Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

It has come to my attention that some editors are once again adding texts like "...holds notable victories over..." in the lead section of MMA biographical articles. If I recall correctly, adding notable wins had no consensus in favor. This has already been discussed in the past (see here) and it was agreed that such texts should be removed as they don't really add much to the articles. In my personal opinion, I believe that adding notable victories goes against the guidelines at WP:LEAD and, more importantly, against WP:NPV, one of the core policies, because who is notable is subjective and the moment that this kind of text is put on, it immediately suggests that those fighters that were mentioned there are more notable than others. So, I propose to add a note in the Lead section section of the guidelines to discourage such texts. Something like "Do not add notable victories/wins in the lead section as that does not represent a concise overview of the article and does not present a neutral point of view."

Please share your opinions on this issue in order to generate a consensus to make the guidelines clearer, either by rejecting notable victories in the lead section or by accepting them and establishing guidelines on how to evaluate when a victory is notable enough to deserve being mentioned in the lead section. Jfgslo (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that text stating that a fighter "has notable wins over ..." should not be included in the lead. It violates a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (WP:NPV and WP:OR are the two biggest I see). If the consensus on this from 2008 remains, I have no problems with the MMA article guidelines be adjusted to specifically say this. However, remember, that many editors do not read or care about our guidelines and it will take vigilance to remove those sentences. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Today I just noticed this phenomenon with Alistair Overeem. For weeks, few editors bothered with his article, yet he becomes a UFC fighter and, all of a sudden, 16 new editors appear, most of which barely edited before the announcement. Anyway, I will wait for seven days before making changes to allow other editors give their opinions, unless an overwhelming consensus is expressed here. I probably will not be able to check the discussion for a couple of days, but please continue on sharing your opinions. Jfgslo (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I would support there removal, they cause lead bloat and make the page look more like a promotional advertisement than an encyclopedia article.--Phospheros (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I have been in favour of them, thinking about it more closely it seems too difficult to distinguish what makes a victory notable, so for that reason it may be more effective to remove these, at least until some sort of improbable system for determining a fighters official notoriety exists, sorry that isn't meant to sound quite as flippant as it did. -- Josh Heza (Talk 14:06, 11 September (GMT)

As there is a clear consensus, I have updated the guidelines in Lead section. Please check the changes and let me know if anything should be changed. I have added a safeguard for some fighters, because I was thinking that fighters like Matt Serra and Fabricio Werdum may actually be more notable for a single victory than for any other of their accomplishments. Now it's matter of removing those sentences from lead sections in multiple articles. Jfgslo (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dream events use different symbols to separate the numbers in their article titles. From Dream 1 to Dream 11, the number of the event is separated by a simple space, and from Dream.12 to Dream.17, they use a with a dot ( . ). Also Dream. Fight for Japan! uses a dot instead of the more appropiate colon ( : ). WP:AT and WP:EN indicate that the variant to be used should be the one most commonly used usage in reliable English-language sources. A search engine test does not help to determine this because, for a search engine, " " and "." are essentially the same. Checking actual English-language sources, Sherdog, ESPN and MMA Fighting and MMA Weekly use a simple space; MMAJunkie uses a dot, and Yahoo Sports uses both (space, dot). Japanese sources like Bout Review and God Bless the Ring use the same stylization as Dream, but since this is the English Wikipedia, common usage in reliable English-language sources has priority.

While in WP:MJ, there isn't anything in particular against the usage of ".", I believe that using " " is more appropriate in English and also it's more commonly used in reliable English-language sources. So, I believe that all Dream articles should be renamed with " " instead of "." while leaving the redirects intact, and Dream. Fight for Japan! should be renamed to Dream: Fight for Japan! as that is the correct English punctuation. At the same time, this isn't that big an issue, and I wouldn't be against the alternative, although I consider common sense that the appropriate English punctuation should be prioritized in the absence of clear common usage in English sources. Which form should be used for Dream events? Jfgslo (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Per MOS:TM, names of products and services (these are events, but close enough) should be rendered in a style in use (presumably by reliable sources) that is closest to standard English. In this case, that would be a space before the number, not a period, and a colon indicating a subtitle. gnfnrf (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then I will be renaming all Dream articles that do not use normal English. Jfgslo (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was any consensus as to how to handle section breaks for title defenses, an example of would be Georges St-Pierre where there's a section for every UFC bout. Anderson Silva's was the same as can be seen at this revision, the current page which was changed by Portillo has all defenses lumped together as a wall of text, with the rationale given as: "No point putting a section for every single fight. No other MMA fighters article is made like this.". Any thoughts?--Phospheros (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is no consensus in that regard other than the one about "X number of defenses" not being equal to "X times champion". Personally, I agree with Portillo's changes. The other format gives equal strength to all fights regardless of whether or not the were equally notable and subtitles for each title defense do not particularly help readability or organization, and they seem to me more like information saturation. Also, Portillo is right in that other MMA articles do not add subtitles for each title defense. Fedor Emelianenko, Brock Lesnar, Urijah Faber and most other articles do not have them. Georges St-Pierre had no subtitles until editor FTboy18 added them on June 20. Chuck Liddell has them and I believe that they are completely unnecessary there. Jfgslo (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding a section for every fight is unneccesary and makes the article look long and unorganized. Portillo (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I recently noticed that some of the new parameters of {{Infobox martial artist}} have some issues with references. For example, I tried to add a direct reference to justify the reach value in Jeff Monson's article but, whenever I put the reference, the infobox broke down, so I ended up adding it as an external link. This also happened to me with height and weight parameters in other bios. I suppose it has to do with the conversion settings that the infobox has. I think that, although it is great that the parameters have automatic conversion, it is not functional that some values cannot have inline citations, particularly because these values are somewhat prone to controversy if they aren't sourced. Could anyone check {{Infobox martial artist}} and see if these issues can be fixed? If not, I would suggest to restore the previous parameters that allowed inline citations. Jfgslo (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember what time frame references for reach and weight worked? I've looked at the code for the infobox and the history of edits to it. I think understand why it is behaving the way it is, but I don't see in the edit history where it may have worked in the past. The problem, from my view, is the reach and weight parameters. The height parameter works find as long as you use the {{height}} template; putting raw numbers in for height will result in garbage. As for a solution, I don't have an immediate one (templates like the infobox are really crazy coding wise) and would have to do a lot of playing around in a sandbox to resolve. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

An exact time frame I cannot recall, but I can tell you that it simply was before the inches, meters, pounds and kilograms extra parameters were implemented, when {{convert}} had to be used. In fact, using |reach={{convert|74|in|cm}} instead of |reach_in=74 allows to add inline citations. As an example, this is an old version of Alexander Emelianenko, where his height and weight are still referenced. I imagine that the problem is with the template doing the direct conversion. Perhaps an optional "|" could be added to denote that values after the "|" are not to be converted by the template. Jfgslo (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

| weight_footnote = & | reach_footnote = were added to deal with this problem, see Jon Jones for example.--Phospheros (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Those parameters are news to me. I guess they simply weren't documented when they were added. I have tested them and work great. I will them to the instructions of the template. Thanks for pointing them out. Jfgslo (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There are several issues with the page for Antonio Inoki. He is listed as having several MMA matches, but there is no fight record to speak of that would seem to confirm this (at least on Sherdog). The fact that he was engaging in worked matches makes this even more troubling. He was a shoot wrestler known to fight big names from other disciplines (e.g., Ali) at a time before modern MMA, but it doesn't seem accurate to categorize these events in the same way as modern ones. I have never heard of a modern MMA fight ending with a Boston crab. Nor was I aware that André the Giant was a MMA competitor. Given that Wand Silva is now hanging out with Inoki these page issues should be addressed. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea how to handle Inoki. He only has one recorded match that could be considered MMA, the one with Ali. He certainly is an inspiration but he probably couldn't be considered an MMA fighter. Gene LeBell also had a single style-vs-style match, yet he is not considered an MMA fighter. I don't think that many MMA editors have worked on Inoki's article. The only editor there that I can identify in the article history is WölffReik. What would you propose to address this situation? Jfgslo (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Mixed martial arts" record (the quotes exist in the article) section is entirely unsourced. Proposed solution: Remove the unsourced section. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TreyGeek. All information related to his supposed MMA record is original research. I have added tags to reflect that. Feel free to remove the info unless someone provides reliable third-party sources to back up the content. Jfgslo (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have removed that information per WP:OR and WP:V. Other editors may want to keep an eye in case someone restores that unreferenced information. Jfgslo (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Short version: I'd like some help with the Lee Hasdell article. ClaudioProductions (talk · contribs) feels the need to revert any edits to the article they disagree with including my attempts to standardize the MMA record table and infobox.

Long Version: ClaudioProductions (talk · contribs) has apparently had a lot of issues with claiming ownership of the Hadsell article and their edits in the past have been in violation of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:COI, WP:3RR and possible other areas. I modified the MMA record table to match what is on Sherdog and to follow the formatting guidelines of this WikiProject, that has been reverted. I removed the styles from the infobox, added the MMA record information and sherdog id link to the infobox; that has all been reverted. I attempted to start improving the cited references, that has been reverted. If someone wants to look over the recent edits between myself and Claudio please do. If it seems that I'm in the wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Some editors have been removing old teams/gyms from the team parameter in the infobox of several biographical articles. I have noticed that there is no clear guideline on how to treat this parameter. All that the parameter says at the instructions is "name of the team or gym used by the martial artist". This does not clarify whether to put current team, all teams where a fighter has trained in his career, notable teams in which a fighter has participated, or the team in which a fighter has spent most of his career. This, of course, leads to some problems regarding how identified a fighter is with a team. For example, I believe that Wanderlei Silva is more well known for being a member of Chute Boxe Academy at the apex of his career than for his own team Wand Fight Team. Rashad Evans was a well known member of Jackson's Mixed Martial Arts, but he is no longer a member.

In order to standardize all articles, I think we should decide how to handle the team parameter to give adequate instructions, either here or at {{Infobox martial artist}}. This would also affect retired fighters. Personally, I don't particularly favor handling only current team but, at the same time, I see the advantages of only leaving the most recent team in the infobox like Sherdog does. So, how should this parameter be handled? Jfgslo (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps they could be listed by year, though it probably would be difficult to source. Example:

Roufusport (2008-present)

AKA (2006-2008)

ATT (2005-2006) --Phospheros (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been using that style but, as I mentioned, some editors have been removing them. I personally like that format, although I use a reverse order (from oldest to earliest). There is no real consensus regarding it. It's mostly an ignored parameter from the infobox. As I understand it, the advantage of that format is that it gives complete information about a fighter. The disadvantage is the same, it may give too much information for an infobox that's supposed to be a comprehensive summary, not an exhaustive list. Even so, I'm in favor of Phospheros' suggested format. Jfgslo (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If no one has an objection, I propose adding the following text to the Infobox martial artist section: "When using the team parameter, it is suggested that to add all teams/gyms used by a fighter through his/her fighting career as long as they can be referenced with reliable sources, adding the time period in which a fighter was part of said teams and sorting them in a descending chronological order, e.g:

Roufusport (2008-present)

AKA (2006-2008)

ATT (2005-2006)

Jfgslo (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added the instructions for the team parameter. If anyone sees any correction or improvement needed regarding this parameter from the infobox, please let me know. Jfgslo (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Mixed martial arts to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 21:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up, user Black Kite has gone on a Wikipedia AFD spree and nominated all of the Bellator and smaller MMA events for deletion. I can understand some smaller shows, but Bellator is on a big network now. Udar55 (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Next thing you know they're going to want to deleted the Pride events then maybe the UFC events, seriously....(Justinsane15 (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC))

Well, congrats to them for getting them all deleted. Jeez, what a great crusade for them. The world is now safer. We now apparently only have Bellator Season pages. I assume it will be safe to add the event results to those pages, which I will start doing shortly. What a mess as now there are tons of redirects that don't lead to specific events on fighter's records. Udar55 (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have finished adding the results onto Bellator Fighting Championships: Season One. Anyone feel free to comment on how they look. I tried to adopt the style similar to ShoXC. I did remove the images from the MMA info boxes because they were big enough that they extended the info box into the next section. No doubt one of the Wiki-crusaders will show up and say, "We won't allow you to put results on the season page." If anyone wants to jump on the other seasons, feel free. Udar55 (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Udar two things come to mind: First you've done a nice job getting all that info in there in a way that is still readable. Second, it's a crying shame that the Bellator articles are being destroyed by someone who doesn't even understand the sport. CobbSalad (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It really comes down to a power issue for them and they rarely want to give that up. Oh well, we will work in the new confines. Bellator Fighting Championships: 2011 Summer Series and Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Five are done now, so matches for Bellator 57-59 can be added there. Udar55 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I also think that this was an unnecessary nomination, but it's tough to win these once they've been put on the chopping block. I was the one that originally proposed merging the events pages to the series pages, which I saw as a better solution than deleting them all, which is where the consensus was heading. If you look at the debate, I gave it my best shot and wasn't getting anywhere with the pitchforks crowd. Reframing the issue as being about a TV show was a last ditch effort to avoid deletion. I'm actually pretty glad to see it worked. As much as the outcome is a pain in terms of merging everything, at least the page content has been retained. I'm not a fan of deleting events pages for major promotions, but think of it this way...the fact that people are now comparing MMA contests to football and soccer matches in these debates shows just how far the sport has come in the past several years. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The redirects can be undone easily. The AfD is meaningless. So long as the articles are restored with additional sources, no serious editor would challenge their restoration. An AfD is not a definite end-all discussion. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with the user above. If an event article contains more than just match results it would be easier to save. Include information about the background of the event, the events leading up to the matches on the card (ie GSP vs Condit vs Diaz drama), and most definitely include sources to back things up. I have a hard time supporting keeping articles that cite two sources and offer nothing more than a set of event results and statistics that can be found in a number of places. But that's just my opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the season pages are officially all done. With season 2 forward, I was able to include the event photos because they weren't as big as season 1. Thanks to anyone who has helped maintain the Bellator events over the years. Udar55 (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I would have to say some of these should be logically restored. For example, the first ever Bellator event is inherently notable as being the first ever event of a mainstream promotion. Similarly, say the first televised Bellator event is a sign of notability as well. How ridiculous that these were all nominated together. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, they're on a roll now. The last few Sengoku events have now been tagged for deletion. I'm almost paranoid enough to think this is a Zuffa conspiracy. ;-) Seriously, expect DREAM and others to get the AfD mark soon. Udar55 (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing new. Libstar has cleaned out the K1 kickboxing events pages over a period of months. Major MMA events have been on the chopping block too with a bit more success in saving them, but usually because of "no consensus" closures rather than a clear "keep". I have no problem seeing bottom-tier events get axed, since they really aren't notable and they bring down the average notability of event pages that currently exist. But, I've generally argued to keep events in the following discussions about top-tier promotions. Note that it's the same nominator in every single case. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 4 - (8521) - no consensus - closed 08:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard - (7332) - no consensus - closed 10:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger - (5845) - keep - closed 06:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Strikeforce Challengers: Gurgel vs. Evangelista - (8405) - keep all - closed 08:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• Pride Critical Countdown 2004 - (14785) - keep - closed 17:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Pride Total Elimination 2003 - (6802) - no consensus - closed 09:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Pride Bushido 4 - (9004) - merge to List of Pride Fighting events - closed 23:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, all the nominated ones are gone now. So much for that. Udar55 (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Should URCC be added to the list of second tier promotions? They were formed in 2002 and have put on over 50 shows. They also receive regular coverage from national newspapers in the Philippines. Here are a few examples from just this week:

Manila Bulletin ^[1]

ABS-CBN News^[2]

Philippines Star^[3]

Philippines Daily Enquirer^[4]

Sadoka74 (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• It looks to me like the URCC could be added to the list of second tier promotions. Astudent0 (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• I agree. It's been around for almost a decade and appears to have significant coverage in the Philippines. Papaursa (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• I would support the addition. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• I went ahead and added URCC to the list of second tier promotions. Papaursa (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that several editors have been making efforts to remove MMA-related articles that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. At the same time, I believe that many of these articles are worth saving because they have interesting material and a lot of effort put by many contributors, but they simply aren't suitable for Wikipedia. However, there is an alternative for these articles: transwiking. As such, I would like to know which alternatives are there for MMA. That is, which are the most popular and reliable MMA wikis outside of Wikipedia? So far, I only know these ones, which have some problems that I see and I put between parentheses:

• MMAwiki.com (not recently updated and old MediaWiki software)
• FightWiki (dependent on MMAlinker)
• EDGE MMA (lack of updates, concerns regarding independence)

From these ones, I believe that FightWiki is the more accurate since it is quite active, but the lack of independence makes it a liability in my opinion. In that aspect, MMAwiki.com seems like the best option, but that Wiki seems to be abandoned. The advantage of EDGE MMA over the others is that it has the latest versions of MediaWiki and it should be relatively easy to transwiki articles from Wikipedia.

The purpose of this discussion is to establish if transwiki is an acceptable alternative for deletion for MMA articles, if so, to move any non-notable article to a single Wiki so that it is easier for editors to decide what to do with articles that they like but which are not acceptable for Wikipedia and to provide transwiki as an alternative for deletion in MMA AfD discussions. Please, share your opinions and other alternatives to the Wikis that I posted above. Jfgslo (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Anything that is verifiable in a reliable source is notable for the purpose of the paperless encyclopedia. If it is good enough to exist on any other wiki, then these sources can and should and will also exist on the umbrella wiki: Wikipedia. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero's 10, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku Raiden Championships 12 and several other recently deleted articles which have reliable sources but do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria by any stretch. Also check WP:ROUTINE, WP:NSPORTS and WP:!. Being verifiable is not the same as being notable and this is particularly true in sports. Jfgslo (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What is and is not "notable" is subjective. Any of those links reflects the opinions of a handful of people in the span of a week, rather than the opinions of the hundreds who actually write the articles and thousands who come here to view them. As far as you shortcut links, which version? Looking at their edit histories and talk pages, they seem to change so fast they have no consistency to them. The only consistent is that the clear majority of editors and readers actually do find this information worthwhile rather than the handful that do little more than devote their time to unacademic AfD discussions. Oh, yeah, it is much better keeping a discussion about how some editors hate certain articles that they subjectively declare non-notable rather than keeping an article that actually covers a topic. In what wacky world is having Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hero's 10 a blue link better and more contributing to human knowledge than Hero's 101?! Instead of covering stuff that is at least useful to someone, we would rather have that information removed and in place of it have a collection of either uninformed opinions or those of those who just don't care for the topic anyway. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Usefulness is also subjective to one's personal point of view. What is objective is that these articles have not met the established notability guidelines and most will not be kept in Wikipedia. Those articles that are useful for MMA readers could be saved by transwiking them into a wiki dedicated to MMA exclusively. So we should focus on establishing whether or not transwiki is an acceptable alternative for MMA articles that are not suitable for Wikipedia's standards and onto which wiki do that. Jfgslo (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

At least you acknowledge that you subjectively do not find them useful, but the established fact of so many editors writing, working on, and reading proves that they are useful to them and I would rather appease those thousands than just use. There is no reason why we would not include them as they are suitable by the standards of the majority of editors and readers in actual practice, not just the incredibly small minority who try to destroy what others care about. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Should this organization be added to the list of second tier MMA organizations? How does it compare to BAMMA? I see fighters with just a couple of MMA bouts fighting for their titles. Astudent0 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, no, it should not be added, at least not until its article has at least two reliable sources independent of the subject to show that the organization is notable. Otherwise, it could be removed at any moment. Are there British editors here that could vouch for this organization? I know nothing about it. Jfgslo (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It is arguably alongside BAMMA one of, or if not, the premier organisation in the UK... Josh Heza (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2011 (GMT)

I can vouch that UCMMA is a major player within the UK MMA scene. It is one of the 'Top 3' MMA promotions in the country along side BAMMA and Cage Warriors. They have a TV deal with Sky Sports, which is the biggest sporting channel in the country. Fighters coming out of the organisation includes Neil Grove, Brad Pickett, James McSweeney, John Maguire (fighter), Jimi Manuwa, Abdul Mohamed, Mark Weir, Dean Amasinger (UFC TUF season 9, soon to be two time BAMMA veteran, 5 time Cage Warriors veteran and former title challenger for UCMMA) and Alex Reid (fighter). The company is owned by the same people who ran Cage Rage before and during ProElite purchase of them right up until their last show at Cage Rage 28. BigzMMA (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that a great deal of edits, vandalism and corrections in MMA articles appears to be centered in the Mixed martial arts record section, particularly in the record table. I know for a fact that a lot of the time I spend in MMA articles is to fix the tables, which are regularly vandalized or at least badly edited. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, particularly excessive listings of statistics, and Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details, but rather a summary of accepted knowledge. I would like to discuss the convenience of keeping the full record table in MMA biographical articles. My current opinion is that {{MMArecordbox}} already provides the relevant information and it is redundant to keep detailed fighter records since all biographical articles must have a Sherdog external link precisely because Sherdog provides professional athlete statistics with a reasonable amount of detail, as stated in WP:ELYES, so perhaps it should be better to remove the full record table from all articles. Jfgslo (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Having just fixed several dozen vandalized results at Travis Fulton, I understand where you're coming from. However, I also must admit I like results, primarily because it allows me at a glance to see if the opponents and competitions are considered notable. Editors who put the tables in should be aware of the vandalism and keep an eye on them. However, there's no requirement the article have a table of fight history so I think it should be left up to each article's creator. Perhaps it might not be a bad idea to keep an eye on edits by IPs, since that's where most of the vandalism occurs. And before someone complains, I'm not saying all IP editors vandalize. Papaursa (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

We should absolutely keep record tables in articles. That is a discriminate inclusion of historic information. Print encyclopedias would include such tables after all. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, they wouldn't as evidenced in notable boxers' articles in other encyclopedias, like Muhammad Ali's article in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Britannica and other non-boxing encyclopedias. This kind of sport data is, in my opinion, indiscriminate and I believe that it falls into What Wikipedia is not. That is why I cited those two specific guidelines at the beginning of this discussion. As Papaursa commented, there is no real requirement to include this type of table. Very few featured articles about athletes have this kind of detailed statistics and they focus more on their achievements, awards, honor and overall career statistics, not a full record of everything they have done. In other general encyclopedias, this type of data is irrelevant. Outside of the one mentioned above by Papaursa, I do not see a real reason to keep the full tables because this is not a MMA encyclopedia. Travis Fulton's article is a very good example of the problems with tables, as the majority of the article is an excessive listing of statistic rather than a summary of information about Fulton, unavoidable in his case since his notability comes from the number of bouts in his career. But this is worse in non-notable fighters, whose articles are mostly the table, and there is no justification for them. Jfgslo (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no real reason not to include this notable information. Eliminating it would be inconsistent with what Wikipedia is. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Using the same reasoning, there is no real reason to include this information either. That information is not notable by itself. It is the athlete the one that has notability, not the statistics. Also, as I pointed out with the cited guidelines, eliminating the full detailed tables would be consistent with Wikipedia policies. Jfgslo (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be inconsistent with the whole point of Wikipedia and would serve no actually logical or helpful purpose. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not to contain all possible data about a topic. Under that perspective, there is no logical or helpful purpose on keeping full statistics since this is not an sports website, nor is the purpose of Wikipedia to collect such data. It is even more meaningless when one takes into consideration that all biographical articles have a link to Sherdog's fighter profiles. Jfgslo (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the whole point of Wikipedia is to go beyond what mere paper encyclopedias could do. In no way whatsoever do the tables make the articles unwieldly. And if your argument is simply that the same information can be found elsewhere, well, so could ANY of the information found in any given article on any topic. If our readers obviously find this information than we keep even if a handful of others just don't like the information for whatever bizarre personal non-reason. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first argument, I quote from WP:NOTPAPER: "There is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." As I pointed out, full record tables go against the content policies since they are normally are excessive listings of statistics, so they aren't supported by Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

They are supported by actual practice and what our readership wants as demonstrated by years and thousands of edits in support of creating and expanding such tables, not the constantly evolving "guidelines" that mainly deletionists rather than actual article editors creators hover around. In any event, if we are tossing them around, then WP:IAR, because there is no actual advantage to not covering such information. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It is also common practice to create articles about trivial topics and thousands of edits are to include personal comments, but that doesn't mean that they are suitable for Wikipedia. WP:IAR applies if it is to improve Wikipedia, so If I argue that removing them will improve Wikipedia, WP:IAR becomes moot. The fact remains that full record tables have no actual support by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and it is up to this project whether to encourage them, keep them, remove them, or deprecate them. Jfgslo (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing them would deprecate Wikipedia and no actually guideline exists that prohibit them anyway. There is no legitimate/logical argument against keeping them. Any claim to remove them is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and nothing more, which is why they will never be removed. The same reason why despite you and a couple others trying to force the no future fights rule is daily overturned in practice, because generally speaking the actual consensus is against removing future bouts, but most of us would usually rather actually edit articles than play games in these useless discussions (yeah, I know I am commenting in these ones, but it's between fights and I'm miffed Ellis lost to Aguliar anyway.  :( --24.154.173.243 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the fight tables being in the articles, but I think that anyone who puts them in should be aware that they may well be vandalized. I find them handy to use, but if I had to choose, I would prefer better written and sourced articles. Astudent0 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The UCMMA page has been deleted, and I find that this was the wrong choice, UCMMA is a notable organisation, as they run their shows on Sky Sports in the UK, which for any British person knows is the biggest sports channel in the UK. They have an event coming up for this weekend, which currently has sources available on it. Please have a look on this link for proof - http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news?slug=ycn-10569761, as you can see it is from Yahoo Sports, which should show you that it has got the attention of a major online sports writing source. You would find many articles on UCMMA, or Cage Rage UK as they liked to be known as now (the people behind them used to run the original Cage Rage), especially their next event, UCMMA 25. Their other event can also be found just as easily. I have got the original UCMMA page in my sandbox right now, but it is currently incomplete, so once it is done, I will let you all know, and then I will take opinions on how to improve it even more and then we will get it back on it's own page, permanently. BigzMMA (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the following message was intended to be posted here, rather than at WPMA. Janggeom (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am writing to say that I have talked to the editor who deleted Jake Bostwick and Bashir Ahmad, and he agreed that both pages meet WP:GNG, and because of this he is happy to reinstate the pages, he just wanted either me or the user who requested Bashir Ahmad's reinstatement to write on here to inform you all to prevent future AfD cases against them. BigzMMA (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I was told to put on the martial arts project page, but none the less if no-one has anything to say on this, then I can only imagine that the user will reinstate the pages on request. BigzMMA (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you can just recreate pages because you didn't like the AfD decision and you certainly can't guarantee that an article is immune from being put up for AfD. Astudent0 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well if they meet GNG, then they can always be reinstated, and it isn't just my thinking, there are two other users who agreed that this should be done, and they are not being recreated, they are being reinstated, which means the original pages are being brought back. BigzMMA (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know an editor could simply "reinstate" an article that had been removed at an AfD. Are you sure about that? Mdtemp (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not that simple. If the delete was under GNG and the subject is now shown to meet GNG then it's fine. But to the OP, there is no way any article is immune to AfD. Sure if you AfD Barack Obama it will be WP:SNOW closed and you will be trout slapped, if you are lucky, but I rather suspect the OP is being at least a little free with what he has been told by the deleter. Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Yes, all becomes clear. Bostwick has won some match that might make him notable, and the request to notify here is to avoid immediate AfDs, rather than make it AfD proof. User_talk:Tone#Jake_Bostwick is the actual convo. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

Howdy All! I am open to everyone's input on this discussion. The MMA WikiProject guidelines say that in a MMA fight record events with wiki-links should not be renamed. MMABot, accordingly, has been removing renamed wiki-links. The side effect is that in a few rare occasions the resulting event name is visually poor. As an example a link that looks like 'M-1 Challenge XXIII: Grishin vs. Guram' becomes '2011 M-1 Challenge Season#M-1_Challenge_XXIII:_Grishin_vs._Guram'. This is a bit of a corner case and is relatively rare across all 1700+ fighter articles. A discussion was started at the bot's talk page and if anyone has any strong opinions or input, they are welcome. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I have in mind as a possible change to the current system, which at the moment is currently flawed and could do with a major shake up. I doubt that it will answer all the problems with the system at the moment or even create new problems, however, the good thing about this talk page is that we call get together and make it more accurate before finalising it. Please imagine from what you read on is actually on the page and everything you see is meant to be there

It should be noted that some organisations are bigger in other countries than you know, such as Cage Rage, who is recognised overall as the biggest MMA promotion in the UK and have been in national newspapers and mainstream sports channels, whereas the United States may not have heard of it, so please look fully for information on a promotion carefully before deciding yourself whether that MMA promotion really is un-notable.

Criteria supporting notability

1. Subject of independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national media (across the country) or international media (across the world), not just local coverage (such as the village or city it was held in).
2. Has/Have been actively in business and promotes events for a minimum of three years to the date of it's first event - unless the company has gain tremendous popularity within timeframe.
3. Past/Present champions of promotion has been the subject of independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from either national media or international media, not just local coverage.
4. Well-known fighters are/have competed for the company, an overall minimum of 12 since first three years of first event.
5. If information can be found on the promotion's event's results without going to the company's website. Google search is useful and even websites that purely cover MMA related topics can be seen as reliable.

If a promotion meets at least half of these, then they will be considered notable.

Criteria supporting deletion

If the page in question meets WP:GNG, then there is no need to look at this section.

1. Has only promoted three or less events in existence.
2. Short history as an organization.
3. Few notable fighters fight in their events.
4. Fights are no-holds-barred, or rules are much less restrictive than the unified rules of martial arts.
5. Promoted fights are not licensed by state or regional governing bodies.

Again, fighter can be more popular at different parts of the world to the country you live in, such as Tom 'Kong' Watson is very well known across the UK, whereas the United States may not of heard much/anything about him.

Amateur MMA fighters are not considered notable (unless they can pass WP:GNG under other criteria).

Criteria supporting notability

1. Subject of independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations. (Also worth noting that any fighters who are on the same event who gets coverage on the same articles can count as notable)
2. Fought for the highest title of a top/second tier MMA organisation
3. Won the highest title of a top/second tier MMA organisation
4. Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations, or five (5) fights under a second tier organisation without having to compete for a top tier organisation.

If a fighter meets at least half of these, they will be recognised as notable.

Also worth noting that any fighter who makes his name from a second tier orgaisation, that has reliable, independent information available for him/her can be considered a notable fighter.

Criteria supporting deletion

If the page in question meets WP:GNG, then there is no need to look at this section.

1. Only amateur/semi pro bouts
2. Few fights for notable organizations.

Keep in mind again that some promotions you may not have heard of nor can watch or get coverage for can be every well known in different parts of the world, such as Bellator, who does not get shown in the UK, but is strongly considered a top tier MMA organisation by Americans.

Top Tier

Affliction Entertainment (now defunct)

Bellator Fighting Championships

British Association of Mixed Martial Arts (BAMMA)

Cage Rage Championships (now defunct)

DREAM

Elite XC (now defunct)

Pride Fighting Championships (now defunct)

Shooto

Strikeforce

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC)

World Extreme Cagefighting (WEC) (now defunct)

World Victory Road: Sengoku Raiden Championship (now defunct)

Second Tier

Cage Rage UK/UCMMA

Cage Warriors

DEEP

Jungle Fight Championship

King of the Cage (KOTC)

Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW)

M-1 Global, M-1 Challenge

Maximum Fighting Championship (MFC)

Pancrase

ProElite

Ring of Combat

Shark Fights

Palace Fighting Championship (now defunct)

Tachi Palace Fights

Titan Fighting Championships

This is the best system I have, which again I will state will not be perfect, but the great idea about what I'm doing is that we can all get together and make it better so that we can end up putting it up as the official system to check MMA promotions/fighters notability. Thank you for reading this, hope we can all work to improve this page. BigzMMA (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts (bear in mind I know almost nothing about the topic, but do understand the various notability rules).

1. Wikiprojects cannot trump Wikipedia policies. Where there are separate notability guidelines for a class of topic (academics, entertainers etc), the guideline is based on an assumption that if someone fulfils the guideline, there will be sources about this person, and are normally phrased as either 'meets all' or 'meets any one'.
2. Your supports notability criterion 1 is WP:GNG. Criterion 2 is "exists for 3 years or meets WP:GNG" - you might want to rephrase accordingly
3. Criteria 3 and 4 violate WP:NOTINHERITED
4. I don't understand criterion 5.
5. Your criteria for deletion should be "does not meet criteria for notability". They should not be different. Criterion 4 is not a valid reason to delete an article, just a reason not to categorise it as an article in this Wikiproject's scope.
6. The fighter criteria are better than the organisation criteria.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

BigzMMA (talk · contribs) If you want to essentially rewrite WP:MMANOT I would think your suggested revision would be better suited to being in a sandbox and you linking to that. I've been looking at some discussions on my watchlist a couple times a week while I finish off school. I've been unwilling to jump into discussion because of WP:TL;DR. My suggestion would be to do the rewrite in sandbox, and then in a talk page here or on WP:MMANOT provide a brief, succinct explanation of the specific changes you are proposing. --TreyGeek (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, I will do my best to answer all your points, but keep in mind you didn't state which title are the criteria you are wondering about (promotion or fighter)

• I have done my best with the example above to state that GNG is the policy that MMA pages need to follow first before that one, so that people who are following the page knows where it really stands.
• I tried to add in the point at the end of it that because there are/have been a few MMA promotions that haven't been running for three years that are strongly considered notable, some even say Affliction was a top tier promotion, yet they only rang two events in a space of 7 months, so there are exceptions that are not stated witch does need to be. My example doesn't give any real clear stating of what can slip past a point and pass it, but that is why I have come here looking for ways to help improve it.
• This is one of the points I didn't really understand, so I am going to assume it is to do with Promotions. Now even though your right about known fighters competing in other promotions shouldn't mean they become notable, but if you research BAMMA, then you'd see that it is really because of Alex Reid that they are a notable organisation. Reid at the time was a hugely recognised face in Britain, not because of his MMA career, but because of his marriage to Katie Price, and by late 2009, he accepted to face Tom Watson at BAMMA 3. Now at this time BAMMA wasn't recognised anywhere near the major promotion it is called as today, so to produce this fight would make them big. Reid had to pull out the fight because of an injury but took the fight at the next event BAMMA 4. It was such a exciting and action pact fight that people within the MMA community took interest in the promotion, so much so that the following event Paul Daley took part in the main event in what was the evidence to prove that BAMMA can show big name fighters in their promotion and bring them to this country. And then they signed Nate Marquardt, a top 10 Middleweight, and now everyone is paying attention to BAMMA. So again I will state that you are right about known fighters don't make the promotions they fight for notable through inheritance, but promotions like BAMMA can prove it can at times.
• Again I'm going to assume you meant Promotion's Criteria 5. Well pretty much that is really saying that if you can just about easily find information, articles or anything on the promotion through a simple Google search, then it can be seen as notable because I do believe this is criteria for GNG itself, but I was just making sure people got that this is needed as well to tell notability.
• That is on the actual WP:MMANOT page right now, and I didn't really put any thought into changing that, but at the same time we can never know that a page claiming to be a real MMA promotion is doing that anyway. New York has many underground MMA promotions because of the sport being illegal in the state, yet I'm sure there are popular promotions there that many get media attention, and someone may end up creating a page for them on here.
• And thank you for saying that the fighter criteria is better, remember this is a working progress, I have stated that it was never going to be perfect in the first place but at the same time I'm happy to accept some criticism if it means the page can be made even better. Please address to my reply so that we can sort out a better way of wording it, changing it, removing it, or adding it.

I am using my sandbox at this time to edit UCMMA, so I haven't got the space for it, but I'd figured that puting it on this page would actually be better, because I can keep every involved from the beginning and work to improve it step by step until the majority is happy and it is agreed to use the system.

• • Elen said your section on fighters was better than your section on organizations, not better than the existing criteria. I think you'd be better off trying to get consensus here for one thing at a time instead of trying to trim branches by cutting down the tree. You keep harping about GNG, but the current criteria clearly says it is a supplement to GNG and does not supersede it. Also, currently the first criteria in both the fighter and organization sections essentially is meeting GNG. I also agree with the point Papaursa made several times--other sports require competing at the top level (usually specifying Olympics or world championships) and so should MMA. People don't become notable for winning local championships or playing lots of games in the minor leagues. This was also the consensus here when MMANOT was drafted (you can find it in the archives). Astudent0 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• • • Yet it is strongly based on what already exists right now, so what does that mean? I'd rather just have the whole thing done on here, better that way rather than have it dragged on and on when it can all be done within a couple of paragraphs as oppose to dozens for just a single criteria for the page. There is just one line on that, and I don't think many people notice that as evidenced from previous AfD cases, it needs to be more clear with each criteria for keeping it and for deleting it.

I have already answered Papaursa's point, using examples of another sport to explain how this system cannot always be used to determine relevance. A point I should make aware to anyone who hasn't followed this that he didn't answer back, and then eventually acknowledged that he was refusing to answer back to it, citing 'he shouldn't' despite the fact I answered every point he made for his case. You may agree with it but tell that to every sports fan and see if they all agree that just because it isn't the highest level of competition doesn't mean it isn't relevant, all stars come from somewhere and no-one starts from the top. There are thousands of big fans of smaller teams in different sports, there are many loyal fans to a single athlete who isn't competing at the top of his/her sport. In the end of the day, I'm a fan of MMA, not just UFC, and by that I mean I'm a fan of the sport, not just the biggest promotion there is for them, and many people on here will tell you the same. You can say that it was consensus that brought that decision but did it involve everyone who is part of the sport? all the fans? the people inside the industry? did it have everyone's opinion? because I don't remember answering a question like that before. BigzMMA (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you really that conceited that you think there can't be consensus unless you're involved? You still don't seem to understand consensus. Do you really think consensus requires the agreement of everyone involved in the world of MMA and all of its fans? What a load of rubbish. Astudent0 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, when you think about the number of MMA fans, the pure UFC fans, and the number of both that uses and writes on Wikipedia, then that is a massive difference between the both. And if you are making decision like this, then it needs everyone's participation, otherwise it is just the opinions of a few. BigzMMA (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer the points you raise - your logic re Alex Reid is precisely what WP:NOTINHERITED is about. Alex Reid is notable. It is possible that a particular event featuring Alex Reid may have achieved significant coverage in multiple secondary sources because of his participation - this could make the event notable. However, it is often the case that the multiple secondary sources will just have referred to Alex Reid appearing at the event, in which case the event is not notable, just deserving of a mention in his article (Reid appeared at a charity garden party dressed as a llama.....). But unless you can show significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that specifically talk about the promoters (not three paragraphs about the fighters, a sentence about the venue, and the promoter's name in brackets somewhere), having notable fighters does not by itself make the promoter notable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just you can see how bringing a couple of notable fighters has proved in the past that it made promotions notable, Alex Reid is a famous celebrity in Britain, and then after his involvement with two events (the first he didn't compete in because of injury but the hype brought in a lot of attention), the following event brought in the likes of Paul Daley, James McSweeney and Ricco Rodriguez for BAMMA 5, which brought in more attention for the promotion, which then lead to the signing on top 10 middleweight Nate Marquardt, which has given the promotion even more attention. A very similar thing is happening with UCMMA, Alex Reid competed for them in August this year, and now Paul Daley is going to compete in a kickboxing 'UK1' bout at their first event of the next year. This will bring in a fair bit of attention, probably the same amount of it as Reid's fight for them, but it will be getting plenty of coverage. And because one of the criteria basically says 'Past/Present Champions meet GNG', then what it's saying is that the notable fighters who have/has won for the highest title of the promotion makes the promotion noteworthy. If Nate Marquardt wins the Welterweight Title at BAMMA 9: Marquardt vs Yoshida, you couldn't say when bringing up BAMMA in a conversation that his name would be mentioned when talking about the level of talent in the promotion.

First, learn to use indents. Second, as you are well aware, you need to show that it generated substantial coverage in secondary sources. Just getting more fighters involved is not evidence of notability within Wikipedia policy. Nowhere does it say in the existing policy that notable fighters make the promotion noteworthy - please read WP:NOTINHERITED again. Third, when consensus is referred to on Wikipedia, it means WP:CONSENSUS, ie a consensus of editors who are active here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Since you insisted above that the only thing we should do is accept your proposed changes in their entirety, I would prefer to keep the existing content of MMANOT. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't see any of your proposed changes as an improvement over the current version. Mdtemp (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well as I keep saying, people are more than welcome to suggest improvements to the system that I am proposing Mdtemp, which it does clearly say at the bottom of it before this comments section, so if you think that you can offer something towards the improvements, please state them. Elen of the Roads you do know where I am going with this though :P, its a dominoes effect really is what happened with BAMMA, they had in big names, the promotions itself got more recognised as they kept bringing in big named talents which help boasted their own name, getting multiple articles on just themselves. But anyway we must get back on subject a bit, if you think that there are some things that need changing from my proposal can you offer any changes? Thanks BigzMMA (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll just say that I have no real issues with the current system. As I've said before, you'd get my attention (and perhaps others) by proposing specific changes to the current system than performing a rewrite and making us guess at what your changes are. A simple, I want to change x, y, and z without a lot of explanation or extraneous details that go into WP:TLDR territory would be best. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I would of thought it would be obvious when looking at the pair of them what the changes are, I pretty much added in points above the deletion criterion that if the page meets GNG then deletion is not necessary, as even though there is already a line on the page that says this, it doesn't seem to be clear enough as multiple notable pages that pass GNG have been nominated for deletion because 'they didn't meet MMANOT' in the past. I also added in a paragraph at the top of supporting notability criterion, just simply stating that a promotion/fighter is better known in the country it is/they are in as oppose to the country the reader is, and advises him/her to fully look into information about them before deciding for themselves whether a page really is un-notable. Then with the criteria for notability for both, I just made it more clearer with some of them by what they mean, whilst adding in stuff that would encourage useres to check GNG criteria. With Fighters though, I added in that if a fighter has fought/won a major title for a second tier promotion as well as a top tier, as it was just top tier before and we know that many second tier promotion champions do get a fair bit of coverage from a title win so it is worth noting that sort of stuff. I also added in at the end of that criteria that a fighter fought for a second tier promotion at least 5 times can be noteworthy, but I should of stated that if s/he was getting a fair bit of attention whilst there then that is what makes it notable. You can tell the difference between the both of them when compared, and you can see that my suggestion does lighten the guideline overall for pages to meet. I have made it no secret that I will always use GNG as oppose to MMANOT to determine notability, but the fact that some user are using it as the only system to determine notability without using GNG, because of how much stricter the criteria on it is we have only really have two choices, either rewrite it so 1)GNG is more clearly stated to be true system to determine notability and 2)criteria on there can be soften so that it can be not as hard to get a page to pass it, or we simply deleted the WP:MMANOT page because it is bringing up too many headaches and, personally, I prefer the latter right now because this is quite frustrating. Also can you look on the AfD case for Alan Omer again TreyGeek? I need you to answer some of the points I just brought up over the last few days. Thanks. BigzMMA (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

At no point have you provided a diff of the two essays to show what the specific changes are. Don't worry, I took care of that in my sandbox[1]. I'll preface my comments here by first saying that when the group of people in the MMA WikiProject discussed WP:MMANOT I did not participate. I felt, and still feel, that WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, and WP:ATHLETE are sufficient for determining notability of MMA fighters. Regardless, as for the proposal by BigzMMA (talk · contribs), I am inclined to prefer the existing WP:MMANOT versus the proposal for the following reasons:

• The proposal not longer requires "multiple independent articles/documentaries" of the subject.
• The proposal, in regards to organizations, no longer requires the promotion of a "large number of events annually". Therefore, the "Central Texas International Fight League" could be around for 5 years with a handful of events each year. They then promote a single event with a lot of big name MMA fighters and would become notable. That single event may be notable, but not the organization itself.
• Violation of WP:NOTINHERITED due to an organization being notable simply because one of its champions is notable. The "Central Texas International Fight League" in its single notable event could have a championship match won by Chuck Liddell and therefore become notable.
• An promotion can become notable simply because its event results can be found somewhere other than its own web page. Thus the multitude of promotions covered by Sherdog and MMA Universe could all become notable.
• In general there is excessive wordiness compared to the original version including some statements that make no sense to me ("Also worth noting that any fighters who are on the same event who gets coverage on the same articles can count as notable").
• Lowering the bar on MMA fighter notability by simply fighting for a second-tier promotion's championship.

That's all I'll discuss on this topic for now. It appears no one is very interested in moving this proposal forward other than BigzMMA (talk · contribs) so I won't belabor this discussion further. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about doing a page for Nick Newell, because he is very notable, he is a ONE ARMED MMA fighter, he is undefeated in his 6 professional bouts and he has been getting a lot of media attention as of late. The reason I'm asking on here is so that people don't end up bitching and moaning saying 'he isn't notable coz he hasn't fought in the UFC, or he doesn't meet MMANOT'. If they do I can explain that his page meets GNG, it was agreed that he is notable through consensus and with his record and the way he's going he can possibly be in the UFC within his next 6 bouts. BigzMMA (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The article must actually have reliable sources that support the claim to notability - has he been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. It is not sufficient to just state the claim - you must also provide the evidence. Where your previously deleted articles fell down was that they had no sources to back up the claim of notability. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

BigzMMA, from my perspective, you have found a fighter that meets WP:GNG, even if not WP:MMANOT. I would strongly urge you to write a well written article, citing as many different sources as possible to cover the claims in the article. The article should have more than an infobox, a mention he is missing one hand and his record of fights. I would imagine a well written article would discuss his motivations for being a professional MMA at what appears to be a significant disadvantage, why any of his 6 wins is significant (especially considering at a glance it looks like he's fought mostly losers). If you can accomplish this in a sandbox, I would then suggest moving it into mainspace so that no one (even those who aren't monitoring this WikiProject) will have no issues with wanting to delete the article. (This is as opposed to creating a stub in mainspace to work on there and risk speedy deletion.) --TreyGeek (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just created a page for him on my sandbox, please go over to it and scroll down towards the bottom of the page, where all the stuff on him should be. BigzMMA (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BigzMMA/sandbox - this is the link for my sandbox, just scroll down the bottom of the page, and please no editing it. Thank You

Would it be helpful if we were to create pages detailing each individual Grand Prix tournament at large with links to each Grand Prix event? Linking the events together I believe would be good, because right now they're all over the place. For example: PRIDE's 2004 Heavyweight Grand Prix would have a page detailing the background, brackets and links to the events where tournament matches took place (Total Elimination 2004, Final Conflict 04, Critical Countdown 04). Is this something that wouldn't be too bad? I was considering trying this in a sandbox first to illustrate what I want to do if this sounds like it's not making sense. Teamsleep (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This may be a good idea considering that a number Pride event articles during the summer was put up for deletion (the Pride Bushido pages are gone as a result). If you move forward with this idea, be sure to cite as many sources as you can. Sources for Pride events are difficult to find since apparently the coverage was mostly in Japanese print media. Some people will Google the event(s), not find many hits and will consider it non-notable. So finding sources in advance will help try to alleviate that possibility. Detailed background information will be good as simple a list of matches and/or tournament bracket of results could be considered WP:ROUTINE sports coverage and be put up for deletion (I'm honestly surprised a more MMA event articles haven't been put up for deletion for this reason). --TreyGeek (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Should One Fighting Championship be added to the list of second tier or even top tier events? Although they have only put on one event it was broadcast on domestic television in Singapore, shown in 24 Asian countries by ESPN Star Sports and the subject of numerous articles in national newspapers in countries such as Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines. Here's a couple of sample news articles from Reuters and CNN: ^{[5] [6]} and from the Bangkok Post, Taipei Times, Philippines Daily Inquirer and Today (Singapore): ^{[7] [8] [9] [10]}

Future events have already been officially announced in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia. Given that it is only a matter of time until One Fighting Championship meets the criteria of a top tier organization should it be added to the list now as fighters with this organization are currently being deleted due to lack of notability despite receiving widespread coverage in national and international media. Werda66 (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"Given that it is only a matter of time" Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, One Fighting Championship may become a top tier promotion in three years or it may fold in three events. There's a reason the first two points on MMANOT's org. deletion criteria are: 1# Has only promoted a single event. & 2# Short history as an organization. I oppose it's inclusion at this time.--Phospheros (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Phosperos. It doesn't meet the notability criteria yet. It got off to a good start, but other organizations have started well and collapsed after a year or two. Mdtemp (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I support its inclusion per the question asker. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it meets several of the criteria for deletion, it's hard to make a case that it's a top (or even second) tier organization at this time. Anything else is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it does not qualify as a second tier promotion at this time. Astudent0 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this organization qualifies as second tier since they've only promoted one event. Jakejr (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A random IP user has been reconfiguring the UFC event pages, utilizing a new format (starting with UFC on Fox: Velasquez vs. Dos Santos back through at least UFC 105. I can tell by looking at all of their work that this endeavor has taken quite a bit of time, but I have not seen any discussion on this page and was not sure that it had been discussed an another forum/thread before reverting all of the changes.Ppt1973 (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there was any discussion about every having this changed, what is the name of the user who has done this? BigzMMA (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone attempting to be WP:BOLD to me. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, and now another anon IP is reverting all of those changes. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this on UFC 103. Didn't change it so the MMA Project guys can check it out. Have no idea why they are doing this. EDIT: Wow, looking around, it seems to be rampant. I'll undo some, but lots of work needs to be done. Udar55 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, did all of the reverts. No doubt this person will be back to switch back to their "fine" work so be on the lookout. Udar55 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also put a message on their talk page explaining why you have reverted the edits and suggesting they discuss the new format here? --TreyGeek (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do, but since it is just IP addresses and not actual accounts, I doubt they will get it. Udar55 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

After finding weigh-in results on ufc.com, I updated the fight card results of about 50 past events with a tabular format similar to the individual fighter MMA record and other sporting results, e.g. F1. It contains more information (weigh-in results) and presents existing information (fight results, duration) clearly: actual result first, e.g. TKO, Decision, etc. and then result details below, e.g. strikes, scores, etc. The only disadvantage I can think of is that the Wiki code is more complicated than before. We might consider using a template for this. If it actually does not appear properly on a standard display, e.g. 1024px-wide, I would like to hear specific problems and fix them.

Some editors are refusing to allow this update. So far, opponents of the tabular format have mentioned, "standard, easier to read, format" and, "the format has long been established and followed". Neither of these is a valid reason to reject a constructive update with unbiased content and no malicious intent. The version with more information should stand until differences of opinion on presentation are resolved. Therefore, if we do not hear a valid reason to discard the tabular format, I will start restoring the contribution. Thanks. 58.104.6.200 (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the biggest argument against your edits thus far has been that the existing format is established consensus. You have not proposed your format to the MMA WikiProject (here) and gained consensus that making wide-scale change are a good way to go. I'm personally ambivalent as to the change (which is why I didn't revert the edits). Apparently that is not the case with everyone. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the format has long been established and utilized is a completely valid reason to maintain them in that fashion. In addition, while I appreciate the effort put into your edits, the tabular format is a nightmare when it comes to people editing it, creating a bigger platform for unfamiliar users to muck up the pages when they attempt to edit them. The current format has been serving all MMA related results fine for years. Udar55 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

TreyGeek, thanks for moving this discussion here. Udar55, repeating yourself does not add credence; although readers have apparently had no problem with the current format, that does not mean we would not appreciate more/clearer information. My reasons for the change: added weigh-in results (useful esp for heavyweights), and clearer presentation (reader can see more clearly how a fight card progressed, and other minor stuff, e.g. which fights were added to broadcasts, which results were clear upsets). MMA itself (fighter MMA record) and other sports use a tabular format for displaying results. I agree it is prudent to use a template to assist unfamiliar users. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks. BTW, I used to be 58.104.6.200. Terilbah (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Not sure about using the column headings "Fight" and "Fighters". "Division" is not an appropriate column heading in some cases.
2. Not sure about the displayed order of scores for a split/majority draw. Do we have to indicate which fighter was favoured?
3. Fighter name columns have floating width to accommodate fighters with long names. Of course if both fighters have a long name, then the columns will even out and the names will wrap.

Fight	Fighters		Result	Round	Time	Notes
Catchweight 188 lb	Batman 188 lb	Flash Gordon 186 lb	Draw (split) 29–28 (Gordon), 28–28, 29–28 (Batman)	3	5:00	Batman did not make weight; forfeits 20% of his purse to Gordon. Gordon carried an RSI wrist injury, sustained 2 nights before the fight. Followed Runner vs. Coyote on Spike TV.
TUF 47 Heavyweight	Big Dude 231 lb	Bigger Dude 260 lb	Submission (kneebar)	2	0:58
Lightweight Championship	Road Runner (c) 154 lb	Wile E. Coyote 155 lb	KO (falling anvil)	1	3:40	Coyote followed 4 fights at 170 lb. Coyote tested positive for illegal substances, post-fight.

I'm still unsure whether the table should be used or the existing textual format. I will say that with the example above the notes column should be removed. It appears to include information that should have been discussed in the Background section of the article. My biggest issue with nearly all MMA event articles is that it is simply a list of results and very light coverage of the event itself such that they violate WP:ROUTINE. I think this can be avoided if the event articles provided more description and discussion of the event, what occurred leading up to fight night, brief discussion of the fights themselves, and any after effects. But as for the topic at hand, the table above vs the current format, I still don't have a major opinion either way. (BTW, there is no way Batman would even not make weight! ;) --TreyGeek (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I was totally going to say the same thing about Batman. Udar55 (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, I was not aware of any of this. My main motivation for the whole exercise is that I reckon the event record should be a clear presentation of all of the salient details of the event, e.g. I want to know how Frank Mir bulked up (gradually or not), or when Florian and Penn changed divisions. It is tedious enough to have to open all of their fight events without having to trawl through paragraphs and bullet points to find out; may as well use Google. Maybe we add their fighting weight to each row of their individual fight record? Speaking of which, the Notes column in the individual fight record is equally redundant. I don't want to return fire just because you shot down my Notes column, however if we abbreviate the individual fighter notes to FotN, KotN, "for WW Ch", "lost LHW Ch", etc. that would create space for a Weight column. Meanwhile I have removed the Notes column over here; the narrower table width will accommodate event pages where the Results section starts before the bottom of the page banner, e.g. UFC on Fox. The content should now be simple enough to avoid unintentional botched edits. I reckon inexperienced editors have trouble with small text vs. small text; is either type recommended/discouraged? And finally, Batman... seriously? I'm talking DC Comics (see image), not West/Bale/Clooney. Terilbah (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Fight	Fighters		Result	Round	Time
Catchweight 188 lb	Bruce Wayne 188 lb	Flash Gordon 186 lb	Draw (split) 29–28 (Gordon), 28–28, 29–28 (Wayne)	3	5:00
TUF 47 Heavyweight	Big Dude 231 lb	Bigger Dude 260 lb	Submission (kneebar)	2	0:58
Lightweight Championship	Road Runner (c) 154 lb	Wile E. Coyote 155 lb	KO (falling anvil)	5	4:40

BigzMMA has changed the Mixed martial arts article "Also known as" to (MMA, Cage Fighting, Ultimate Fighting) from (Vale Tudo, no holds barred (NHB), freefighting), this section has changed quite a bit over time and I was wondering if we could devise a consensus for it. Freefighting is the name some European nations use for Mixed martial arts, Vale Tudo despite being a separate everything goes proto MMA is still the name many Brazilians refer to modern MMA by. Perhaps we should just remove the AKA section all together?--Phospheros (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'd thought that 'also known as' should involve all the names that Mixed Martial Arts has been referred to as. Those are names people know the sport by, Vale Tudo, no holds barred are not what MMA has been known as. If you want to run a consensus on that, fair enough, but you cannot say that the sport has never been called that in the past? BigzMMA (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say remove the AKAs entirely. The AKAs used by BigzMMA are incredibly obvious thus making them useless, in my opinion. The other terms are described and defined in the course of the article making them less useful in the infobox. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that, many people know the sport as different names, and for this reason we need to at least make sure that it is included in there, so if they are looking for information on the sport, at least they can find it easier. In Britain, the general public always refers it to as 'cage fighting' due to the pig ignorance of our country's media, which actually says in articles something like 'Cage Fighting, also known as Mixed Martial Arts' as if the MMA name is the nickname for the sport. It isn't just about making people aware of the other names for it, but it is to help educate anyone who wants to look for information about the sport. Cage fighting is a demeaning name for it, but its a name people recognise, so to change that in those people, we just need to make sure its there so they know they are in the right to look for information about the sport. BigzMMA (talk) 09:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The list of AKAs in the infobox does not help a reader find the MMA article when looking for cage fighting. Rather having Cage fighting redirect to Mixed martial arts does (the redirect has existed since 2007 so that is not a problem). If you keep the list of AKAs, removing Vale Tudo, NHB and freeform fighting is disingenuous as current day MMA evolved from these forms and has been referred to these names in the past. I personally still feel that removing the AKAs is the best result, otherwise we face a potentially never ending list of AKAs added by IPs and others. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the original info in AKA was more useful than what's currently there. I was going to suggest combining both the old and the new. However, I could also live with its removal. Astudent0 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well basically aka is meant to say what the sport has also been known as, and if we cant even agree on what the sport has been called by other people, then either we do an immediate consensus now or just delete it, because if you ask me this is a pointless debate. Either use AKAs for what they are meant to be or don't. BigzMMA (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's clear to anyone who knows MMA's history that the original terms were the forerunners of moderm MMA and that those terms are still used in parts of the world. However, I think a case can be made that that line doesn't add any real value to the current article. Mdtemp (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we can remove the AKA line because the article seems to cover that topic. Jakejr (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I just modified the {{MMA record start}} template to force the width of the record column. This should prevent the wrapping of longer records (Travis Fulton and Fedor Emelianenko‎ among others). If anyone sees any problems in record tables resulting from this change or has a big issue against it, let me know. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed something for a couple months now, but have been to lazy to actually bring up the topic till now.

The UFC event pages are, in my opinion, in need of fixing. I find it odd that the PPV event pages are named numerically (ex. UFC 140, UFC 141, UFC 142) but the free cards (ex. UFC on Fox: Velasquez vs. Dos Santos, UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis, UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller) all have "special" names to them. I don't understand why we do it one way for half the cards, and a different way for the others.

So, in my opinion, we should either change all the PPV cards to the names that the UFC dubbed them (UFC 141 would be UFC 141: Lesnar vs Overeem and UFC 142 would be UFC: Rio), or we remove the Fighter vs. Fighter from all the fight nights. It just looks silly to me that we have it half and half. What do you think? Hopefully this makes sense, and doesn't look like I'm a completely idiot. RapidSpin33 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, the titles are the less important things that need fixing with UFC event articles (the contents need to be vastly improved to not violate WP:ROUTINE), but that's a different topic for a different day. Personally, I feel that using the event number is preferable due to how quickly {{UFC Events}} can get cluttered with using the long name. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA provides some guidelines on article titles two of which I see apply to this situation, recognizability and conciseness, which are conflicting for us. Do people recognize the name "UFC on Fox 2" or "UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis" more? (The second one I think.) Which one is more concise? (Definitely the first one.) Anyone else have thoughts?--TreyGeek (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, personally, I like to see all main PPV events like UFC 140, UFC 141 etc to be like that with just the number it is, and for the other types of events the UFC does, just name them by how people know them best, and then have searches that use different names but are for the same event to be sent to the link it is named under, e.g. type and search 'UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis' will send you straight to the 'UFC on Fox 2' page. Much easier to do that rather than debate the whole page name thing. BigzMMA (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the numbers are fine, there are alot of numbered UFC events so adding the Main Event titles would scretch out the event box too much I think. Glock17gen4 (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As a quick response to BigzMMA, the desire to have a discussion is because the article naming format is not being done as suggested in this discussion. This is a potentially controversial thing to make changes to the article titles and to prevent edit wars a discussion to determine consensus is desirable. So, it seems that so far the preference is that articles should be titled "UFC on Fox 1" and "UFC on Fuel TV 2" as opposed to the current article titles of "UFC on Fox: Velasquez vs. Dos Santos" and "UFC on Fuel TV: Gustafsson vs. Nogueira" respectively. In addition the UFC Events template should be changed to match the article titles.

Should the {{Infobox MMA event}} previous and following events also follow this naming style?

If there are no arguments against renaming/moving the articles in the next week or so, I suppose we can move forward with performing this action. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BigzMMA. I feel that the PPV or numbered events (i.e. UFC 142) should stay just that, but with events now on Fox, FX and Fuel TV and past events on Versus, Spike, those bouts should be referred to by their official event name (i.e. UFC on Fox: Evans vs Davis) as opposed to UFC on Fox 2. At least on the event page itself and in the fighter's official record section. It seems easier to remember the event from the main event partipants or event name (i.e. UFC: Fight for the Troops instead of UFC Fight Night 16; or UFC Fight Night: Marquardt vs. Palhares instead of UFC Fight Night 22).Ppt1973 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I say keep it the way it is, that or make UFC 141 redirect to UFC 141: Lesnar vs. Overeem as it's shorter and easier to type, which is helpfully when you are using a mobile device. Just my own two cents. c.m1994 (yo, what's up?) 22:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm confused with the different opinions so I'm going to summarize what's going on in hopes of un-confusing myself. Currently, UFC event articles are not using the same naming scheme. UFC "main" events, some Fight Nights and TUF finales are titled with their respective number. Other UFC Fight Nights, on Versus, on Fox, on FX, and on Fuel are using fighter names in the article title. When you go look at how others are covering the events UFC and USA Today uses the numbers as opposed to the fighter names, MMA Junkie uses a hybrid of both the number and the name, MMA Mania/SB Nation seems to use both, so even that is all over the place as far as naming styles.. RapidSpin's initial suggestion was for UFC event articles be named with their number; the fighter name versions would redirect to the numbered articles. I support this method and I think Glock17gen4 is the same. I interpreted BigzMMA to support this method as well. However, Ppt1973 interpreted it differently and supports the current mixed naming scheme. It seems c.m1994 wants to change the UFC "main" event article titles to use the fighter's names rather than just the numbers as used now. We seems to be all over the place in our opinions it seems. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The ProElite page has been completely torn down to being just a few paragraphs, with their events column being removed, and the results taken off. ProElite has received multiple independent sources covering their first two events and should be given the right to be left here. I want to know why this action has been done, and to fix the page as it was as well as giving the separate event pages back on here without being simply going to the main page. This course of action was unnecessary and should be able to say what events have happened already and what ones are happening next. Their next event is for the 21st January and there are plenty of sources covering it, with the main event crowning the first Middleweight Champion, with a former UFC star taking a PRIDE veteran. BigzMMA (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the article history, MarcoAA05 (talk · contribs) removed the information about the three events and created separate articles for each. The user also renamed the article ProElite Inc.. Neither set of actions is desirable in my opinion. WP:COMMONNAME suggests the article should be named ProElite. The events themselves are not notable enough to have their own article. I'm going to inform the user who made the changes of this discussion. In my opinion the event articles should be deleted (and I'll put them up for AfD if I have to) and the article reverted back to its previous content and name. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Input from the project is needed here. The issue is not in that particular fight, but in the different stats in Sherdog and MixedMartialArts.com. Materialscientist (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Howdy All. This afternoon MMABot completed another full round of cleaning up MMA fighter articles. This latest round through 1700+ articles went very quickly as a number of articles did not need any adjustments by the bot. Since late summer a list of additional tasks was created for the next version of MMABot to perform. I'm now ready to start looking into those tasks, getting feedback from ya'll, implementing them and having the tasks approved by the Bot Approvals Group. Everyone is welcome to go to the MMABot talk page and put in your thoughts on the v2.0 tasks I have listed and to include additional tasks you think may be beneficial for MMABot to perform. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As an update, I've been making good progress on the development and testing of v2 of MMABot. I am expecting to finish with the list of tasks that I have on the MMABot talk page by the end of the weekend. If there are no additional task requests or feedback/comments on the existing tasks, then at the end of next week I'll be requesting the Bot Approvals Group to accept the additional tasks for MMABot to perform on live articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have the new tasks implemented and testing has been going well. I've made the request to the bot approvals group (BAG) for permission to run these new tasks on 'live' pages. Suggestions, questions and comments are still welcome here, on the bot's talk page, or the BAG approval request. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A last FYI, MMABot v2 has been approved by the Bot Approvals Group. Full-scale runs are beginning now. If there are any concerns which have not been addressed you can raise them here or on the bot's talk page. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, i new to the MMA wikiproject but i know i can be of help. i may not be very good at codes and stuff like that. but i like to keep articles like new UFC events up to date with real credible info. Same with with fighter pages. If a fighter has announced his next move i will be there to contribute. Thanks --Imhungry4444 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I must ask, does this promotion deserve to be recognised as a second tier organisation? Hear me out on this first before deciding, ProElite were the people behind EliteXC and there isn't a doubt in anyone's mind that they are a second tier organisation. Now ProElite, for those who don't know, are doing events under that name now. They have done two events so far since August 2011, and both has had loads of media coverage, something that already passes WP:GNG. Yes they are a young organisation in terms of how few events they have done and the short history of the events under the ProElite name, but they have had plenty of notable fighters compete for them, such as Andrei Arlovski and Tim Sylvia. There are articles on their upcoming event ProElite 3, which can easily be found on Google, so yes they haven't been running long as a promotion under that name, but in terms of history of running EliteXC, plus they are getting plenty of coverage that has them meet GNG, it should mean they are at least on the right tracks on being second tier.

I'd say that if it agreed that they are not yet there, then we can agree that the more events they do from now will strengthen their case.

Also may I request that their events be unmerge with the main page? someone has merged their only two events to the main page and I disagree with this as those event did get loads of coverage leading into the event and after the event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs) 10:52, 2 December 2011

Both of the claims (They are run by the same group that did EliteXC, they have had plenty of notable fighters compete for them) both fall under Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERIT). Now based on your suggested changes to the notability below, do you really think that it's appropriate at this time to include them on the notability list? I would like to wait a while (and have some more events under the current incarnation, not the 2008 version) before we include them as they've recently re-started operations in the Live MMA arena. Hasteur (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

ProElite MMA appears to pass WP:GNG from my searches. I don't think that is under disagreement considering the promotion has a Wikipedia article that is not under AFD or speedy deletion status. Does it deserve to be a second tier promotion? The ProElite article is unclear in what its events are (events are listed in the "Results" section that do not appear in the "List of events" section). I'm guessing it has held four events since in the last 4-5 years with another planned in January 2012. In my opinion, that is not a very active organization and doesn't deserve second tier status (again, just my opinion). As for the question of ProElite events having their own articles, they can if they ultimately meet WP:GNG. A cursory search on those events leads me to believe they don't fit the criteria. If someone believes they do meet WP:GNG it may be an opportunity to create the articles in a sandbox to get opinions or to be WP:BOLD and create them in mainspace, but mainspace article should meet all requirements to be there or face deletion. (IOW, if someone makes the article in mainspace, don't half-ass the job). --TreyGeek (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

ProElite began doing evens under the EliteXC name years ago, and because of money problems, they went bankrupt, but ProElite began running events under the ProElite name from August this year, and even though they have only done two events since their first event in August, there is another scheduled for January as you pointed out yourself, and there have been pages for the first and second events, but for some reason (and I can't find any sources to say why) they were merged with the main page. This I don't understand as there have been many sources out on these events, particularly because they had people like Andrei Arlovski, Tim Sylvia and Reagan Penn (Again I don't know why Penn's page was removed, many articles out there on him) competed for their first two events, I really don't understand why they were merged with the main page, they clearly showed that they are back to showing MMA events on a full time bases and this is partly why I came here to ask about it. BigzMMA (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• There is clearly no way this organization is top tier, which is where you put them in your MMANOT redraft. Right now, I have to agree with Treygeek that it's not yet reached even second tier status. Astudent0 (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the only I put it there was because without a doubt EliteXC deserves to be a top tier promotion due to their success with the short time they had as a running promotion, which by the way they achieved more than Affliction Entertainment did and they are considered top tier. But none the less I will move them down to second tier on my suggested layout, remember it isn't real list so don't get your panties in a bunch over it, remember it is like what has been said, the more shows they do from now, the stronger their case is to be a majority agreed second tier promotion. BigzMMA (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is another organization that is not yet second tier. Also, remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and that each article must stand on its own merits. Mdtemp (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Mdtemp. Promoting two events isn't sufficient to qualify as a second tier organization. Jakejr (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Now that they had three events, including two televised on HDNet, have started a tournament, are featuring fairly mainstream fighters with notable past accomplishments, are getting covered in such newspapers as USA Today, and have the partnership with Dream, I would say they are second tier at least. Nothing is really currently on the same level with the UFC, but I definitely would say as for as North America is concerned at least, ProElite, especially given its previous Elite FC incarnation, may be falling into third place behind the Zuffa behemoth (UFC, Pride, WEC, and Strikeforce) and Bellator. --24.154.173.243 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

An individual working for the ISCF has repeatedly tried to add the following text to the Mixed martial arts page:

The International Sport Combat Federation (ISCF) was created in May of 1999 as the worlds first "MMA" Sanctioning body. This ushered in a new era of Mixed Martial Arts where it is once again recognized as a true sport worldwide. This was aided by certified officials and well developed rules that were built up from the ISCF's sister organization for kickboxing, the International Kickboxing Federation's (IKF) long developed system.

Outing there conflict of interest here: User_talk:75.5.249.86 I attempted to explain the reason why this persons changes keep getting reverted but about once or twice a month an attempt is made to add back in, just posting this as an FYI.--Phospheros (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I see alot of British MMA fighters being represented by this flag on Wikipeida pages, and I think that they should be represented by this flag . The UFC uses this flag to represent British fighters like Michael Bisping in their telecasts and their UFC Undisputed video game franchise. I personally have never seen the UFC use this flag to represent a British fighter. I think that all flags on British fighter related pages such as event pages should use instead. The only time should be used is if the page is talking about an event location in England, such as a UFC event held in Manchester, England. I wanna know who agrees with this and who doesn't, I think this would help improve MMA pages on Wikipedia. Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with this, even though the UFC does in fact uses the Union Jack to represent a fighters nationality, but for any fighter who lives in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, they would want to represent the actual country they come from. For example, if we look at events BAMMA have put up and see the different nations in their events that are in the UK, we'd see that they are not all cut from the same cloth despite all being under the Union Jack. If we change all their nationalities and have them just under the Union Jack, the page would look ridiculous and would undertone the event as an all British event, not an international event. For this reason I would vote against such motion if it were to ever go to a consensus decision BigzMMA (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia's MOS on the use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations it seems that the British countries are an exception to the 'rule' not to use sub-national flags when used for people, particularly in a sporting context. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am debating with myself whether to create a main page for the Super Fight League but I want opinions from others to see if it is worth creating a page for them just yet. They are India's first MMA promotion, and their first event is going to be headlined by Bob Sapp and James Thompson in March, but after that they will hold another two events in early April and early May respectively. They seem to be getting a lot of attention due to being owned by Raj Kundra, Sanjay Dutt, Ken Pavia and Daniel Isaac as well as being a main topic of conversation in Bollywood. Because of all this I believe it is worth creating a page for them, which I will obviously create under my sandbox before hand, but I'd like some opinions before I decide to do it. BigzMMA (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and create a rough copy of what the page will look like in my sandbox, for anyone who is interested in this debate please have a look and give your opinions on here or on my talk page. If no-one answers back to this within one week from this message, I will assume that no-one rejects the thought of the SFL having their own page and for this reason alone I will go ahead and create the main page under Super Fight League. BigzMMA (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup of the article in your sandbox. A lot of is/was just minor copy edits and changing references to use {{cite}} templates. I did have to do some changes to the section about their cage because it looks like you simply copy/pasted that section from their website which is a copyright violation.

That done, I have two questions. Does SFL have immediate plans to have championships in all six weight classes listed? If not, they should probably be removed to avoid confusion. (I couldn't find anything on their website stating which weigh classes they were going to have championships for or if they were going to start off with any championships.) The second question is not limited to this potential SFL article, but about all MMA organization articles. Are the rules section, as they are being written now, really necessary? We already have an article covering the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts. Why not shorten this (potentially boring) section by saying the organization follows the Unified Rules with the following exceptions: x, y and z. (Again, that question/comment is not exclusive to the potential SFL article.)

Otherwise, good job. I hope you keep up with it. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The references do look better now, thanks for that, umm, well with the things like rules, I think it makes the page look more professional, and I would like to keep it like that. As far as the Champions section, for the time being I wouldn't disagree removing it until they announce championship bouts or tournaments to crown champions. Remember they are a brand new promotion with currently receiving significant coverage, so that is why I believe they should have the main page in the first place. When they start to crown champions obviously we can add them back in. Who knows, if each event gets a similar amount of coverage it may be worth having a page for each of them? After that small change I think I'm ready to give it it's own page. BigzMMA (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to be sure that I am not totally off-base here. Does anyone see Top10mmaRankings.com as a legit, reliable source of MMA fighter rankings? An IP has been adding their rankings to several fighter articles and has been attempting to get an article created for the site. The WP:AFC folks rejected the article because it cited no sources (though the IP is apparently trying again, still without sources). I've reverted their edits to fighter articles for link spam. Does anyone disagree that this is potentially link spam? I looked at the site and was not impressed. I can't seem to find anything that suggests they are a reliable source for MMA fighter rankings and/or are used by others in the media. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Junk, delete on sight. --SubSeven (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You have no rights to decide which source of information is relevant to articles. The only thing you are doing is monopolizing sources of information and esentially turning wikipedia into a corporate media proxy. Let the viewer choose which soure of ranking to believe. You have no rights to limit the source of information that reach the viewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasSDS (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A couple of months ago the page for Dean Amasinger was deleted and the link is now merge into the Ultimate Fighter season he appeared on. I completely disagreed with this, he is highly notable and meets GNG as he has competed for notable promotions such as UCMMA, Cage Warriors, BAMMA and Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW). But don't just take my word for it, just doing a simple Google search under his name will show anyone doubting it that he is as notable as necessary for Wikipedia via WP:GNG. I would therefore like to have his page unmerged with the The Ultimate Fighter Season 9 page and reinstate his original page so I can happily update it seen as a fair few things has happened for him since this incident, which included him signing a four fight deal with KSW which is news anyone can find on Google, as well as updating his MMA record. BigzMMA (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered that there are now articles about two Marcus Aurélios. The two articles are currently disambiguated by their year of birth. Marcus Aurélio (born 1974) is the more well known of the two having competed in UFC, Price, Dream, etc. Marcus Aurélio (born 1986) is of questionable notability. There are two (three?) reasons for bringing this up.

1. Is the one born in 1986 notable? If not, we should delete it (PROD or AfD) and move the 1974 Marcus back to the original article title.
2. Assuming 1986 is notable, a number of Wikilinks need to be fixed from pointing to Marcus Aurélio to Marcus Aurélio (born 1974) (see what links there). This is not currently something that MMABot is capable of dealing with (and I won't be surprised to see MMABot barf all over it when it comes across the disambig page now).
3. (Again) Assuming 1986 is notable, do we want to disambiguate them by birth year? Is there a better way? 1974's real name is Marcus Aurélio Martins, but it is unknown, to me, if 1986 is the real name or not.

In writing this I've decided to AfD 1986. If the result is delete then I guess most of the issue is settled with #1. If the result is keep we'll need to deal wtih #2 and #3. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a follow up, it looks like all the wikilinks to the disambig page intended for the 'known' Marcus Aurélio have been changed to point to Marcus Aurélio (born 1974). If the AfD is successful, and so far it looks like it is, then those links will have to be changed back. I'm thinking that may require an admin's help. We'll see. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Over the last couple of months there have been a lot of additions to MMA fighter articles of "Championships and accomplishments" sections. Glancing around it appears much of this is unsourced. I'm curious about people's opinions of removal of these sections in their entirely? Or at minimum, removal of those items in the sections that are not sourced and not directly obvious from the article? Obvious items, to me, would be number of "Fight of the Nights", "Championships" and similar items which likely appear in the fight record table and should already be discussed in the prose of the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

They don't need to be removed, they do need to be sourced like Jon Jones's accomplishment list.--Phospheros (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of things like "fight of the night" or "submission of the night" being listed as an accomplishment. That's like indicating the "first star" of an NHL game. That said, I like lists of accomplishments because it makes things clear and easy to find. Of course, everything on those lists should have an independent source. I believe any editor is within their rights to remove any claim that isn't sourced. Papaursa (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we could amend it to "Championships, awards, & accomplishments" though for the sake of brevity I'd just leave it as it currently stands. Obviously unverifiable claims can and should be removed.--Phospheros (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see Papaursa's reasoning for not including 'basic' awards such as fight of the night (though I did have to look up first star to realize he was referring to the most valuable player ;). I raised this subject because I've noticed through vandalism watch and runs of MMABot a lot of these sections are unsourced in part or in their entirety. I wanted to get a feel of people's opinions (or those who pay attention to the MMA Wikiproject) on this issue before I start hacking away at these sections (I am a deletionist afterall). --TreyGeek (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up that UFC 140 is up for deletion. --SubSeven (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a slew of MMA articles up for deletion as listed in the MMA WikiProject article alerts section and the martial arts deletion list. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Absurd nomination with flat out lies from at least one of the deletes. God,I can't stand these people who want to ruin things for others purely because they just dont' like,care about, or know about certain things. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous again that these events are being nominated--Fightloungemike (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

These people must be violating some Wikipedia policy for nominating pages they clearly know are not going to be deleted. Even if they aren't MMA fans, they should know trying to remove a UFC event page is like trying to delete any year's NFL Super Bowl Finals page, it simply won't happen. And the fact they aren't stopping there by nominating BAMMA 9, SFL 1 and all OMMAC events must mean they clearly are the wrong people to be contributing to MMA topics. BigzMMA (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out UFC 94 as a perfect example of how to make an MMA event article comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It includes well sourced prose discussing the background leading up to the event, it discusses the event itself (while the "greasing controversy" helps, there is a lot aside from that), and a discussion of what happened following the event. If you read it, the 'standard' list of fight results is a very minor part of the article. I realize that not every event can have the same detail, but that should be our goal. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've been using the bios here on wikipedia to keep track of all UFC fighters. I've noticed quite a few of them have no style listed for the fighters. I feel this is an important part of each bio and would like to see these updated. I have contacted one of the fighters who has no style listed through his website, hopefully I will get an answer. I'm not familiar with submitting info here but wouldn't mind helping if I find correct information.

TheCloser17 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)TheCloser17

The WikiProject guidelines for the infobox says not the place styles there (with the possible exception of it being sourced). You'll also find this past discussion establishing a consensus for not listing styles for MMA fighters, because MMA requires the use of multiple fighting styles and due to the ridiculousness of some fighter's claimed fighting style (even when sourced to Sherdog). Finally, I'll note that MMABot (talk · contribs) has been approved to remove any information in the style parameter of MMA fighter's infoboxes and received no arguments during discussion of its current tasks when it was in development in December. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Look here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellator_Fighting_Championships:_Season_One

If you guys are going to keep everything on one single page, which may actually be a good idea since so many events aren't really of significant note, then why not make it like the Bellator page does and include the fight cards and other relevant information.

Not only is is a great compromise, but it is easier to look at, and is more useful to use. Gamezero05 (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Last weekend I removed all flag icons from 2012 in UFC events as seems to be the policy of this WikiProject. My work was immediately reverted. I concede that I may have misunderstood the policy but, if that's the case, I think it needs to be clarified as I can't presently see anything contradicting what I did. Xxovercastxx (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your view of policy, however it was agreed (see above) that they could stay until May 1, when an RFC would take place on there continued use, if a consensus is reached that they can remain then they will remain other than that they will be removed. Mtking ^(edits) 03:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think I'll stick with fixing spelling mistakes in the future; there's too much to learn to be a proper contributor. Xxovercastxx (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Record is up-to-date, and the correct way to use Location is as shown. If this is so, someone might want to check on user 189.74.193.21, as he is systematically changing these into shorter - and therefore incorrect - versions. — Tegsit (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

As most of you know, we are already working come up with some solid MMA guidelines (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 3#Notability of MMA Events) that everyone can live with.

Stage 2, (User talk:Anna Frodesiak#THE PLAN), if considered worth a shot, should maybe get under way. I suggest making a subpage here, where we can write a statement and invitation to post at the MMA forums. We can all edit it as we would any other article. Then, when we (hopefully) have produced a guideline, the statement/invitation will be ready to go. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The AfD for UFC 149 has been closed with the admin saying it should be merged into a list of UFC events article. Now we, as a project, must determine how to meet that admin's direction. We already have List of UFC events which, to me, is a simplistic article and if expanded to include more details of individual events would become way to unwieldy with as many UFC events as there are. The admin suggested doing a list by year. Many other projects do similar kinds of articles and in this case would be something like 2012 in UFC events. It could contain a basic list of the year's events and prose briefly discussing each event. Those events for which a full article can be written, similar to UFC 94, then they can be split off. Thoughts? --TreyGeek (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, what I envision for a 'year in' article would be something along the lines of what I've started in my sandbox. Its goal is to eliminate the raw fight results which avoids WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and discusses significant bouts as sourced prose, thus complying with WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

With as many events as the UFC holds, the amount said about each card would need to be brief in order to keep the article from becoming unwieldy. Having said that, I like the concept and the layout I saw in your sandbox. Properly done, that's an article about MMA events I could support. Papaursa (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if every fight at every event is discussed then this idea won't work. Th why I think only the significant/notable fights (championships, tournaments, co-main event, etc) should be discussed with any kind of detail. I think that'll result in only 2-4 fights per event being discussed and likely it will be rare for preliminary fights to have any discussion other than mentions of bonus awards if it occurs. I'll see about fleshing out one event in the sandbox to give a better idea of what I'm envisioning. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Like your sandbox idea, buy maybe add something like this This. Then have major events like UFC 100 have their own page. c.m1994 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of what the closing admin said is that events that haven't happened yet shouldn't have their own page. Thus, a list of FUTURE events was proposed. I saw no directive to stop creating individual event pages for events that have already taken place. There are clearly competing views on this, but the admin has not taken a clear side. Individual event numbers could redirect to a list, with individual event pages being created later. This would at least stop the creation of event pages for events a half a year away, which violates WP:CRYSTAL so long as the events themselves are unannounced. Even when the events are announced, though, the admin believes that the content of the page would feel too much like promotion to be warranted, which is reasonable considering that even pre-event articles with cites offer little more than PR announcements and injury scratches (which typically has no lasting historical significance). I suspect that more significant changes than the ones I've suggested would be met with a great deal of resistance and likely widespread efforts to undo these changes. I suspect there is simply too much interest in having these single event pages exist to try and stop it through AfDs and administrative action. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was the one who first suggested the "Bellator events by TV season" approach in an AfD debate, to keep the events pages from being deleted altogether. I am not opposed to lists, but I also think that the UFC and Bellator are not the same in terms of their significance, nor do I think the sheer number of UFC events promoted lends itself well to this type of merger. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If the admin is suggesting that the article should be 'merged' only because it is a future event, then we can simply redirect UFC 149 to List of UFC events and be done.

As for the Bellator event articles, I'm not wild about how they look. The raw results seem to be primary focus of the article and lacks well sourced prose. That would not comply with WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:ROUTINE, WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with redirecting upcoming events to the List of UFC events. This preserves the page's edit history and makes it easier to edit the page after the event takes place (than if the page were simply deleted). I'm a bit confused, though, when you say that you aren't wild about how the pages look. because you then cite WP guidelines to suggest that perhaps they shouldn't exist at all. The argument I made with Bellator is that we should treat each season as being a season of a television show, which it is. There is plenty of precedent for having lists of episodes of TV shows, which is why I think this format ultimately won out in the debate. UFC events are a bit different, but I also think there are many more reliable sources that can make a case for the notability of these events. I've never been convinced by comparisons to football, hockey, soccer, etc. because while the UFC (the premier league) will generally only hold one event in a weekend, the NFL, NHL, NCAA, etc. will each hold dozens of contests on a single day. And it is not similar to golf, tennis, or even NASCAR, because the competitors are quite different from event to event, rather than the same field of competitors each time. In some ways, each UFC event is most similar to a movie release, where a single broadcast is released simultaneously in many countries. So really, UFC 1, 2, and 3 is like Jaws 1, 2, and 3, except the action isn't scripted and the shark is Royce Gracie. Many more people watch a UFC event than many of the films listed on WP (without issue), and I suspect they get more press coverage as well. You can't tell me that major UFC events don't feel like a red carpet event, or that highlights aren't likely to show up in an end of the years awards show [see World MMA awards]. Nic Cage releases more movies in a year than GSP usually fights, but no one is trying to say that Nic Cage movies don't belong on WP (whether they belong in the theaters is another question entirely). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We're straying from discussing what to do with UFC 149 as a result of the AfD. However, if the Bellator article(s) are primarily "well sourced prose" discussing the events and fights as opposed to primarily a list of fight results then my complaints will be resolved. Contrary to others, I do not believe that any and every UFC event is automatically notable. Each event should be judged individually. If an article about an event (UFC or otherwise) is judged to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies then an article about the event can be kept. I think we (OSU and I) agree on that. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We do agree on that. The other arguments I made are consistent with my general approach to AfDs. After seeing Libstar put nearly the entirety of the kickboxing pages up for deletion, I saw the writing on the wall. I have since nominated a slew of pages for deletion that were for minor events and promotions to try and increase the average notability level of remaining MMA pages. Nearly all that were nominated were deleted as a consequence of those debates. I have, however, argued for keeping pages relating to the UFC, Dream, Strikeforce, Bellator, and to a lesser extent Sengoku. People posting in AfDs don't always know the difference between Strikeforce and Brutaal (self-described as mid level cage fighting events in the Midwest run by a beauty school drop out, see http://twitter.com/#!/brutaal), and I could see that deleting one UFC event following the debate of a few editors was going to create a precedent for dismantling all of them. There is still too much disagreement about what constitutes a independent, reliable source, for me to think any event stood a chance against folks with deletionist tendencies (particularly those not involved in the MMA Wikiproject or without any interest in the sport). So, yes, I'm off track a bit, but this is why I don't intend to vote to delete UFC event pages and will argue for retaining them, even if I agree that not every event is inherently notable. It is also why I think a simple redirect is the easiest way to satisfy the admin without disrupting the status quo. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this idea entirely, the fact is that ALL UFC events has been able to and still provide sources that strengthens their own separate pages.

Now I've had an idea about how to sort this out PROPERLY. What we can do instead is simply rate a promotion between 1 star and 5 stars (1 being lowest, 5 being highest) and with that rating it determines whether the promotion is strong enough to have separate event pages. I'm thinking anything between 3 to 5 stars are safe whereas any promotion with 2 stars or less can be debated on through a different means but ofcourse rules will be written for those rated promotions the conditions of possible event pages (i.e merged pages). Now as we all can agree on, the UFC is the NFL of MMA, so it can be safely said that all UFC events will remain safe, but once I work out a system which we can determine on, then I will write on here what I think, then we can tweak it where-ever necessary and ultimately, come up with a workable system that can survive the test of time and pretty much end the need for this idiotic AfDs for event pages. BigzMMA (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is not to propose new notability guidelines or whether events for a particular promotion are inherantly notable thus deserves an article. It is to discuss how to handle an admin's closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 which is requiring us to merge or redirect UFC 149. If you want to disagree with an admin's decision in closing the AfD that is a completely different issue and you should take that up with them. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Opppose merge and denutting of results. Per WP:FIVE, Wikipedia is in part an almanac and encyclopedia. Almanacs and encyclopedias list results in statistical charts. I have sets of specialized encyclopedias from everything from military history to Lost as well as The World Almanac and Book of Facts, Britannica, Compton's, and their yearly update issues and guess what, all of these have tables and charts of statistics showing results from games to Olympics etc. There is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't also include such information. And yes, some things are inherantly notable. All NFL championship game are notable. Well, the UFC is the premier MMA league. At a minimum all events featuring championship fights are notable and especially these days are going to be covered in mainstream press after that FOX deal and all. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Note : Blocked as a sock of a blocked editor. Mtking ^(edits) 03:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's nice that you oppose the merge. However, an admin has 'ruled' that a merger or redirect is required. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just do it, while I don't agree with the outcome of the AfD, DDG was clear in what he felt should happen. TreyGeek's sandbox version is a good start, any of the individual events that pass WP:SPORTSEVENT can be left as stand alone the others redirected, and if necessary protected against disruptive changes. Mtking ^(edits) 22:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Mt, what would be your response to OSU's suggestion above of redirecting UFC 149 to the existing List of UFC events? --TreyGeek (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think any event (past or future) that does not demonstrate it's long term historical and encyclopaedic value should be redirected. Mtking ^(edits) 01:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and redirected UFC 149 to List of UFC events as that appears to be the consensus from this discussion in terms of an easy resolution to the closing admin of the AfD. Through the afternoon I've worked on the possible 2012 in UFC events article in my sandbox. If people think that the year in events idea is worth pursuing let me know and I'll try to finish out the article in my sandbox. (And if there are any suggestions on what I have so far, I'm open to them.) I'm going to go eat. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the "year in" is the best approach, that way the List of UFC events article does not get two large and unwieldy and it will allow for some prose on the individual events. Mtking ^(edits) 03:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The List of UFC events I think is intended to be a list-class article (brief intro, then a list of events with no discussion), so I makes a good temporary pointing-to place. The "year in" article, as I envision it, is more comprehensive and includes a few paragraphs discussing each event and its significant fights. I'll continue working on my sandbox later today towards a possible 2012 in UFC events and see how it goes. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

But a merger is not right, as if you merge the UFC events into pages, then really we should be doing the same with WWE PPV events (by name), NFL Super Bowl Finals (by decade), just because one admin said the best way forward is to merge doesn't mean what-so-ever s/he is right, if anything a new system is the ONLY realistic way forward, merging these pages and we may as well be walking backwards because we would simply be going nowhere with this, and I hope this comment remains here for anyone after mergers are done. BigzMMA (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that any of the MMA event article are comparable to the WWE event articles? Take a look at Royal Rumble (1988), Starrcade (1997), Bragging Rights (2009), and Armageddon (2002) as examples of the wrestling WikiProject's C class articles. 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 doubt you can. And again, these are C class articles so they have a lot of room for improvement. Their WikiProject has even more event articles of higher level of quality.

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. And judging from this discussion (before the canvassing has a chance to begin) you, BigzMMA, are the only one who sees things differently. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll amend something I just said to me more accurate, Osubuckeyeguy, I think, is also against widespread removal or merging of UFC events. I think s/he has fewer reservations for lower tier promotions. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No one yet has acknowledged the argument I made above about UFC events being more like movies than like traditional sporting events. To me, this is a more fitting comparison. You can buy DVDs of most every recent UFC event [2]. Most live sporting events do not receive a special DVD release of the game unless it is a championship or rivalry game. I'm not saying they are identical, but I do think this fixation on meeting WP:EVENT glosses over the differences between these kinds of events and others. They are a combination of sports, entertainment, and broadcast media with often international distribution on television/cable or PPV and then a significant re-release for the home market. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Other than trying to sort out the UFC on FX 3/UFC on Fuel TV 3/UFC on FX 4 mess, my sandbox has a completed article that I'm proposing for 2012 in UFC events. I think it turned out pretty well. There are some paragraphs and events that are a little weak in the prose. For some of the earlier events (for just this year!) I had a hard time coming up with quality sources discussing the events and important fights. I'm open to suggestions on the proposal. Short of really fundamental issues with the proposal I'll probably create the article early this week, if not sooner. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• There's been a lot of ideas thrown out and it seems we're sometimes disucssing more than one topic. As Libstar showed with the kickboxing articles, very few of them were written in a way to show notability. The MMA articles are generally written in the same way--almost nothing but fight results. Very few of the events truly meet WP:EVENT individually--UFC 1, for example, would be an obvious case of an event that had lasting impact. I think TreyGeek's idea of putting the UFC articles for a year into one article that mentions the signficance of each event is superior to having 30 or 40 articles that would struggle to survive an AfD discussion. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The only reason they would struggle in an AfD case is because they are unnecessarily being put up for nomination in the first place. Its like I keep saying all along, MMA is far too different to other sports such as American Football, Soccer, Rugby and F1 to even dare to make a comparison as to why they can't have their own separate event pages. Boxing is closest relative to MMA to make such comparisons, and the best example of this is an event like Victor Ortiz vs. Floyd Mayweather, which really does not offer any historical significances, not many articles out on it to support its own page (especially now), and being just a single event with no lasting effect if it was an MMA event, it would of been put up for deletion long ago, yet no-one has done so. Why? Because the people who participate in the boxing related subjects has something that only a few of us that involves ourselves in MMA subjects do have - common sense! Merging the pages is not the answer, and everyone saying otherwise needs to understand that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigzMMA (talk • contribs)

I do agree with BigzMMA that it does seem a bit curious that the argument seems to be "we must do this because these article would never survive an AfD." Yet, the people making that argument are also the same folks who regularly nominate articles for deletion and vote against keeping them. The problem here is a bit self-inflicted in that those beating the drums of change and requesting administrative comment are people affiliated with the Wikiproject, not from without. Libstar has seemed to have cooled off about blowing up every martial arts article, and I'd like to think that my approach to nominating events for smaller promotions made it clear that the project can police itself to keep things from getting out of hand. There is clearly a great deal of interest in having event pages for top-tier events, based on the fact that these pages keep getting creating and by the page views they draw. It seems pretty silly to have to request page protect for every UFC event from now until eternity to keep people from creating these pages over redirects to a "merged" page. I would be much more interested in seeing all of this energy directed to improving the existing pages to include more prose, rather than simply assuming that the events are not notable because the case has not been clearly made yet. If UFC 94 is the standard, why not try to beef up the pages (starting with the championship events)? I think you'll find that more than routine coverage exists, particularly as MMA gets more popular and gets greater notice from the mainstream press. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we all get distracted by attempting to compare MMA to other types of events (whether it is to claim that is isn't like x, y, or z, or to say we should compare it to a, b, or z). We should be discussing MMA events as MMA events. OSU mentions above DVD sales, PPV, and broadcast television shows including international broadcasts (whether live, on tape-delay, or as part of a look back show as Spike often did/does). I think this is a very good point and has the potential for showing lasting effects. The same can be said for those events and/or fights that have significance to other fights down the road (Cruz/Faber, Ortiz/Shamrock, Maynard/Edgar, UFCs 1-10 with establishment of the current rules, UFC 94's greasing event which led to how fighters enter the ring and behavior of corner men, etc) How we handle individual event articles vs "year in" event articles vs list of event articles could very well be dependent upon the promotion. I will still maintain that the current state of many (if not most) MMA event articles is what causes the biggest problem (particularly when viewed from outside of the WikiProject whether by Libstar or MtKing or others).

I've been beating UFC 94 like a dead horse in terms of what our goal should be for any MMA event article and I don't think anyone disagrees with that point. I've been mentioning my attempts at a 2012 in UFC events article in my sandbox. I think in that sandbox, at worst, you'll find good starts/stubs for each of the UFC events held this year (and in a couple cases those that are upcoming). I will say it was difficult for me to find quality sources for the events occurring at the start of the year. I'd hate to try to find quality sources for events that occurred more than five years ago or sources to explain the significance/importance of Felipe Arantes vs Antonio Carvalho (the very first UFC fight of 2012).

I hope that this discussion in the end will help serve as a good starting point for actually improving the existing articles so that they are not merely a list of results and stats. I hope that we, including me, can move towards actually writing content in articles. Since I've decided to reduce my stress level by no longer doing vandalism watch. That helps me have more time to help write content (as I've done in my sandbox and in a non-MMA article). Pick a truly notable event (so Jungle Fight 1 and similar events don't apply) and it'll go to the top of my todo list for improvements. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• I like the idea of having an article that sums up each year in the UFC. That would certainly create an article that highlights the truly important things like the championship fights and doesn't just give the results. I don't believe, like some have claimed, that every UFC event is automatically notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Since I feel like there's been more and more support for a "year in" type article (or an "omnibus" article as an admin called it) I've gone ahead and created 2012 in UFC events in main space. I attempted to update the upcoming events with the changes that have occurred since I last edited the past a week or two ago. We'll see how this goes and I may look into what the next "omnibus" article should be to work on it as well. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I really dont understand why alot of the UFC events are being merged into a UFC in 2012 article. UFC 145 is certainly notable, yet for some reason they are trying to merge it. Most of UFCs events are notable enough for their own articles. Portillo (talk) 03:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm jumping in a bit late here, but the 2012 in UFC events is a mess already and we are only in May. There is a mid-point that needs to be reached. I can understand the view that each event does not warrant its own page in theory, but the "year in" style is clearly too much chaos to be warranted also, more so at the later stages than the earlier points. It is my view that the year in style works for previous events, but upcoming events need separating into a future events page, to stop them cluttering up the "year in" page. I like the single event style, but some events really are little more than a list of fights, and some events work better in context with the other events. All in all, my point is year in style lists are good, but really need to be kept clean, unlike our current one. Bigmansam45 (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I read the discussion on archived page 6 about removing upcoming fights from the record table. The admin said that it was perfectly fine to have the next upcoming fight on the record table. So then you guys took a straw poll.

And now you guys removed the upcoming fights from the record table because of the straw poll results.

Really?

You guys had like 5 people participate in that straw poll. Is that really significant? You guys already had it in your mind what you wanted to do, and conducted a straw poll that nobody else was going to see except for a few of you, and decided that was sufficient to go ahead and change all of the MMA fighter pages an remove the upcoming fights from the tables.

I can go to Sherdog or The Underground right now and bring back hundreds of people, if not more, and we can take that straw poll again. I guarantee you that your opinion will be in the extreme minority. I don't know of any other people who would agree with you. Gamezero05 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you really sure you want to threaten us with meat puppetry? Wikipedia runs on consensus based upon discussions not straight up votes. The straw poll you read was part of a long line of discussions going back a couple of years. If you want to constructively discuss the issue you are more than welcome. But you and others who have popped up recently to simply complain are not adding anything of value to Wikipedia by simply complaining. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Meat puppetry? Look, I'm not trying to bring people here that only agree with me. I'm saying there are a bunch of people on a bunch of MMA websites that want to help to change things on MMA pages, but they don't know how to do it and don't know how to edit anything. Which is why you only have about 5 people voting on things and discussing things. I was simply saying that I could easily tell those people to vent their frustration here instead of Sherdog or The Underground and wherever else. They just don't know about this talk page.

And secondly, yes, I have complained, but I have also discussed and tried to work out solutions. I edited the UFC in 2012 page, which you probably hate, but I feel it is a compromise. And actually, it may be better than before with everything on a single page, while still keeping the information and tables that people find most important. Gamezero05 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason I am bringing up old things like removing future fights from the record tables is that I didn't know where to discuss these things before about a year ago when I first realized you guys were removing that. I always wanted to give my opinions and try to change it, but I never knew how. So this isn't just something I found out today.

But with the complete merge of all the pages into a single page and the deletion of the other articles, that was such a ridiculous move that I made sure I figured out how Wikipedia works so that I could discuss it with those who changed it. Gamezero05 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

You are all a bunch of babies. Stop trying to change it, it is perfectly fine the way it is now. Gamezero05 1 The rest of you 0Allstar13 (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I, too, missed the discussion on removing upcoming fights from all fighter bio pages. I definitely find it useful to see the upcoming fights on the top of the table, simply because it is very convenient when comparing fight records --Pat ^talk 04:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I do miss the upcoming fights for each fighter on there bio, it was a really useful source of information if I just wanted to check one fighter. I'm willing to accept the consensus, and just want to add that I'm for upcoming fights on the bios, should the debate come to the for again. Bigmansam45 (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure where to add the following citation, but it seems important. In the 4 May 2012 issue of Entertainment Weekly, Bellator Fighting Championships was listed as the eighth item on the "The Must List: The Top 10 Things We Love This Week", with the editors noting that it is "Friday-night fights! Get in the ring with some of the best MMA fighters in the world as they kick and punch their way through this weekly televised tournament for a shot at a world title."^[11] Anyway, that is pretty big for an MMA promotion to make a top ten list in a published print magazine and should be cited somewhere as it really gets to the heart of just how notable that promotion is. --24.112.202.78 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already said what I think on the deletion review for this page, but I will paste on here what has been said. After everyone reads it this must be discussed as a workable system that will not affect either the separate pages or the omnibus pages anymore.

• I have the solution! I have written to Jimbo Wales on his talkpage for help as this whole thing has gotten too far, and User:Wikid77 has come up with the best solution. It is on the talkpage but for those who would point blank refuse to go on it, I will bring what he said on here -

"Seems reasonable to have 30 UFC-event articles per year: The long-term tradition appears to be workable, to have separate articles for each of the UFC events, especially considering there are only about 30 major events per year. Obviously, there will be enough news sources for each sporting event, and with only 30 per year, then later reports will often re-mention the earlier events to strengthen their notability for separate articles. The added yearly article ("2012 in UFC events") would be workable if kept condensed, with links to the larger, separate UFC-event articles. This situation is similar to hurricane articles, where some people have questioned the notability of each storm, and if a hurricane stayed out at sea (and only a few islands or ships were affected), then deletionists have tried to ax the separate pages, in favor of the yearly article, such as "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" listing 28 tropical storms and 15 hurricanes for year 2005, where the major storms included Hurricane Katrina (August), Hurricane Rita (September), and Hurricane Wilma (October), but also the July storms Hurricane Emily (2005) and Hurricane Dennis were considered to be powerful storms. Try not to be upset about people being obsessed with deleting articles, but also remember that having a yearly article (such as "2012 in UFC events") does not mean the separate UFC-event articles must be deleted. Both the separate and yearly UFC articles can be kept, as with each year's hurricane articles. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)"

So as you can see, maybe the best solution isn't to have one or the other, but to have BOTH on here, the separate pages AND the Omnibus pages on Wikipedia, that way everyone is satisfied, all the right boxes for the topic is ticked, and the information is just as easily accessible for those who are looking for this information as before. I think somewhere down the lines people have forgotten that people aren't interested in Wikipedia for debating how the information is presented (if its present at all) but to find what they are looking for and read it, and thats what matters.

For this reason I am now going to change my vote to Keep both separate event pages AND Omnibus event pages, and I hope you all do the same! 109.151.225.151 (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would have no objection to having the single articles remain and the omnibus exist as well. I suppose that would give people the option to utilize whichever system they prefer. I personally think the omnibus is way too cumbersome and I don't like it so I would only use the single page articles, but I also would have no objection to an omnibus coexisting. Pull lead (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is the result of the review, then the first thing we ALL need to do is call a truce between each other, in which we stop the bickering, the insults and end all AfDs on the separate and omnibus UFC pages because it has been going nowhere and we need a realistic solution that works for all. We will then need to discuss removing the merge links from the UFC events on the 2012 in UFC events such as UFC 152, and then we should have directory links on the separate pages to the 'Year in' omnibus pages and vice versa. Then all users will work to regularly update both the separate pages and omnibus pages from then on so that neither page would be without the same information.

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to do. In the end of the day, Wikipedia is about finding information you want/need to find, and Wikipedia is the best place to find what your looking for. For the MMA community, Wikipedia has been a vital source to finding out fight event results from the night before if they weren't able to watch the event. For people who edit on Wikipedia all the time, I can understand you have policies that you must follow but at the same time why does it have to be a 'our system or no system' approach to this? It's like I pointed out before the references for the 2012 in UFC events page are virtually identical to that of the separate pages, and when you think about the fact that its is only the 5th month of the year and there are over 100 references on the omnibus page, largely from MMA websites, then how is it much different to have separate pages with only a handful of the same references directly for the same event? You must remember as well it doesn't matter how it is presented, it is always going to be viewed by certain certain people, which in this case is the UFC/MMA community. This is why I want you guys as well to agree that keeping both the omnibus pages and the separate pages is the best solution and I want you to back me on that! 109.151.225.151 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

And that is what I think so far. If anyone agrees with me, please discuss this idea with other users, no matter if they were for just the separate pages or the omnibus pages. 109.151.225.151 (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

HyeFighter seems to be included in many articles, some as a red link, some were a red link, but de-wikified. I haven't got a clue what it is. If it doesn't fall under martial arts, feel free to delete this post. It may fall under boxing, but I haven't posted anything in that project as of yet. Is it worthy of its own article, if it is within the scope of this project?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Both Jon Jones & Georges St-Pierre have ESPY award nominations listed under the Championships and accomplishments sections of there respective pages. Does a failure to win an award really count as an accomplishment?--Phospheros (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering that listing lacks a cited source for both fighters, it should be removed for that reason alone. (Done now, BTW.) Does being nominated count as an accomplishment? I would doubt it. In a WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXISTS argument, the boxers nominated for the same award don't have it listed on their articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't particularly care about this particular topic, it's worth mentioning that TV shows, movies and albums tend to have award nominations listed in the "awards" section of their pages. Martino231 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

To try and get editors motivated about improving' the MMA articles I declaring a blitzarticle improvement drive. I've looked at the UFC event articles from 2000 and notice that not one of them has cited text. What will the blitz improvement drive entail? I'm going to merge/redirect the collection of them to a 2000 in UFC events. This does mean I'm going to ask that UFC 27 be restored to it's location so that it can be merge/redirected. Any thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Support, thou as a matter of procedure and given the DRV it may be better to have UFC 27 restored to user space for the the drafting stage then propose it is moved back (for history and attributation reasons) and indef fully protected as a redirect. Mtking ^(edits) 21:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for the undelete interactively with an admin so that we can get it undeleted, redirected, and indef protected. If there's enough content to split out an event the split can be proposed at the talk page. Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Support, let me know if I can do anything. I would prefer userfy, but the way you describe everything ewith indef protet, I'm on board, what can I do?Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You could help by either helping me finish standardizing the BAMMA Events article. The idea is that if we can show a standardized format, it'll make the articles/MMA Annuals less confusing to read through. Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose in part: It is not clear this is an improvement and it would be precipitous to perform the redirect so quickly while discussion is on. As I said to Sandstein, though, after undeleting UFC 27 the simplest thing is to move UFC 27 to 2000 in UFC events, and then add the other articles to it. However, don't do the redirects yet please, as you haven't commented on my thoughts at the end of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Agent00f#Q-and-A towards content. There may be a way to find Agent00f's proposal within policy, but I wanted to ensure you all had looked at it. JJB 23:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose a half fix, if JJB is worried about the redirects, propose the merge on each and every page, have a central discussion point for all and if consensus is reached for the merge then do it and put in all the redirects, if not then the articles on the non-policy complying events are vulnerable to AfD'ing. Mtking ^(edits) 00:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the concern that the rest of the UFC 2000 events are vulnerable. I did look at the original article and from what I recall, it was no better or worse than the other ones in this set. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I did see your proposal and (as evidenced by my minor fix to your text) am perfectly fine with the proposal. I am taking the challenge laid down to spend more time on salvaging the articles than arguing process over and over with no real end in sight. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There's only like 8~10 events for UFC 2000, so the standard complaints (too large, unwieldly, etc) aren't really applicable and would actually improve the flow from one event to annother Hasteur (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Before blitzing the next batch of articles, could you first improve the existing omnibus article for 2012? You'd create a lot more goodwill from the community by showing that the omnibus system can work, before inviting another round of controversy and heated discussions over a new set of UFC articles. I don't think anyone is really against the omnibus system per se, just the horrible way it's currently been implemented. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that the 2012 article is going to be filibustered and fought to the entropy death of the universe, I'm attempting to shift gears and protect what content we do have for MMA. Not by endless filibustering of discussions, but by proposing article blitzes like this to get the article up to a minimum so it can remain. I observe that you haven't proposed a way to improve the omnibus articles, so I question your commitment to the process of saving the articles. Hasteur (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've been paying attention to the talk page, since I've been posting various requests for edits on the omnibus page. The main problems of it are that it's too long, and that it's out of date. Splitting it in multiple pages fixes the former, updating the page with accurate information would solve the latter. UFC 147 is a prime example, the stand alone article is up to date, the omnibus entry is not. It shouldn't take that much time for you to fix those problems, and neither change would be likely be subject to filibustering. There do not need to be any discussions for updating the omnibus page with factually correct information to replace the factually incorrect information. I don't see why that would be a problem, and it would go a long way to create some good will with the userbase. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, you might want to refrain from using the term "blitzing". I know you don't mean it in that sense, but it does have strong connotations with war. Exactly the mentality we should be trying to avoid considering the heated discussions going on. 76.103.153.126 (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the term blitz in favor of article improvement drive. Is this acceptable to you? Hasteur (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. I also appreciate you efforts to try and improve the omnibus page. Thanks again! 76.103.153.126 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the complaints that arbitrary annual division make far less sense than a clean and more easily expansible format that aggregates the dozen or so contests on the same card and use links to connect clearly delineated and sequential events? Can you look at the bizarre inconsistency of what's going on with MMA in wiki now (and for the forseeable future) and honestly tell me it's better in any way than what came before? When people claim this is screwing up the usability of wiki, they're doing so for good reason. Agent00f (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you done anything about the complaints? Have you edited any article since you started being the advocate for the MMA croud? The prose that exists will still be there. There are 2 changes:

1. The articles will have a standardized result layout so that it's easy to read and consumes less space on the page, thereby enhancing the readability/usability of the page
2. Yes I can say that it's better in almost all ways than before because as a unified set in one article it demonstrates a collective notability that individual articles don't have, reducing the risk that the entire collection is not vaporized by any random editor or administrator.

Is not the primary purpose of the wiki to give information in a readable format? Having all the information that already exists in a single article allows readers to see the entire "year" of events without having to navigate to a new page.

Good faith in relation to your purpose here has been effectively drained due to the fact that you continue to have no edits to article space, yet are willing to debate untill Ragnarök the policies/guidelines. Hasteur (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, in general can we stop assuming the omnibus is an improvement on anything, except an effective way to prevent the AfD system from being gamed, until it's demonstrated any other merit? Agent00f (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the omnibus (or for a better term List of) system is to herd articles (like animals) together for the shared protection it provides. Don't think the omnibus system is an improvement. Prove it. Make a well reasoned AfD nomination and see if you can get it deleted. I'm sure the Admin will restore it in user space so you could split it back out. I know this skirts the edge of WP:BEANS, but I'm tired of the meta discussions of "I think the omnibus is bad because XYZ" and "I'm worried that ZXY event will be lost if we do XYZZY". Hasteur (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you supporting my claim that the only worth of the omnibus is an "effective way to prevent the AfD system from being gamed" and only wish to see further verification? This doesn't make any sense as a counterargument so it's best if you clarify what was meant before we continue. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The trio of MMA deletionists were successful in their takedown of UFC 27. Now there is no record anywhere on Wikipedia of this event. Really improved the site, didn't they? AugustWest1980 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank the lord for people who are happy to spend their time ruining things for others for no apparent reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martino231 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What really irks me about this, is that both UFC 26 and UFC 28 is still there. It's a big hole in this timeline. They deleted it instead of moving it. It has been saved somewhere, but only admins can retrieve the lost information.

It now seems that they are focusing on current and new UFC pages... Mazter00 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Most recent update: Mazter00 (talk)

Date	Discussion	Result
2006-09-17	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 66	DECR
2006-10-26	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 67	DECR
2007-02-14	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 70	WDRW
2007-02-14	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 71	DECR
2007-04-18	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 74	DECR
2007-06-03 2007-06-25	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 76 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 76 (2nd nomination)	DECR DECR
2007-07-22	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 2009	DECR
2007-06-26 2007-07-30	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 77 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 77 (2nd nomination)	DECR DECR
2007-10-04	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 79	NCDK
2007-10-12	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 80	DECR
2007-11-13 2007-11-20	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night 12 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night 12 (2nd nomination)	DECR KEEP
2008-01-06	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 83	DECR
2008-01-06 2008-02-02	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 84 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 84 (2nd nomination)	SPCR NCDK
2008-02-17	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Champions Drug Abuse List	SPDY
2009-02-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 101	KEEP
2009-08-06	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Ultimate 100 Greatest Fights	DELE
2009-10-18	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 111	DECR
2009-10-29	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night 21	DECR
2010-03-01	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 117	RECR
2010-03-18	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night 22	KEEP
2010-09-03	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 123	WDRW
2011-03-28	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Undisputed 2011	DELE
2011-06-17	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 137	KEEP
2011-06-17	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 138	KEEP
2011-06-17	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 139	DECR
2011-07-21	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night: Shields vs. Ellenberger	KEEP
2011-07-25	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard	NCDK
2011-06-24 2012-03-10	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination)	DECR NCDK
2012-02-10 2012-03-22	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX 4 (2nd nomination)	DDIR RDIR
2012-03-23	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 152	RDIR
2012-03-23	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 154	RDIR
2012-04-13	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 142	NCDK
2012-04-13	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Guillard vs. Miller	RDIR
2012-04-13	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis	RDIR
2012-04-20	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 143	DDIR
2012-04-24	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 146	NCDK
2012-04-27	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 27	DELE
2012-04-30	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger	DDIR
2012-04-30 2012-05-03	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fox: Diaz vs. Miller Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fox: Diaz vs. Miller (2nd nomination)	WDRW NCDK
2012-04-30 2012-05-03	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier (2nd nomination)	WDRW DDIR
2012-04-30 2012-05-03	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall (2nd nomination)	WDRW DDIR
2012-04-30 2012-05-03	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida (2nd nomination)	WDRW DDIR
2012-04-30 2012-05-03	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 147 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 147 (2nd nomination)	WDRW NCDK
2012-04-30 2012-05-03	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 148 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 148 (2nd nomination)	WDRW DDIR
2012-05-15	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 151	DDIR
2012-03-06 2012-03-28 2012-04-30 2012-05-16	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 149: Aldo vs. Koch (2nd nomination)	RDIR RDIR WDRW RDIR
2012-05-16	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on FOX 4	DDIR
2012-05-16	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 150	DDIR
2012-05-19	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 144	KEEP
2012-04-30 2012-05-19	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV 4 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC on Fuel TV 4 (2nd nomination)	WDRW DDIR
2012-05-28	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 21
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 2
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 3
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 4
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 5
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 6
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 7
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Ultimate 1995
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 16
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 22
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 23
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 24
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 25
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 26
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 28
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 29
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 30
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 31
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 32
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 33
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 34
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 35
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 36
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 37
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 37.5
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 38
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 39
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 40
2012-05-31	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 41
2012-03-31 2012-04-25 2012-06-01	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (3rd nomination)	SPKP SPKP SPKP
2012-05-26 2012-06-03	Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 145 Wikipedia:Deletion_review#UFC_145 (DRV)

• DDIR = deleted, then redirected
• DECR = deleted, then recreated
• DELE = deleted
• KEEP = kept
• NCDK = kept (no consensus)
• RDIR = redirected
• RECR = redirected, then recreated
• SPCR = deleted (speedy), then recreated
• SPDY = deleted (speedy)
• SPKP = kept (speedy)
• WDRW = withdrawn

I believe the historical approach is useful. JJB 16:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is a single one of these getting deleted? Where's the fight back? Can we get someone who has a clue of what's going on to figure what should be deleted and what shouldn't be? Bigdottawa (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• As far as anyone can tell, maintaining consistent presentation for this specific subject is a crapshoot. For example, consider the rationale presented at AfD for a recent nom, "If this topic has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, then it is notable." Note multiple sources including Sport Illustrated/CNN on its page. Yet the exact same type of nom of 3 entries in a peer sport with exact same nominator/admin not a few hours later all pass with even less prose or summary and a single source in the best case, or practically no source or words at all. The "non-notable" event of the two also has a championship contest in a top tier org, yet the other warrants 3 separate pages. When the consequential decision-making make no sense it's impossible to proceed with reasoned discussion or security in editing, which is why I'd rather do other things. Agent00f (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have enjoyed my brief tenure assisting very slightly with MMA articles, but I have now decided to wind down my involvement for the most part. In my opinion the RFC/U was helpful at achieving its ends; the RFC at least demonstrated that the permanent solution is not likely to be through a specific notability guideline; and I have at least gotten an AFD roster started at the WikiProject that others can maintain. I am hopeful that this topic (one of many that is subject to warring between "walled gardeners" and "deletionists") will someday find a happy resolution, and, while I am not pleased about the current AFD run, in the event of a local solution any deleted articles can be recreated as consensus agrees. It is my intent to continue watching to assist with sitewide solutions, and I will also chime in when I see MMA community discussions that I can contribute to. Shalom. JJB 23:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Since nearly all of these hardly had any discussion on the actual notability of the subject, I have closed all of them (apart from a couple that were clear Keeps) as No Consensus. I would suggest these aren't nominated again until a clear consensus on the applicability of WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT as they relate to MMA events is gained, with the input of a wide range of the community. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Reposted from WT:WPMA

Junior Dos Santos' page has Jon Jones' mixed martial arts record!! Please correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.37.254.173 (talk) 05:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm so out of date I wouldn't like to check but I figure you guys will be able to sort it out, Thanks --Nate^t/_c 15:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Was fixed by an IP several days ago actually. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should have them there. I know the argument was made that mma is not like the olympics and is not defined as a contest between nations. But the UFC always displays the flag of each fighter before every fight. Nationality is actually a big part of the sport, as with many combat sports and other sports in general. It also adds a bit more information to the page, adds colour to the records (making them WAY easier to read and navigate) and is in keeping with the spirit of combat sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NerdNinja9 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support It has always been a part of combat sports... and actually, it has always been a part of individual sports where participants from all over the world compete. I was just watching the French Open yesterday, and guess what... when they show a list of rankings or tournament brackets, the flags are next to the name. When I watch golf, the flags are next to the name. It is standard in the sports world to display the nationality of the participants by use of flags in individual sports with world-wide participation. Gamezero05 19:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, with a minor correction. The UFC doesn't display a fighter's nationality, it displays their country of birth. Minor distinction (eg Overeem: born in England, nationality Dutch). 75.101.47.18 (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; as described it does not accord with MOS:FLAG. As 75.* points out, the participants are not representing a country but indicate their country of birth, nor are the flags accompanied by appropriate text on the first appearance in most articles I've seen. MOS:FLAG also has firm words, "flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death". – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 06:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above, MOS: FLAG doesn't leave much wiggle room. If a varying guideline for combat sports in general has consensus, the change should be made there. gnfnrf (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per MOS:FLAG and the various national conflicts (including subunits of the UK) unless there's a absolute reliable source that asserts their nationality. Hasteur (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:ICONDECORATION, icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. There is no encyclopedic purpose in adding flags just because they look good in the eyes of some. And per MOS:FLAG, as stated by others above. It should also be noted that the UFC is not a sport governing body and they promote a fighter's nationality as they see fit, like Cain Velasquez, an American fighter promoted as Mexican, and Alistair Overeem, a Dutch fighter promoted as English. Jfgslo (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Flags are helpful symbols that express a notion quicker than a word can (even quicker than Swiss, and MUCH quicker than Turkmenastanianistiticianist). Not so much to do with decoration, I think. Of course, nationality should be reliably sourced and defined according to Wiki rules, not just copied from which flag a promotion uses for their Tales of the Tape (birthplace in UFC). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to editing MMA articles and there's something I've noticed that's troubling. In MMA record sections I've noticed fighters from the United Kingdom receive the flag for the administrative division they are from (ie England, Wales, etc.) as opposed to the United Kingdom's flag which when you think about is like giving a fighter from the United States a flag for their homestate (Minnesota for Brock Lesnar for example). I thought the whole purpose of the flag was to identify the fighters home country at a glance not their home state/providence/administrative division, etc.? Could someone explain why if not can reach a consensus that should be used not since they from the country the United Kingdom.--Rockchalk717 21:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Review this section in MOS:FLAG for the reasoning behind it. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That guideline backs the Union Jack. In general, if a flag is felt to be necessary, it should be that of the sovereign state, not of a subnational entity, even if that entity is sometimes considered a "nation" or "country" in its own right. Rockchalk is right. I think. That last sentence is a bit confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I flagged BFN Group for notability mainly because there were no sources but also because it was a fairly new company. Several sources have been added - maybe good enough but I can not read the boxing news one - but generally speaking are there guidelines? I want to check before I put it for AfD debate.Peter Rehse (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

With more and more televised MMA Events, isn't it needed to add an extra parameter which holds the number of people who watched the event ? Is it possible to add a parameter (by example: |viewers) who indicates the number of people tuned in for the event (on television) ?

grtz — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We could (and should) have a Neilsen rating or PPV buyrate parameter, but there will be no accurate viewer count. Can't tell if one person is watching a TV set or fifty. Or none. A fair bit of "pirate" and non-Neilsen viewing, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The UFC doesn't release PPV numbers, all that's available are Dave Meltzer's estimates, how much faith one can put those is debatable.--Phospheros (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Buyrate was already included in the infobox. But I talked about televised events (not ppv). Buyrate for PVV and viewers for Televised events.SiMntjMMA 11:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Buyrate for PPV and rating/share for TV. Like I said, nobody knows how many viewers watched. Encyclopedias shouldn't guess (even if that guess is sourced). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well so these numbers are guesses ? http://mmajunkie.com/news/29160/ufc-on-fx-3-ratings-1-1-million-fx-viewers-and-84000-fuel-tv-viewers.mma SiMntjMMA 16:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No those are Nielsen ratings, even if MMAJunkie refers to them as coming from "industry sources".--Phospheros (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

They're guesses from Nielsen, based on their ratings. On the official rankings, they openly acknowledge these are estimates. An "Estimated Viewers" parameter would be fine, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Keep in mind, those estimates are only about US viewers. This is a global encyclopedia, and MMA is watched around the world. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, but the Buyrate parameter is also only for USA/Canada. When there is an event called : UFC_on_FX, the 'estimated viewers' parameter for how many viewers tuned in @ FX seems relevant to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Does UFC PPV exist outside of USA/Canada? If not, buyrate is fine. But TV certainly does! FX in Canada is the same channel Americans get, not sure about other countries. I have no problem with adding estimated American viewers. If there was a global estimate, we could have that, too. As long as we're being clear to the reader. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I live in Belgium and I have to pay 6,99$ in order to watch the PPV on www.UFC.TV. I added the parameter to several events already. Will complete all others too soon. SiMntjMMA 12:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs)

I see you've decided to not specify "US viewers". I think this is a mistake. One million viewers out of 300 million people is very different to one million out of seven billion. A reader may likely see this and assume the global UFC audience is much smaller than it actually is. It is a misleading statistic, as is. Also, that is a damn good PPV price for Belgium! In Canada, they're around $50. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. You are right but if it is UFC on FOX or on FX or on FUEL, the people will know on what channel that million viewers have tuned in. About the price : yea, but i cant watch it live. It starts at 2 AM until 5 AM :(. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs) 17:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

But FOX and FX and Fuel are not only in the U.S. The millions watching the exact same show with the exact same title in other countries aren't counted here, but a reader reading this reasonably might think they are. What's the harm in adding two extra letters to the parameter to make this encyclopedia that much more factual? Won't somebody think of the children?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to our new members who joined in August! ChrisGualtieri, LlamaAl, Paul "The Wall", Ruslan90, SiMntjMMA, Udar55, and Zwarrior2. Posting this to your talk pages and PW:MMA Talk page. Kevlar (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there an established rule about whether we type UFC 100 or UFC 100? Italics seem to be the norm for other TV shows, but quite a few fighter articles do not use them, or partially do. I've been changing them according to how the first occurence in an article is typed, but that seems a bit arbitrary. If there is no existing rule, I propose always using italics. Feel free to either show a rule, or Support/Oppose this proposal. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where you have seen this, but italics has been for future events. Mazter00 (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support — Italics is for future events, but only in templates.
  LlamaAl (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this would resolve a lot of the issues in terms of the 2012 in UFC event article. I would propose that the event information and main card results along with a short summary could be the only things displayed, with more details, the preliminary card results, bonuses, etc displayed when you click the "show" button. Template:IndyCarSeriesracebox is a good example. I'll try to cook up an example of how it could look.Froo (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds cool. Do you already have something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should have a summary of the show, maybe a quick synopsis on the main events...I just want to see more content added to the articles so they don't get Nom'd for deletion. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I nominated Matt Hughes (fighter) to GA in August. Today, it became the ninth WP:Good article for our WikiProject.
LlamaAl (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

very nice! i couldn't agree more, the Matt Hughes (fighter) article is really well done. Kevlar (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
LlamaAl (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The wiki page Fatalities in sanctioned mixed martial arts contests previously only listed deaths in sanctioned mixed martial arts contests hence it's name, however names of fighters in unsanctioned events have since been added (Mitelmeier, Dedge, Jenson, Herrera, & Lee). I was going to delete the unsanctioned MMA event deaths but I thought I'd check here first to see if there's any consensus. --Phospheros (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would cut it down to two names. Hardly worth an article for two guys. I'd rather see the long title shortened to be more inclusive. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Added ref's, cleaned up page, and moved to Fatalities in mixed martial arts contests. Herrera & Lee need better citations.--Phospheros (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Better, but that's still a pretty long title. Any reason "Deaths in MMA" wouldn't work? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Deaths in MMA and MMA deaths now redirect to Fatalities in mixed martial arts contests. The specificity seems standard, examples: List of professional cyclists who died during a race, List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career, List of racing drivers who died in racing crashes.--Phospheros (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. As long as there's a redirect, I'm cool with it. Just thinking of the searchers. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have had 3 deaths in sanctioned MMA fights, Tyronne Mimms passed away back on August 11th in Mount Pleasant SC. I was working the fights so I had a lot of first hand informtion and I backed up as much of it as I could with reliable sources. --Willdawg111 (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

NAAFS: The North American Allied Fighter Series is a big name in MMA promotions. It says that somebody deleted an article on it a couple years ago, Anybody know why or is there going to be an issue with me doing this article? --Willdawg111 (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I would question your claim that it's a big name in MMA promotions. It is a regional MMA promotion and many of those organizations have been deleted on WIkipedia. The biggest problem is usually a lack of significant, independent, non-routine coverage. Usually the only sources provided are fight results and pre-fight press releases and that doesn't cut it. Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

They've put on over 125 shows and they are affliated with Bellator. Its also where quite a few UFC fighters got there start. Its not some BS local promotion. I just was wondering what I'm going to need to keep it from getting deleted. I already have an independent source cited as well as their site cited for information. --Willdawg111 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a "big name" promotion, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's doomed to be deleted. Like Papaursa said, it depends on the quality of your sources. I recommend reading the notability policy, and finding some reliable sources before you create the article. It would save you from potentially wasting your time. If you have any doubts or questions about a source you plan to use, don't be afraid to ask. I'd guess the odds are against this article establishing notability, but you never know what someone might find. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(By the way, there was an edit conflict here, and the above reply is to your original question. So it might read a bit weird.) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the article is already underway. Currently none of the sources are independent. Anyone can start a website or drop a press release (about their new PR team, of all things!). We need to have evidence of other people talking about them. Otherwise I'd be notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This promotion is actually already on the list of promotions that needed done, so obviously there shouldn't be any problem with me doing it. I already started it but I did it as the NAAFS instead of the North American Allied Fight series. Can somebody tell me how do I link North American Allied Fight series with what I did on the NAAFS (I want to redirect to my NAAFS article without copying and pasting the entire article) --Willdawg111 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it. I'll move NAAFS to North American Allied Fight Series, and will create a redirect (NAAFS) to this page.--LlamaAl (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done--LlamaAl (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was reading through how to do it, came back to try and you already did it. Thanks for the help. It actually makes more sense to do it the way you did and redirect the NAAFS to North American... and not the other way around. --Willdawg111 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Willdawg, before you start accusing me of being a "hater", I assure I'm not. I just want to say that it's good you're making positive measures for the project. However, you're going to find that people dispute the relevance/notability of this organisation (and to a smaller extent, the article for Julian Lane). There isn't really much in the way of secondary sourcing, as the only stuff that can really be found is their own work, not something from, say, Sherdog or MMAJunkie. I'm not going to list it for deletion, as I hate it when articles I work long and hard on are deleted. However, I'm just preparing you for the worst, as I imagine that at some point in the next few months, someone may well list it for deletion. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Somebody has to agree that it is a relevant organization because I'm not the one that put it on the list of organizations that needed pages writen about it. I actually missed it and wrote it up as the NAAFS and when I was looking through the list of organizations that needed articles I noticed North American Allied Fighting Series was on the to do list. Thats when I asked for help taking what I had written as the NAAFS and linked them together. I think that any organization that has put on over 125 shows in less than 7 years is relevant. Thats about the same number of shows as done by the UFC, and obviously if Bellator is working with them and backing them, Bellator must think they are relevant also. I don't know if you noticed but I did pull several articles off of MMAWeekly which is as legitimate of a source as MMAjunkie and referenced them. I don't see any possible why that a fan of MMA could argue that the NAAFS isn't relevant. --Willdawg111 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say the article needs some better sources and better claims to notability--not press releases or routine sports coverage (see WP:RS, WP:ROUTINE, WP:GNG, and WP:MMANOT). If I were forced to vote at an AfD I would be inclined to say "delete", even though I'm on their mailing list. Papaursa (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)