Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 2

Poster images in danger of speedy deletions

Someone just speedy deleted the poster for UFC 61 at File:61084p1.jpg, because apparently it did not have a Fair Use rationale as per WP:CSD#I6. I went ahead and uploaded a new version of the poster for the page at Image:Ufc61.jpg, and used a template for the rationale and that should keep it from getting speedied again. However, I don't believe any of the other UFC posters have rationales on them, so they're vulnerable to getting speedied. Which sucks. I'll start tagging some of these other posters with a rationale, but I'll need help. hateless 05:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we have a fair-use rationale for the use of posters. We aren't providing critical commentary on the posters, so the posters don't add anything to the article. Sancho 05:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then all movie posters should be removed from WP, which I don't think has consensus at all. Judging from WP:NFC#Images and its entry on cover art, it appears to me that if an article has critical commentary on an item, then the cover art for that item can be used for that article as illustration under Fair Use. The equivalent of an event's cover should be its poster, and WP:NFC seems to apply the same rule to posters as cover art (although it doesn't make it explicitly clear). What this means to me is that we can't use the poster for UFC 71 to identify Chuck Liddell or Rampage, but we can use it for the article on UFC 71. The fair use template was recently edited to match WP:NFC, so I'm treating WP:NFC as the final word on the issue, and the template's language could use some refinement I think. Nevertheless, the debate can continue later, I think the important part is we tag rationales on poster images asap, then wrangle about details if someone brings the image up to xFD. hateless 06:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the rationale for using posters is quite shaky. It barely passes WP:NFCC #1, and doesn't meet #8 in my opinion. The posters are being used for decorative value and there is no commentary on them. east.718 16:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs

I've been finding links to ufcdaily.com, ufcjunkie.com, ufcmania.com, pancrase.org, and the like being used as sources when they're simply rehashing news from another source at best, or inserted at high speed to multiple articles at worst. I've been removing these links and replacing them with better sources on sight unless they're interviews or something of the sort, but was just interested in getting the community's opinion and consensus. east.718 04:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. I think ufcjunkie is in gray area because it is emerging as a reliable source. I'm not sure if it can be considered a self-published source, but getting press creds from the UFC does make it significantly different from all the other self-pub blogs. Then again, ufcjunkie didn't reveal his own name (Dann Stupp) for a long time and still doesn't make it readily available. Of course, anything ufcjunkie publishes as a rumor should not be used as a RS. hateless 23:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ivansblog.com and fiveouncesofpain.com are also borderline to me. Ivan's Blog is run by Ivan Trembow, a sportswriter for MMA Weekly, and Five Ounces of Pain is by Sam Caplan, a sportswriter for CBS, AOL, and Sports Illustrated. east.718 at 23:41, August 16, 2007

I thought I would add that I am the author of UFCDaily.com and I along with most other "MMA Blogger/Journalists" do our best to confirm our reports with multiple external sources and if that is impossible other sources are used as reference. I can vouch for Ivan's Blog, Five Ounces of Pain, UFC Junkie, UFC Mania, and myself in that we are reputable bloggers and reliable sources and I think our writing should be allowed as sources. Although much bigger I am rather confident other blogs such as TechCrunch can be used as sources for information and I think MMA articles should be no different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kriskarkoski (talk • contribs)

See WP:WAX—I don't believe TechCrunch should be used as a source either. Earlier discussions and WP:V state that all blogs are borderline or unusable, unless the author is published in the field or has expert credentials (namely Caplan and Trembow in my opinion). An anonymous blog simply doesn't meet the same level of accountability or scrutiny. Also, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.  east.718 at 03:04, August 21, 2007 

I would have to take the side of excluding blogs as per WP:RS, but in situations ilke Caplan or Trembow's blogs, where they have established credibility in MMA, it is different. Also, isn't Ivan's blog mostly a place to store stories that eventually disappear or something from MMAWeekly? Thesaddestday 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but he also writes original pieces there, which I'd be more hesitant to cite.  east.718 at 04:09, August 21, 2007 

Ah, I wasn't sure because I don't visit his blog. But I agree with your hesitation to cite original pieces. Thesaddestday 00:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think UFCJunkie just graduated to the realm of reliable sources, especially now that it's tied-up with Yahoo! Sports. It's clearly not personal anymore, it has a staff of three writers and all of them are published in other media. Dann Stupp's writing is quite professional as well, you dont see many bloggers using the inverted pyramid. Ivan's stuff I think is usable as a source if it was republished from MMAWeekly (as allowable by WP:RS), although using that blog might not be necessary as I found you can just lop off the "&zoneid=n" part of MMAWeekly.com urls to make it more permanent. hateless 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopening discussion regarding fighters' records

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#amateur_vs_professional_records for context. This discussion is to come up with some form of direction that we can add to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Record section on this WikiProject's main page. Maybe this has already been hashed out... if it has, this should be a simple confirmation that everyone agrees; if it hasn't, then this will be a useful discussion. Sancho 00:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Open questions that we should discuss

1. Do we include only professional fights in the record?
2. What are considered reliable sources for the records of fighters?
3. What should be done in the case of disagreement between two sources we have decided are reliable?

Sancho 00:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should pro-actively exclude amateur fights and exhibition matches. Otherwise, I think if a source can confirm specific fights and the accuracy is not directly debatable (i.e. Kimbo Slice is on Sherdog's fight finder but it was an exhibition; some fighters on Sherdog's fight finder include amateur fights if you cross reference FCFighter). I know it's complicated to hammer numbers down, but as far as that goes if anyone has anything specific in question I can take a day or two and give you an actual, accurate number.

Furthermore, I think that we need to ignore obviously (highly) questionable sources for records, such as UFC.com (i.e. Diego Sanchez' UFC profile includes his TUF 1 wins which were exhibition bouts). I know it is tricky, but if we are diligent it shouldn't be too hard to take care of. Thesaddestday 03:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the tally of the professional record should include only professional matches. However, I do think that the results (date, location, etc) of exhibition or amateur matches are also valid to include in the table of results, as long as they are clearly identified that way. Maybe we can come up with a color coding system.Falcomadol 18:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Chappelle

On AfD & will probably go if not expanded. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. you may want to keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts

Personal life section

If you know the date of someone's marriage or the birth of their children, should this be included in this section? I think it may just be informative.Any opinions?(MgTurtle 23:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)).

There's a section in WP:BLP that says Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. My opinion is that we shouldn't go into much detail about their families unless it is very important to the article or if the particular details are notable in their own right.Sancho 23:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a encyclopedia website.I mean, that's what's in normal encyclopedias. I was just wondering if we should add it if we have a source about it.Maybe we could just talk on the discussion page about the sources that have this information.(MgTurtle 03:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)).

No, I'm not saying don't add it. It's just that we should think about the above part of the BLP policy. As long as we keep that in mind, I don't think we'll go too far. I don't think adding birth dates or marriage dates where there is a source is too far. Sancho 04:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

UFC Events template

I created {{UFC Events}} a while back for the main ufc articles so only one place needs to be updated for new events, could I get some help adding it to the articles please. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AWB will help you a lot here. east.718 at 19:21, August 4, 2007

Chuck Liddell improvement nomination

• See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/Article_improvement_drive#Chuck_Liddell. Sancho 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New template for fighter records

{{MMArecordbox}}—this represents the result of a lot of discussion on Talk:Anderson Silva and Talk:Fedor Emelianenko. Please use it when putting a summary box above a fighter's full record. east.718 at 00:18, August 13, 2007

I was bulldozed on Talk:Anderson Silva, I wouldn't call this a product of consensus. hateless 05:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

From the once-over I gave the discussion, it seemed that your problems with Carlosguitar's original table was that it was poorly designed, had excessive whitespace, hogged page height and produced excessive syntax, all fair points and all of which I feel I've addressed. What would you like to see changed? Feel free to mess with my template, but I recommend you use Special:Expandtemplates and a userspace sandbox to do it. east.718 at 07:47, August 14, 2007

I don't see any benefits of the table compared to a single line of text (at the top of the records table): it's compact, always visible and accessble, very simple (easy to edit for newbies, no wiki code to figure out), and does not use unnecessary color. To me, it is still a solution to a problem that never existed. I opted out of the discussion because Carlosguitar was more interested in talking about how horrible being bold was than for actual productive dialogue, but the one last question I left for Carlos was why a single line of text doesn't work, and that still remains unanswered. hateless 09:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A single line of text is often not feasible when a fighter has a particularly complex record; does "as of August 2007, Foo Bar had a professional record of twenty-seven wins and six losses, with thirteen wins and four losses by knockout, five wins and one loss by submission, two wins by decision, one loss by disqualification, one draw and one no contest" read well? Maybe that's a little extreme, but you get the idea—in cases like these, a small, already collapsed template is preferable. As for newbie editors, a page should never be compromised for readers because of potential difficulty editors might face, and it's not even a particularly difficult template to use.

Incidentally, do you think that the shading that is now commonly found in win/loss columns should be removed? east.718 at 11:44, August 14, 2007

Great template, east. That resolve the problem complex record. Carlosguitar 01:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The format before the table used was something like this:
16 wins (1 KO, 2 submissions, 13 decisions) - 13 losses (11 KO, 1 submissions, 1 decisions) - 2 ties - 2 no contest
Now, this was the most convulted example of a record I can come up within a minute to demonstrate how it looked. But no, it looks nothing like your example above. In practice, see one variation here, which to me worked pretty well. The as of date and the sourcing can easily be taken care of by a footnote (like it should arlready be). And before I turn into Jakob Nielsen, I'll quickly note that hiding content behind a click is problematic. As for colors, too many colors distract and dilute the emphasis given by color. If it was up to me, I'd keep the green color for wins but drop the red in favor for no color or a shade of gray. hateless 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also waiting for the answer why east718 template does not work, than aesthetics views. Carlosguitar 01:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames?

This may have be mentioned already but I'm asking it anyway.Should all the nicknames be in the MMa record?I mean, do we really need Chuck "The Iceman" Liddell or Rand "The Natural" Couture on everyone's record?It would be different if they were known more by their nickname like Rampage Jackson but everyone else is just too much.I just think it looks weird.Any opinions?(MgTurtle 05:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)).

In my opinion, nicknames should only be used if there is a possibility that someone is only known by their nickname. Ie, "Wagner da Conceição Martins" should never be mentioned without "Zuluzinho" included somewhere. And in a figher record, Zuluzinho should stay Zuluzinho. For people like Rampage, Babalu and Shogun, it's more of a gray area, but rarely do people ever introduce him as Rampage without mentioning Quinton first, and same goes for Babalu and Shogun. I justify this with the general WP:MOS spirit of naming someone as they are most generally known, and people tend to not put on excessive decorations in a person's name. hateless 05:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if third-party sources overwhelmingly refer to the person by solely their nickname. east.718 at 08:02, August 14, 2007

Fight Teams/Associations??

Most of the better MMA fighters train in coordination with a fight team or gym that is synonymous with the style and tendancies of other fighters with that particular group. Chute Boxe Fighter are know for good Muay Thai clinch work, cardio, and dirty boxing. MFS Elite fighters are known for efficiencies in technical wrestling, and ground and pound. If you take a look at the NASCAR wiki pages thier racing teams are listed in thier stat boxes. I believe that MMA fighter's teams are as important, if not more, as NASCAR's. Much of the fighter's income is derived from opening and owning their own gyms. Being a member of one of the larger teams gives the younger, newer fighters notoriety that they normally would be unable to get on their own. Sherdog.com, ESPN's MMA affiliate, lists these organisations in the fighter's profile and I think that the wiki-profiles should follow suit. Unak78 10:54, August 15, 2007

I agree. These affiliations should be easily verifiable. One possible side-effect might be that although a lesser MMA fighter's training team or gym may not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, the mention of it in a fighter's infobox causes somebody to create an article for it. We'll just have to keep an eye out for that happening though. Sancho 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There's another discussion going on here. east.718 at 16:51, August 15, 2007

IFL fighter bios

Okay, I've noticed some people deleting info from IFL fighters pages because it's unsourced.Well, it is sourced, sort of. Most of the information on these pages come from their IFL profile and it doesn't have a citation.Almost everything, except the personal life section maybe can be found on their IFL profiles.Just thought I would let people know.(MgTurtle 18:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)).

The Pit Fight Team Article on debate for Deletion

A recently completed article for Chuck Liddell's Pit Fight Team is being debated for deletion. As this is relevent to this project I am providing the link for the page in question The Pit, and one for the Articles for deletion Page where your opinion on the topic can be voiced. Unak78 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• No more posts are being taken on the subject. The result was Keep with no consensus. However this and other fight team articles still require improvement.

Unak78 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

List of UFC champions

I've nominated this article for featured list status, please join the debate here and leave comments and criticisms.  east.718 at 14:44, September 9, 2007 

Now WP:MMA's first piece of featured content. east.718 at 01:25, September 25, 2007

Record bot

I'd like to get everybody's opinion on a bot that would maintain the records of mixed martial artists. east.718 at 01:25, September 25, 2007

I don't think the question of what source is reliable was ever answered to the level that this could be deferred to a bot. If that can be answered, I would support a bot doing this task. Sancho 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd run checks against Sherdog and FCFighter's databases... I'd also have a whitelist of fights that don't show up in either database, the most notable examples are probably Fedor Emelianenko and Rich Franklin's "missing" fights. There would be a seperate whitelist for the "notes" column that usually lists title fights and Grand Prix wins. The only thing left that I could possibly see contention with is the format of the table. east.718 at 00:43, September 26, 2007

A bot that tracks changes made to fighter records so that humans can check them later is fine. A bot that reverts record changes that are not "acceptable" is problematic. The question of who has access to whitelists is a major problem . Sherdog and FFFighter are not the final authorities on records and they do have errors in them, if there are any disputes with what they have on record the default position on WP should not be to automatically side with the database. Greg Savage went as far as to say Sherdog had placed false entries in their records to see who was copying their database. Wikipedia is not a mirror would need to be addressed in some way. hateless 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot could be exclusion-compliant and never revert to itself... it could also be human-assisted on every run except for the first, this would effectively weed out errors as I'd be manually checking every update (maybe once every two weeks or something). Whitelists would probably be subpages on my userpage, which anybody could access. As for WP:NOT#MIRROR, I'd argue that WP:NOT#INFO is more relevant... but these record tables are prevalent everywhere and nobody's complained. That should be a seperate discussion. east.718 at 01:16, September 26, 2007

I'm not going to debate the merits of fighter records in articles again, I've had that discussion and I respect the consensus. My stand is that I don't see a problem with a bot that assists human editing, ie, a human in the end is what pulls the trigger on an edit. If a records bot starts to act like a vandal bot and adds or otherwise edit records itself without a human checking off on every change, that's when it becomes a mirror. hateless 04:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Couture as UFC Heavyweight Champion

In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I've got somebody on right now who keeps reverting back to having Randy listed as the UFC Heavyweight Champion on the UFC wiki page. I pointed out the resignation and vacating of the title, but he seems insistent that it should remain that way because UFC.com still hasn't updated yet. Anyone want to offer comments? Tuckdogg 23:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As of the current date the UFC received a resignation letter from Randy Cotoure. But they have not officially accepted the resignation as of current press time. Dana White has said Randy hired a new manager, and him and Dana do not get along, and resignation letters are used in some cases as negotiating ploys. On the UFC's website [1] it still lists the title as belonging to Randy and not vacant. So there is NO harm in it staying that way until the UFC says he is NOT the title holder. Because depending on what his contract states the UFC can decline his resignation. As with any contracted employee. For instance when I was a contracted employee I could only resign with a 3 month notice. If I tried to immediately resign I had to pay them a huge sum of money. Aladdin Zane 00:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations reinforcing your claims about what Dana said, especially your claim on my talk page that Dana has told people that he isn't officially accepting Randy's resignation until Randy returns to the US and talks to him (which I haven't seen anywhere), would be helpful.Tuckdogg 00:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actualy a citation from you stating the UFC has accepted the resignation and declared the title vacant is what is needed. Because the UFC itself still lists him as titleholder.Aladdin Zane 00:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've stayed out of making edits on the current status of the UFC heavyweight title because there was too much hair-splitting involved. But, in the interest of hair-splitting: The UFC contends they ultimately decide who is their champion by fiat, without process of rules or law. That much was established by the B.J. Penn vs. Zuffa lawsuit from 2004. The court never decided the case, but it never placed an injunction on the Hughes vs. St. Pierre fight that Penn asked for, which probably means it probably agrees with Zuffa in regard to their control of the title. So, unless someone wants to argue that there are rules the UFC set up for itself in regard to how titles are won/lost/vacated/etc. or that the court's decision wasn't what I think it means, I think Alladin is right and we need a cite from the UFC or an official stating they were accepting Couture's resignation. hateless 00:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point, Dana himself stated he has not spoken with Randy, and that Randy is still under contract with the UFC, and once he talks with him he may stay retired, but he is still not going to release him from his contract. Basically insuring that if he doesn't fight for the UFC he will not be able to fight anywhere.Aladdin Zane 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the opposite case is true. [2] east.718 at 01:13, 10/19/2007

I hope Tuckdogg reads that. Cause that's exactly what I been telling him.Aladdin Zane 01:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, East718, for finally providing the citation. Had I gotten that an hour or two ago, this would have been much easier.Tuckdogg 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to rembember it was not up to us to prove he was still champ. It was up to you to prove he wasn't. I had a feeling you would kill yourself googling to try and find something. LoL. East718 probably just saved you from exhaustion. LoLAladdin Zane 01:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Two points. First, the only info that I had seen in any publications is that Couture gave up the title and is no longer the champ. Until that article, there was no indication to the contrary. I have nothing to prove with this; I don't care either way. Couture's either the champ or he isn't, and the wiki articles need to reflect the most accurate state of the facts known at the time.

Second point, based on that article, I think we need a compromise. Couture pretty clearly believes that he isn't the champion, and Dana believes otherwise. I'd propose keeping Couture listed as the UFC heavyweight champion right now, with a footnote (or something similar) explaining the dispute over whether or not he's the champ. With the Yahoo Sports article as a reference, I believe that would be the most factually accurate until something gets resolved one way or another.Tuckdogg 03:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The article wasn't posted until an hour ago. =P east.718 at 04:24, 10/19/2007

NO footnote needed. UFC considers him still the title holder. It should stay that way until the UFC says he is not. As the title in question belongs to the UFC and not the public or even Randy Cotoure. He is just the current titleholder of a title belonging to the UFC. Since the UFC says he is the titleholder there is NO need for a footnote. It should just be left alone until the UFC decides.Aladdin Zane 03:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since it's already proven to be contentious, I'd err on the safe side, even if it's just a hidden notice. east.718 at 04:19, 10/19/2007

I refer you to the points made by hateless UFC decides the titleholder. And they say it is Randy. So I don't see a point in a note. I say just leave it alone until the dispute is resolved. As I said before I think it is all a negotiating ploy by Randy's new management. To get him more money for his last 2 fights. Especially since the highest paid UFC star Chuck Lidell has lost his last 2 fights. It's just funny that they didn't do it til right after Chuck lost again.Aladdin Zane 04:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine if that's your opinion. You might be right, but right now nobody really knows for sure what's going on outside of Randy and the UFC. The point of the note is simply to be factually accurate. It isn't factually accurate to just say "Randy Couture = UFC Heavyweight Champion" without something more, because that doesn't tell the whole story. According to Randy, he's done and not coming back. According to Dana, he's still the champ.

The note I'd propose would just be something quick to get the story in there. Something along the lines of:

• On October 11, 2007, Couture faxed in his resignation to the UFC and said he was vacating the title. As of October 18, 2007, UFC President Dana White stated that the UFC had rejected Couture's attempt to resign and that Couture was still the UFC Heavyweight Champion until further notice.

With that, at least people who don't know what's going on can stumble across the wiki pages and see that something is up with the title.

Oh, and ":P" back at'cha, East. ;) Tuckdogg 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Standards for upcoming fights

The recent speculation over Chuck Liddell and Wanderlei Silva (plus the arguing on the UFC 79 page for weeks before that), has brought up the old issue of when/if upcoming fights should be included on wiki pages. Obviously, stuff like "It is rumored that Jon Fitch might fight Karo Parisyan or Josh Koscheck next." doesn't belong. But...when is official official? How official does it have to be before it can go into an event page or a fighter's page?

I think we should have a fairly solid, objective standard for when fights should be included. That way, we have something black and white to point to when removing non-qualified stuff. It's much better to say "Remove future fight per WP:MMA fight guidelines." I mean, we've got WP:CRYSTAL, but it's a little unclear about how that impacts future fights. Here's three choices that come to mind for where to draw the line:

• No fights allowed except official announcements from the UFC/other promoter. It's either on the UFC's officially announced card (like up on the website), or it's out. Under this standard, the only thing we'd have for UFC 79 is Serra/Hughes, because it's the only fight on the UFC 79 website.
• Fights must be officially announced by the promoter, or at least one fighter (or his/her camp) must reliably confirm that the fight is officially signed. Not rumored, not speculated, not offered, not suggested, not hopeful, not even "verbally agreed to." Completely signed off on and booked by the promotion, just waiting on it to be announced.
• Fights can stay as long as they have been announced, or at least heavily speculated upon, by reliable media sources, regardless of any lack of confirmation. Even if the articles say that there is no confirmation of anything, that's enough to stay on the wiki page.

I'm leaning towards #2 myself. Comments, or other suggestions from involved editors? Tuckdogg 03:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I say #1, only if the UFC announces it.Aladdin Zane 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with #2, with the condition that it's reported in a reliable mass-media source, or a long-published, trusted MMA news outlet (like Sherdog, The Fight Network, WON, etc.). east.718 at 04:18, 10/19/2007

You need to be more selective of that... for example, The Fight Network is always posting incorrect information or rumors that are nowhere near close. Thesaddestday 13:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in between 2 and 3. If a reliable media source calls it a rumor, then it doesn't belong on event pages. If a media source (or better yet, multiple sources) says the match is signed and confirmed by their sources (which means the publication is staking their own reputation on the scoop), then that's a different case, although that source should be stated explicitly (ie, xxx reports that...). In any case, anything in an Announced Matchups section should pass #2. hateless 04:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My main problem with #3 is that it includes "heavily speculated" and "lack of confirmation." Sadly, even big MMA outlets don't stake their reputations on scoops, remember Sanchez vs. lightweight grand prix retirement Sakurai Penn Fitch? Otherwise, I agree with you completely. east.718 at 05:00, 10/19/2007

I say in order to actualy make use of it here. I say only put it here if it is announced by the UFC #1Aladdin Zane 05:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Would having separate sections for announced vs rumoured help or cause trouble (i.e. unsourced speculation)? Announced would be 1 or 2, rumoured (still needing sources) would be be 3. Other wise I'd go for 2. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would help. I agree that fights that are only "heavily speculated on" should not be grouped with those in category 1 or 2, but I still believe the info is useful, is info many people are looking for when they visit the page, and therefore it adds value and belongs on the page in some form. - Indecision 23:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a news site or rumor mill, and rumors have no place here. However, what used to be done was confirmed fighters without opponents were listed, but this fell out of favor about a year ago mainly because PRIDE was so inept in their matchmaking. I'm open to that again. east.718 at 06:30, 10/21/2007

I could get down with that. The UFC made pretty clear tonight (and previously, IIRC) that Silva will be fighting at UFC 79, they just don't know who his opponent will be. I think it would be fair to throw a "Silva v. TBA" thingy in there with proper reference. Tuckdogg 06:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a news site? There's news on the front page. So clearly in some cases the rules are meant to be broken. Instead of merely pointing to unclear rules, the only discussion we should be having is does it hurt or help Wikipedia to post the widely speculated rumors. The fact that these rumors are reported on shows that there is interest and value to them. People come to this site looking for that information. One only has to look at the page history of UFC 79 to see the interest. Which brings up another point... having the rumors there will save time and effort of not having to revert the page every time they keep getting added back, and will help spare new users the frustration of having their contributions removed. So those are a couple reasons why having the information helps Wikipedia. Is there any way it hurts to have it? - Indecision 11:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A good alternative may be to start your own MMA blog or something then, because a lot of your posts really appear that you want to make Wikipedia a news site. "Saving time" and energy, etc because people keep posting incorrect info is no excuse to let something slide. One example was at Kimbo Slice's page when people were constantly trying to add 1 win to his pro fight record even though his debut was an exhibition. Yes it was a hassle to keep reverting, but it kept the information accurate. This situation is no different. Thesaddestday 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That was a side benefit, not the reason I felt the info should be added. I've never suggested posting inaccurate info. Merely factual info about rumors that exist. - Indecision 21:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:IGNORE, you're misinterpreting it. Is the posting of rumors, not matter how much in circulation, improve the quality of WP's content as stipulated in WP:IGNORE? Hells no. We work with citable sources on WP for good reasons, and one of them is to minimize conflicts among editors, and posting of rumors without concrete foundations is one way to maximize arguments. Another one is to stop this idea that you can post anything you want on WP no matter how inaccurate, because in reality, responsible editors following WP:NOT on WP make sure that does not become true. WP is an encyclopedia, not a mirror of conventional wisdom, truth and accuracy counts for something. hateless 20:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not misinterpreting it: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means - "2. Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit."

Nor have I suggested posting anything untrue or inaccurate. Saying, for example, that there is speculation about a Liddell/Silva fight is 100% true and accurate. I have also not suggested not citing sources. The only thing I have suggested is to consider the benefit of added factual information that people are interested in and come here looking for - Indecision 21:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

News sites post rumors, that's what they do. That's media. This, however, is an encyclopedia and rumors and speculation are not encyclopedic. Thesaddestday 21:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Says who? Britannica? This is a different kind of encyclopedia, evidenced by the news on the front page. If they make the page more useful, why shouldn't they be added? - Indecision 21:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're arguing that the "In the News" box on the homepage is WP:IGNORE in action, you're misinterpreting WP:IGNORE and that In the News box. In any case, if you want something posted on an article, your job is to find consensus on doing so, as "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged" (see Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means). Now, as for Silva/Liddell and any other specific application, instead of imploring all of us to think more deeply, you should try to craft a good argument, one preferably that follows WP content guidelines and policies, because we're all fans of the WP content guidelines and policies don't wish to ignore them at all. Or better yet, propose a compromise. As a hint, WP:IGNORE is most effective when used to make short-cuts through bureaucracy, using it an argument about acceptable content is significantly less successful. hateless 21:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Also if you read the news on the main page it is very different than rumors. News is defined as a report of a recent event, information, or intelligence. A rumor is a general circulation of information without confirmation. Speculation is basically when you consider or contemplate something without confirmation. And to let you know what an encyclopedia is: it is a reference work (meaning information must be verified by sources) that deals with various subjects/specialties. If you want rumors and speculation, start your own MMA blog or something, or visit one of the many websites out there... but it doesn't do anything to improve an encyclopedia entry. Thesaddestday 23:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

New unified infobox for MMA, Kickboxing, Boxing

Since there's so many fighters who have pro record under more than one method, I wanted to create a unified infobox. Check this out let me know what you guys think. Template:Infobox Martial artist biography. I've been mostly contributing on muay thai, K-1 and boxing but it'll be cool if we could use one unified box for all martial arts. (Marty Rockatansky 09:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC))

Moved to the template's discussion page. east.718 at 01:51, 10/26/2007

"This fight was later shown on a UFC Unleashed telecast."

This line was just added by someone to a ton matches of UFC event pages. Before going through and reverting them one by one, I figured I should bring it up here. I really don't see any point or relevance to this being added to fights, especially without any source citation. Anyone else have comments? Tuckdogg 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary, doesn't the UFC have like three recap shows now? east.718 at 21:13, 10/23/2007

I could see it being useful with two conditions. First, a source, and second, a fight that did not air and was not released on DVD (like a Fight Night prelim). Otherwise, seems pointless. gnfnrf 21:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Righto, I'll get on it. I'll try to avoid eliminating those for Fight Night prelims and instead toss in a fact tag. Tuckdogg 21:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox stance

Hello MMA cousins from a Boxing project member. There is a discussion going on the Talk:Orthodox stance about hte potential merger of the Orthodox stance and Orthodox (boxing) articles. Please can I have your thoughts. regards--Vintagekits 21:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone?--Vintagekits 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

future interim lightweight title bout

i made the change on that on the UFC page... so i shouldnt put "future events" on the page?

and i was the user that put "This fight was later shown on a UFC Unleashed telecast"... i shouldn't put that either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmacko (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Itsmacko for background. east.718 at 22:19, 11/3/2007

As far as the future events go, I don't have much of a problem putting notes about them in the prose when applicable. Like, say: "Liddell's next scheduled fight is against Wanderlei Silva at UFC 79 (reference)." But the tables are for things that have actually happened. Not so sure that future fights should go there. There's also the problem of the UFC page's table saying "Current Champions", but the Interim Lightweight Title hasn't actually been created yet. Nor will it even be determined until sometime in January (as an aside, IIRC, I don't think the date has actually been fixed for UFC 80).

I think we settled the "fight later shown" discussion above; it just doesn't really add anything of substance to the page. Tuckdogg 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a point in adding an interim LW champion row in that table either. As for future events in the UFC article itself...the past discussion is at Talk:Ultimate Fighting Championship#Recent News and Events. hateless 07:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry...I didn't knwo there was a WP:MMA.--Sweetsweetdaddy 00:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)