Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Jeremy Horn

Jeremy Horn's record table is slightly screwed up, as the references and external links sections have been merged up into the table itself. The page also doesn't use the new MMArecordbox; it's just on a generic wikitable. I lack the experience with the tables and record boxes to fix/update the table. Could someone with some time check it out and fix the page? Gromlakh (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done, drop a record box in there if you please. east.718 at 21:38, January 6, 2008

Jon Hess

Article is under AfD here competitor from early UFCs, comments would be useful. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

World Victory Road

I dont know much about about making articles that are up to standard in wikipedia, but i went ahead and made a page for the new Japanese promotion World Victory Road Kaizenyorii (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming UFC events

We're at that time again when people keep putting up UFC events before any information is confirmed about them. Currently, we have UFC 83 (listed on WP:AFD) and UFC 84, just deleted a couple of days ago, now back again as a candidate for speedy deletion. Part of the problem we're running into with these articles is that certain fighters have confirmed fights for a date (March 8 or April 19, I believe, are the two candidates right now), but nobody in the know has confirmed a name for the events to be held on these dates. Rumor blogs are speculating as to what is what (March 8 being either a Fight Night from Europe or UFC 83, April 19 either being UFC 83 or 84), but the events are not officially named, the fighters aren't certain, and no official announcements have been made.

It's a tedious process to watch each of these future events like a hawk, as they keep popping back up over and over. I think Otto4711 made a good point here: "...suggest salting until there is demonstrably reliable sourcing as these UFC # articles get recreated with distressing regularity with no sourcing. Otto4711 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)" I agree wholeheartedly, and if we were to salt up a list of UFC event pages to about 100 it would limit the amount of time spent tracking them down and constantly deleting them.

My proposal would be to salt UFC 83 - 100 (ish), then also UFC Fight Night 14 - 20 (ish). We could then put up a subpage of WP:MMA, prominently noticed on the project page, for requests for un-salting of various event pages once reliable, confirmed information about the event (e.g. date, location, venue, etc. being solidly confirmed, + a fight or two). I don't think at that point we'd necessarily need to do a "consensus" vote; that wouldn't be any better than what we're doing now. I think it would be more like the current "Requests for Rollback" process. An admin could review the request, review the source listed to see if the event article could potentially survive an AfD, then grant or deny the request in their discretion.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions? Flames? Gromlakh (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How about an Upcoming UFC events article? Have them all redirected there, and each listed as a section, it would allow for content to be added (and removed) and save the AfD cycle, when they are confirmed split them off, also doges the explaining bit every time and salting could be too restrictive. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Good and bad. It'd be good because removing information from that page would not require an AfD. Bad because that still wouldn't stop anyone who wanted to from deleting the redirect and creating the page whenever they wanted to, which would put us right back in the AfD cycle. Also, if the event information isn't confirmed, putting it on an "Upcoming Events" page would be just as much crystalballing as it would be to make an actual page about the article.

The problem isn't so much about the location where the events are talked about (e.g. UFC ## pages vs. "Upcoming Events" page); it's that they're going up at all. There's absolutely no reason why there should be a page up about UFC 83. Previously, it was rumored to be the April 19 event in Canada. That appears to no longer be the case, as several sites are now speculating about fights for that date and saying April 19 is instead going to be UFC 84. Not that either of those has actually been confirmed by anyone in the know, but those are the rumors going around. There's further speculation now that the March 8 event with Bisping/McCarthy will be the "new" UFC 83, but that also hasn't been confirmed so none of the confirmed fights from that date can go up on the page either.

There seems to be a general issue with people massively jumping the gun on posting UFC events. Someone puts up an article confirming/speculating about a fight for a certain date, and then someone else comes here and creates an article saying that date is UFC ##. That generally happens many, many months before any hard and fast information comes out about where the event will be held, what its name will be, etc. I mean, we've had people for weeks now trying to claim that the April 19 event will be held in the Bell Centre. The Bell Centre hasn't even been booked yet, and the UFC has been complaining for years about how notoriously difficult it is to make that happen because of the hockey schedule getting priority. If the venue hasn't been booked, we can't really say it's going to happen on that date. They might decide to hold the event somewhere else on the same date, or they could still hold it at the Bell Centre sometime other than April 19. Who knows?

As for the explaining bit, I don't think it would be too hard. We build a special page for requests that has a template on it. You fill in the template, something like this: {{event|date|location|fights confirmed|source(s) for the info}}. Any admin could review the info you provided, check the source(s) and unlock the page if there's enough information available. Also, as an alternative to salting the pages, they could instead be created with protected redirects to the requests page. That would quickly alert people as to what's going on. Gromlakh (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was figuring that anyone not familiar with wikipedia would be less likely to know how to delete the redirect, and those more familiar would see the reasoning, Just showing good faith in human nature.... --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

P.s. Read the rest of your comments, while I agree in this instance (the sources were for the wrong event which I missed) I was thinking of in future terms, a protected redirect could work for either option, more opinions would be useful though --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I think I prefer a protected redirect rather than a straight salting. The pages could be created to redirect to the requests page with an explanation for how to go about requesting unprotection. That would probably create less confusion that simply not being able to create the page at all. Gromlakh (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Any reason we couldn't combine the two ideas? As in have an article that explains that the event dosen't have much info yet then rather than instruction just let members of the project keep an eye on it & break off section when the UFC officially announces it, alternately only break them off, after the event. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How about renaming all the UFC articles to include their taglines? UFC 81 would therefore be renamed UFC 81: Breaking Point This way you couldn't create a future UFC page without knowing the tagline -- RoninBK _{T C} 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't really solve the underlying problems. First, for indexing purposes, the events are better know by number, not number & tagline. Per WP:NAME, we should use the most common name. Second, renaming the old events to include taglines wouldn't stop anyone who wanted to from still creating UFC 90, or some such, because there's no way to prevent that unless that actual page name has been salted or created as a protected redirect. Gromlakh (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea presented in the latest AFD for UFC 84. The path of least resistance is to have UFC 84-99 be redirected to List of UFC events. If someone wants to create a page prematurely, the fix is a simple few clicks, instead of going through a 5-day process. I don't support salting because it's akin to page-protecting because vandalism might happen, admins should not be given the editorial power (of deciding what passes WP:NOT) that belongs to the consensus of the community. hateless 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I got bold and created redirects for UFC 85-90 to go to List of UFC events. Redirects are cheap and undoable, so if consensus should sway it won't be hard to change. hateless 08:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this will be for the best. I'd suggest we all watch these pages so they can be reverted if unsourced info it put up. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

UFC events in danger

Just thought I should warn you guys that I have been dealing with a power tripping mod. I put up a page for EliteXC: Street Certified. It was tagged for deletion as not being noteworthy. I contacted the mod who tagged it and told him that this was a noteworthy event and gave him requested examples of why it was noteworthy. In the talk section for that event, another poster mentioned that if he was going to tag this for deletion, he should contact you guys or look at the entire List of UFC events page as an example of how things are kept orderly. Instead of seeing that logic, he said he is considering nominating the pages for deletion because he feels they aren't noteworthy. See for yourself on this talk page: Talk:EliteXC:_Street_Certified. Thanks for your time. (Udar55 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

I don't see that proposal getting too far, at least for completed/officially announced UFC events...*twiddle* Gromlakh (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I also doubt that a proposal like that would get too far; these are major sporting events (getting more and more popular and mainstream very quickly) and for any fan of the sport of Mixed Martial Arts or of any "fight sport" they are a very good reference as to what has happened previously (to help new fans catch up), or for big fans to keep up with everything going on. By using the logic that these events aren't noteworthy, the argument would then continue that the athletes mentioned (and linked to) from the event pages are not noteworthy (how can they be noteworthy if the events they participate in aren't?); anyone who says athletes of that caliber who are employed in a multi-million dollar industry being watched by more and more people everyday are not noteworthy would also then have to say that football players shouldn't have pages, and neither should sports teams, and on and on. I'm sorry if I sound a little rambling or insulting to anyone (I'm really not trying to), but just trying to show where/how I believe the mod in question is mistaken.

Dhart1983 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

UFC 24: Conflicting Information

I was just taking a look at the UFC 24 page before watching the event, and there is conflicting information regarding its release on home video/DVD. The beginning of the article says that, "as of 2006," it was never released for the home audience; it was only shown on PPV in 2000 when it originally was held. The last section of the article however says that it was released on home video in 2000, and combined with UFC 23 on a DVD release. Since this was during the "Dark Ages" of the Ultimate Fighting Championship I tend to believe that it may not have been released on home video, but I'm not sure so I don't want to change it. I was curious if anyone knew for sure. Just wanted to bring it up.

Dhart1983 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out http://www.silvervision.co.uk/product.asp?pf_id=UFCDVD012&sfile=1&jump=0&cid=LYRWA3K165SSHCQ2UBE9LTCO74UTNZEI, It is possible that the dark ages shows are now being released afterall. These are SEG shows, and it looks like SEG still holds the rights to this show, which could be why the official (Zufffa) UFC site doesn't have anything about it. hateless 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to settle the issue of whether or not it has been released on DVD recently. The issue now is whether is was originally released on home video in 2000, as the section at the end of the article (that makes reference to the DVD) states. I'll search around a bit, but I really don't think it was. I have of course been wrong before though. *EDIT* After a quick search of the interweb, I found absolutely no reference to a VHS originally released by Semaphore, which is what I expected. I'll update the UFC 24 page to reflect this information. */EDIT* Dhart1983 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to put it out here that I made the changes to the page. Now it is not only accurate, but looks a little nicer :) The added sentence about the VHS/DVD at the end looked awkward, so i moved it to the description of the event (where the OTHER VHS mention was) where I believe it belonged. If anyone else has any information/comments, please feel free to leave them here or on my talk page. Dhart1983 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

UFC 23-29 ("dark ages") Releases

I was going to put this in my previous topic, as that was what made me realize this (with a little tip of course, and the help of another editor), but I felt it deserved its own topic. As most longtime UFC fans know, the period preceding the transition of UFC ownership from SEG to Zuffa is often referred to as the "dark ages" of the UFC, as it was under assault from all angles for being too violent, and SEG was having financial difficulties. This led to UFC 23-29 not originally getting home video releases, like the previous events had. This is noted throughout many of the pages for these events; the problem is, the phrase "NEVER released" is often used, which is no longer true. In 2007, FightDVD (www.fightdvd.co.uk) released these events in double DVD sets, so they are now available for home viewing. Therefore, I've decided to make an attempt to amend all the pages that make references to them "never" being released. I plan to keep the information regarding their original non-release (if it is in the article), while mentioning that they are now available (again, only if this is already mentioned on the page). Honestly I'm not even sure if this type of information is good (or necessary) for these event pages, but the fact that they were not originally released stayed on the pages, so it seems this information is relevant. I wanted to put this out there for a few reasons. The first is that we obviously want these pages to be as accurate as possible, but I was curious if anyone had an opinion if the release information was important at all (I personally find it interesting history). The second reason is that I wanted to request that any editors familiar with the pages/events check them out to see if there was any references I missed, or to fix ones I don't get a chance to do. For an example of how I thought it would be best done, you can look at UFC 24 and UFC 27, the ones I already fixed. Anyway, I think that's it. Any comments, questions, thoughts, or insults can be posted here (preferably) or on my talk page (if you have a question more specifically for me). As a big UFC and MMA fan, I would just like to do what I can to help the community on here, which is obviously dedicated to maintaining good, accurate pages for anyone seeking information on Mixed Martial Arts. Dhart1983 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, good work man, I originally wrote those articles and at the time they had not been released. I do think it is an important fact to include, to show just how far the SEG ownd UFC fell at that time. UFC 23-29 never saw a US release in any form, and 9-38 have still never been released on DVD in the US. I dont know why the UK gets everything MMA, but it kinda sucks... :( Anyway, thanks for updating them, I might go thru and mention that some of those have had international releases - I know Japan has a few available from the Dark Ages, too. Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

List of male mixed martial artists on AFD

Speaking of AFD's, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male mixed martial artists. hateless 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

UFC 83/84

Okay, now we're running into a problem. Rumor is the UFC has cancelled the March 8 event that was previously speculated as possibly being UFC 83. For those of you keeping track, the (rough) timeline is as follows:

1. April 19 rumored as being UFC 83, no word on March 8 event.
2. April 19 still rumored as UFC 83, March 8 event then started being rumored as a UFC Fight Night.
3. Out of nowhere, people started rumoring March 8 as UFC 84 and reporting April 19 as UFC 84.
4. Rumors circulating that the UFC is having trouble booking a location in England for UFC 83 and it might get moved to Las Vegas.
5. Rumors circulating that March 8 may no longer be the event date because of the change of venue.
6. Rumors the other day that March 8 may have been canceled, no word on what that means for April 19.
7. Rumors change today, now saying that April 19 is UFC 83, not 84 as previously rumored.

Everyone got that? Clear as mud? Excellent!

This leaves us in an interesting position, because we still have all of the April 19 info up as UFC 84. Those paying attention may also recall this, where all of that stuff was previously indexed as UFC 83, deleted as being speculative, but while it was active the event location (and "confirmed" fights for that date) were changed back and forth between March 8 and April 19 a couple of times. Now we've had people today changing the UFC 84 article to say UFC 83, but not actually moving the page. Obviously, that's not the solution we're looking for, but this is compounded by the fact that nobody has ever officially announced anything about where UFC 83/84 will take place. There's only been confirmation of certain fights on certain dates, but nothing beyond speculation about the name of the event happening on that date.

I see three options on how to proceed from here with UFC 84:

1. Leave the page in place exactly how it is now, no changes until there's an official UFC announcement.
2. Move the page to UFC 83, with the understanding that it's not really confirmed as UFC 83 and might have to be moved back if the rumors about the March 8 event being canceled change.
3. Delete the whole thing as being pure speculation, seeing as how there's no real verifiable information as to the name of the event happening on April 19.

I'm highly in favor of #3 myself. We can verify at this point that fights have been signed for a certain date. We cannot verify that the event happening on that date is UFC 83 or UFC 84. It could be either, but we don't know (and apparently nobody else does either).

Seeking consensus from the WP:MMA community before proceeding. Also, please take note of my proposal above (under "Upcoming UFC Events"), which would have alleviated some of this from the beginning. Gromlakh (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a fourth option, that is to rename the page April 2007 UFC event or something similar (placeholder names are not unprecedented on WP, see Bond 22). Of course, this option and option 3 are not mutually exclusive, and since there's going to be at least a 5 day discussiion on AFD before it can be deleted, I'd recommend the page be renamed if it is taken to AFD. Otherwise, there might be enough published speculation that it would pass WP:NOT, and if the issue is mostly because of naming, then we can just use a temporary name for now. hateless 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with this until the actual title/dates are cleared up by an official announcement. VegaDark (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of the temporary page thingy, but it's far better than what we've got right now. That sounds like a better short-term solution. At least we could verify that part of it...*twiddle* Gromlakh (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I beliEVE that we should leave the page as is but move it to UFC 83. I previously created the 83 page but it was deleted. My page had almost the exact info as the 84 page. I dont want to delete it because it may be correct and then we'd have to do it all over again. If it turns out the event is 84 we can almost move it back to accomodate any changes.--Chode747 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The temporary name seems to have support, and I can see the point to it in this instance. I still like the solution Gromlakh and I discussed above, as this is potentially more widely applicable but in this instance it would be a bit late. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Based on this source, it looks like it's now official that the April event be UFC 83. I'm presuming the article is refering to the email that another user tried to cite as a source for changing the text (but not the article name), but either way a reliable source is now saying the Bell Centre is officially booked for UFC 83. While the consensus here was a temporary page until we know more, I think this officially moots the need for that and qualified as "we know more." I'm going to go ahead and move the page to UFC 83 based on this new source. Gromlakh (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm not a supporter of creating a page of future events 3 months before. there needs to be some kinda time frame or references taken only from the official announcements. (Marty Rockatansky (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why create a page for an event which is based mostly on speculation while fighter bios and event pages are still vary lacking in information. We should be trying to improve the quality of existing articles or imminent events before we look into the future. Reith52 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree in the context of future events that don't already have pages, but this wasn't about that. It was about figuring out how to deal with an already problematic situation. The page was already there and an AfD would take too long to address the immediate problem. Gromlakh (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I will officially state that I am in agreement with the temporary heading option for this particular page. It seems the easiest and most sensible way to handle the problem. However, if you feel that you must remove the page until the UFC decides upon a date and an event, simply save the page to a Word document and paste it back later. This would solve the Wiki problem and allow the editors to have a hard copy of thier work.

I do agree with Reith52 on one point, more effort needs to be made on completing the half finished articles that involve MMA fighters, teams, etc.Unak78 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

With any luck, if the future events get salted/protected redirected, maybe that will force people to start doing more work on the articles we've already got. Gromlakh (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor of deleting the UFC 84 article until more information is made available. To my knowledge, we ran into this problem because UFC 83 was originally supposed to occur in England and 84 was set to occur in Canada. Mixed martial arts blog sites began reporting that UFC 83 may not happen in England as planned, but instead, Las Vegas. Then it was reported that UFC 83 (which was going to feature a middleweight bout between Charles McCarthy and Michael Bisping) was canceled all together. The UFC's website lists the events chronologically: UFC 82 in Ohio, UFC Fight Night in Colorado, and UFC 83 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. In other words, it sounds like the event that was originally planned for England or Las Vegas was completely canceled. We're left with an article (UFC 84) that really doesn't need to be here. As far as I know, nothing's been made official for UFC 84. But until something is concrete, there's no reason to keep the article.Wyldephang (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The 84 article is currently a redirecting to 83 which makes sense for now as that reflects what has actually happened, what was 84 is now 83 so anyone who isn't up to date will find out that way. When enough info for an article is available 84 can be created. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, someone deleted the redirect shortly after the move, then MMAKing created a new UFC 84 article with a bunch of rumors. It's now up at AfD again, with complaints about how many UFC events end up at AfD every week because of crystalballing. Gromlakh (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a warning template for crystal balling? If so we need to use it and if somen does this repeatedly see if it possible to have their article creation rights removed ? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't find one. If there is, it would be at WP:WARN. hateless 05:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of waiting for the UFC to officially announce the event. The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Article on Professional mixed martial arts

I'm starting an article outline at User:Hateless/Professional mixed martial arts which I hope to be able to publish onto the article mainspace. What inspired me to start this section is how someone keeps trying to insert a section into the history section on UFC about steroids which was too biased for inclusion and probably didn't fit article scope, however, steroids in MMA should be covered somewhere. Also, there are topics that can be discussed about professional MMA that are not in Mixed martial arts, for instances, the role of sanctioning bodies (however small that is), how MMA is regulated, how MMA is promoted (esp as opposed to boxing and pro-wrestling), how MMA fighters are paid and what controversies exist (there's enough clamor in reliable sources to write something about it here). The current mixed martial arts article is more or less about how MMA is fought, this article is going to be about the business of MMA. I'm going to mind-dump as much stuff as I can into this outline and flesh it into an article, and hopefully get the thing sourced up toward the end. Everyone here is free to help in this effort if you like. hateless 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kimbo vs James Thompson

Both the Kimbo Slice and Elite XC: Saturday Night Fights artcles list Kimbo vs James Thompson as an official match. It is NOT confirmed. One guy, non affiliated with EliteXC or CBS started the rumor on a radio show. EliteXC's, and CBS's official fight card still list KIMBO VS TBA http://www.sportsline.com/mmaboxing/headtohead/cbs_exc_53108 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.162.232 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollcall!

Just wondered who in the project is still active, and what you think we should be doing and if there's anything anyone wants to discuss. I've been inactive for a long time but have done a couple of things on here recently. This is basically just an attempt to get a bit of discussion going to keep the project going in the right direction as it's got a bit slow round here recently. Talk to me people! --TheCooperman (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm here. Mostly, I just work on pages, though, I'm not too big on organization. And I haven't done much in the last few weeks. The big project I'd like to do is a major overhaul of the main Pride FC article. Right now, the history section is weak, and the rules section is poorly organized and way too long. Plus, a lot of the verbiage can be changed now that Pride is no longer a going concern. Cutting down the detailed description of all of the variant rules and show types, plus expanding and detailing the history as more of a history of the organization and less a history of the events would be great, but I haven't found the time. gnfnrf (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I'm around also, usually just watching biography pages around event time though lately. Sancho 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I'm here. I joined beccause I've created a few MMA bios. I'll help out in other ways if I can though. Chicken Wing (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Still here, mainly do cleaning assessing. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I don't really edit too much anymore, but get in touch if you want to tackle an article together. :-) east.718 at 15:05, May 1, 2008
6. I'm active, but not too much in regards to MMA articles lately other than simple vandalism reversion on a few articles in my watchlist. VegaDark (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Hey guys, I am active again - I took about a year off from all things wiki to work on real life, but I am back and have been working mostly on heavy metal articles so far. But I do plan on getting some stuff elevated here. I have a few Featured Articles under my belt, Megadeth, Opeth, Alice in Chains and now I am finishing up Black Sabbath(the longest thing I've ever written) - so I have a good handle on what it takes to get articles elevated. After Sabbath I wanna focus on getting this project a FA or two. Thing is we need some good solid sources. I am thinking either the flagship page mma, or the UFC page (which I did a lot of work on before my break) will have the most info, and be the easiest to cite, or maybe Randy Couture or Chuck Liddell - somthing with a lot of citable articles online. Anyway, glad to be back and see that there are still a few old 'faces' around keeping the mma articles free of stupidity! Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Hello, I am new here and I have been adding articles and updating old fight records. Aducci (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Weights

When reporting weights, usually the reported weight of a fighter seems to be the maximum weight for their weight class. However, often there are sources (interviews, for example) that report the actual weight of the fighter between fights (before cutting weight). What do people think about reporting this weight in the "weight" section of the infobox. Either that, or maybe we could change the name of the "weight" section to "weight-class" or something like that. Sancho 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Change weight to 'Fighting weight' and add weight class as a new field as weight classes tend to be (relatively) constant. I can do an AWB run to fix them up if people agree to change the template. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sensible enough to me, unless anyone else has any objections go for it. --TheCooperman (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sancho 08:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There will be a few problems that will have to be tackled. Some people will want to insert unsourced "off-season" weights. Another problem is that not all fighters make public what their normal weight is. Another is that some fighters in their interviews talk about how they've cut from different weights. So, this might be a pretty difficult task. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done; I'm just pointing out some of the obstacles that might be encountered. Chicken Wing (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Because I proposed a couple of solutions above, I just thought I'd make it clear that the proposal is that we're considering is the one made by Nate1481: changing the "Weight" label to "Fighting weight", and add the new "Weight-class" field. That would be a sensible solution I think, and avoids for now the problem of having to find and source their actual weights. Sancho 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Fight Record stat box (formatting / consistency)

How would one go about establishing an agreed-upon specification for formatting these? The outline on this page seems outdated and there are arbitrary differences across most fighter's pages. The two most popular styles are:

Professional record breakdown

24 matches	16 wins	8 losses
By knockout	7	4
By submission	2	4
By decision	7	0

Result	Record	Opponent	Method	Event	Date	Round	Time	Location	Notes
Win	16-8	Gabriel Gonzaga	TKO (strikes)	UFC 74: Respect	August 25, 2007	3	1:37	Las Vegas, Nevada, United States	Defends UFC heavyweight title

And

Note also the differing column order - BenTrotsky (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the first one better. gnfnrf (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the first one also. What about the first table style, but with a heading row that includes the breakdown like in the second one? Sancho 06:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer this option... 1st table, but the first row is the breakdown with a [show] link that unhides the breakdown table within the same cell. hateless 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The first one looks good, but is the Record part really needed? I really don't see the necessity of having the fighters record after each fight displayed on the table.. it's just a waste of space and looks a tad tacky, other than that the first one looks fine. SuzukS 05:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD Scott Levy

Not familiar with him & not on Sherdog is this in needed of referencing or deleting? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Article here. 20+ fights with no mention on Sherdog, plus article was written by a single-purpose account...looks very suspicious. hateless 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Article was WP:PROD but tag was removed some time ago. shame because it's a blatant hoax. you don't have "unverified reports" of fighting in UFC and K-1 because they...surprise...keep records of events, fights and fighters. Should this be transcribed to the article's talk page? -- BenTrotsky (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Generator

This website pulls information from sherdog and creates a Wikipedia article with an updated fight history. You can also use it to update a fighters record history. I have used it to create multiple fighter entries and to update older fight records.

http://mmawiki.awardspace.com/

Aducci (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Affliction: Banned

I created a page for Affliction's first show Banned. I figured the time was right as matches have been officially announced and it is a pretty big show. Unfortunately, it was deleted immediately as the Wiki mod deemed it as reading too much as a promotional tool and not noteworthy. Feel free to start it up again. I know you guys will do a great job. Udar55 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the text of the deleted article, and it looks okay, except it had only one reference: MMAJunkie. If we created an article for Affliction: Banned in much the same way as any other event, but just including more references to news articles to give more evidence of notability, I'm sure it won't be deleted again. Sancho 17:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Adriano Santos listed on AfD

Please go here: [[{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriano Santos]] to comment --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nick Grant

Can someone nominate this kid's page for deletion. He keeps adding himself to various MMA events, under the belief that he is fighting/has fought on them. Thanks. Udar55 (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

UFC 88

I don't want to violate WP:3RR, so I thought I would ask for some help. IP addresses have gone absolutely nuts adding unverified fights to the UFC 88 article. If you guys could help out and maybe start dispensing some warnings, it would be helpful. Thanks. Chicken Wing (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Amatannn

I thought it might be helpful if another pair of eyes checked out the edit history of user:Amatannn. NCFC Fight Management and all of the external links that user has been adding to it don't seem very notable to me, but he or she seems to have quite the opposite opinion. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that notability is weak for most of the articles this user has created. The fight management article and the North Country Fight Club would be ones I would support at AFD. The Matt Stansell article is a little better, but weak, and the John Clark article has sources, but has the most potential COI. gnfnrf (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

UFC Ultimate Fight Night 14

The upcoming event on July 19th is not Ultimate Fight Night 14, but UFC: Silva vs. Irvin. It was officially announced that tonight on the TUF7 Finale. I re-directed the main page, but don't know if there is anywhere else that it is linked. If anyone knows, please feel free to change them. Udar55 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Collegiate Wrestling?

I have noticed someone changing Wrestling, Folkstyle, Freestyle Wrestling etc. to Collegiate Wrestling as many fighters fighting style. I'm not familiar with it, but would you say it's a style - and a style used in MMA, not just a certain ruleset used in college wrestling? I hope someone might enlighten me on this :) aktsu (talk) 06:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Collegiate wrestling can refer to both the specific NCAA sponsored ruleset of wrestling, or the general point and rule structure of wrestling practiced in US high schools and college (though many, including myself, prefer the term folkstyle for the latter.) As to whether this style translates to MMA better or differently from freestyle wrestling, I personally don't think so. Many wrestlers in MMA with significant college careers use freestyle moves in MMA that are not a typical part of folkstyle competition (think Kevin Randleman's suplex slams) and most (US) wrestlers crosstrain both styles, regardless of where they compete. gnfnrf (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So you see no problem with labeling people like Takanori Gomi's, Dan Henderson's and Eddie Alvarez's styles as collegiate wrestling? It's just that the name seems strange to me as they have probably incorporated and changed much to get their college-wrestling experience to translate well to MMA, making their style something far from just collegiate wrestling. But as I said, I'm not familiar with the different styles so if that's what it's called I'll just have to get used to it :) Thanks! 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aktsu (talk • contribs)

I think the changes are largely unneeded, wrestling is a wide area and folkstyle or freestyle are more informative, being more specific than just 'wrestling' may be appropriate but only if the fighter came to MMA straight from a collegiate wrestling background without going past Olympic competition etc. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that at all. I answered the question you asked, which was "Is collegiate wrestling a style of wrestling?" to which the answer is yes, and "Is it used in MMA?" to which the answer is sort of. You didn't mention any articles, and I didn't give my opinion on any articles. In the cases you cite, I think that just "wrestling" would be appropriate for Dan Henderson (to replace both styles), I would personally prefer "folkstyle wrestling" for Gomi, and I don't know enough about Eddie Alvarez. There is an underlying problem, however. "Style" implies a description of how a fighter fights, and these seem to be used to describe in what context a fighter learned to fight. But that's a discussion for another day gnfnrf (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably worded that badly. My reply was meant as a question if you would agree with listing collegiate wrestling as a fighting style for pretty much anyone with a college wrestling background. I originally asked because I was not sure collegiate wrestling _was_ a style (because of it's "strange" (to me) name). Something like labeling a soccerplayer's style as "collegiate soccer" just because he played soccer in college. Anyway, maybe what is now "Fighting style" should be "Fighting base" or something similar as no one really fights with just one/a few styles anymore.. aktsu (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

EliteXC: Unfinished Business

Can someone move this to the official title of EliteXC: Lawler vs. Smith II? I tried but Wikipedia keeps saying, "this title is protected from being created" and suggests "requesting the move," which is something I've never done. Many thanks in advance! Udar55 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Any objections to archiving everything above "Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme"? --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

no objection Swampfire (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good line, I'd been thinking we needed to. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

UFC Fight Night 14/15

There are currently two pages created for the next UFC Ultimate Fight Night. One has it listed as UFC Fight Night 14, which appears to be correct, and the other pages has it as UFC Fight Night 15. I think the show in Sept. is UFN 14 because the UFC has not advertised Irvin vs. Silva as a fight night. Udar55 (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, 14 redirected to Silva vs. Irvin but as it didn't look like the UFC was counting it I moved the info from 15 to 14, leaving 15 pretty much empty. But I'm thinking we maybe should stop numbering them as the UFC (as far as I know) doesn't - and just call them what they do (which would be UFC Silva vs Irvin and UFC Fight Night Diaz vs Neer). We could wait and see what Sherdog does though, but right now they have called both the Silva- and September-event named as UFC Fight Night [1]. --Aktsu (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If the UFC isn't numbering them I agree we shouldn't either. Looks like a lot of moves coming up an AWB run to fix the links... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like a regular UFC event, the name comes after the announcement. Ex. UFC 80 was made UFC 80, but the final name was UFC 80: Rapid Fire. Wikipedians are not going to wait for the name to come out, but once it does the page should be renammed. UFN 14 is Silva vs. Irvin and UFN 15 is Diaz vs. Neer. So don't make any more changes. Chrisschultze (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not true. UFC.com will list an event in the Fight Night series as "Fight Night." They do not call Silva vs. Irvin that. But they do list Diaz vs. Neer as "Fight Night." Udar55 (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really strange that they doesn't... Maybe they're trying to trick people into thinking you're getting a "real" UFC for free or something... Anyway, on UFC.com they haven't numbered the events since FN 6, which was the event before Ortiz-Shamrock. It's a pain that the MMA-press (rightly so apparently) didn't count that one, but they are counting the Silva-one. I'm guessing our choices are either to rename all events after 6, making our own numbering (not counting Silva-Irvin, making "our" 14 what the press now calls 15), or we follow the press and call Silva vs. Irvin FN14... --aktsu ^(t / c) 05:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea would be to give the page a generic title in the vein of most boxing events, despite those being promoted under extravagant banners and having undercards. ("Fight of the Millenium", anyone?) To apply this here, we could just move events with ambiguous promotional banners to titles such as Nate Diaz vs. Josh Neer mixed martial arts bout. east.718 at 11:19, July 16, 2008

Sorry I did not know there was a discussion here about this. I had checked the actual page of what I call FN14 and FN15 and did not see a discussion on either. How about it being named like other articles. UFC Silva vs Irvin aka UFC Fight Night: Silva vs Irvin. Since the ufc hasn't numbered them sine FN6 but the press always has. After 6 the UFC uses title UFC Fight Night then the names of the 2 fighters on the main card, Such as "UFC® Fight Night™ Sanchez vs. Riggs" otherwise known as FN7 by the media. They just call them UFC fight night. If you search google, in the results you will see the second listing on ufc.com stating Silva Accepts Challenge at UFC Fight Night 14, but when you click the link it carries you to the news page. Also most mma press refer to Silva vs Irvin as Fight Night 14. mmajunkie, yahoo sports, mmaontap, mmamania, mmafrenzy, 411mania, mmamadness, fiveouncesofpain, mmaweekly, mmanews Swampfire (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I just found the page on UFC.com referring to Silva vs Irvin as Fight Night"UFC Fight Night Musings". [2] Swampfire (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I just found a second page that refers it as Fight Night [3] It states "Tickets for UFC® Fight Night™ Silva vs. Irvin are priced at $450.00, $300.00, $200.00, plus any additional box office or service fees, and are on sale now" Swampfire (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here are how the should be named according to UFC. They are in order, and after six i added the ( ) with numbers in it.

UFN-events

UFC® Fight Night™ 1

UFC® Fight Night™ 2

UFC® Fight Night™ 3

UFC® Fight Night™ 4

UFC® Fight Night™ 5

UFC® Fight Night™ 6

UFC® Fight Night™ Ortiz vs Shamrock (7)

UFC® Fight Night™ Sanchez vs. Riggs (8)

UFC® Fight Night™ Evans vs Salmon (9)

UFC® Fight Night™ Stevenson vs Guillard (10)

UFC® Fight Night™ Stout vs Fisher (11)

UFC® Fight Night™ Thomas vs Florian (12)

UFC® Fight Night™ Swick vs Burkman (13)

UFC® Fight Night™ Florian vs Lauzon (14)

UFC® Fight Night™ Silva vs. Irvin (15)

UFC® Fight Night™ Diaz vs Neer (16)

So actually Silva vs Irvin was 15, and Diaz vs Neer is 16. My guess is UFC stopped using numbers after them so that some people dont get confused between stuff like UFC 6 and UFC Fight Night 6. But I found all of those names of the fight on UFC.com. So how about renaming the pages they way the UFC has them named.Swampfire (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason "everyone" is calling it 14 is because Ortiz vs Shamrock wasn't counted (for whatever reason). I say we rename and call them what the UFC calls them (and creates redirects for what the news outlets calls them, e.g. 14 -> Silva vs. Irvin) --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, However I think the ortiz vs shamrock fight should be changed too as that is the name of it according to UFC.com just don't do a redirect for it calling it FN7. Every name I have up there is directly off of UFC.comSwampfire (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

So this is how they should be done.

UFN-events

UFC® Fight Night™ 1

UFC® Fight Night™ 2

UFC® Fight Night™ 3

UFC® Fight Night™ 4

UFC® Fight Night™ 5

UFC® Fight Night™ 6

UFC® Fight Night™ Ortiz vs Shamrock

UFC® Fight Night™ Sanchez vs. Riggs with redirect for fn7

UFC® Fight Night™ Evans vs Salmon with redirect for fn8

UFC® Fight Night™ Stevenson vs Guillard with redirect for fn9

UFC® Fight Night™ Stout vs Fisher with redirect for fn10

UFC® Fight Night™ Thomas vs Florian with redirect for fn11

UFC® Fight Night™ Swick vs Burkman with redirect for fn12

UFC® Fight Night™ Florian vs Lauzon with redirect for fn13

UFC® Fight Night™ Silva vs. Irvin with redirect for fn14

UFC® Fight Night™ Diaz vs Neer with redirect for fn15

Swampfire (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I found this page on SpikeTv.com "On Saturday, July 19th Spike takes you back to the Octagon for UFC Fight Night Live with Anderson Silva and James Irvin in the main event."[4] They also say Silva vs Irvin was a Fight Night event here[5] too. In fact I found plenty more pages on SpikeTv.com that say it was a Fight Night event too.Swampfire (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is, but so was Ortiz vs. Shamrock 3 - and it wasn't counted. Anyway I agree with your proposal for renaming (on the basis that those are the official names), and I'm going to be moving them shortly unless anyone disagrees. --aktsu ^(t / c) 05:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree so the offical name should comes after Fight Night since it is trademarked such as UFC Fight Night: Ortiz vs. Shamrock 3 - The Final Chapter Swampfire (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Aktsu Here are 2 pages on UFC.com that refer to Silva vs Irvin as Fight Night [6] It states "Tickets for UFC® Fight Night™ Silva vs. Irvin are priced at $450.00, $300.00, $200.00, plus any additional box office or service fees, and are on sale now" then a secong page on the results in under "Fight Night musings" Which is why I changed it. Because the Tickets were sold as UFC Fight Night: Silva vs Irvin. [7] Swampfire (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The first one was written almost a month before the event though, and after that it was referred to as "UFC: Silva vs. Irvin". Also if you look on the official event page it's listed as "Event Type: UFC Fight Night", no there were never any doubt that it _was_ a fight night. Anyway, I think we got them all right now. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah I know it is listed as a "Fight Night event" Both spiketv and UFC list it as such. Which is why I had changed that ones name too. It should atleast have mention of it being a Fight Night or refer to the alternate Fight Night 14 with in the opening.Swampfire (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rankings

I've noticed someone adding www.fighting-mma.com's ranking of fighters to their respective articles (examples: Josh Barnett and Georges St. Pierre). This begs the question which sites we should regard as notable when it comes to rankings. Only Sherdog and MMAWeekly? --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I usually remove all rankings unless the fighter is held in a high regard by multiple mainstream outlets (in which case I'll supplement it with Sherdog or MMA Weekly or whatnot). east.718 at 14:34, July 17, 2008

UFC events format

User:SwampfireHas removed a significant amount of information from lots of the UFC event articles as "removed useless info and conformed to other event standards" which seems to be some what arbitrary to me. I am intending to revert these deletions and notify him, unless a consensus is fomred here that event articles should include minimum event details. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On somewhat similar note, what do we think about including fight descriptions? I was writing them for DREAM.5 (see history) but it was removed as there apparently was an agreement that it should be kept to a minimum. Also see User talk:DuO#DREAM.5--aktsu ^(t / c) 08:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the notability of the fight and the level of detail, Forrest Griffin vs. Stephan Bonnar is an article in its own right, but that was a land mark fight. For championship bouts or similar I think a short paragraph is fine but you need to be mindful of WP:NPOV --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything that has to do with the results of the events. What I removed was trivia that had no bearing on the results, In fact alot of the trivia I removed was unsourced and some not of a NPOV in the results section. Also describing certain portions of the fight are not necessary, unless it is decribing a stopage. Other stuff such as someone protesting a fight isn't necessary either unless the fight was actually overturned or amended because of the protest. And I removed the useless repeating of names. In an effort to conform the newer event pages to the standard setup of the earlier event pages. In which they did not repeat names over and over. I only removed stuff from the results section that had nothing to do with the results. If I made a mistake on any one thing that was a factor in the result then yes that factor should be added back. But I do not believe the fact that I am placing one single standard on pages be reverted.Swampfire (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Event articles are not scientific reports that should include pure fact in results sections, saying what happen in a fight and subsequent related events are relevent to the event, such as a sourced statment, even to the event its self it the comments were on the broadcast, saying that the result was contravercial. If you read WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia:Handling trivia then you will see that both encourage integrating information rather than having trivia secitons. While I admit that on closer inspection some areas removed were unsourced, you have also removed sourced infomation, and your edit summary seemed abruct; 'useless infomrtion' is a charged phrase as well as being opinon and what Standards are you referring to? The edits started with after this edit on UFC: Silva vs. Irvin and seem to be making a point as there was no related disscussion. Could you also point me, as I initialy asked on your talk page, to where there is a consensus that results section for sporting events should not included any additional information. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed some sourced information that had no place in the result section as it was not notable and this is not a newssite. Also trivia is encouraged to be incorporated into an article or removed. Not into the results section. As the results section is to be kept to a minimum. As wikipedia is not a newssite.NOT A NEWSSITE scroll down to #5. Swampfire (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think information such as filing a drug test post-fight is relevent by any standard. Also it seem to me that the heading 'Results' is there for organisational purposes rather than as a defanition, so some details of the fights can be included. As we are not a news site I think including more than the bare bones of the results is definatly appropreate as I still feel some of the removals were abitrary especially as you edited aroudn 30 articles in a simmiar manner without trying to establish a consensus on the matter. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully. For starters it was not a POST fight test that he failed according to the statement. And he was not stripped of the win according to the statement. It was a test that was taken at a later date, and this was the last fight before he took the test. Secondly it is not properly sourced as that is not a valid link, and if you had bothered to check you would have seen that. Find a valid source that states it was a post-fight test he failed and not a test at a later date. Because I read it carefully and checked the link before removing it.Swampfire (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is in bad faith to continue with your edits while a discussion is under way, so a am reverting the subsequent ones. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The test is relevent, stripped or not. If you had bothered to look there were valid sources available, my initial response was that you had removed relvent cited information with no good reason, so I restored it. If you had said it was a dead link then I would have looked for an alternate source or an archive of the original link. Could you explain WHY you think that WP:NOT is relevant? As in my interpretation of it just giving the results is more like a simple news site, then giving the background and related events and especially subsequent events that a news site would not cover in the article.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the it is you that has commited bad faith by reverting perfectly logical edits. Also it is not my responsibilty to look for valid resources they should be valid when added. Also the stuff I removed is NOT the actual fights result. It is trivia. Also I have already posted why wiki is WP:NOT#NEWS not a news site you need to actually read it along with this things that are WP:NN not notable before reverting WP:AGF good faith edits. I only removed stuff that was speculative, not notable, not verified, not of a NPOV, or was trivia. Also the only other thing I did was try to conform all event pages to ONE standard that was set with the first event pages in which they do not keep repeating names. Swampfire (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I saw it seemed most of your edits were logical, but I don't agree with removing anything that is not strictly the result. Nothing wrong with additional informations as long as it is NPOV and reasonably notable... --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as what I am trying to do is improve all the event articles. If someone finds away to incorporate the triva into the main article there is no problem or create a footnotes section. But what I removed did not belong in the results section. As the results section are there for the results, not things that happened after the fights, or descriptions of the fights, unless the thing being described is why someone verbally quit or why the a fight was declared a (ref stopage). Or a protest that resulted in and overturn of the decision or an amend to the decision. Swampfire (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

<-You think it's trivia I do not, so why did you continue with controversial editing after I tried to start a discussion? It is logical in your opinion that results should include only the bare bones NOT a consensus. The consensus was for the pre-existing version that you changed, I asked you to point me as a discussion that said you had support and you didn't but kept editing, so I have reverted your edits. As I dissagree, please note I did not change anything until you kept editing after I had disagreed with you. I initially replaced only source information, but as you seemed to revert even that I decided that i sould revert the lot as you seemed to be ignoring comments and would do more damage than I could fix.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen what you did on UFC 66 you are Creating a trivia section! That is explicitly the opposite of the recommended format, why are you doing this when two editors are disagreeing with you and none supporting? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A related discussion on the format page --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have cited policies/guidelines that support the removal so NO it is not my opinion that I am Using to decide. However you are only using your opinion to revert. I can cite even more that support removal. I suggest you read these guidles thoroughly. Also I did not create that section on UFC 66. It was already thereSwampfire (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And I am disputing your interpretation of them. So please stop editing everything based on your interpretation and form a consensus. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not my opinion. I repeat: you are breaking WP:AGF, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NN, this is not the fight results. If you insist on trying to add them back. Then incorporate them into the article and you won't have a disagreement from me.Swampfire (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Where is the discussion or policy stating that "results sections should only include the results nothing more"? Until then it is your opinion not policy or guidelines. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In one of you notes you agree unsourced should be removed. And yet you try and add it back.Swampfire (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK since you dont want to read the guidleines and actually do some work and be able to keep the stuff. I now stating a policy that supports the full removal of most of the stuff I had removed. WP:BLP Bare in mind now it shouldn't be added back at all.Swampfire (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, this is becoming very difficult to follow as you (you as in both of you) seem to be switching back and forth on what you're disagreeing on. I think we have two disagreements here: 1) Results-section = only results nothing more and 2) What is trivia, what is notable. We shouldn't confuse the two. From what I saw (I might be wrong though) you also removed some which you might call trivia - and that has nothing to do with WP:BLP. My point is there isn't one policy which covers everything in your edits so I think we should calm down and try to agree on both points first, and then readd/re-remove anything which we have agreed should go/be kept. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was not saying it all was against BLP. But stating how someone was knocked out until the were removed from the ring minutes later. While looks great on a highlight reel, it is against WP:BLP. Other stuff is trivia. If you notice I did not remove stuff but from a few of the over 100 events. As I had stated some of it could go in a miscillenea or footnote section as suggested by the format page. Stating how media outlets or Dana White scored the fight, is trivia and has no merit in the results. Stating how the judges had the fight scored, Until someone was knocked out has no merit in the results and is trivia. Along with so much more stuff like that. Stating that someone at a later date (not a post-fight test)testesd postive for something. Had no merit in the results unless it was used to change the results. If a valid source is found stating it was (post-fight test) then it is ok to stay. But they way it origannly is it should not. My only problems with most of it is placement, and context. But just because someone places it in the result section even with a source does not mean it belongs. I have even placed guidlines stating as such WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NN, only a few things are against the policy WP:BLP, However I did point out that some of the stuff I removed could be included in a WP:FOOTNOTE as long as it is worded properly doesn't go against BLP. However a full description is not needed before the footnote, but can ne included in the footnote. What I mean by that is say talking about someones knockout, when you note the knockout add the footnote so that it can be read by clicking. That way you don't go against BLP. In fact I will go do that right now on the Martin knockout in UFC 54 so it can be seen. Same type of thing can be done on the other things of the sort so BLP is not violated. But on the cases of trivia it just needs removing.Swampfire (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have intergrated the ones that arent useless trivia within the results section.Swampfire (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How is stating someone was knocked out and carried out on a stretcher violating WP:BLP when it in fact happened and the statement is sourced? I agree with you on that some of the things you removed was warranted (trivia), and that the event-pages shouldn't describe things which happened a long time after (longer than post-fight-test etc.). Still, my view is that we should strive to expand the articles (even) with descriptions of fights etc. and not cut them down to the bare bones dooming them to be stubs... --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context that it was written even though it is true was demeaning to Martin whether intentional or not. I have it included in a footnote now.Swampfire (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia "Trivia (singular: trivium) are unimportant (or "trivial") items, especially of information." You think they are unimportant I do not. That is the crux of the issue. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is hardly demeaning it happened and it is a publicly known fact with a source. You could argue (though I'm not) that not including it is detrimental to his opponents reputation as it does not fairly reflect his ability. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

<- To Swampfire, Please could you explain why you changed the template when no consensus has been reached on the format? --Nate1481 11:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Policies involved(UFC events format)

You have sited WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NN, WP:BLP, WP:AGF so point by point:

• WP:NOT#NEWS talks about what articles should be created (event and individual notability) and the importance of recent breaking information; many of these event are years old so it's not relvent.
• WP:NN States that "...in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.". In the detail is goes on to say that Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content
• WP:BLP states "...in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." The information is rarely contentious (in content, if not in locations) and is frequently reported speech, and/or something that was broadcast to a million+ people and has since been re-broadcast & sold on DVD. It is not somthing that would be a supprise to readers of they were looking into the subject in any detail, so is not harmful and is sourced for verifiability.

In regard to you comments about assuming good faith while I have disagreed with you but have not refeerd to your edit as vandalism, I have asked you to stop editing and asked for a wider consensus here. I assumed that you would not change futher articles with out establising support for you view, when you did not I felt that you had not acted in good faith and said so explaining what I would do. I admit stating my belief that your continued edits were in bad faith was not most productive way forward and I appolagise for the confontaional phrasing. While I was annoyed at your actions I should not have reacted in the heat of the moment. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism

Hey, guys, I just caught this IP address user:205.154.26.39 making subtle changes to the records of MMA fighters. I tried to clean up the mess, but someone else might want to double check to make sure that no nonsense remains. I've actually noticed quite a few articles are having phantom fights and "vanity" fighters added to the profiles. Just a reminder to be vigilant. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking but it appears aktsu has caught most of them.Swampfire (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

124.178.51.217 is another one who have been having fun the last two days :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you already checked his entire contribs?Swampfire (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, everything should have been reverted. Might want to keep an eye on him though. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Okee dokee, Now I can get back to making the event pages uniformed.Swampfire (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Petition to remove user from WikiProject

I am nominating User:Swampfire to be formally removed from this wikiproject for making bad faith edits and vandalizing the article on Forrest Griffin. --Xander756 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not made bad faith edits. In fact what you have done is actually bad faith edits. The word you have in the conyext it is used not only goes against WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE, and WP:BLP. Since you continually think your personal POV is higher than policy. I think it is you that should be removed. So I formally nominate Xander756 be removed. Also during the talks over wording Xander756 violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL twice by making personal attacks here [8] in the discussion and here [9] in his comment while removing the warning for for violating policies by making the first personal attack. The bout was not only a unanimous decision. But if you view the CompuStrike scores Forrest also clearly won. The only person causing a stink about Rampage losing is the one man {Juanito Ibarra} that went on record with the UFC saying he will retire from mma training if Forrest wins. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newssiteWP:NOT#NEWS, the word controversial does not belong in unanimous decision. So I am not making bad faith edits by stopping you from violating policies. I personally am a Rampage fan, but in this case he clearly lost, and he even admitted so after the fightUFC.com. Agreeeing with CompuStrike and the judges.

compustrike stats

• CompuStrike results

Takedowns

Griffin 0

Jackson 1

• Submission attempts

Griffin 4

Jackson 0

• Reversals

Griffin 0

Jackson 0

• Dominant Positions

Griffin 2

Jackson 0

• Total Arm Strikes

Griffin 48

Jackson 67

• Total Leg Strikes landed

Griffin 51

Jackson 3

• Ground strikes landed

Griffin 46

Jackson 14

• Total Strikes landed

Griffin 145

Jackson 84

• Judges Scorecards reflect what CompuStrike verified

48-46, 48-46, 49-46. The only possible way for there to be controversial decision would be if the judges went against CompuStrike. Because when you look at the CompuStrike data, the numbers are closely in favor of Griffin when you consider the rules of the UFC. Also Griffin completely controlled round two; Rampage never got an offensive maneuver during that whole round. On top of injuring Rampage’s leg in round two, he secured a take down and landed 44 strikes while Rampage landed none the entire round. Forrest also secured several submission attempts during that round. This round played a key factor in awarding a unanimous decision to Forrest. Rampage strikes did more damage, but the rules do not award points for the severity of strikes. Points are awarded for “aggression” and “octagon control” of which CompuStrike shows Griffin with clear advantage[10]. Swampfire (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think the (most) controversial part is Griffin getting the win, but more how the fight was scored... Anyhow, we can't say "Griffin clearly won, therefore it was not controversial." Sherdog clearly says it was ("Griffin Snatches UFC Title with Controversial Win"), and several other outlets have questioned the scoring. How about instead of calling it a "controversial decision" just mention the fact that many outlets thought the fight was close and that Ibarra is (/was) planning to protest the decision. Also I think the section needs a rewrite as as of now it's very biased towards Forrest, giving the impression that the fight was nowere near close (as both Forrest and Randy Coture said it was, for the record). Another small thing: "Griffin successfully executed his gameplan by pushing the pace of the fight from the opening bell, keeping his distance with long jabs and leg kicks.". How do we know that was his gameplan, and who says he susessfully executed it? Just something to keep in mind if anyone wants to have a go at editing it. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I am kind of distraught over the sentence that "the only way for a decision to be controversial is if the judges go against CompuStrike." This is very disturbing not only as a fan of MMA because it seems you do not know how MMA is judged but as a person in general because it seems you do not understand how the world works. If anything, I think that this sentence should serve as evidence for why you should be removed from this WikiProject on MMA. Something is deemed controversial by the public at large and in large part due to the media reporting. aktsu, I think that your suggestions are a little overboard, there's no need to talk about how it is being protested and how all these media outlets are disagreeing when it could all be done in one simple word "controversial" and then referenced by the material which has been referenced. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) definition of controversy is: "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views: dispute." It does not mention statistical numbers. --Xander756 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, it should be explained why it was controversial don't you think? --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought that this is what the references would be used for. Perhaps a sentence in the article such as "Griffin won a unanimous decision in which the judges scoring was controversial" might suit it? --Xander756 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now I'm no longer sure how much info is appropriate on articles on fighters :P If you look at Fedor Emelianenko (probably the best and most worked on biographical article in WP:MMA, IMO) the fights are described very sparely, so I guess that's how we should go about it too? I'd like it a bit more fleshed out myself, but now I don't know anymore... Anyway, something along those lines would probably be okay assuming we're taking the "Fedor" approach... --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be written in Encyclopedic form not news journalism form. Which is why footnotes are to be provided. I will do the same with Forrest Griffin as I have did with others. I will change it back to unanimous decision but include the footnote, with link in the footnote. That way it is in encyclopedic form, and yet someone can read the footnote too.Swampfire (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree that there is no need to go into depth about one single fight but as the decision caused quite a bit of controversy in the MMA community I figured that it should be at least noted in the article. --Xander756 (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming it has caused as you say quite a bit of controversy in the MMA world. When in fact only a tiny faction has even talked about it which is how it goes against WP:DUE. Also Wikipdia is an Encyclopedia, not a newssite or tabloid and is held to higher standards which is further evidence of why it does not belong. the mere fact that someone uses the word controversial does not make it noteworthy WP:NN. I have stated not only reasons for removal but policies. you have stated none other than your personal opinion. Which is why the policies exist. Also now you have went on to violate the WP:3RR too. You have proven yourself to ignore policies. Even if we leave out WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE and WP:BLP. You have broken WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and now WP:3RR with warnings for the last 3 on your talkpage. With the evidence of violating them. Although you have tried to hide them, They can still be retreived with evidence viewed. Ok so you might not have broken 3RR if the 4th was reverting a blanking. Swampfire (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)#

"Griffin Snatches UFC Title with Controversial Win" - kind of says it all internet argument aside that is a reliable source that it was controversial. The fact the judges decision matches an external rating shows the judges were right, not that people were not debating and discussing whether is was the right decision i.e. it was controversial. Also that count mkae not note of the power or effectivenss of stirkes or third maker of 'Octagon Control'. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

one WP:Due, Sherdog is the biggest MMA site, not a negligible comment. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I will however point out something that you: Xander that you don't seem to understand. Pointing out that one reporter on one site thinks a bout is controversial. Is only a tiny faction. Heck even if it was 3 reporters on 3 sites. That is still not even big enough to be a tiny faction. You need to actually read WP:DUE for future reference.It doesn't matter who says it. It matters how many say it. But it is now a mute point once the head of the NSAC shot down Ibarra. Informing him his complaints was pointlessSwampfire (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just posted a proposal for the description of the fight at User talk:Swampfire#Griffin article. Any thoughts? We integrated it into the article. Does it look OK? --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Due does not apply to the biggest MMA site as Nate1481 calls it. It is obviously written from an objective point of view. There is no reason to assume Sherdog or the other sources are biased simply because you want them to be. The re-write on the article is far too long for one fight and I am surprised that you put it on there after saying we should take the Fedor approach and write as little as possible. As Nate1481 says, the fight is clearly controversial and should remain noted as so. --Xander756 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

One site does not overrule WP:DUE. The only way for that to happen would be for a majority of sites to state such. Also you cited early references to the fight. The head of the NSAC said that Ibarra's accusations were pointless (which means not controversial). And as such no petition was filed by Ibarra. Facts have already been proven. Just because it did not go your way does not mean. You get to remove valid statements and sources provided by Aktsu and myself. You need to get over it. As what you are doing is not positive to this WikiProject, but detrimental to it.Swampfire (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "one site does not overrule WP:DUE? This policy is a policy to control and measure the quality of references. It doesn't make sense to say you can overrule it with multiple sites. WP:DUE applies to individual sites only. I don't know why you are so obsessed with this Ibarra thing. The fact that his trainer was going to file a protest was only one small piece of evidence to the fact that this decision as believed controversial. You cannot ignore and remove multiple references based on your own will and one other user possibly agreeing with you. How long have you been on wikipedia? You should know better. --Xander756 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interested tidbit I found: "Some fans on Internet message boards are so angry about the controversial decision that they have promised to never buy another UFC pay-per-view ever again." Sourced from: http://dwizzlesworld.blogspot.com/2008/07/rampage-loses-belt-in-controverisal.html. While obviously this source would not meet the criteria needed to be a reference on an article, obviously the fans in general are torn between this decision. --Xander756 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, NOT a news article or blog, and WP:DUE clearly states "Articles will generally not include tiny-minority views at all" You are talking about a tiny view. In fact it has been proven various times the statement hold no real merit. Including the fact that Rampage himself admits defeat. But the bottom line is this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, blog or newsite. And now you have clearly expressed the reason you are trying to add such and it is in direct violation of WP:BLPSwampfire (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The articles linked there are not tiny minority views. The views expressed in the article are not simply the views of the journalist. By claiming WP:DUE you are calling into question the reliability of Sherdog as a source that can be sourced in MMA articles here on wikipedia. If you are doing this then we would have to remove ALL references from Sherdog on every article here which would be absurd. Saying that Sherdog, the biggest MMA site, is unreliable and slanted is quite a difficult positionf or you to defend. If you are not trying to say this, you cannot claim WP:DUE nor can you claim WP:BLP nor that wikipedia is not a news site. To claim these things you have to say Sherdog cannot be used as a source at all. --Xander756 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that you do not understand the policies. I know that now. You also try to say Aktsu said things. Which even Aktsu himself said he did not have all the facts. And after he did, the rewrite was done by HIM not me, as evidenced on my talkpage. So you are trying to say his views (which are against the rewrite he himself did) Which makes no sense. It is evident that once your case was disproved you know want to try and grasp at straws of something that was said before all the evidence was revealed. You also fail to realize that a few sites does make them a mjority. Ther are over 120 billion websites in the world 3 websites is in fact a tiny minority. WP:DUE is based on amounts, not the name of the site. Also you have since expressed that you want it on Forrest page for reasons of demeaning the victory by Forrest. Which clearly is againt the Human diginity portion of WP:BLP. Also as pointed on by the head of the NSAC Griffin won the fight either way. So the only possible controversy would in which manner Forrest won. Not whether he won. Which is how it was worded before your needless reverts. Which is why the vandalism you did by removing the links to what the head of NSAC said will be reverted.Swampfire (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep this on Griffin's talk page. My reply is there (in a moment). --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Drugtesting

I think that it would be interesting to list the different drugtesting that different MMA organizations use. One of the theories why MMA fighters that are successful in Japan and not in the USA, is because of no drugtesting in Japan. Also would be interesting to find out when different organizations started to get drugtested. How does UFC handle drugtesting in non sanctions cards, like in the UK?. The impact of random training testing before fights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realshompa (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Spoilers"

Should the full bracket of tournaments be listed on all the articles of events where it featured (e.g. DREAM.1/DREAM.3 and DREAM.5), and should the winner be mentioned on event-pages before he was crowned (as it is on DREAM.1 right now)? --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The winner should not be mentioned before he was crowned, same goes for the brackets. just my 2 cents.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What would be a good alternative though? Just have the bracket only go as far as it was after the event (even though that is a little misleading as the following matches weren't set before later), or simply only have the bracket on the article of the event where the tournament finished? --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah i think the bracket should be added only to the events like DREAM.5 when the champion was crowned. Previous events should only mention for example when the champion will be crowned and the winners qualified for the next event. Instead of using spoilers there would be only links to the next events. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be a page created for each DREAM Grand Prix (and for that matter, every PRIDE GP) tournament. Putting them on every page seems excessive and for one event to have a greater claim over the whole tournament doesn't seem right either. It may seem excessive to give each tournament its own page, but WP:PAPER and there were times when I wanted to look up a PRIDE GP tournament and ended up having to consult three different articles. As for content beyond a bracket, I think we should be able to fill a page out for each GP tournament as long as, say, 1933 World Series. hateless 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Would something like this be a start? Feel free to add something, or create the actual page. --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

How about adding the summaries of each GP under the main DREAM page instead of creating all these extra pages. All the necessary information could be covered in a one paragraph and eventually will develop to a full history section over the years. only the bracket takes a lot of space. maybe there is some other bracket layout we can use. this one is originally from a basketball and if you ask me is a waste of space.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 829 articles are assigned to this project, of which 220, or 26.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing From Project

Even though I just joined (so it's probably not a big deal for anybody) I will be withdrawing from this project. I have stood alone against MMA article vandalism for far too long and I refuse to dedicate my time and efforts to a project that does not care about article integrity. For my troubles standing up for this I have had my rights stripped and threatened other sanctions by admins. I will continue to stand up for what I feel is right on the Forrest Griffin article because I will not allow a user to have his way by simply using brute force but I will no longer be contributing to other MMA articles. --Xander756 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Notable wins" sections

All I have seen on my watchlist over the course of several months over various articles is a slow edit war involving adding or subtracting "twice" or "3 times" from the notable wins sections if the fighter beat that particular person more than once. I don't particularly care which way it is, but we need to come to a consensus to do this or not so the edit warring can stop. Additionally, who decides which wins are "notable" or not? All professional fights are inherently notable, but it is POV to decide which fighters are more higher profile than others without some sort of source saying why it was a particularly notable win. Also to be factored in would be when in their careers they beat them (can Dan Severn's win over Forrest Griffin really be considered a notable win, before Forrest had hardly even started his career or learned anything?). I think we should have a discussion over what to do with these sections, and perhaps remove them entirely if a consensus can not be reached over the issues surrounding these sections. VegaDark (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I say we just remove it. It doesn't really add much to the articles, plus then we don't have to deal with the problems you mentioned. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing notable wins altogether, Because if was truly notable there should a section over that fight on the profile. And then again if you do that, then you don't need to say it a second time. So I say remove, If you look I didnt really add the (twice) I just made them small. But the arguement that MgTurtle made in an Edit Summary while removing made no sense. Because Mg stated it didn't need (twice) because it stated that in the stats. Well it also states their names in the stats as being defeated so If you use that logic to remove the number of defeats, You should also use the same logic to remove the names altogetherSwampfire (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Swampfire (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that there's nothing wrong with repeating information in the lead and the sections below. In fact, according to various style guides on wikipedia (WP:BETTER is a good place to start), the lead should touch on each section of the main article. So, if there is a section on the fight, it is perfectly reasonable to mention it in the lead. Otherwise, probably not. gnfnrf (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the notable wins.I just had a problem with the number of times the people were defeated.I thought it made no sense when it adds nothing to the article.I also thought it makes the page look stupid.That was my point.I think we should remove it if it's causing so many problems and doesn't add anything to the article itself.(MgTurtle (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)).

Yep, I'm with a remove. Full fight record is included to almost every fighter page and all that is "notable".Comment was left by [11] Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, with the caveat that inclusion should be debated when the media at large confers notability on individual wins. east718 // talk // email // 23:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Numbers

Do the pages really need how many times a fighter beat another fighter in the opening paragraphs?Like Tito Ortiz's page saying that he beat Ken Shamrock 3 times.I don't believe that it should be in the opening paragraphs since it's on the mma record.What does everyone else think?(MgTurtle (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

Look at the section above :D --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Tito Ortiz question

I would like opinions on this. Because it affects Tito's page as well as RandyCouture and BJ Penn. The UFC states Randy Couture was the firs to hold the title in 2 weight classes, and BJ Penn was the second. When actually it was Tito Ortiz. He held the Middleweight title and then the Light Heavyweight title, before Randy did it. I am checking into whether or not this was due to a name change in the weight classes or something else. Swampfire (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it Middleweight was apparently 205lbs back then. So here's a new question. In the older fights on the event cards fights such as Tito vs Wanderlai are listed as middleweight. Should we leave them as middleweight fights? Or should we add (weights) to the classes? For instane UFC 30 lists ""Middleweight Championship Bout: Tito Ortiz vs. Evan Tanner"" So my question is, Do we change it to ""Light Heavyweight Championship Bout: Tito Ortiz vs. Evan Tanner"" or should we do this """"Middleweight (205lb) Championship Bout: Tito Ortiz vs. Evan Tanner"" I'm leaning toward the last one, as (205lb)Light Heavyweight was referred to a (205lb)Middleweight back then.Swampfire (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the "Middleweight (205lb)" option, including a link to the weight classes article or a footnote saying the names have changed & linking would be a good explanation. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10