Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of current mixed martial arts champions/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 20:19, 19 June 2011 [1].

List of current mixed martial arts champions

edit

List of current mixed martial arts champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because a lot of care has been put into it's production and maintenance. It is the centerpiece for a number of lists and article focusing on mixed martial arts and mixed martial arts fighters. It has been organized clearly and categorically, with a consistent format carried throughout the list. It is well cited, and those citations all meet standards of expected Wikipedia citations. A lead in as well as explanatory paragraphs have been crafted to neither be repetitive nor circuitous. It has generally been modeled off of other Wikipedia featured lists and generally meets or exceeds a similar level of quality. As a quick note I noticed that one of the criteria was sortable tables, which I understand but feel might be a bit useless for this page, and thus I haven't done it. It could be very easily remedied if necessary.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm not entirely sure of how this process works, but I clicked on a link to leave comments about this and it brought me here, so this is where I think I'm supposed to leave comments. I'd like to expand on the feeling Thaddeus Venture has for this list. It is a very concise and thorough list which contains a pretty defined "lineage" of title changes throughout multiple (more than 7 or 8) MMA organizations. I feel the list contains neutrality and sticks solely to the facts. It is updated and maintained on atleast a weekly basis (from what I can tell... I have this page watched) and there are always good discussions by participants on the talk page regarding how this list should progress, and what to add/remove from it. In my opinion, it exemplifies what a "featured list" should be. I apologize if my support for this being a featured list is in the wrong area to discuss, and thanks for reading this. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Transcluded at 04:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Why are three subsections the level below the others?
  • Don't use flags without country names per WP:MOSFLAG.
  • Not keen on the table in the lead.
  • Don't use acronyms before the expanded use (MFC for instance).
  • No images?
  • Where are "number of title defenses" referenced?
  • Bellator is a dab.
  • Check WP:REF for how to place refs (e.g. without spaces between them and text).
  • References need to comply with WP:DASH, need to have no over-capitalisation, no unreliable sources (what makes poster-boy.co.uk, bloodyelbow, etc etc reliable?)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could offer a brief response here to these questions. As to the subsection, that is clearly explained in the intro, which would lead me to assume you did not read the intro. The flags, acronyms, and dashes are all reasonable problems, but seem fairly minor and correctable. As for reference to title defenses and pictures I would argue that I have seen other, similar featured lists with no pictures and fewer citations, specifically TV episode oriented lists. Also, what is "dab". Finally as for sources I am unsure what makes these not good sources (I admit the poster boy one may need to be removed, but it is only one in a 100).Thaddeus Venture (talk) 02:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"that is clearly explained in the intro, which would lead me to assume you did not read the intro" - please assume good faith - I would imagine that, as one of the FL directors, TRM is pretty clued-up on how to review a FLC...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that instead of brief responses, you could act on the comments and perhaps show a little empathy to the FLC community who have transcluded your incomplete nomination on your behalf and reviewed it. As for the subsectioning, where is this delineation referenced? "Those titles have been and will be recognized as subdivisions under their common weight class." is all very well but it's uncited. A "dab" is a link to a disambiguation page which means it's not direct enough. Arguing you've "seen other, similar featured lists..." for various issues is fine but pretty much the same as OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Times have moved on, standards have improved, we'd prefer (although we don't mandate) a lead image as a minimum, and citations are needed wherever reasonably requested. Reliable sources are explained at WP:RS. The onus is on the nominator to prove reliability of sources when questioned. Anything you deem to be "minor and correctable" should be easily fixed, so I look forward to seeing that. More comments will follow in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my previous comments came across as dismissive or rude, I meant them as a request for clarity, not a call to arms. A statement like "Why are three subsections the level below the others?" is much different than "Where is this delineation referenced? "Those titles have been and will be recognized as subdivisions under their common weight class." is all very well but it's uncited." I am fine with the explanation that standards have changed; in part, I guessed as much which is why I did not complete the nomination myself. I would however point out that as standards change, it may be important to tag featured articles that no longer meet standards. I'm not going to rail against this page not being up to snuff, but if I feel that any criticism is incomplete or does not reflect the standards of Wikipedia's featured lists, I think it is not too much for me to question the validity of such criticism as standing in the way of my nomination. Essentially statements like "Not keen on the table lead." lead to a general air of dismissiveness. If you would like to point out that it looks under developed and is potentially unnecessary, and could reference a better organized table that could do the same job more simply I would be much more likely to take such criticisms with the merit they deserve.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also quick minor point, how do I prove the reliability of the source? Do they need to send Wikipedia an email, or is it enough for me to say that it as an article by a group of paid journalists working as an unbiased news publication about mixed martial arts? Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We regularly "tag" pages that no longer meet the requirements of current standards, hence an active WP:FLRC section. The "not keen on the table lead" was actually "not keen on the table in the lead", and I apologise if you're not clear with my meaning. I don't recall seeing tables in the lead really, and it's inappropriate really, recently (i.e. within the last year or so) promoted FLs would use a summary table like this at the end of the article, not in the lead. We're looking for a decent set of prose in the lead (imagine it as a FAC lead), not a table. As for all the other issues you note as being minor and correctable, as I've said, I look forward to seeing them resolved. There's a noticeboard for dubious sources, here, which may help you when asked to prove the reliability of sources used in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good good, it's fine by me for you to say it needs to be removed "I'm not keen" sounds like your thinking of personal preferences and not strict guidelines. I am happy to say however, with the possible exception of the posterboy link, all my other sources are in good reliable standing as coming from notable, or reasonably notable MMA sources published as journalistic articles. I'm sorry if I seem defensive or if I'm making you drag out this process unnecessarily, and if you don't feel it worth your time to respond to any of my questions or statements I take no offense in you doing so. I am just looking for as much clarity and straightforwardness as possible before I think of proceeding with any number of format changes. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we probably don't have a criterion which says "avoid using tables in the lead", I guess we leave that to common sense. As for other questions and statements, could you clarify which I haven't adequately responded to. I take pride in doing a complete job here so I'd hate to leave any stone unturned. As for RS's, I'll do a ref-by-ref analysis and let you, in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs - just a couple of early questions in case I wander down a pointless path...
  • Ref 1 - (http://sfuk.tripod.com/articles_04/criticisms_mma.html directs to a tripod.com website), clearly a DIY website or blog, so please clarify the reliability of it.
  • Ref 5 - fighters.com claims to be a "social networking site" with "100% original content", how is that reliable?
  • Is ref 18 bloodyelbow.com or sportsblogs.inc? We generally avoid blogs as they're not considered reliable.
  • Ref 23 - is there any evidence that kingofthecage.com is reliable?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have corrected the first two links to more reputable sources, as I would agree those were lacking. As for bloodyelbow.com, I am unsure it that it would qualify as an unreliable source. It is not a blog, it is a journalistic enterprise comprised of a number of writers conducting interviews, attending shows, and generally writing about Mixed Martial Arts, it is however published by Sportsblogs Incorporated, for it's domain name, so if that disqualifies it, there is very little information contained therin that would be inaccessable otherwise. It could be removed as a source if necessary. As for kingofthecage.com, they have been sourced as a provider of information on their own events. It may be possible, although somewhat difficult to find this information elsewhere. I would assume that they provide their event information reliably, but I can see how this may not be enough to make them a reliable source.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that is super helpful, is that just a special character?
Yes, you can get it by clicking on the first dash in the toolbox underneath the edit box next to the "insert" drop-down box. It's an en-dash. The slightly longer one next to it is an em-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The quality of the sourcing isn't what I expect to see in an FL. I can see something like Sherdog being reliable, but there are a few too many bloodyelbow.coms, MMAjunkie.coms, and Pro MMA Nows, to name just a few. How do we know that the information these sites provide can be trusted? I doubt that most of the MMA sites can be considered reliable sources. Part of the problem is that many of the organizations included are not well covered by the media, but that's no excuse for Georges St. Pierre being cited to MMAjunkie, for example (he's gotten some media coverage, last time I checked). The mainstream media actually does cover some of these championships, and its articles should be used here instead of MMA sites of questionable reliability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may have a good point, but I am unsure as to why sites like MMAjunkie.com and bloodyelbow.com wouldn't be considered solid sources, they both generally conduct themselves as reasonably reputable journalistic entities (at least as far as sports are concerened) part of the problem with the citations I need to find is that they must explicitly state when a competitor won a title, and how many times he has defended it (for the title defenses). Many main stream outlets aren't going to have that kind of info. I could probably find a better source for GSP, but that won't make much difference to the overall source material as it would be one citation out of 100. I might be able to make all citations sherdog/espn/yahoo, but I would be interested to hear your specific guidelines for citations as I think mine meet wikipedia's.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make the sources stronger by using the best possible references (like the three you mention at the end of your comment), by all means do it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_current_mixed_martial_arts_champions/archive1&oldid=1089077570"