Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 2

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts | MMA notability
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Teamsleep in topic What Now ?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Omnibus articles

Latest comment: 12 years ago102 comments27 people in discussion

I really think that instead of having dozens of AFDs for individual events, the best way forward is to consider combining coverage in omnibus articles, such as "MMA events in 2011" or something like that. In this way, readers are given a "road map" of related content, and there is no worry about particular events being notable enough as they are but aspects of the wider, obviously notable, umbrella subject. Those events that are most obviously notable unto themselves can have brief mentions with {{main}} used to direct users to the stand alone articles. I therefore would ask the following of both those who want to keep and those who want t delete these many MMA articles that have been flooding AFD: Please suspend debating the individual articles and consider this idea. Thanks Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Just do it, if we get into a edit war situation with IP's et. al. then we ask any of the number of admins who have helped out to step in and protect the redirects, the bottom line here is that there is such a clear policy, guideline and common scene position here that any uninvolved or not admin would see that without clear evidence of meeting WP:MMAEVENT any attempt at undoing the revert is just being disruptive. Feel free to drop me a note at my talk if I can help out in any way. Mtking (edits) 22:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  Done 2012 in UFC events has been created in mainspace. I was about to say "only 18 more years of articles to create". However some of the earlier years wouldn't make sense. 1993 in UFC events would include only a single event, 1994 had three events, 1995 four events, 1996 five events and I'll stop counting. It may be easier to work backwards and figure out how to deal with the earlier years later.
See comment below for a possible solution to that. Mtking (edits) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Question: Articles titled similar to List of Central Texas World Championship Cage Fighting events should be list-class articles (because of the title) and contain relatively little prose, particularly in comparison to 2012 in UFC events. Correct? Assuming we were to combine event articles for lesser notable promotions (ProElite, BAMMA, Impact Fighting Championships to randomly choose a few) who only hold one or two events per year what would be the suggested article title? Again, I was randomly choosing promotions so they may be bad examples in terms of notability, but for sake of argument, I'm wondering what the answer is. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
See comment below for a possible solution to that. Mtking (edits) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support omnibus articles Putting the UFC events for a year together in one article is a reasonable compromise. For lesser organizations, it's a tougher call. I don't have have a problem with "List of XXX events" for organization XXX, but I don't think WP is the place for more details about events by minor organizations. Papaursa (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
We could do something along the lines of 2012 in MMA which would summarise all promoters events, in the case of UFC it would have a brief section on the highlights of the year and a {{Main}} to the 2012 in UFC events article, this could also help out for years when a given promoter has few events such as 1994 for the UFC or when the promoter only runs a few given their location constraints. Mtking (edits) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
The idea of having a 2012 in mixed martial arts events that subdivides for the larger, more active promotions seems reasonable to me. It even works for 1993 in mixed martial arts events as it would apparently include four Pancrase events in addition to UFC 1 (Category:1993 in mixed martial arts) before considering events that don't have articles already. Something that Papaursa said at the start of the "year in" article discussion on the MMA WikiProject talk page was the potential length of 2012 in UFC events. It's 45k in size now and there is potentially still a lot more content to come just in terms of additional events and main events. Building off Mtking's idea and an idea that Glock had on my talk page we'd potentially have a hierarchy of omnibus articles similar to:
2012 in mixed martial arts events 2012 in UFC events 2012 in UFC on FX events
2012 in UFC on Fox events
2012 in UFC on Fuel TV events
Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Six
2012 in Strikeforce events
2012 in Super Fight League
More if there are other very active promotions
Those three categories of UFC events and their couple/few paragraphs of prose for each event would be split off from the main UFC events article into their own sub-article. It would leave the "numbered" UFC events and the TUF 15 finale in the main UFC events article and potentially shorter. Very active promotions such as Bellator, Strikeforce and presumably SFL (judging from their desired event schedule) would have their own omnibus articles. In other years, promotions such as WEC, Dream, and Hero's could have their own "year in" article when they were particularly active. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
seams a good starting point. Mtking (edits) 09:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Jesus, nice job ruining a perfectly great resource. Now no one can know the history of fights that got scrapped or even just the plain results. This list idea is terrible and I can't believe three days of "debate" allowed you to do this. Udar55 (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - I agree with Udar55. Action was taken before this debate is over. The new omnibus omits info. I stumbled onto this topic via BigMMA, and don't know much about it. A whole bunch of these becoming a single this is a major change, and deserves a longer debate. Heck, merging two simple articles means waiting at least a few weeks. This happened in a few days. And, in my opinion, the old, separate articles were better, and deserve articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This is not a major change, what it is, is applying existing wiki-wide consensus to the topic, it allows for any event that can be shown to have lasting effect to have a stand alone article, the others have a section in an Omnibus article. We don't have an article for every MLB game or every MLS game, so why do we have one for every UFC event ? Mtking (edits) 06:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
You are grasping at straws with the MLB argument. There are literally thousands of MLB games in a season, whereas the UFC puts on 20ish events a year.Hollaluuie (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of the rationale, it is indeed a major change. Plus, when a discussion is started, it must be given time before action is taken. Beeblebrox suggested this at 18:13, 28 March 2012, and you added   Done at 05:10, 29 March 2012. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
How much time is needed? An AfD was closed two weeks ago by User:DGG suggesting that a "list of" events article would be appropriate. The overall issue with non-notable MMA event articles has been an ongoing issue for more than a year. I'm curious as to how long AfD discussions should go on before it is allowed to try to rectify the overall situation. --TreyGeek (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
LOL@ "how much time is needed"! You came into this omnibus discussion with the mindset that you were already going to change it. After you and Mtking slapped each other's backs, you made the edits swiftly by implying you saw "more and more support" for the omnibus style article. In one fell swoop, you removed everything and most of the reasons why people come to Wikipedia for UFC information (buy rates, attendance figures, payouts, background on cancelled fights).Udar55 (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
This formal and centralized discussion right here over omnibus vs individual articles just started. What DGG suggested some time back in some other location, and the overall ongoing issue has led to this discussion. This is the hexagon, or octopus, or whatever it's called. This is where it finally gets decided, right? This discussion should be allowed to stay open for a week or more. Let the chips fall as they may. I can live with the omnibus or the individual articles. What I care about is consensus, and due process. A 24-hr discussion is not due process. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Anna on this, the discussion should have been given more time, not just to gauge consensus, but to be able to show consensus, because it is clear that this change will bring questions. --kelapstick(bainuu) 07:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


The problem with the way Trey and MT were doing it was that they were just including 5 broad/vague lines about each event, which if you look at the info required to understand an event, it's quite poor. I wouldn't mind a single page with all of the events on it however you'd still need to include ALL of the information previously shown on the individual event pages. Eidetic Man (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


  • Do NOT Support I don't think anyone will have an issue with a single or multiple event pages as long as they still have all of the information they always did. (i.e. results, fight times, walk in music, buy rates, gate, attendance and other info) The lack of this is generally what is upsetting people. I agree that 20+ single pages for UFC events a year can get hefty however all of the results should be compacted into one single page at worst. This way, there will be no complaints, rather people will just adjust. The format that Trey and MT wanted to implement was poor and SEVERELY lacked useful information and frankly it just became a large wall of useless text. Eidetic Man (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)



  • Strong oppose The old articles were fine there was no need to change them! Not only did a vast majority of people love the old articles, they learned from them, and what they learned was useful. This 2012 in UFC events has no useful information what so ever. It lacks the most important part of a UFC article, and that is the fight results and upcoming fights. And no, that doesnt make Wikipedia a stats book or a newspaper, it tells about the most important part of an MMA related article, the fights! Thats what the people watch MMA for in the 1st place! And to say ANY UFC event is not notable is ludacris, because thousands of people watch each UFC event. If thats not notable, I dont know what is. We dont want this 2012 in UFC events shoved down our throats, we prefer the old way which has worked for years. If it aint broke, dont fix it! Glock17gen4 (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This would appear to be 100% consistent with the statements made by closing admins on the various AFDs on MMA subjects. It doesn't prevent any stand alone article on an event that is clearly notable, and puts the more marginal events together where the information can still be here on Wikipedia, while making it more accessible and usable AND more likely to be within the guidelines of WP:N. I'm open minded as to the final layout and separation, but this is certainly a move in the right direction. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Jesus, nice job ruining a perfectly great resource. Now no one can know the history of fights that got scrapped or even just the plain results. This list idea is terrible and I can't believe three days of "debate" allowed you to do this. Udar55 (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Please revert the pages to the old format. It was far easier to follow and also made it easier to view other information about the event (fighters, locations and many other bits of info) The layout is not so much the issue as the lack of this information which we all like to know as it means we can find past fights of a new fighter easier and the like. Ctrlchris (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per WP:COMMON and block any account trying to force this through before this discussion has closed. Enough said. Spyder Grove (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "strong oppose" What is wrong with you people. You have made a knowlege rich infomation bank reduced to nothing. There was coutless media coverage on each event. This is nothing more than lazyness or a power trip. Last time i checked that is not what wikipedia stands for. 68.59.127.207 (talk)Thecrow1313 —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC).
And what makes you think that useless wall of text you made beats the old system? It doesn't matter what we say because you will just try and twist wikipedia policy in your favor, explain how the old system violated ANY policy. Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • comment where do we go to report mods? You clearly dont listen to anything we have to say. If this is not the place where we can say "i dont like it" feel free to direct me to the proper place. 68.59.127.207 (talk) Thecrow1313
  • Strong oppose This is a terrible idea. It takes away the entire point of going to the individual event pages. This gives no ability to provide in depth background of the event and makes sifting through an enormous eyesore of an omnibus page to break out individual fight results heinously painful and tedious. What value does this even provide? I think the way it is now with an article per page is great. It provides solid background information per event, the bout results, bonuses, walk out music, the pay outs, and other awesome information. There will be absolutely no value whatsoever in a small blurb of a paragraph explains the event briefly in a large omnibus page. As someone who frequents many of the UFC, Pride, and WEC fight pages regularly, I will just goto Sherdog from now on because its much more digestible as a single source for event data. Pull lead (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Okay, here's my rationale at the moment. Maybe it's flawed, so feedback is welcome.
There is a long list of WP:XXX guidelines that say these stand-alone articles are notable, and a long list that say they are not. So, guidelines alone cannot decisively solve this.
What may solve this is fundemental reasoning: This is an encyclopedia here to serve visitors. This content is mainly useful to, and valued by, people interested in UFC. The content should be presented in a way that they want. Sherdog forum members typify these people, I think. I investigated the site from a post at Mtking's talk page. They, and numerous others here seem to overwhelmingly prefer the individual articles.
Serving visitors per WP:IAR trumps the approach of comparing pro and con guideline lists. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Further, the stand-alone articles in question got tons of traffic. I really think it would be a mistake to remove them:
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Anna, the attempt with the omnibus article is to discuss significant happenings of the events with prose so that they are informative without being simply a list of results, trivia (such as walk in music), and statistics. Having omnibus articles does not mean individual events which are notable cannot have their own page. Rather it is an attempt at giving non-notable events a place. If users want to put in the time to improve individual event articles so that they are not simply a list of results and stats, they are welcome to. If there are specific ideas you or others have for improving the omnibus articles, I'd love to hear them. So, far the only thing I've seen is that people prefer a list of results as opposed to reading prose. However, the Wikipedia community has decided that Wikipedia is not a stats book. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
You must be joking if you think "the only thing I've seen is that people prefer a list of results as opposed to reading prose." Your omnibus article completely removed many factors of why people visit those pages frequently. Namely, people like to know the event's history (matches that got scrapped/altered), buy rates, attendance numbers, live gates, etc. For example, instead of history of UFC 142: Aldo vs. Mendes that the original page offered, you just changed it to a few paragraphs that basically said, "At this even Jose Aldo beat Chad Mendes. There were some other fights too." Wow, thanks! What you did is akin to someone changing Star Wars: A New Hope's detailed history to "This film is about Luke Skywalker fighting Darth Vader. It was popular." Udar55 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Trey. Well, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", i.e. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK doesn't quite apply. "NOTSTATSBOOK" sounds like it applies, but the guideline really doesn't talk much about that. As far as these standalones being just stats, they also have a poster image, prose, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Anna, you claim above there is a "long list of WP:XXX guidelines that say these stand-alone articles are notable" - please list them as I cant see any, in fact a number of the closing admin comments at the AfD's have pointed out those seeking to keep the articles have not quoted any poilicy or guidelines in their arguments. Mtking (edits) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Anna, I think you are mistaken in your claim that there are lots of policies that support the inclusion of most of these stand alone articles. That is the reason they have been sent to AFD and deleted. Recently, several admins and users have developed this omnibus idea as a way to preserve the less notable and future events, somewhat shielding them from instant deletion. Wikipedia's WP:GNG is still the king when it comes to inclusion, the subpages are only meant to offer guidance. WP:RS hasn't been relaxed for MMA events either. The criteria is the same for an articles here. MMA articles are often only referenced by sites quoting statistics or forums. These clearly fall short of the requirements of WP:RS, and outside of the MMA discussions, stand alone articles that only use these types of sources are quickly deleted. While many of the MMA fans might not agree, the community as a whole does. The omnibus articles, with redirects, is the solution. Independent articles can only exist if they pass WP:GNG, like all other articles here, ie: they have multiple and significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject matter. I don't know much about MMA, but I do know a little about what the consensus of the community is when it comes to "multiple", "significant" "reliable" and "independent", and what is and isn't acceptable. Once you filter out all the socks and meatpuppets at the previous AFDs (which we now have a team doing), the consensus becomes very clear and one sided. This is why the omnibus articles and redirects are important, as this is the only way to salvage the information. Otherwise, they will be deleted, one by one, with a few exceptions for the events that actually do meet the criteria here. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
"MMA articles are often only referenced by sites quoting statistics or forums." You have said often that you don't follow MMA and this statement proves it. Nearly all of the sources quoted in UFC event pages come from the official UFC site and MMA news sites, not places just "quoting statistics or forums." Reference sites such as UFC.com, ESPN, Yahoo, Sherdog, MMA Junkie and MMA Fighting clearly fall under WP:NEWSORG. That is more than most movies and books get on this site (when are you going to start policing them?). Regarding AfD notices, go back and see that nearly every one placed on a UFC event has been by Mtking, the same guy who spearheaded this "reform" campaign and provided TreyGeek's sole back slapper. I clearly established the events as notable entertainment products for him further down on this page. To repeat it, per Wikipedia's primary criteria for notability, you can read the following simple guideline: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Udar55 (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Do not allow TreyGeek and MtKing to throw the rule book at you, if they do, show them this! WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY
  • Opposed to the new system. I use wikipedia extensively to read about MMA events and MMA fighters, and now it seems content is mashed into one gigantic article. Chaotic, and definitely a step back from the previous and original way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.249.249.5 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE Glock17gen4 (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment So far it's pretty obvious that only Trey and MtKing want to do the omnibus thing and everyone else (who constitute the vast majority of users) don't want this. I understand you guys think you run some sort of little empire here, but the fact that each event having a stand alone article is a total valid style of organization in accordance with the guidelines highlighted by Anna. Move on to something else and stop wasting everyone's time. The omnibus is a bad idea, period. Leave it at that. Pull lead (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, TreyGeek is always going on and on about consensus being reached to defend his changes (I think maybe two people agreed with him). Yet we don't see him addressing the overwhelming opposition that has shown up here since his unwarranted move. It is glaringly obvious from this real debate that most people prefer the old system. Udar55 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing to address the opposition is all WP:IDONTLIKEIT of the new, not a single poilicy or guideline (other than WP:IAR) has been putforward either here or at any AfD on the article pages. Mtking (edits) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, chances are you won't even listen to reasons listed, but I'll give it a shot. Broken down to its core, the UFC is a company that delivers a entertainment product, much like the WWE, Simon & Schuster and countless movie studios. It is something that is made commercially available to the general public through PPV and then DVDs of the product can be purchased online at places such as Amazon.com. As a tangible product, it easily falls under the WP:GNG policy. Also, per Wikipedia's primary criteria for notability, you can read the following simple guideline: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Using that easy to understand criteria, I think it is safe to say each UFC event passes the notability guidelines easily. Curiously, I don't see you starting a campaign to eliminate the pages for every WWE PPV, John Grisham novel or Lionsgate theatrical release. Udar55 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If every UFC event were notable then the following AfDs would have been closed keep, but they weren't:
As far as relating UFC event articles to WWE event articles, the WWE event articles seem to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as they don't contain only routine fight results and announcements. Just take a look at the contents of the wrestling WikiProject's C class articles: Royal Rumble (1988), Starrcade (1997), Bragging Rights (2009), Armageddon (2002). Tell me that our (MMA WikiProject) event articles come anywhere near as close to covering the events in the same amount of prose discussing the event with the same level of detail, citing an equivalent number of sources. I believe that if we cannot have our event articles (regardless of the promotion) come close to being a high quality article (again, I'll point to UFC 94 which is a good quality article) then a "year in" article is the best way to go. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you really using articles that were deleted because they existed well before their time (UFC 152 and 154 are months away and not a single match announced) to prove your point? As for the level of detail in articles, the original UFC 142 had way more detail than the UFC 142 write up you offered in the yearly page. Do you really think the original UFC pages only had "routine fight results and announcements."
Regardless, your boy Mtking asked for policy and guidelines and I provided that. Then -- shocker! -- you move the goalposts and say, "But the UFC pages aren't as thorough as the WWE ones." So what? How does that have any bearing on the notability I established? More people saw the aforementioned UFC 142 live and on PPV than something like WWE's December to Dismember (2006). Are you seriously contending that only a bunch of extra words in a Wiki article makes something more notable? If so, you better jump on -- picks random entertainment products -- Tactical Force or Dragon Tears because both only have scant details on them. After that, I expect you to peruse every entertainment product on Wikipedia and then get back to me to let me know if they all have as many words as the WWE pages. Udar55 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I listed 6 AfDs and you commented on only two of them. The prose in UFC 142 seems to consist of reporting of routine fight announcements and changes plus Johnson coming in overweight (which is discussed to some degree in the omnibus article). Also, if someone feels additional information is needed in 2012 in UFC events they are free to add it. I'll freely admit there may be a significant fight on a particular card that I over looked. The comparison between the MMA event articles and the WWE event articles was started by you. Maybe I should have expanded my thought process. WP:ROUTINE says that an article should not contain routine news coverage such as announcements and sporting coverage. WP:SPORTSEVENT say that "[a]rticles about notable games should have well-sourced prose". The vast majority of MMA event articles contain simply routine coverage of fight announcements and a list of stats in the form of fight results. They lack well-sourced prose that explains why the event is notable or why it has lasting effects. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
"The comparison between the MMA event articles and the WWE event articles was started by you" Actually, I made the comparison between UFC events and three separate entertainment product companies (WWE, Simon & Schuster, Lionsgate). I also mentioned two other products (Tactical Force or Dragon Tears) with scant prose that are readily accepted on Wikipedia for comparison purposes. You then made the ridiculous assertion that because the WWE articles have more text, they are somehow more notable. Once again, per Wikipedia's primary criteria for notability, there is this simple guideline: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Simply put, Mtking asked for reason of notability and I established that. Then, as I predicted, you guys ignored the evidence given to you and cried, "They're not as big as WWE articles, therefore they are not notable." Color me shocked. Udar55 (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the best solution then to improve the individual event pages that the MMA community prefers rather than getting rid of them entirely? We could add a nice background section to every event like the one UFC 94 has. Hollaluuie (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes it would. However, very few people are doing that and it's taken me some time just to get as far as I have with UFC 140. No one who is advocating for the omnibus articles has said events cannot have their own individual articles. Rather, unless that event can be shown to be notable and can have an article written to comply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the omnibus article is a good alternative. The additional benefit of omnibus articles is that events from promotions that do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines can still have information about it in the omnibus article. Examples are 2012 in Super Fight League and 2012 in mixed martial arts events (which needs more added to it). --TreyGeek (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The omnibus articles work for smaller promotions, but the UFC events are notable enough to warrant their own pages. The prose you've written as event summaries on the UFC omnibus article can easily be included on the event articles. Hollaluuie (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You're right again. If someone wants to spend time working on improving individual event articles, the prose I've put in 2012 in UFC events would probably be a good way to start. What in the meantime? Have a bunch of articles that fail to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and could possibly be deleted as a result? (See the AfD list I put above as examples of how this is starting to happen.) Also, just to be sure I understand you, you are in support of omnibus articles for MMA events as long as it's not for UFC events. Or am I misconstruing what you stated? --TreyGeek (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) in response to Udar55 - are not the NFL, NBA and MLB also companies that deliver an entertainment product ? But we don't have an article for each game they put on do we ? The truth is as each of these events ends, it is forgotten and they move onto the next. Mtking (edits) 23:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Do the NFL, NBA and MLB charge for each and every product (game) on PPV and then release them commercially on DVD to stores? No, they do not. In most cases, it is broadcast to the public for free. The UFC releases products just like a movie studio. Therefore the product should be treated as such. Udar55 (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
They may not in the US, but access to thoes sports outside the US is quite often PPV or subscription TV, also a number of other top sports around the world do use PPV, and we still do not have articles on the each or every games/match. Mtking (edits) 00:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, you are framing it as sports issue rather than an entertaining product issue. How are UFC PPV events and DVD releases any different from the various Hellraiser sequels hitting DVD or Dean Koontz books on the shelves? I see no difference between these two pages:
You are grasping at straws. There are thousands of MLB games in a season, whereas the UFC has 20ish events. Hollaluuie (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
The NFL is a 21 round season, there is one article for the season and one for the Super bowl, not one for each round, the same model is used for other professional sports that play all round the world, soccer, rugby (both codes), Aussie rules, so this proposal just mimics what is established practice. Mtking (edits) 00:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but MTking putting UFC articles up for deletion and then pushing for an omnibus so that individual UFC articles don't get deleted is slimy and deceitful. One person came along, TreyGeek, and agreed. Then they took it upon themselves to change the entire UFC section of Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but that is ridiculous. You two guys are also acting like everybody is on board with you. And when it is pointed out that nobody is on board with you, you retort with "Wikipedia is not a democracy". The nerve... Gamezero05 (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

lol @ this is based on merit, not a majority decision. This is two users on a power trip who went against Wiki policy and didn't gauge the consensus of anyone in the talk page before deleting/merging articles. I've been a part of the Mixed Martial Project on Wikipedia for 3 1/2 years and this is the worst edit to the project I've ever seen. EvolutionarySleeper (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  • On the contrary, what they have done is take the lead to prevent further deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination) made it clear that the only alternatives to merging into an omnibus system was outright deletion. There already is a strong consensus in the community, by editors who are normally not involved with MMA articles, like myself. Several editors that were against the change are already coming around to appreciate the changes. What is happening is that the WP:GNG policies are being enforced. The subpages of notability can't have a lower threshold for notability than the parent. This will still allow individual pages for events that are clearly notable, with the advantage of NOT having the future events and less covered events deleted due to a lack of significant coverage, from multiple and independent sources, which is required by any reading of GNG. In the end, there will be MORE MMA info available, not less. Everyone is just jumping to conclusions on what the changes mean before seeing the final product. Dennis Brown (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, I addressed you above but got no response, so here it is again. Nearly all of the sources quoted in UFC event pages come from the official UFC site and MMA news sites, not places just "quoting statistics or forums" like you said earlier. Reference sites such as UFC.com, ESPN, Yahoo, Sherdog, MMA Junkie and MMA Fighting clearly fall under WP:NEWSORG. That is more than most movies and books get on this site (when are you going to start policing them?) and clearly passes WP:GNG. Regarding AfD notices, go back and see that nearly every one placed on a UFC event has been by Mtking, the same guy who spearheaded this "reform" campaign and provided TreyGeek's sole back slapper. I clearly established the events as notable entertainment products for him. To repeat it, per Wikipedia's primary criteria for notability, you can read the following simple guideline: A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Simply put, how is a UFC event listing any different from an entry for a film or book in a series? If you goal is to enforce WP:GNG (which is laughable), why aren't you policing all of the film and book entries with one or zero sources? Please explain to me how an entry for UFC 142 is any different from a book entry for something like Dragon Tears. Udar55 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #1

ATTN: TreyGeek, Mtking, Dennis Brown You keep saying that individual UFC pages are in violation of WP: GNG. I established otherwise and also showed that the pages easily pass the primary criteria for notability as they are an entertainment product released commercially to the general public and covered by a wealth of secondary sources. I ask you this, how is a UFC event page any different from the pages for the following products, which are all deemed notable by Wikipedia's standards (randomly chosen book, films and events):

If those entries, which I'm sure draw far fewer hits than UFC pages, are allowed on Wikipedia with few or no sources, why aren't individual UFC pages (which usually have tons of sources)? Do the aforementioned examples not past the muster of WP: GNG that you so valiantly defend? I wouldn't dare say you are just bending the WP: GNG policy to aid in your quest. Also, TreyGeek, stop redirecting the pages of individual events to your omnibus page. Consensus has not been reached (LOL @ your comment about there being "few objectors" and "copyright violation," as if you didn't copy the original pages to get the results).

Hi Udar55. I'll field this one. But first, uncivil remarks like "...LOL @ your comment..." will not serve your cause. These folks have different views, but that does not mean they deserve abuse. They've been admirably tolerant of incivility and attacks. Please be polite.
Now, I'm sure you're aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But the big question that must be answered is why the individual pages are better than the omnibus. How do you respond to that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Damn, I had no idea saying "LOL @ your comment" was considered uncivil as I've been the most civil one on here trying to debate them. Definitely noted. Anyway, to answer your question, the individual pages offered way more information for MMA fans to read. Examples include background information on fights that were announced, but eventually got changed (very important resource); buy rates for the PPVs; attendance and financial numbers for the live crowd; walk out music for fighters (in some cases); controversial pre-and-post-fight happenings (if any); television broadcasters for foreign markets; and reported fighter payouts. I see a UFC page the same way I see a film page with the behind the scenes information and credits being just as valuable. Believe it or not, I'm not opposed to an omnibus style article. In fact, I created the Bellator Fighting Championships season omnibus articles. However, when someone tried to include the aforementioned information, TreyGeek removed it and said it made the article "too long." In fact, people had to twist his arm to even offer results as he was perfectly happy having a three paragraph summary of only an event's biggest highlights. Udar55 (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it was heinously uncivil, but it's always best to err on the side of insanely polite at Wikipedia. :)
You make good points. I gather all that additional information would be useful to visitors, right? Okay. Now, if all that were added to each section (UFC event) in the omnibus, would that make it too big? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't think it would make it too big, but it would be aesthetically unpleasing. Look at the Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Six page. They only hold 11 events per season and it starts to get pretty crowded in the references. The UFC holds 20+ events a year. I think this is why most folks here liked the individual UFC pages. Udar55 (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
As an example of the disparity, I offer these two links. The first is the original page for the first UFC on Fox show this year, a major show. The second is TreyGeek's revision:
Notice how he removes all of the background information (important to MMA fans) and instead offers a summary of the results that can be read below. Even my Bellator ominbus pages offer background information. Udar55 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I see what you mean. So, if the entire UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis were to appear at 2012 in UFC events with nothing left out, would that be okay? Why not dump the entire contents of each separate article into the omnibus? What is the reason for content being left out?
As for references section being crowded, I don't see how that's a major problem. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that once the article content is in the omnibus article, it becomes a matter of content, not policy, thus the talk page is where it can get resolved instead of AFD and other forums. This is a big plus. And the tree structure of the omnibus system isn't completely worked out. Working with everyone on those will insure the right content is in the right place. The big beef with some editors arguing policy (like myself) is that there were too many small articles of questionable notability as stand alone articles. Our arguments and concerns were not about content, only policy. This makes all those problems go away, which I'm sure will make many of you very happy. ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Once again, you keep talking about these stand alone entries violating policy. I've clearly shown they do not violate policy over and over, yet you keep ignoring that. I've also given you plenty of examples stand alone articles that are far worse. I can point to a million other examples on Wikipedia of questionable notability, but you'll just avoid that too. As for AFDs, I've said it time and again that one editor (Mtking) has specifically been targeting MMA articles. Look at his history and you will clearly see that. The problem is he generalizes when it comes to MMA. I had no problem with the deletion of my Shark Fights 18 entry. But to contend that a UFC event -- something viewed by millions -- is similarly not as notable is ridiculous. The whole question of notability was started by him. When I established they are notable and in line with policy, the proof is just avoided.
And it is hilarious to see you say "our arguments and concerns were not about content, only policy." The reason all the MMA fans were up in arms in the first place is TreyGeek magically changed detailed pages into tiny paragraphs that didn't even sum up the entire card. Then he hid behind the "oh, it is just policy" excuse and has since tried to beat back anyone who didn't like his unwarranted change. Udar55 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Udar55 you are selectively looking at the notability guidelines (which are not policy) the policy relevant here is WP:NOT (or its section WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) which says "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". If you look at all the notability guidelines for events (WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, or WP:MMAEVENT) you will see that the common thread running through them is the requirement to show "lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.", for example UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann only has one ref from after the event and it is from the MMA media. Mtking (edits) 19:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And who wrote the WP:MMAEVENT page? Gamezero05 (talk) 19:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Your point is moot. No one "owns" the page so it doesn't matter. All subsets of WP:N (such as WP:MMAEVENT) are just explanations for different areas to make GNG more understandable or applicable, however, all articles still have to pass WP:GNG as that is the authority for all the subset pages on notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


So basically what you are saying is some random Wikipedia users just made up a rule one day because they felt like it, and now you use that as the standard to go by? Gamezero05 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


  • reply to Udar55 and I have sent several to AFD and watched them get deleted, time after time. The omnibus solution was created as a way to prevent mass deletion of the material. Perhaps you weren't a part of the previous discussions, but they took place. And please do not confuse "violate policy" with "fails to meet criteria". Those are two completely different arguments. I have argued they don't pass the criteria for inclusion at WP:GNG, others are arguing that they violate WP:NOT. Both are true enough statements, but if you are going to attack my rationale, attack the one I'm actually using, and used [1]. If you think that TreyGeek and Mtking just went maverick one day, then you haven't been paying attention to all the fuss over the last month, and you are flatly mistaken. What they did is boldly take the initiative and ask others to help. The road has been bumpy, but they have more support for their efforts than you realize. While all the meatpuppets and SPAs just came to vote, be disruptive and get blocked, others were actually quietly working on a solution. You might not LIKE the solution, but you could have been a part of it at any time if you so choose, but you weren't there at the AFDs, several ANIs, SPIs and every other venue it has been drug into, kicking and screaming. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been following the discussion for a long time. Longer than you actually, so I don't appreciate your implying I haven't been "paying attention." These two did not "boldly take the initiative and ask others to help." They ran just over a day of dialogue between themselves and then TreyGeek said "done" and introduced the 2012 page. What they did was take the full length, in depth pages and obliterated them. TreyGeek's initial solution? To make the detailed UFC 142 page look like this.
UFC 142
UFC 142: Aldo vs Mendes was held on January 14, 2012 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The event featured José Aldo defending his UFC Featherweight Championship against Chad Mendes. Aldo became WEC Featherweight Champion on November 18, 2009, which was later converted to a UFC Championship, and has defended his title four previous times with stoppages. Five of the last six fights, all wins, for Mendes resulted in unanimous decisions.[16] Aldo defeated Mendes by knock out in 4:59 of the first round with a knee.
The co-main event was a bout between Vitor Belfort and Anthony Johnson. The day prior, during weigh-ins, Johnson failed to make the 185 pounds (84 kg) weight limit for the match and was 11 pounds (5.0 kg) over weight.[17] Belfort agreed to fight Johnson in a catch weight bout of 197 pounds (89 kg) if Johnson did not weigh more than 205 pounds (93 kg) on fight day.[18] Belfort was able to submit Johnson with a rear-naked choke in 4:49 of the first round. Johnson was cut by the UFC following the fight.[19]
The fight of the night bonus award was given to Edson Barboza and Terry Etim which ended at 2:02 of the third round when Barboza knocked out Etim with a spinning wheel kick. That knock out also earned Barboza the knock out of the night award. The submission of the night bonus award was given to Rousimar Palhares following his submission of Mike Massenzio with a heel hook at 1:03 of the first round.[20]
Seriously, he wanted no complete results! If you can't see why that upset people, then I can't help you. Like I said earlier in this discussion, I'm not above change and personally created all the Bellator Fighting Championships omnibus articles when the individual pages got AFD. What I can't stand are two guys launching into a "it's my way or no way" stance. Anyway, have at it. You three can do whatever you want now. Udar55 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I was just talking with him about how much detail to go on what kinds of articles, so obviously no final decision has been made. You could just join the conversation on the omnibus article, which is the right place. You are assuming that the content won't be there when that decision hasn't been made. Until it is, something has to go there. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've read those discussions you are referring to, and now you are straight-up lying. There was not all of this support you are talking about. And after TreyGeek went ahead and changed it, there were other people saying that it was ridiculous that he did that because the discussions were nowhere near complete. Gamezero05 (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You need to parse your words more carefully. There is no justification for your incivility. The closing statements of the AFDs speak volumes and represent the consensus, I would suggest you try reading them more carefully. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Incivility? What are you talking about? MTking also sent me a message to stop making personal attacks against people. I have not attacked anybody personally, and it's really quite ridiculous that you 3 are ganging up and threatening people who disagree with you. Gamezero05 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
You said "and now you are straight-up lying". You are welcome to attack my logic, you are not welcome to attack my character. Calling me a liar is attacking my character and is unacceptable behavior. If you can't understand that, then you shouldn't be editing here. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep it on topic please. Straying off only fuels any opposition you may receive. Threatening people will not get this issue resolved. A lot of them are new members so please try not to incite anything. Eidetic Man (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
So you are telling me that I can't say you are lying even if you are lying? Now, that might call for an attack on logic. Gamezero05 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Oppose I'm really worried about the possible precedents that an omnibus page has- because clearly the UFC or MMA events are the only articles to follow the current format. To say that UFC events fail WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT implies we can simply merge similar pages into similar omnibuses, even if it is not the correct way to go about things. Unless you plan on making similar omnibuses for Category:2012 in motorsport and others, this really shouldn't happen at a current time. Teamsleep (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • That is a valid concern, but you are pointing to categories, not omnibus articles. The omnibus article will have much more info than any cat can. It doesn't have to be "exactly like" anything, just consistent with other content. And the motor sports already have omnibus type articles, but they are so large, they are broken down into country and year or other ways, such as 2012 American Le Mans Series season, etc. MMA isn't as extensive as motorsports, so a main article would be similar to a main cat, except have prose that could sum up important events, compare, contrast, anything that any article can do. The "sub omnibus" articles would be similar to what I just linked. Or it could be different, depending on what editors want to make them. Several AFDs have indicated they must be grouped somehow, but how they are grouped is still open for discussion to anyone that has ideas. What we have now is just a starting point. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't think that comparison holds up, a better way to look at this is does WP have articles on each week of the NFL season? or each week of any of the major sporting codes across the globe. I could (if I was looking to get a block for violating WP:POINT) very easily create a well sourced article on any of the NFL games from the 2011 season or any of the Aussie rules matches played this weekend, all would have prose sourced to numinous sports reports published in top-tier newspapers, these articles would pass WP:GNG as each game would have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" yet the articles would all fail WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy and WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:EVENT and would be WP:SNOW deleted at AfD because I or others could show no lasting encyclopaedic effect of each event or game. The same is true for these MMA events, the coverage ends when the results are posted on MMA websites and attention moves to the next event. Mtking (edits) 02:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose As per many of the opposing users above. The omnibus page fails to include information that was interesting and worth including. Disappointing to see that the minority of users have edited the pages without general consensus. (AdamD123 (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
    • You seem not to have advanced a policy or guideline reason for your comment, also I notice that this first contribution in over 14 months, I think it is appropriate to point out that you might like to take some time looking back over MMA related AfD's over the last few months and comments made by closing admin, this is not something that was dreamt up over night. Mtking (edits) 02:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Who cares how long it's been since he's posted? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that your idea sucks. Gamezero05 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongest level of support Feel free to check my bona fides, however having worked with the AfDs, WP:MMANOT, and a couple editors in the field, I feel that the Year in MMA/Promotion/Subcategory is the best compromise that we as a compendium of notable information that can be struck. Individual articles that are the fight card and results of the fights have been judged on multiple occasions as not having enough notability or reliable sources to qualify for inclusion. By batching the events into an omnibus, we have the benefit of a better cited and sourced article that gives the perview of a "Season" of the sport in a single league. Hasteur (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per overwhelmingly strong reasons not to. Notable, shmotable. By common practice and reader interest, individual articles of events are what we want. A vocal minority that focuses on deleting things tries to say otherwise, but it is nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now, if someone wants to have omnibus articles, but also keep the indivdiual event articles, well, that's cool, but there just is no real rational reason to get rid of the event articles. All this "notability" nonsense is bureaucratic elitist mubo jumbo. --Pro Elite Fan Man (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC) Note: Blocked Sock.
  • This isn't a vote, the decision to merge has already been made by a couple of closing admins based on two different consensus discussions. Some of the events ARE notable enough to have their own articles. The purpose of the omnibus system is so that all the MMA events can be included, even if they aren't independently notable, including future events. This is better than deleting half the articles. The question isn't "if we do it", it is "how we do it". and the guidelines here can't simply be ignored, even if some people call them "bureaucratic elitist mubo jumbo". Dennis Brown (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Point of order: This discussion, along with the opinions of DGG and Beeblebrox (the closing admins mentioned in Dennis' last post immediately above), cannot resolve this issue because of the WP:CONLIMITED policy which says that decisions about this kind of thing which are made at projects or other local venues cannot bind the community as a whole. For this to bind the community, even if it is limited to the articles within the scope of this project, it must be proposed and approved as a policy or, more likely, a guideline via one of the methods set out in the policy policy (not a typo) (most significantly, via creation of a {{rfc|policy}} and announcing it at least at the policy or proposal subsection of the Village Pump). Neither the current discussion nor the opinions of sysops in closing decisions is sufficient to do that and, in my opinion, the result here is not going to be binding on anyone. (It should be noted that there is a pending policy RFC on a very similar point, but it seems to be going nowhere and I haven't looked to see if it was properly announced or not.) Regretfully, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a little different as the previous decisions are being used as a basis for developing a solution that stay within the the same sport that is based on current policies and guidelines, and not being used to change policy. This is consistent with CONLIMITED as these articles already have an consensus as failing WP:N at AFD (as individual article, not as a class), and the purpose of the omnibus is to allow inclusion of material that is only notable in the aggregate, while still allowing individual articles to exist if they pass WP:N. This isn't a matter of creating new policy, it is a matter of enforcing existing criteria for inclusion and offering an alternative to outright deletion. But I do get your point that at some time, and perhaps soon, we should consider obtaining a broader consensus in regards to the larger issues regarding consolidations. I still feel that this is within the current guidelines and doesn't require a broader consensus, but failing to do so forces us to deal with each article on a case by case basis. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I fully concur that it is always a good thing to preserve verifiable, non-undue content when we can and that many of the individual-event articles, especially those for future events, are not sufficiently notable to survive other than as redirects. Having an omnibus article to use when a notability contest is going ought to have a snowy result is an excellent idea. The problem, as I see it, however, is that there is a great deal of disagreement over the snowy nature of most of the individual event articles and, at that, a disagreement which appears to be compounded and complicated by a great deal of puppetry and even off-wiki canvassing. The result is that every conversion of a individual-event article into a redirect has the potential of turning into an edit war. The secondary result is then that the articles must go to AfD where, instead of a snowy confirmation of the redirect, a dramafest and puppet show results. (At least that's what the situation appears to me to be; if that's wrong, you can probably just ignore everything I've said here today and stop reading at this point.) I've not followed enough of the individual AfD cases to know for sure, but I suspect that a lot of them end up in keeps or no consensus decisions. The fact that redirecting into an omnibus article is a good idea counts for very little, because unless it is a policy or guideline, that's all that it is: a good idea. While sysops have the right to close AfD discussions on the basis of whoever has the best idea (that is, after all, the way that consensus is supposed to be judged), that takes a good bit of fortitude to do so and provides a great chance for the sysop being censured if he or she does not get it right on the mark and in complete accord with the pulse of the community. And you only get there if pro-omnibus editors exercise eternal vigilance and are willing to weather the dramafest over and over and over again. The only way to avoid that is to have a policy or guideline that says individual event articles have to be handled in the desired way. And that's what I thought that you were trying to do here, though perhaps I'm mistaken. That policy or guideline can be written so as to support snowy results at AfD or could even be written in a way that makes revering a redirect even a single time to be EW'ing. Can either of those obtain the approval of the community as a whole? I have some considerable doubt about the first option and an absolute trainload of doubt about the second but, hey, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the deal

Latest comment: 12 years ago31 comments7 people in discussion

I don't think anybody is opposed to an omnibus article. People are pissed that at first, you guys wanted to just do a small summary of each event. Now, people are happier in the direction it has gone. BUT, they are still not happy that things like fighter payout and walkout music has been removed.

Everybody would be happy if those things were added back, like they were when there were individual articles. I think the omnibus would be a welcomed change.

Two things have happened that ticked people off.

1. Like I said, the way that you guys have gone about it was completely wrong. The way you guys took it upon yourself to decide for everybody when there was still plenty of discussion to be had. That wasn't right.

2. You guys are trying to REMOVE information instead of ADD information. That pisses people off more than anything. How is removing information making the Wiki MMA Project better? How is that an improvement? You guys are too caught up following arbitrary rules that other editors just made up one day and it is change not for the better.


So if we can agree that an omnibus is fine AS LONG AS there is the same information as there was in the individual articles, then I think everybody would be happy. At least we would... those who originally opposed. What are your thoughts? Gamezero05 (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what the significance of the fighter payout and walkout music is ? why it is worthy of Encyclopaedic note and why is it not the embodiment of WP:FANCRUFT, in other words to the non MMA fan who comes to this page via the Random Article link, what does it tell them ? Mtking (edits) 03:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
In prizefighting, the prize is generally information that people would like to know. Walkout music is not as important, I'll give you that. Gamezero05 (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you list some examples of reliable sources that discuss this in relation to MMA ? Mtking (edits) 04:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
(EC) I've never been in favor of tables of walk-in music. My reasoning has been that the music a fighter walks to the cage to has no bearing on the event or the fight itself. The few of these tables I've actually paid much attention to seem to not list all fighters or has missing information. To me, it seems to mostly be WP:TRIVIA. Do we have reliable sources for payouts for all events? It would seem odd, to me, if some events listed payouts and some didn't. Again, just my opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Fighter payouts are required to be released by the athletic commissions. Gamezero05 (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Not every event (not even UFC event) is governed by an athletic commission. Also, the numbers reported by the commissions, when there is one, is not necessarily an accurate representation of how much money a fighter earned that night. I've seen stories about fighters earning "locker room money" that goes unreported as well as top level fighters getting an undisclosed share of the gate and PPV revenues via fight contracts. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
That is correct... but what is your point? Gamezero05 (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If we are going to report prize money it has to be verifiable correct, so if correct numbers are hard to come by or are only released when UFC is forced to then it may not be appropriate to included them at all, leave it to the fan sites to speculate. Mtking (edits) 04:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If payouts are included, I would suggest presenting the fights in a table, because each fight would be showing more information (winner, loser, fight time, loss method, weight class, & payout.)--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean the whole omnibus as one big table, or a table within each section? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
A table within each section, converting the results sections of each event into tables, rather than the way they are presented now.--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Good idea. I like it, and I think it will help sway opponents toward accepting this omnibus. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I really like the idea of a table. It would look much nicer than what there is now, and it would be easier to read. Gamezero05 (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
And payouts are released by the athletic commissions. If a fight takes place in, say, Japan, the UFC does not have to disclose fighter payouts. So there will be no official info in that case. But I don't see why that should stop us from posting it when it is official from the commissions. Gamezero05 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

←Example - feel free to change the format dramatically.--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think a table layout is also a good move, I am also thinking it may fix the issue with the flags as at the moment they are a distraction. Mtking (edits) 05:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Completely disagree with flags being a distraction. Gamezero05 (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as the table goes, you'd need to have spot for the round number that the fight ended, "Decision Time" should just read "Time" in my opinion.. as not all fights go to decision, and both fighters receive payouts... so you'd have to adjust for that somehow. Gamezero05 (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Again, throw the whole kitchen sink into the omni, and worry about decrufting later. If/when the stand-alones redirect to the omni, thousands of eyes will suddenly land and scrutinize the page. Let's give them what they want to see: lots and lots of content. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I just added a refgroup to it, it may be beneficial to not have the judges decisions in the table, as it takes up quite a lot of room, but they can be linked in a notes section below.--kelapstick(bainuu) 06:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Per Kitchen sink: I personally don't mind the judges decisions in the table. It can always be (re)moved later. My two cents. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
My concern is that it will be too hard to edit. When we have a table of upcoming fights, it would be easy to just fill in the boxes after the fight happens. The way you have it set up, it would be hard to do. Somebody would have to do a lot of editing to update the table after a fight.
I'm sure there is more than one way to do it. But the only way I figured it could be done is like I did it on my userpage where the winner is highlighted in green and the loser in red. Gamezero05 (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Point taken, just keep in mind the issue I mentioned with WP:COLOR, I do suggest that you bold the winner as well, and the refgroup is just a suggestion.--kelapstick(bainuu) 06:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you guys know how to align text in the box to the left? Gamezero05 (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
# Weight class Win Loss Round Time Loss type Payout
1 Lightweight Thiago Tavares Sam Stout 1 x.xx Decision[N 1] $???

I think it was missed on the 2012 in UFC events talk page, but yesterday I created similar tables at 2012 in Super Fight League for suggestions and advice. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Gamezero05, in the table, just change "center" to "left" or "right" for alignment. Some layout comments. On the Payout, does it vary for winner vs loser? If so, you'll need two payout columns. Consider changing "Loss type" to "Decision", I think it's more descriptive. Rather than add the results for a judges decision or a note about it, it may be easier to include a link to the reference with the decision results. Since you need to have it reference anyway, that may be a good column for the match results reference. My main worry would be that for organizations with lots of events per year the notes section could get fairly large. Another option would be to keep the notes, but use a notes group for each event but have it collapsed initially so it won't take up as much space on the screen.
Once you get something that looks good, I'd suggest creating a template to make it easier to create the results tables (and to make any changes apply to all results). Wikitables can be more intimidating than templates, especially if the templates are fairly straightforward. Same thing with the summary event table. If you'd like some help there, give me a shout on my talk page and I'll be glad to help out. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
So I hit a slow spot at work, waiting on a 45 minute compile run and since this had tweaked my attention, please take a look at this page - User:Ravensfire\UFC. It's based highly on Kelapstick's example (thanks!) but uses templates (3 total, header, data, footer) to hide all of the table formatting. It still allows for reference groups if needed and you can use different reference groups for each event with each group collapsed to conserve space. By having them as templates you'll have a consistent look and feel without much work to adjust it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes! Let's deal.

I like this direction.

With the omnibus having taken shape, it's time to sell it and see who's buying.

When I first saw it, it looked like a step backward. Now, it's looking pretty good. So, first, make this omnibus appear exactly like 20 articles jammed onto one page. If you do that, then the issue becomes solely about how these 20 items are presented: one page or 20 separate ones. All else is excluded.

Both sides bureaucratically cite policies for and against the stand-alones. That's getting us nowhere.

Let's look at the practical selling points of this omnibus:

  • One-stop shopping.
  • It's only got 83 hours on it, and still has that new article smell. A bargain!
  • And a huge one: Zero risk of stand-alone articles being deleted and not covered at all at Wikipedia. (And it's not just this handful of editors who may AfD. It's anyone, anytime in the future.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

not sure where or how to post this. but the new table format for cards and results can not be seen on mobile. it squeezes everything and impossible to even read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.73.12 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not easy to figure out where to put things on this talk page at the moment. I took a look at 2012 in UFC events on my cell phone. The tables do get squished quite a bit, particularly in portrait mode (landscaped wasn't as bad, but still lots of wrapping within cells). I'm not sure if this can be resolved and keep the tables. I've never looked into how MediaWiki formats things for mobile sites and how much control we have for that in the markup. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #2

Latest comment: 12 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion

One more thing about flags.... why does the ATP Tennis rankings use flags? Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings How about the PGA Tour? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGA_Tour How about the International Boxing Federation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Boxing_Federation Or the World Boxing Association? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Boxing_Association Or Le Mans winners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_24_Hours_of_Le_Mans_winners

Look, any sport that competes on a WORLD-WIDE stage with a bunch of international participants, I think it is appropriate to list their nationality. It is commonly done not only on Wikipedia, but by the very organizations themselves. The PGA has flags next to the names. Boxing does. MMA does. Tennis does. Etc.

There is absolutely no reason to remove them from MMA. It is completely relevant to the sport. Gamezero05 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a reason to remove them, that is why we are discussing it, as for the examples you list Golf and Tennis do not help your as both have some form of national or super-national representation at the top level, be it Davis Cup or the Olympics in tennis or Ryder cup or Presidents Cup or World Cup in golf. Boxing given its connection (all be it tentative) with MMA is a better example, however this still has a representative form in the Olympics, so unless there is some way an MMA fighter can represent the country at the sport I still think that they should be removed as implying a level of representation that is not there. Mtking (edits) 06:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
That is not a strong argument at all. That would make sense if the article was about an international event, like the Olympics or the Ryder Cup. But they are listing their nationalities in main articles about the sport that have nothing to do with competitions where you specifically represent a country. And as for boxing, boxing in the Olympics is only done by AMATEURS. Professionals cannot compete in the Olympics. So your point about boxing is irrelevant. Professional boxers have no equivalent of the Olympics. I can look at the baseball homerun leaders and NONE of them have flags next to their name. Why? Baseball was an Olympic sport. Using your logic, they should have flags next to their name... but they don't. Look, these athletes from those sports I mentioned don't have a flag next to their name because some of them may happen to compete in an event where they represent a country once every 4 years or something. The reason they have a flag next to their name is because their sport is a sport that is world-wide in nature and consists of players from all over the world. Golf is played all over the world with players from all over the world. Same with tennis, boxing, auto racing, and MMA. They are international sports with international participants. Which is why the flags should stay. Gamezero05 (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The strongest argument for deleted them has already been made, WP:MOSFLAG specifically says you shouldn't include them. That is the guideline that has to be followed. Unless you can explain how our reading of WP:MOSFLAG is flawed and how it actually permits them, then the place to get that changed is on the talk page of WP:MOSFLAG itself. We don't have the option of ignoring guidelines just because we don't like them. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Then explain to me why MMA articles have always used the flags, and other sports such as golf, tennis, auto racing, boxing, etc. also use the flags? You said earlier that the reason the rules should be followed is so that Wikipedia is the same. But at the same time, the trend seems to be allowing flags for sports that are world-wide with international competitors. So I don't see how following some arbitrary rule helps anything at all. Gamezero05 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
P.S... I just read WP:MOSFLAG, and I can't find anywhere that specifically says that you shouldn't include them. The burden of proof is on you. Copy and paste exactly what you are referring to when you state "WP:MOSFLAG specifically says you shouldn't include them". Gamezero05 (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I already quoted the passage from WP:MOSFLAG, "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others." Additionally, WP:BURDEN clearly states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". Deleting items doesn't have a burden of proof, only adding or restoring it does. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
That says "flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual INFOBOXES". This isn't about infoboxes. So that passage does not apply. Gamezero05 (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Counting the conversations at 2012 in UFC events, 5 out of the 6 editors commenting on it believe it does apply, but you can always seek an outside opinion such as WP:DR if you feel that strongly about it. (added the following) Let me be clear, it isn't a vote, I'm just saying that all 5 have given legitimate reasons why they think they shouldn't be included, and you have given legitimate reasons why they should, and your reasons have been considered but I don't see them overcoming the obligation in WP:MOSFLAG. That doesn't mean it is impossible, it means we would need experienced and objective editors (not involved in this discussion) to review and give an opinion as to whether or not there is an overriding value in going against MOS in this instance. WP:DR is just one option. If it went to WP:DR and the consensus there was that MOS didn't apply, or we would be better off doing it anyway, then myself and all the others would comply, I can guarantee that. This is the proper way to build a consensus where there is a reasonable question as to whether or not a guideline applies or not. It takes a few days, but doing it right is better than doing it fast. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
So basically what you are saying is that I am right, and you can't find anything specific in WP:MOSFLAG. Your only argument now is that other editors agree with you. Well, if you remember, this is not a democracy. You can have a billion editors agree with you, but if you can't find anywhere in the rules that says explicitly that flags should not be there, then you have no argument. In addition to that, plenty of other sports that I have listed (golf, tennis, boxing, auto racing) have flags next to the list of competitors in different tables. So that would show that not only is there no rule against it, but consistency across Wikipedia is on my side. Gamezero05 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually what he is saying (not that I want to speak for Dennis) is they you are not right, and the MOS explicitly states that the flags should not be used, because the fighters are not representing their country in the fights. This has been explained by DGG, and others, and is quite clear in MOSFLAG. It has nothing to do with infoboxes. You may initiate a discussion to determine if there is consensus to include them (against the MOS), but as i had mentioned, that should be seperate to this, after this article is fleshed out. Boxing, racing, golf, lawn bowling, etc. articles not following the related style guidelines is not grounds for MMA articles breaching them too, if there is an issues with those articles, the issue should be fixed, not used as grounds for not following style guidelines here. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
You are wrong. Nowhere in MOSFLAG does it say anything about what we are talking about. What Dennis quoted was pertaining to INFOBOXES. We are not talking about info boxes. So it doesn't apply here. MOSFLAG says NOTHING about what we are talking about. It does not explicitly state what you say it does. So once again, if I am wrong, and it DOES state that flags are inappropriate for what we are using them for, then show me exactly where. I mean, it should be really easy since it so "explicitly" states it as you say it does. Gamezero05 (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I've long believed that flags are misused by the MMA WikiProject, but as I have mentioned before it is a controversial subject. my reasonings from MOS:FLAG: "Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality." "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." "Use the flag and name of the country (be it a state or a nation) that the person (or team of people) officially represented, regardless of citizenship, when the flag templates are used for sports statistics and the like." "[I]f a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags)." Also, as mentioned somewhere above, this is probably not the correct forum to extensive debate on this issue. It should probably be held at WT:MMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It does. And this is what it says. Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality. Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise. Since the fighters don't represent the country in question, they should not be used as per the MOS. This has all been explained at length, in various places.-kelapstick(bainuu) 00:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The main point here is that there are many editors that feel that flags should not be used because they are counter to the guidelines and have provide ample explanation. Nothing more can be said. The guidelines don't give explicit details on purpose. They don't need to say "inside an infobox, outside, in a table, in a span, in a paragraph, on your good china, etc." to be understood. This isn't an issue for MMA so much as WP:DR, because the issue isn't "is it better to or not" but "do guidelines allow it or not", which is why you go to a neutral place if there is a question, ie WP:DR (this prevents ignoring rules simply because a group of users prefer to). At this point, I think there is enough consensus as to the meaning of WP:MOSFLAG to remove them if someone wanted to, and if the one editor wants them added back, WP:BURDEN says he needs to get outside opinions in the proper, neutral venue, again, WP:DR. This is exactly why it exists. We keep talking about it, but at some point, the editor has to realize it is time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. No new info is being introduced, and continuing it here is becoming disruptive. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
1. Flag icons in MMA do not indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death. It clearly says in your quote "flags imply citizenship and/or nationality". We are simply using flags to represent nationality. So it is acceptable under that rule.
2. "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" Very vague. An argument can be made that as an individual athlete in an international sport, they are representing their countries. Even in the UFC, when announcing the fighters, the announcer will say something like: "This man is a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu fighter. Holding a professional record of 14 wins, 3 losses. Standing at 5 feet, 10 inches tall, and weighing in at 170 pounds. Fighting out of Fortaleza, Brazil ..."
Or how about when the UFC had "The Ultimate Fighter: UK vs. USA" where the fighters were fighters from the UK vs. fighters from the USA. Clearly the UFC sees the nationality of fighter's as representative. Gamezero05 (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In a section that is UK vs USA, then you have a solid argument about using the flags. That is the exception, however, not the rule, and in that instance, it shows which "side" the fighter is on. Not a shoe in, but that is a good reason as it adds information that is actually relevant to that one event, and for that specific event (or other events that are 100% "country vs. country"), I would back you up on it. Granted, they aren't sponsored by the country, but "country vs. country" is the obvious point of those special, and rare, matches. As to announcing their birthplace, pro wrestling announced the city/state of the fighters even back when I watched it, (which was around 35 years ago) so that wasn't started because it was different countries. More of a tradition thing back then, to pump up rivalries from different areas. Yes, wrestling was regional then, not national, and we cheered for Fritz Von Erich back in Texas. And of course, Andre the Giant. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Explain to me this... why does the UFC sell shirts with a picture of a fist with a Brazilian flag bandanna wrapped around it. They also sell one with a Canadian flag, one with an American flag, one with a Japanese flag, one with a British flag, etc. Why do fighters like Dan Henderson have "USA" stitched on their shorts? Why do fighters like Chael Sonnen have stars and stripes on his shorts? Why do other fighters have Brazilian flag shorts? Why do walk-out shirts almost always incorporate the country into the design? Whether you agree or not, fighters are always representing their country, and it has always been part of combat sports and prize-fighting. And like I said earlier. Sports like golf and tennis and auto racing display the flags not only on Wikipedia... but by the very sports themselves. The PGA Tour displays where each person is from, and so does the ATP World Tour for tennis. I haven't even looked, but I know for a fact auto racing does. Gamezero05 (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Profit. If having a picture of a 1974 AMC Gremlin on the t-shirt made it sell more and made more profit, believe me, it would be on the t-shirt. (marketing is my day job, trust me on this one) It is done to fuel national pride, which sells stuff. Or the individual fighters have their own national pride. If you never knew their countries of origin, it wouldn't affect the outcome of the fights, would it? And be sure to read what about this other article. There are lots of improperly formatted articles of Wikipedia. Drives me nuts. Every sports team also has their team colors in the bottom templates of their articles, and this is an absolute and obvious MOS guideline violation. Each one takes so long to debate, we can't keep up with them. Once something *does* get my attention, I see it through, then move on. Right now, I'm here, so that is my focus. Very likely, once the formatting issues are complete here, you won't see me unless I'm invited. I understand the guidelines fairly well, but you and others know the content much better. We each do what we do best for the good of Wikipedia. And yes, the guidelines are confusing. I've been here 5.5 years registered, a year before that as anonymous, and I obviously spend a lot of time in policy issues, yet I still read one guideline or another daily and get outside opinions regularly, even here. No one is going to come here and understand all of them in a few months, or years. They do work, however, and I respect and follow them as best I can. Please note, sometime I don't want to, and I disagree with the guideline, and it might even piss me off a little, but I suck it up and follow it anyway. That's the breaks. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

The discussion is not moving forward, it is clearly one of style over substance and in the interest of moving this forward, let me propose the following compromise :

  1. The table form proposed is adopted and the results list is converted to them;
  2. That for the time being only the flags remain;
  3. On the 1 May 2012 a 7 day RFC discussion on the the article talk page is started with the question "The use of flags next to the fighters names is appropriate" on May 8th the discussion will close and a notice posted to WP:AN asking for an un-involved admin to review consensus, if they feel there is consensus for the flags to be there then they should remain, in the cases of "no consensus" or "consensus not to have flags" then the flags should be removed.

Mtking (edits) 01:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

  Steps 1 and 2 are done I've edited 2012 in UFC events, 2012 in Super Fight League and Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Six to use the table as most recently proposed above to display event results and official fight cards. Two notes on 2012 in UFC events. 1) For future events, I used the table only for the "official" fight card; instances where a bout has been announced but not placed on the fight card I left in 'old' format. I wasn't sure of the best approach to add them into the table. 2) While the existing results and future fight cards split many of the cards up between Facebook/Fuel TV/FX/etc as discussed above, the cited sources did not show this distinction. So, at the moment it appears to be WP:OR unless someone can find a source that outlines the different parts of the cards. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

order of fields

  • Something else I just thought about with the table is order of the fights. There are two ways it is done across MMA event articles: Order of fights as they occur (preliminaries to main event) and the reverse of that (main event first then down to the preliminaries). It might be a good idea to standardize this ordering across all events. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The best and most NPOV way is list them in the order in which they happened starting with the first, as for the order of the fields, I do think the Weight Class should be listes to the left but the TV status should come last before and notes, it is of no real consequence in evaluating the fight. Mtking (edits) 06:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
TV status should be on the left because that is what order the card is in. It is another way of displaying "main card", "preliminary card", and "facebook", as in how it used to be done. The order of the card should be known before it is known who is fighting in each "section" of the fight card. Gamezero05 (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Ultimately, we want a format that presents the reader with the critical pieces of information in a manner that's easy to read, works with various display sizes (including mobile) and doesn't get bogged down with details that can be pulled from the linked sources. So let's take a step back. We're in the event list article, working on the entry for a particular event. Looking at the existing 2012 in UFC events article, each event section has a summary of the event overall, an infobox describing the event and the results. Gamezero05, from your description it sounds like there are three phases to the event - facebook/other, preliminary and main. So let's call them that. In the infobox, we cover how the event is published "Prelims broadcast: PPV" and "Main broadcast: Fox". (Ignore the phrasing for now) If a phase isn't broadcase, it's not listed here. If there's something odd, that's what the summary text is for. Basically, move duplicated information that's not critical to a higher entity (yes, I am a programmer ...).
The results section would then be phase (prelim, main, other), Class, Fighter1, Fighter2, Round, Time, Method. For the payouts, it's honestly more trivia that useful except for anything major, but that's exactly what the summary section is for. If there's a really good site that summarizes MMA results and is considered a WP:RS, using it as a source link would be perfect and really help keep the WP article in summary style but make sure the reader can get all the details quickly. Ravensfire (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Article name change?

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

Instead of 2012 in UFC events, would UFC events in 2012 be better? I think putting it like that would help search engines find it better and also help with organization. Thoughts? Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure about established conventions here, though. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Nor do I. I'm going to dig around WP:MOS and see what it says. I'm neutral as to titles as long as whatever is used conforms to the expectations of MOS, if there are any. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, what I am seeing after reading a half dozen guideline pages is that there isn't a hard rule on how to do this. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles_on_events would appear to be the most applicable guideline. For events that occur on regular intervals (more or less what we have here), it says that naming something such as 2012 Event name is not preferred because it puts too much emphasis on date, but commonly done so it is accepted. It strongly suggests using Event name (2012) as the preferred way, but it isn't mandatory. I would suggest that everyone take a look at this section of the guideline first (fairly small) so we are all working from the same page. No matter where you put the date, it isn't likely to run afoul of any policy or guideline. I will stay neutral on the actual name and will support whatever the consensus of editors agree upon. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This is more in line with 2012 in music style, not saying it is correct or othrerwise. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I personally think "2012 in UFC events" sounds fine. I don't know anything about search engines finding it. Gamezero05 (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
It sounds backwards to me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Like something Yoda might say? --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Essentially, what you're creating here is a list article, but without the explicit list. I'd look at it as [List of] UFC events in 2012 vs [List of] 2012 events in UFC. I wouldn't worry about search engines - they'll easily handle any of the suggested names and make sure that people looking for UFC events that happened in 2012 will find their way here. Ravensfire (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you are correct that these articles are related to lists, just with more content. A hybrid of sorts. I went and checked all the guidelines on lists, but didn't really see anything that would apply to dates, which led me back to the guideline on generic 'naming conventions' for articles. And yes, search engines can handle any order, so we really don't need to worry about that when choosing. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Spent some time looking for anything in the MOS for titling this and didn't find much, but did find a ton of pages named 2012 in X and not many named X in 2012. There's also group of categories that go with that naming scheme (see the 2012 in film article, the category for it and the parent category structure from there). Looks like a de facto standard to me. Ravensfire (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, from this, the preferred title would be 2012 in UFC. Unless ... that's a summary of EVERYTHING UFC related in 2012, and this would focus purely on events. I'm thinking the main article would mention Ultimate Fighter and any drama/chaos/notable events that happen in UFC outside of an event. So the structure would be something like this:
2012 in mixed martial arts
2012 in UFC
2012 in UFC Events
The Ultimate Fighter season X
2012 in Other MMA (if only one article is needed, then all events would go into here)
Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The naming convention guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles_on_events says otherwise, but it is only a suggestion even there. That is where I got the Event (date) format, which it strongly recommends. I see the logic in the recommendation, but it is not the prettiest nor most intuitive titling structure. Again, I'm not voting and I'm fine with any name, but that small section is worth a read as it appears to be the closest to what we are doing here, even if you disagree with its suggestions. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Elephant in the room

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

It is now over a week since User:Beeblebrox posted asking us to adopt an Omnibus format for MMA events, we have such an article in 2012 in UFC events, I think it is time to reinstate the redirects, but before I did I would ask that if anyone thinks any of the events UFC have held or are planning to do in 2012 meet WP:MMAEVENT and demonstrate genuine lasting effect then please list them below so we can discuss them on an individual bases Mtking (edits) 12:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Related to this. The fair use rationale will have to be changed on the posters that appear here. I won't be able to get to it till Monday, if someone can get to them before then, it would be great. -kelapstick(bainuu) 12:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Anyone ? I plan to start with those yet to happen and work back. Mtking (edits) 23:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I would expect some backlash from a few that haven't been participating and wanting to start old discussion up all over again, and it would be better to deal with it here than on each page, demonstrating prior consensus, keep from resaying what has been said, etc. A section to deal with it here, one header per article, might be good, with a comment on the talk page and summary pointing here. I think the timing is right, but no need to try to argue 20 articles at the same time. Besides, it isn't a race, it is just a destination. You might try limiting your "changes" to a few at a time (one or two a day average, for now), to prevent it from becoming a free-for-all. And it about time we look at getting a bot to start archiving this page. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree, I will limit it to small sets, post a note on the talk page (with a link here) and post a 3rd level section here with done. As for the bot, yes with a 14 day period to start seems good. Mtking (edits) 23:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
When redirecting the individual articles to the omnibus, I would recommend, targeting the redirect to the specific section of the omnibus discussing that individual event. If someone is trying to go to UFC on Fox Y and they see information about UFC on Fox Y they may be less likely to complain than if they see the top of 2012 in UFC events. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. And just think, once this is done, you can start working on all the other years. :D As you know, I'm useless on helping with content, but keep me in the loop if you need someone familiar with the previous administrative decisions and guideline considerations with the other stuff. Early is always better than late. Once complete, this is going to be a very good thing for both MMA and Wikipedia, even if it wasn't obvious to many in the early days. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have stated with the three UFC on FX not already redirects, I will do the three UFC on Fuel TV and the three UFC on Fox in two stages tomorrow, then take it from there. Mtking (edits) 07:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
*An Afd is not the end all to prevent an article from being expanded when new sources are found and added. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Note: IP range now checkuserblocked.

Nice try with the redirects. Per the dispute resolution discussion that I know you're aware of, if you want to remove/redirect pages, you have to follow procedure and nominate each and every one for deletion as the mediator suggested. Udar55 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  • That isn't what was said. His comments were limited to the one article. He wouldn't have been addressing an entire class of articles at WP:DR, that would be beyond the scope of that particular venue. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

2012 Redirects

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I have just done the following redirects :

UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller

  Done Mtking (edits) 07:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

FC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller

  Done Mtking (edits) 07:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC on FX 3

  Done Mtking (edits) 07:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What Now ?

Latest comment: 12 years ago37 comments8 people in discussion

So where do we go from here, we have an omnibus article that is ready, has all the information in it that the stand alone articles had yet there is still no consensus for the redirects, in fact one editor is requiring AfD's on them all before the redirect can be put in place.

  1. It has be recommended that we hold a RfC on this issue, however I can find no real precedent for it, and have spent most of the morning trying to frame a question to ask, all of which boil down to "Can the project have the community consent to enforce WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT with the use of WP:MMAEVENT". It has also been pointed out we should have some examples of what are acceptable sources, however I cannot find an MMA event that has been sent to AfD that has been kept becouse it meets the "Lasting Significance test".
  2. Accept that despite our best effort here we will have to nominate them for deletion at AfD, and accept the inevitable disruption when posts are made to Sherdog forums and all the socks and SPA's pile in. Maybe we ask that they are semi-protected at the start and a number of admins are asked to act as observers ?
  3. Continue to discuss it here, however I feel those that are now left that want the stand alone articles may not be willing to accept anything other than retaining the stand alone articles.

Comments please ? Mtking (edits) 02:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, ask for comment at WP:ANI. It's exceedingly obvious after multiple AFD's what the correct approach is and a small number of editors don't want to hear that. Explain the situation and ask for advice and see what they say. I think forcing every article time and time again to go to AFD when they know the approach is being disruptive and shouldn't be tolerated. Ravensfire (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with Ravensfire that having to AfD every individual event (even if grouped together in AfDs) is not a constructive use of anyone's time. However, in various discussions scattered around Wikipedia, it seems to me that either a string of more AfDs and/or a definitive RfC is going to be required to settle the matter. In terms of an RfC, I don't think Mtking or I can construct a question in a NPOV manner because both of us already have the arguments against individual article constructed in our head. At the same time, I don't think the "other camp", particularly those who believe that UFC events are inherently notable, can construct the RfC question either for similar reasons. It may take a neutral party with some familiarity of the situation to create the question. Ravensfire suggested getting advice from ANI, though I'm on the fence on how useful that will be. WP:DR has already been done, for a limited case, and the answer was basically AfD. I'm not sure if WP:Mediation Cabal would offer anything new or not (I've never seen it in action) or if this should just go straight to RfC (which I haven't seen used or participated in extensively). It does seem like we are running around in circles though in terms of where to go in terms of the UFC set of articles. Of course, it's only been a week (though it doesn't feel like it), so maybe I'm just expecting too much too fast?
  • I've already piped in on talk pages, and I can't say what I *know* is the correct answer, but to answer in a more public venue, I think we might be looking at an RfC in the near future. ANI is more about incidents, and the user forcing everyone to go to AFD isn't violating any rule, just being difficult. It would be nice to have a consensus at RfC that any article that is sourced ONLY by primary sources and sources that are not independent (ie: they only focus on MMA events) should be redirected in order to *AVOID* AFD. In those cases, forcing it to AFD is very pointy and not productive. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Dennis, you mention something that perhaps should be asked in an RfC at some point: Are MMA media websites, who are not affiliated with any MMA promotion, independent of the subject as required by WP:GNG? What if those MMA media sites are used for content at more "mainstream" sites? (For example, MMAFighting.com articles appear at Yahoo Sports.) This area will help answer the question of if MMA event passes WP:GNG if they are only covered by Sherdog, MMAMania.com, MMAJunkie.com and similar sites. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that is a question that needs answering, yes, and only an RfC can do that. If an article is covered by Sports Illustrated, then obviously they are independent of the source since they cover more than just MMA, but sources from MMA only websites aren't independent, at least I don't think. They are fine (and likely the best) for citing facts, but not for demonstrating notability, as it is their job to promote the sport, not to simply report on sports. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I would dispute that it's "there job to promote the sport" as a number of MMA journalists routinely state, it's there job to report the facts as best they can, not to promote the sport even if Dana White & some fans think that's there job. Obviously not all sites/people are created equally when it comes to objectivity. --Phospheros (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The job of the individual reporter is to report facts, but make no mistake that the job of the websites themselves is to promote the sport, which promotes themselves. The web owners have every desire to attract more users, promote the sport, which means more potential users, rinse, repeat. This is true of any highly specialized website, not just MMA. When we are determining the usability of a website for references, we aren't looking at the individual reporters, we are looking at the management, the editorial process. That is what makes a site "reliable" per WP:RS. Independence is a completely different issue. Independence is not required for citing many non-contentious facts, but it is required for establishing notability, per WP:N. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
"The web owners have every desire to attract more users" just as ESPN has every desire to attract more viewers, to "promote" sports, which means more potential viewers, rinse, repeat. This is true of any highly specialized channel, not just sports. "the editorial process" and that was my only point, some sites have editorial credibility and some don't. But one should not paint all sites with a broad brush. Each site should be judged on its own merits.--Phospheros (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That each site be judged on their merits IS what we are suggesting. You can't really compare ESPN, however, as they cover ALL sports. We are talking about sites that only cover ONE sport. A website that only covers NASCAR, for instance, isn't "independent enough" to establish notability for a NASCAR event if that is the only source that can be found, at least per the understanding of a great deal of editors and administrators. It can still be used as a reliable source for information if it passes WP:RS, no one is arguing that. That is what an external consensus needs to establish. Again, a site can be reliable without being independent. Even primary sites quality under this interpretation, but not for establishing notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


The long game

The omnibus is good because it contains events that cannot really pass GNG. So, the issue is not whether or not it should stand. It's the articles redirecting to it. So, why not abandon the heavy handed AfDs and redirects. Instead start merge proposals, and add the omnibus to "See also" section of each article. Take it slow. What's the hurry? I didn't read the above very well, so if this has been suggested, please forgive me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  • No forgiveness ever needed, your input here during the whole debate has been very constructive, helpful and appreciated. No had suggested going the merge route yet and going after AFDs for the purpose of getting a merge isn't appropriate anyway. I think both of our ideas can be done at the same time, to both reduce stress, prevent backlash, and clearly determine a consensus for the future. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Something else that may be needed if the AFD approach is considered is to request protection (semi or full) for the redirect for at least a month to prevent the edit wars that is happening from people directed from the forum. Ravensfire (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Many admins won't do preemptive protection. Maybe if it was agreed in an RfC, but I wouldn't hold out for that. Since Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" (and vandalize), it is considered against the core principals to auto-protect an entire class of articles. But if you can find a sympathetic ear, I agree it would make life easier. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Anna in part, in my thinking for UFC in 2011, that would be to draft as a user space draft then use the {{merge to}} template on each of the of the proposed redirects pointing to one discussion (probably on the user space draft talk page), that approach now has the feeling of being the wrong way round, the merge has been done now, all that is left is to put in the redirects. Mtking (edits) 00:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure you can't start a mergeto with the destination being in userspace, you can't mix the two areas. Likely, you would be better off to create the article, finish it, use main tags for attribution, then start merge discussions, pointing the talk to that 2011 omnibus article. You would likely get less resistance that way as well since it was merging to a real article, not just a promise of one. Maybe a little less. Forgot to add, an admin would need to merge attribution once the main tags were gone and they became a redirect. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry should have explained better - do the draft in user space but then propose the merge to the 2011 in UFC as a red link and use the userspace draft as the example of what it would look like, when it is clear there is consensus, move the userspace article and put the redirects in place. As for the issue of attribution that can be done by non admins, all that would be needed, is when the userspace draft is created, event by event a link in the edit sum back to the source page (for example with the edit sum adding content copied from revision 123456789 of [[article title]] - for more info see WP:CWW), doing it this way it is not possible to argue that the murge has already happened (as is the case with 2012). Mtking (edits) 01:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  • My gut still says creating the article in full (which will not violate any guideline) first would be best, essentially what you are saying but move into mainspace before starting the conversations. It is semantics, but the appearance of an already "real" article is persuasive vs. user space, which looks more like one persons idea rather than a communities idea. ie: it helps sell the idea better. Not a biggie, I won't slow anything down for it, just my opinion. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It'll take some time to write the 2011 in UFC events article (based upon how long it took me to write the initial draft of the 2012 article and we're only 3 months into the year). If the idea is to do the "merge" proposal route from individual event articles to the omnibus article, why not start that with 2012 in UFC events. I know Mtking has redirected a few of the individual events to the omnibus article, but there are still a number of individual event articles, particularly for the numbered events. This could allow for another trial run of how to do this while the 2011 article is under construction? Just a thought. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I've been thinking about it all day. I had reverted one of the contentious redirects earlier today, but I think we all need to stop doing this, and go the merge route. I don't want to become as disruptive as we claim others have been, and continuing to just revert, even when we are right, isn't helpful. It's only a small handful of objectors now, most have seen what you are doing and are fine with it, but we don't need to start another round of meatpuppet battles here. I just undid my own revert in good faith to start a discussion at UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann. That would be a good place to start a merge discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I think yes. The {{Merge to}} route is best. When I started this subsection, I was referring to the 2012 articles. Omnis are solid, worthwhile, and will survive AfDs. Redirecting to them is the concern. AfDs freak people out and are seen as a blackmail tactic. Redirecting circumvents procedure. Merge seems to be the best way, albeit a pain in the butt. Like Dennis Brown says (I think), make the omni, then look after the next steps. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

AfD is not a blackmail tactic, the only tactic at play here is that of Udar55, by not engaging in a meaningfully dialogue, posting off wiki personal atacks on those acting in good faith to resolve this, hopping that either TreyGeek, Dennis Brown or myself will give up. Do place the merge template on the articles, when doing so point to one central discussion point for all though, we don't need 10+ locations for discussions.Mtking (edits) 22:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Further, it is probably a good idea to notify DGG, Beeblebrox and MuZemike of the location and ask that they keep an eye on it for attacks, socking and the like, may be also WP:AN (not ANI) the more admins with eyes on it might help it remain constructive. Mtking (edits) 22:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

  • And keep me in the loop on any merge discussions you start, a note on my talk page is always good. I'm still working 12+ hours a day, and lately I've had to be away from my desk some, so I can miss stuff. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


AfD can very easily be seen as an unfair tactic. I'm not saying that that is your intention, just that it can been '"seen" that way. That's why I've been iffy about it. If it freaks everyone out, we ought to consider other ways.
And once again, we should keep the option of allowing many of the major UFC event articles to stand. Policy or not, opposition's ability to cite guidelines or not, it is clear that the masses want the major UFC articles to remain. Serving the masses is paramount.
You've done good work creating the omni, and you have set a precedent. They contain articles that could never stand alone. But maybe compromise is in order. If we insist on omnis alone, we run the risk of the Sherdog crowd setting up their own filecard-style wiki for all events. We would then likely lose our status as the hub for info, and the whole MMA project could suffer. Wikipedia remain the main hub for MMA articles is important, right?
Anyway, we can do a multiple merge (Wikipedia:Merge#Tagging multiple articles) with the pre-created omni talk being the location for centralized discussion, and see how the chips fall. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't agree that WP should be the hub (or go to point) for anything, if the MMA fan base what a wiki for the sport then they can create it and I would be willing to help them transwiki the content from here (assuming they chose to use CC-BY-SA). Do we need to cover the sport ? - yes, but we should not treat MMA any differently than we do any other sport, there is also a ongoing discussion about a collage american football game with the same arguments, yes they are newsworthy, but not encyclopaedic. I also support the idea of the creation of "sportspedia" in the same way that wikinews exists, that can cover every sports result and event, there is a danger that we loose the focus of what we are building here and that in the long term will damage the brand as it gets associated with fan created triva and not a serious well respect, well sourced factual resource. Mtking (edits) 00:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
"...I don't agree that WP should be the hub (or go to point) for anything..." ???? I disagree. It should! There are enormous advantages to be gained, least of which is the crossreferencing bluelinks. Mainainting critical mass for a topic means all the valuable information lands here.
You may call this news. I call it events. In time, news becomes history. An article about a boxing match in 1844, complete with poster, photos, and plenty of content, including walk in music, would be a very welcome and valuable part of the project.
What "we are building here" is a massive body of information. This is only the first decade of a project that hopefully will last hundreds of years. Please don't worry about it becoming too large. As for quality, an article on UFC 145 is as valuable to some as Man Afraid Soap is to others.
As Jimbo said: "...Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Well that seams to be at odds with WP:NOT, the community has agreed limits to what we included, for example it says "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" and "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" that's what we have here, an event that has made the news, in common with most sports events this last week, but with one or two notable exceptions (The Masters springs to mind) none of them will have any enduring significance. What I mean when I say WP should not be the go to point, is best explained with the following example : If I want up-to-date game info on a round by round basis on the AFL (Aussie Rules) I go to afl.com.au, if I want a historical perspective on a past season I would come here; WP should not be the place MMA fans come for gossip and news headlines. Mtking (edits) 01:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Lots of policies and guidelines are deliberately vague and at odds with each other. The intent is for the community to ultimately make judgement calls.
Today's news headlines and up-to-date game info is tomorrow's historical information. Gossips has nothing to do with this discussion.
Many editors have made the point about this project being here to serve visitors, and that an ocean of them want individual articles. Please respond to that. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Anna, AfD will always show the appearance of impropriety to new people, especially those who come to the discussion based on a post on a forum (the big scary deletion notice on the top). I also fear that a merge template will do the same, and even a disclaimer at the top in big bold letters saying "this is not an attempt to remove the content from Wikipedia, rather to put it in an improved format" probably will not help (ever hear of the hierarchy of control, signs are one of the least effective methods of eliminating a hazard, from an occupational health and safety point of view). The benefit of the merge over AfD is there can be no comments about "AfD is not for merging", which is bound to come up. The only issue I have with merging is because they don't have a fixed timeline like AfD, they frequently get forgotten about, or not closed (I've seen merge templates on articles for over 2 years). I am sure there will be lots of eyes on the discussion, but setting a fixed duration is a good idea, then the discussion can be posted at the appropriate noticeboard to request closure after the discussion takes place. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Any AFD that is for the purpose of merging will, and should, get speedy kept. I would push for that, it is an improper use of AFD. I don't think anyone is arguing to use AFD as a weapon, fortunately. And I've always maintained that any article that passes WP:GNG should remain an article. The only question is what sources establish notability and which don't. If they are only MMA forums, or MMA only websites, then no as that is routine coverage by non-independent sources. (imho) Merges shouldn't take more than 7 to 10 days per article, and anyone can close a merge, it doesn't require an admin. It's best if someone not participating directly close it, of course. Likely, listing merges here would be fine. No matter who closes a merge, someone can revert back and force the issue into WP:DR, so a clean discussion and close is important. I see a few block along the way, but nothing major. And some discussions won't go the way you want, but if the discussion is clean and fair, that is the way it goes. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • For me it is not where the source comes from, it is "'does the source demonstrate that the event had lasting significance?", going back to the AFL, all of this weeks games received more than enough coverage in RS to pass GNG, (all of them viewed by far more spectators at the ground and on TV than any of the MMA events we are talking about) but none of them have any lasting significance, so when I look at the UFC events, to see if they meet WP:EVENT, I am looking for firstly sources written at least 4+ weeks after the event, and they collectively need to pass GNG. Mtking (edits) 02:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
"does the source demonstrate that the event had lasting significance?" and Wikipedia:EVENT are guidelines, not a policy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Citing the absence of football events is like reverse WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and doesn't hold much water. With respect, we've heard these positions over and over again. This boils down to citing guidlines vs. the masses wanting individual articles. Commons sense and compromise will ultimately prevail. That means most likely some event articles, but not all, will remain. There is little chance of it going completely in one direction. So, 1,000,000,000 words later, where are we? And what is this all over? A few UFC event articles that are, by the way, visited by thousands each day. If this is about cleaning up and controlling enwp content, here are some links in that area of much higher importance:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

This has really continued so long. Remember at the very end of THX 1138? This has gone overbudget on backroom keystrokes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Anna I agree with you that this has gone on far to long, and I will not waste any more of my time on it, those who favour the stand alone articles are just not listening to the words of the admins closing these AfD's. I am going on an out of state business trip for the next two days, upon my return I will feel free to start nominating any MMA article that does not demonstrate any lasting significance, it is not upto fans and members of external forums to unilaterally decide that WP shall cover these sports events because they want them covered when policy and precedent is so clear, and given the closing statements made by admins when they close the AfD's for example the latest one here when the admin said quite pointedly when talking about the keep !votes "there are very few (if any) that have a valid, policy-based rationale". Mtking (edits) 13:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you intend on nominating for deletion all the stand-alone UFC event articles, or just some of them? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
This is the problem. Lasting significance is ultimately subjective for a long time. Surely the results of the 2011 Japanese Grand Prix would have lasting significance to those involved with motorsports or interested in Formula 1, but have little to no bearing to those who aren't interested. Does that mean Formula One solely needs an omnibus? No. You'll notice in particular that singular event pages are in conjunction with a stand alone article. I suppose my stance is keep both the stand-alone events and the omnibus in the interests of completion/navigation/readability. Teamsleep (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=N> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=N}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability/Archive_2&oldid=1090458081"