived, that their work is done as far as the public spotlight, and like I said before, the UFC isn't even there yet, so how can Strikeforce be? I do have to disagree with the person who said that the UFC is the equal of the NBA, MLB, etc. Not even close. Not by a longshot. Notice who the ppl are who edit the NBA, and MLB articles, there's a legion of them. Comparatively few of us. MMA isn't on that level yet as much as we'd like to think. That's no shame bc alot of sports that are popular aren't mainstream. There's a difference. When arguing about such a subjective variable, the encyclopaedic content then comes up to debate and becomes not fact, but opinion. A minor re-write is all that is warranted; find a compromise. Unak78 (talk) 08:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The notability thing was more about Sea888 adding mentions of Gina in Maxim to the article as "evidence" Strikeforce is mainstream. That has nothing to do with Strikeforce at all and should be removed. Does an organization's fighters being famous help them, sure -- does it "verify" them as just as mainstream, no. Levels of notability is definitely an argument because it's comparable to status in the mainstream; the more notable, the bigger chance you're part of mainstream culture. Strikeforce not being on that level doesn't mean they're not notable enough for an article, they clearly are. Also, no one said the UFC is equal to the NHL, MLB etc. but Drr-darkomen just pointed out the converage the UFC is getting is actually comparable to those organizations -- and it actually surpasses the news references MLB is getting. Doesn't mean the UFC is bigger than MLB, but it does tell your something about the UFC's status. --aktsu ^(t / c) 10:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just like to point out that I too said that UFC isn't mainstream either and to claim that for Strikeforce when the largest and most well known MMA organization isn't is a farce. And as Aktsu pointed out for me, the data I presented is google trends comparing those major sports organizations, which tracks hits, searches, click throughs, and online media coverage for those terms. And indeed UFC is roughly equal to MLB and NHL on those terms. Obviously not from an economic or viewership basis. I am not delusional about the status of this sport I love. It seems like Sea888 is such a hardcore fan (and there's nothing wrong with that, I too digest every bit of MMA that I can) that he/she cannot keep a neutral point of view. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mainstream noteriety" sounds like a good compromise. I don't understand why Aktsu and all the editors he called upon is ignoring all the sources available that supports this header, and a comment on not using mma websites as a source is absurd. There isn't a need for a consensus here because sources are out there, just search. here are just a few:

http://mmajunkie.com/news/3053/buentello-and-overeem-to-battle-for-strikeforce-heavyweight-title.mma

http://www.mma-zone.com/2007/strikeforce-heads-to-playboy-mansion/

http://www.mmaunltd.com/news-detail.asp/NewsID/443/baszler-talks-kaufman-bout.htm

http://www.mmahq.com/2008/03/27/strikeforce-nbc-deal-official/

http://news.bostonherald.com/sports/other_sports/ultimate_fighting/view.bg?articleid=1097345&srvc=next_article

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/21922882/strikeforce-s-big-move.htm

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/mma/post/2009/08/m-1strikeforce-deal-for-fedor-changes-competitive-balance/1 Sea888 (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

1. "leap toward mainstream status", getting one more viewer is also a leap towards it.
2. Press release by Strikeforce, thus no good.
3. Referring to female MMA..
4. "another step for MMA creeping into the mainstream world".
5. "MMA in clinch with mainstream"
6. "Imagine what will happen once Fedor is exposed to the mainstream", being able to expose someone to the mainstream does noe mean your are mainstream. Does not mention Strikeforce as mainstream at all. EliteXC managed to push Kimbo further into the mainstream -- does that mean EXC is mainstream?

• As I said, your sources doesn't clearly support the header at all -- as shown by people disagreeing with you. There's a level of interpretation here and no automation that "oh, this source sort of hints at Strikeforce getting more mainstream -- a header called "mainstream emergence" is clearly completely appropriate no matter how many people disagree with it because my interpretation of the sum of all these articles is clearly the truth no matter what". A section solely based on Strikeforce's status as a promotion seems totally unnecessary to me as that is something that should be evident from reading the history section anyway. A section called "Mainstream notoriety" (or just something like "Current status") is no good per that, and I also don't agree with a section called something along the lines of "Increased mainstream notoriety" when we can instead use headings which actually accurately describes what is going on instead of having some POV and unsourced/original research wording of what the end result of those developments are supposed to be/what they actually mean for the promotion. --aktsu ^(t / c) 10:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to point out that 1-4 are all online sources dedicated to MMA. These sources can hardly be considered reliable in the context of what is mainstream. Those sources aren't mainstream. #5 is highly subjective as to its meaning and #6 is a "what if" situation. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

By that logic most of the articles in the MMA section need rewriting. I would only agree with you if what you are proposing is setting a standard across-the-board for the structure of MMA re-writes and new articles that are being built-up. Heck we're not even only talking about MMA articles. Such generality in subheading is not usually excercised in these articles, unless I'm wrong. Main headings are more generalized but sub-headings usually deal with a more pointed topic of information. It's the only purpose that they serve. Showing that the promotion is gaining a higher profile is notable within the context of what Strikeforce is that's not subjective. More people know what Strikeforce is this year than did last year. The degree to which that is is debatable, but not the very fact. I'd still own that there is a middle ground that can be found here.Unak78 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How about a simple subheading of "Expansion"? That's exactly what the section discusses: expansion of events outside California, expansion of televised events to Showtime and CBS, and expansion in who sponsors the promotion. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I like "Expansion" for a heading. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, but perhaps "2008–2009 expansion" to disambiguate? --aktsu ^(t / c) 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Even better. Less ambiguous. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Sea888 because the article he provide here [7] specifically says -The California-based Strikeforce organization, which took a good-sized leap toward mainstream status with last month's show at the Playboy Mansion, will crown its first-ever heavyweight champion during next month's Nov. 16 show- How can anyone come up with a census overlooking this? It doesn't matter how you interperate the statement, the article published it and stands by it. We in no way can change this. I find the rebuttle Aktsu made on this source laughable. "Mainstream emergence" is suitable IMHO.Chiefwi66ums (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• 1) MMAJunkie, while reliable for things MMA related, is not in itself a mainstream source, therefore has no credibility when referring to the mainstream. 2) "good-sized leap toward" is different than "a gigantic leap directly in to". The difference is clear. I can move toward the top of mount everest without actually getting to the top. When ESPN, Fox sports, NBC, the new york times, etc start calling stikeforce "IN the mainstream" then we have a good mainstream source calling the promotion mainstream. Until then it is simply fanboyism. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• First, hi and welcome to Wikipedia. May I ask how you found your way here on your second edit? Anyway, to follow up on what Drr-darkomen said, another issue when one can count the references to Strikeforce being close to mainstream on one hand, chances are that it is probably a very minority view and it should thus be reflected that way in the article to avoid giving that view undue weight. Just another thing to keep in mind. --aktsu ^(t / c) 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell....

is there a pic of an Elite XC fight on an article about Strikeforce? SChaos1701 (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I can only speculate. All of them have been removed as a breach of our non-free-content criteria though. --aktsu ^(t / c) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

NOTABLE FIGHTERS

I strongly believe my contribution of Brett Rogers and Fedor Emelianenko should be reverted as they are confirmed on the strikeforce website and the strikefocre: fedor vs rogers wikipage. (Punisher88 (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

• The consensus at WT:MMA was that fighters who have headlined an event are notable. Neither on has yet headlined an event. Injury, sickness, untimely death could all prevent one of them from headlining in the future so it is just best to wait. The list of notable fighters should be updated only after they do something notable in the promotion. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• The fact Fedor signed with the promotion should be as much notability needed seeming he was the biggest free agent. The match is confirmed at http://www.tsn.ca/mma/story/?id=288937 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punisher88 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• We're talking about notability in relation to the Promotion. Fedor is a notable fighter in PRIDE. Fedor is a notable fighter in Affliction. Fedor has not done anything yet to be a notable fighter in Strikeforce. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fedors signing is huge news for the promotion to diminish his signing as not notable would be stupid, also Rogers should be listed as he knocked out Arlovski at strikeforce: lawler vs shields I find it very disrespectful not to mention Fedor as he is now seen as the main draw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punisher88 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• You're kinda taking this personally aren't you? Wait a couple months and they will be on there per the criteria. It's not life or death or anything. :) --Drr-darkomen (talk) 04:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

8 taking it personal, why are you assuming?, thats a personal offense to assume things of other users. I think my points are valid and should be left up unless, a vote is put forward or a stronger reason is put foward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punisher88 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• It just seems like you are. You're fighting so hard for inclusion that either you're taking it personally or you think that the consensus that was reached was horribly misguided. If you're not taking it personally, fine. If you want to go to WT:MMA#List_of_.22notable_fighters.22_at_Strikeforce and propose a new guideline be my guest. The community will discuss it. The fact of the matter is that we try to find ways to make maintaining the MMA articles easier. And coming up with a strict guideline makes it easier. The guideline we came up with is "Any strikeforce champion, strikeforce ex-champion, or fighter who has headlined a major srikeforce event (i.e. not challenger series / young guns shows)". One you start in with the "well what about this guy and what about this guy" there are so many exclusions to the rule that the rule no longer holds value. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Notable Fighters revisited

In the last month or so Batista's name keeps getting added and removed from the list of notable fighters. I think part of the problem is the list of notable fighters for this article has different requirements than other MMA promotion articles. The article currently has the requirements of:

The following fighters have either headlined an event in Strikeforce's main event-series (Including Young Guns and ShoMMA), held a Strikeforce World Championship or are newly signed to the organization.

The problem as I see it is the last clause, "or are newly signed to the organization." Other promotion articles that list notable fighters (UFC and PRIDE) only list fighters who have won a championship, a tournament, or have headlined an event for that organization. The extra clause for the Strikeforce list allows any newly signed, un-notable Joe Shmoe to be listed. If someone truely notable is newly signed to the promotion (eg Batista, Fedor, Henderson) then it is likely they will be headlining an event quickly and will get on the list of notable fighters quickly.

I propose bringing the notable fighter's list, for this article, more in line with other articles. The list of fighters (and the clause at the start of the list) should, IMO, read:

The following fighters have either headlined a Strikeforce event, held a Strikeforce Championship, or won a Strikeforce sanctioned tournament.

This would also bring the list more in line with the general consensus of a previous discussion([8]) at the MMA WikiProject.

Comments? Concerns? Other suggestions? --TreyGeek (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If no one has any arguments against the change I may modify this section in the next couple of days. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

How "newly signed" is on there, I'll never know. I'll completely FOR removal of this clause. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've edited the list and put a 'reasoning' for each person who is still on it. I was a little loose in a few places, particularly listing co-main event competitors for ShoMMA events. I'm not sure how significant it is being the second-to-last fight at those events, but I kept those folks anyways. (If someone removes them from the list I won't be heart-broken over it.) Also to note, I only edited the people currently on the list. I did not go searching through all of Strikeforce's events and find people who aren't already there. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Strikeforce (mixed martial arts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090206164857/http://www.mmaweekly.com:80/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=8127&zoneid=13 to http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=8127&zoneid=13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090316210556/http://www.mmaweekly.com:80/blog/2009/03/strikeforce-ceo-outlines-rough-events.asp to http://www.mmaweekly.com/blog/2009/03/strikeforce-ceo-outlines-rough-events.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Strikeforce (mixed martial arts). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091113022507/http://mmajunkie.com:80/news/16803/strikeforces-fedor-emelianenko-vs-brett-rogers-event-peaks-with-5-46-million-viewers.mma to http://mmajunkie.com/news/16803/strikeforces-fedor-emelianenko-vs-brett-rogers-event-peaks-with-5-46-million-viewers.mma

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)