Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Deletions

Moved from project page by InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the proper place to put this. If not, please let me know where. I occasionally look through some of the MMA forums to see what people are talking about. I came across multiple threads on Sherdog today full of people complaining about the UFC 155 deletion and about the amount of articles being deleted in general. http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/wiki-deleted-ufc-155-event-2257217/ (a couple of the editors are even being talked about in these forums). It seems to me that since Wikipedia is run off of donations and in order to get people to donate, you need people coming to wiki. MMA fans seem to access our articles all the time as a quick reference. They are getting upset about the amount of articles being deleted. Can we consider not deleting so many articles. If you think it needs more information, how about trying to help make it better instead of just trying to get rid of it. Does this make sense to anybody else? Willdawg111 (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into the reasons why the articles are being deleted, I would suggest that anybody looking for information on UFC 155 look for it on Sherdog (especially if they're already on the site, complaining) or another of the numerous MMA websites. These are, after all, the main sources for the info that would be in a Wiki article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the background information for all main card fights was all diligently included in the last version of the article which I stored in my sandbox (I updated it very thoroughly after it got deleted and kept on updating it although not in the last day or so), and includes numerous mainstream sources which are to be a required component of all stand-alone MMA articles coming forward (at least one or two), in addition to sources like Sherdog. This is as a compromise to end an 18-month editing war of attrition that no other sport has had to face. It's really not a bad thing, as it helps illustrate the sports growing footprint on the world of sports and popular culture as a whole these days. Beansy (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• in my opinion this is exactly why we need to reach some consensus on new guidelines. the frustration isn't just on wikipedia, and to say that people should just go somewhere else (sherdog, mmawiki) doesn't solve anything. the only reason people care about a wikipedia article on UFC 155 (even though it's deleted) is that it's the first result on google (after the official UFC.com page and news). if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this debate, because we would all have long ago moved to whatever was the better source. it's mind boggling to me that we can't agree that UFC 38 should be in an omnibus. it seems like some editors would rather have 8 events not represented at all, and have a knock down drag out battle every time a new event is announced, than have all of the content on wikipedia, with some of it in a format they don't prefer. i just don't get it. Kevlar (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

When I just tried Googling "UFC 155", I got Sherdog's page at the top. Then the Wiki article for "UFC on Fuel TV" (with a "2012 in UFC" URL). Then a list of Google News stories about UFC 155. (If I use Verbatim mode, the UFC's page is first and Sherdog second. Then Wiki's "List of UFC events".) Using another site doesn't solve the problems of MMA on Wikipedia, but solves the problem of people complaining that they can't find info on UFC 155. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've repeated over and over the opposite, which is that there's a significant amount of support for many UFC articles as stand alone pages and little support for omnibussing everything right away. There are also lower standards for basically everything else I've seen on Wiki being notable. This is really an issue of people fixing what isn't broken, and it's been done in a sloppy and careless manner. If the number of pages were a concern it would make more sense to start by merging the pages of smaller promotions and defunct promotions. Byuusetsu (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for admin or long time editor

A question was brought up in relationship to what happens when an editor is permanently banned.
1) Can his recomendations for deletions be close out?
2) If not, can his votes and comments be lined out?
Willdawg111 (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about JBJ, any !votes he made before he was banned stand and should not be lined out (unless the blocking admin says otherwise). If an editor who is banned creates a sock account and !votes those will be struck and not counted. Mtking ^(edits) 21:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm about at the point that I'm ready to throw my hands up and give up trying to keep this project alive. Now we have an account that hasn't been doing anything, popping up and picking up where the banned account left off. If this doesn't look suspicious, I don't know what does. I'm not going to keep taking my time to write articles that meet notability requirements just to have somebody try to say they don't and then use all kinds of BS to deflect people away from the facts and from the truth. If you want to let these people destroy this project, good luck. I've had my website for awhile now to provide fighter profiles and lists of events and results as a easy reference to people. I just haven't taken the time to really focus on getting it completed and up and running, but it looks like that might be the best route to go. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't specific about who you are concerned with then no one can look into it further. If you think this is account is a sock-puppet, report it to WP:SPI. If you are unsure if it is a sock puppet or are unsure how to file the SPI, tell us who the user is so others can look into it. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think he's talking about JonnyBonesJones. Luchuslu (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

JBJ was indef blocked two days ago. If that is who Willdawg is referring to, seems to be a delayed rant. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a delayed rant. JBJ appears to have a connection to at least 1 other account editing in this project if not more than one. I'm not that familiar with the process and investigation, but I also don't know who I can trust. I have somebody who is watching every single thing I am doing and trying to undo it, change it, or delete it. I'm just about to the point of bailing on this project because I feel like every step forward is met with 3 steps backwards. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you are unable and/or unwilling to discuss who the other user is, then no one will be able to look into it or do anything about it. Otherwise, ranting and/or complaining about the unknown user's behavior really serves no purpose. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking here, i think he is suspicious of me. If it's really serious, WP:CONSPIRACY may apply here? Poison Whiskey 21:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I also read that, and while I can't myself see grounds for saying that there is a link between JBJ and yourself (see below) I don't think it is anything like a WP:CONSPIRACY, all I see is editors discussing if there is a link; however to avoid any getting into that area I would ask anyone to stop discussing and take it to WP:SPI if they are sure.

I don't want to give away much on how to spot a sock but of the 11 AfD's on MMA fighters that they have both taken part in on 3 occasions there was a split on !vote, and on no occasion did Poison Whiskey's !vote not match the final outcome. Mtking ^(edits) 21:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory, and I don't think anybody is sure about connections, which is why names (other than the banned account) aren't being mentioned. Just pointed out there are coincidenses that are starting to add up, and that I'm not going to keep writing articles until we can get the project together and headed in the right direction. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Chin (combat sports)

How are these lists not considered original research? Most aren't even referenced, this seems like a violation of the core content policies of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.--Phospheros (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They probably would be. There is actually quite a bit of original research. Technically listing current champions of organizations would probably be original research also. Now that you pointed it out, somebody will probably nominate it for deletion for you. They are in the process of deleting the majority of MMA off of Wiki. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Listing champions requires no original research, merely a citation in a reliable source. Compiling a list of fighters with weak chins and also failing to provide sources is potentially libelous.--Phospheros (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, some of those names do have sources cited. While most of the three lists appear to be WP:OR, it appears not all of them are. I don't think the entire article would get deleted, just the notable lists section and particularly the names without a citation. I was on the verge of blanking the section until I noticed that some had citations. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said: "Most aren't even referenced" also the majority of the MMA citations are from Bleacher Report, not exactly a great source, another is from MMABay.co.uk (A site banned from Sherdog for spreading false info).--Phospheros (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wilddawg, why did you not assume good faith on the behalf of other editors? Why did you assume that the "MMA deletionist cabal" would jump on it for deletion? Your comment is bordering on the edge of personal attacks. I think you've been cautioned about this type of comment before, so I'd like to understand why you felt the need to make it again. Hasteur (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the project or the group as a whole is headed in the right direction. I'm not really sure how that could possibly be construde as a borderline personal attack. I'm trying to follow the rules, and certainly not trying to attack anybody. I'm sorry you feel like that. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistancy

Let me point something out to everybody:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sako_Chivitchian
He has 1 UFC fight & was on TUF - everybody wanted to keep him and it was closed out as a keep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ricci_(fighter)
He has 1 UFC fight & 1 other top tier fight & TUF - mixed between keep and delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Tickle
He has 1 UFC fight and was on TUF -mixed between keep and delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Lane_(fighter)&action=edit&redlink=1
1 top tier fight and 2 fights on TUF - fighter was deleted

Does anybody see something wrong with this? Does anybody understand why some of us are getting frustrated with the inconsistancy. I am in no way, shape or form trying to single anybody out, or attack anybody, I am trying to point out what we are doing as a group. The same fights are notable for 1 guy but not for another? We are supposed to be establishing guidelines based on the consensus of the group, but what good are they if we choose to accept them sometimes or ignore them other times based on our personal opinions or objectives? Please don't take this the wrong way, all I am asking is for everybody to think about what they are doing and how it represents the group/project because ultimately, isn't that what it is supposed to be about. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you'd read through the AFD on Chivitchian, it wasn't MMA that made him notable, it was Judo. Not a good example. Getting good, clear guidelines on notability that admins can use on AFDs, even if you don't like them, will help with the consistency of the results. Ravensfire (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Quite honestly, the WikiProject was going fine until the early to mid part of the year. Since that time there has been an influx of new editors, mostly through various MMA forums, who are ignorant of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as well as the discussions that have developed over the years within this WikiProject. These new editors (pointing to no one in particular because a number of them have been indefinitely blocked) come in, think that they know what is best and start dictating that things will go their way or they will be disruptive. That disruptiveness has resulted in the WikiProject getting extra attention from admins who are starting to not put up with the drama. There have been a number of calls to nuke the entire project space, which is something Wikipedia can do if the broader consensus is there. What these new editors should be doing, in my not so humble opinion, is to ask questions about why certain guidelines have developed and learn how to improve existing articles that do meet the existing notability guidelines.

Now, since you have asked about the above cases I'll see if I can explain. Chivitchian, looking at the AfD, was kept because of his Judo career/awards/accomplishments/whatever and not because of his MMA career. The other three fighters, lack 3 fights in a top-tier promotion (noting, again, that TUF fights do not count towards WP:NMMA per prior WikiProject consensus). Thus Lane was deleted and there is a mixed-bag of keeps/deletes for the other two fighters. AfDs are rarely a clear keep or clear delete. There are those who believe articles should be kept when they are deleted and those who think articles should be deleted when they are kept. That's just how things work out. If you were on the 'other' side of the result, move on to the next article or next task. That's all I can offer for now. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, this is where the argument about Chivichian breaks down. It was being argued that he met WP:NMMA. This guideline has nothing to do with Judo, that is the guideline for MMA, and MMA alone. You have also failed to legitimately explain why TUF fights do not count towards WP:NMMA, because when you read the criteria setup in this section, TUF fights meet those criteria. This isn't me coming here trying to say this is how we should do it. It is me reading the guidelines that everybody pointed out when I started editing. If there are guidelines laid out and people are told they should follow the guidelines but then turn about and say well, we didn't really mean for those guidelines to mean what we wrote. How are new editors supposed to know that. New editors are coming in, trying to follow the guidelines, just to have certain people say stuff that contradicts those guidelines. I just don't see how you can sit there and pretend like the new editors are the problem. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A few people argued WP:NMMA but others completely ignored the MMA part of the article and pointed that he won a national title in Judo. It wasn't anything to do with MMA or TUF, it was Judo. Ravensfire (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I keep pulling out WP:ENTERTAINER for the WP:TUF guys. They should be judged partially on that. At theleast it should push them over the edge. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the average TUF competitor passes WP:ENTERTAINER. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows ... or other productions"? No. "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"? I guess it depends on how you define "large fan base" or "cult following", but for most of these guys, most likely not. "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"? No. TUF competitions often won't pass Wikipedia:REALITYSTAR which is what they should be compared against instead of ENTERTAINER. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

the folks here advised me about entertainer. I am currently awaiting a reponse as to if they do meet point one. I would argue since they are on many episodes if those count as shows. But I am still awaiting an answer. However, I still feel that all that matters is each person getting specific press about their efforts. That should count more than anything, especially in regards to WP:GNG PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the TUF guys wouldn't really pass off as notable as an entertainer or realitystar, but some of them do. Since he was recently deleted, how about somebody like Julian Lane? He was a major character on almost every single episode. He started the whole "let me bang, bro". He was used in more previews and advertisements for the show than all of the other fighters put together. He is as well known as at least 90% of the reality starts if not more. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think anybody is trying to do articles on every single TUF competitor. There are a handful of guys that come off of every season who are definitely notable. If they have a total of 3 fights (including any other top tier fights), then they are notable. It's not like the site is going to be flooded with TUF guys. Out of this last season, there are probably 3-4 notable guys. Julian Lane (a lot of which is for his antics), Mike Ricci, Colton Smith, and maybe Michael Hill. Let's come to some middle ground, designate a few guys off of the seasons and allow articles on them, and if nobody brings up the other guys, then I guess they weren't important enough for an article. TUF has the notablity guidelines on its side to justify the articles, however since there is a divide among the group, how about a little diplomacy?Willdawg111 (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's story time, so have a seat. Once upon a time, there was no WP:NMMA. Back then, the only notability guidelines that applied to MMA fighters was the broader WP:ATHELETE. It states that for a sportsperson to be notable they must "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." There was a lot of talk and argument over the the phrase "professional competition at the highest level". To make a long, scattered discussion short, WP:MMANOT was written to help explain the WikiProject's stance at the time on what WP:ATHELETE means to MMA. The tiered system was developed to help delineate the "highest level" of competition within MMA. The question came up as to how TUF fights fit in. The agreement was that the fighters were "fighting for a UFC contract" through exhibition fights and thus the fights were not "competition at the highest level."

It would be akin to the Yankees having a tryout game where minor league an amateur players from around the nation play to earn a spot on the real team. In this hypothetical situation, these players aren't notable because they played in a tryout game. They would only become notable if they made it to the real team. The guys on TUF aren't competing within the UFC, they are competing to be in the UFC. Once they have fought in a top-tier promotion a few times, then they can claim to have fought at the highest level and deserve a Wikipedia article. Until then, their information is best suited for other sites.

The Julian Lane article, which you like to hold onto so hard, is about a person who hasn't competed at the highest level yet and may never do so. Only time will tell. You are suggesting he is notable for having drunken outbursts on national TV. Unfortunately, a lot of people have drunken outbursts on national TV. I personally don't think Lane will have an article until he works up the ranks, if he is able to do so. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You can tell stories about how certain people agreed to something in the past, but its just a story. It wasn't writen into the guidelines, so it doesn't really matter. You wrote up this long explination basically saying that new editors are coming here and trying to dictate how things should be. Some of us newer editors are talking about working together, compromise, diplomacy. We are be responded to with this is how it is and you need to just follow along and do it the way we tell you to. It doesn't work like that. Everybody that is active is a contributor. There is no hierarchy or chain of command in the project and nor should there be. Even if a group of editors decided how something should be 2 years ago, doesn't mean the consesnsus can't change as new editors get involved. So are you down with diplomacy and working as a team or is it going to continue to be everybody drawing a line in the sand and the project self destructing?Willdawg111 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Although he does not has an attractive amateur record, he is undefeated in his professional career and has fought for Bellator once. I think it's just a matter of patience, within one or two years the article may meet the guidelines. Poison Whiskey 15:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Willdawg111, why don't you start a discussion specifically on handling TUF events and how it affects notability. You've got the WP:REALITYSTAR guideline to give you some ideas. As that guidelines points out, meeting or not meeting the points listed there isn't definitive but they certainly help decide if a person is notable. Consensus can change but it's not just one person, it needs to be a new consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already somebody working on that, PortlandOregon. He has been digging through those other guidelines more than I have. Personally, I am leaning toward wanting what we have right now scrapped and lay out an updated guideline that is precise and doesn't leave any room for argument. The person meets it or they don't. There is just too much subjectivity going on and people drawing the line in the sand. We need to be working together to make the project better not destroying it. The notability has become such a sore sport, that maybe its time to move forward with something new.Willdawg111 (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 in UFC

I have created the article, and it's waiting for review: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2013 in UFC. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work and the timing is great if the UFC articles are going to be yearly now. One thing, your UFC 157 box has "red corner" and "blue corner" in it. Udar55 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC 158

We scored a major knock down in being able to keep UFC 158, but the deletionists managed to get back up and put a deletion review on it. We could use some guys over there to get the final barrage and the TKO. Killswitch Engage (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I was putting in the results from 155 last night and it was definitely a big mess. One of the issues was having the events all together was that it wasn't protected content so it was a absolute pain undoing all of the stupid entries by unregistered users, like people claiming a person won a fight by leg humping, and the result was HAHAHA. This putting UFC events for the year on 1 page isn't going to work out too well. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is a rolling Semi Protection or a Pending Changes Proction Level 1 so that the random sillyness can be easily dealt with and the reasonable additions can be allowed through. Hasteur (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• nice canvassing. :rolleyes: I have a better idea. Don't all run over to DRV and start misbehaving there. Spartaz ^Humbug!
• Question: As a project, I believe that we agree that UFC events should have there own page. Can't we put togther a guideline for the notability of MMA events? That way every time he tries to delete one of the events, we have something to back it up and put a stop to it?Willdawg111 (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the notability has never (or rarely) been questioned. The main issue with the UFC events is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Poison Whiskey 16:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You ask the same questions over and over (especially ones that have been recently archived from this page. It's quite annoying. Not every UFC event is going to have it's own page. In fact the mundane coverage that is most of the UFC articles is a prime example of why they shouldn't. There are notable exceptions (like UFC 94), but they are the exception that proves the general statement. I think it's time to talk about a moratorium on the question "By convention UFC events should have their own article page". Each time the question gets called the exact same policy grounds are presented demonstrating why the existing best practices are appropriate. Now if the UFC event articles start raising the bar in terms of "unusual" then there's a valid test case for changing the standard operating procedure. Hasteur (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm less irked about the UFC articles than I am about the fighters pages that a notable as per wp:gng being deleted or given an afd. The UFC is weak now and oldschool fights are the only thing that really entertains me these days as far as fights go. That's why I think it is important to set event notability standards to preserve/bring back other events such as the WFA and Pride grand prix/Shockwave events. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Seeking input on MMABot's handling of renamed event links

Long story short, I'd like to get the WikiProject's input on how MMABot handles renaming, or piping, or event wiki-links. At the end of this discussion I've presented three options on how MMABot can deal with the links besides its current behavior of simply removing the renamed portion of the wikilink (which is what our guidelines suggest should be done anyhow). Thanks. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to bring this up with you, but I wanted to see if the bot was going to stop making these changes. It is playing havoc causing some aesthetic issues with the layout of some tables. Douglas Lima has mostly links to redirects for Bellator events, but one of them, for some reason, is a direct link to the page and a subsection within it. Because of that, it removed the (link name|event name), leaving just a bare link, which breaks the layout of the table. I'd be appreciative if this particular function of the bot was removed.

As a side issue to this, I don't really see any reason why the events are just called, for example, "UFC 155", when the UFC themselves refer to the events as UFC 1xx: A vs. B in the event graphic, and on their website. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to ask that discussion about the specific behavior of MMABot be held on its talk page (the previous, unresolved, conversation is linked above) so that the discussion will be in a single place. I will say here, that if there is a desire to allow renamed event links, then a formal discussion and consensus needs to be formed as such. Currently, the guidelines for this Wikiprojet say " if an event has its own article in Wikipedia, use the name of the article and do not add extra text or stylization. For example, use [[UFC 60]] instead of [[UFC 60|UFC 60: Hughes vs. Gracie]], use [[Dream 11]] instead of [[Dream 11|DREAM.11 Featherweight Grand Prix 2009 Final]]." MMABot is simply enforcing that guideline. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition of WFA and K-1 Hero's to tier 1

I would like to see these big time organizations added to the list. If Shooto is included these two should be. Of course WFA only put on 4 events but each had big names. The same goes for Hero's. Would anyone else like to see this change made? or have any input? I also noticed that Hero's does not even get a mention in the mmatier article. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

They are both solid defunct second tier promotions. And Shooto should never have been considered a Top Tier promotion, hopefully with a move toward a three tier system it will be filed accordingly. Also the talk page for the MMA Notability article is a very good place to post this comment as well. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notabilityThaddeus Venture (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Heros should be top tier as it was put on by K1. And Brock Lesnar made his debut at the Heros Dynamite show in LA. But if we did move to a three tier system I would support them and WFA being second tier for sure. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA Wiki

A dedicated wiki site is available at MMAwiki.com, how receptive would the moderators be to allowing a link to a relevant article the site on pages that are stubs or have not passed WP:NOT? Aqueously (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

From here to there? It's essentially a fan site at the moment which generally aren't acceptable. See WP:EL. I'd peeked at the site a bit ago after another editor posted a link and it looks like most of the articles are directly imported from here but without any attribution which is really needed (see WP:REUSE). Basically, when you copy an article over, put something in the edit comment or the talk page with the URL that you've copied it from. I hope you keep growing the site though! Ravensfire (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I've sent a message to your talk page. Aqueously (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also as MTKing once pointed out (while at the same time recommending people use it) it's not a trustworthy place to have your IP address stored, it has a lot less reliable infrastructure, and legitimate safeguards than wikipedia, making it a bad second home for this project. Also, also, wikipedia is the highest profile home for information that a large number of people care about and want access to. It has become the repository for general information about MMA athletes, promotions and events, if it were to move to MMA Wiki that information would become harder to access for the communities that depend upon it. And finally it's a bit segregationist.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think MTKing's concern about the IP address is from the absolutely obscene and unwarranted attacks directed his way (still!) and the resulting lack of trust caused from those attacks. Concur about the other points except to note that something like MMAWiki would be a place to create articles on non-notable fighters and events that would be (or have been) deleted from Wikipedia. More details, less "encyclopedia language", etc could all be possible but still maintain a solid layout that's easy to work with. A dual existence can work well - Aqueously raised an example on my talk page of something like that. Ravensfire (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

One vote per person

Just a reminder, when we do discussions and votes, it's 1 per person, NOT 1 per account. If you have multiple accounts (even if you have them coming from multiple IP adresses), you are supposed to link those accounts together on the talk pages and you are NOT supposed to post or edit on the same pages. Not trying to start a conspiracy theory, just a friendly reminder for everybody to do things by the book. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:TUF essay

So to spare me carpal tunnel I have crafted an essay that explains why TUF fights are notable and should count. Please tell me if I have left anything out, or any advice so that I can tinker with it. WP:TUF PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I left some comments on your talk page about it. Your points are good and valid. I think at this point we just have people refusing to accept that as the requirements are written, there is not doubt about the notability of TUF fights. When you have people getting so desperate that they are trying to argue that UFC fights are only top tier some of the time, they shouldn't count because fightmetrics don't count them, and all kinds of other insane arguments that have nothing to do with the established notability requirements. I don't know how much simplier and more clear it can be explained to them, and it's not a matter of them not understanding but rather refusing to understand and accept the guidelines that were established. Willdawg111 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Re to PO. WRONG... You don't declare outright that something is right because you say it is. I've removed the shortcut and nominated the redirect for deletion because it's hijacking the WP namespace and deliberately attempting to make an end run around the consensus here. You want to present the argument, you do it here where informed people can debate it. Hasteur (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone is clearly overreacting as I followed the instructions WP:SASC listed. I don't see what the big deal is. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the only mistake is that the shortcut redirects to your user page, and seems like it can't be done. Correct me if i'm wrong. Poison Whiskey 01:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I just made some procedural error and I was supposed to make it in my userspace rather than Wikipedias. So I'm totally in the rightas far as my intentions were. in short. My essay is Tuf enuf. Hastuers WP:WITCHHUNT had a hiccup. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have come up with a idea that should help out. I want to break fighters professional records down into 2 tables. Those that were turned into the ABC to be included on the record and those that weren't. That way we can document these professional fights without creating any confusion as to why they aren't being tabulated as wins and losses.Willdawg111 (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like an undertaking! basically your gonna go to mma.com and see if its NSF or has the "official" next to it? I was also just looking and remembered that the second season of the ultimate fighters fights were on the record. I noticed when i checked out jardines fight with rashad and saw it on the underground. I think i'm making headway over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports) someone chimed in that the TUf guys could fall under WP:ENT, and I think point 1 is most fitting. so i added that to the essay. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Against TUF bouts, with the exception of finale fights, being considered a professional bout for use with WP:NMMA. TUF bouts are exhibition bouts. This has been the long standing consenus and has been explained ad-nausium. That these bouts are not full-professional fights is supported by the wider MMA press. They are not scheduled to run a full three rounds, except under specific circumstances, like fully professional bouts. They are sanctioned by the NSAC just as other exhibition fights are as required by state law, but are still just exhibition bouts. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It's more a matter of the fights being cited in third party publications when possible. If they are, and are non trivial then they should count. I would like to cite Mike Ricci as an example of a TUF fighter passing WP:V and WP:GNG without having to worry about WP:NMMAPortlandOregon97217 (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA notability

If people are willing to be open minded and work together on it. I have an idea of coming up with a point system for MMA notability. Something that once we work out the details, there is no argument about MMA notability. For example, a fighter would need a thousand points to be notable. UFC main card would be worth 1,000. UFC undercard,Pride would be worth 500. Bellator,TUF would be worth 250. Maybe 50-100 for other organizations. I need some time to try to lay out an initial plan that can be discussed. Before I bother, is that something that people are open minded enough to take a look at and seriously discuss?Willdawg111 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Insominia is kicking my butt right now, so I actually got something started. It's on the bottom of my talk page right now. I wouldn't mind a few preliminary suggestions, just please don't change anything on it, leave the comments at the bottom of my talk page. Once I have had a chance to get a little bit of feedback and tweek it a little bit, I am going to need somebody to point me in the fight direction to bring this before the entire group so we can get a consensus and actually make the changes if the consensus agrees. Willdawg111 (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea in principle, the problem is getting people to agree on it. A lot of contributors feel that without three UFC of Pride bouts, a fighter is not worthy of a wiki page. I disagree, but am in the minority on this issue. Luchuslu (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm for this as well, as the tier system has been misinterpreted on multiple deletion nominations. I'm getting tired of seeing "fails WP:MMANOT or WP:NMMA". NMMA was created due to the bastardisation of what MMANOT was supposed to be. There is literally no point in having multiple tiers, if anything but the first tier has zero impact on notability. I'm in support of this sort of principle, or the one mentioned above that has three tiers and actually counts the 2nd/3rd tiers in establishing notability. I'd vote yes on something like the two proposals put forward. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-starter. You're more interested in flushing the current guidelines and getting your prefered version added than fixing what we currently have. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense and completely negative for no reason. The proposal above (as well as the three tier system) are improvements on the current system; not a scrapping of what we already have. I was around when the original MMANOT was created and the way it looks now is completely illogical and against what it was set out to do. If you wish to disagree with me, then please address the point in the second tier if it seems to have no impact. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Para, if you dislike that WP:NMMA/WP:MMANOT don't explicitly give fights with second tier promotions any impact on notability then why not propose to amend the guidelines to state that X number of fights with a second tier promotion can count for one of the required fights with a top-tier promotion? --TreyGeek (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's a more defined reason why not. A point system is explicitly gamable. All it takes is hitting the magic number of points, and boom WikiLawyers now have explicit ground to stand on as opposed to the generalities that WP prefers in terms of judging notability and inclusion. Hasteur (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But is'nt that the system we have currently? I'll answer that for you: YES. The magic number is currently 3; with much less room for interpretation. Maybe the system does need flushed. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We need to have a system that is firm. There is too much arguing back and forth. Look at the deletion talk pages, people are split on whether or not it meets guidelines. People are using their personal opinions to make decisions rather than following guidelines. We need something concrete so that people can't inject their own personal objectives into it.Willdawg111 (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that people will always inject their own personal opinions and objectives into AfDs. Right? No matter how concrete the rules seem to one person, others will attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER it or just plain state WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Quite honestly, I'd be afraid a point system would be more complex and more vulnerable to WP:LAWERING. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We have people right now going into the deletion discussions claiming that TUF fights don't count, but if you read the guidelines, they clearly pass. I was hoping that they were doing it because of lack of knowledge about how sanctioning and promoting fights work. I thought setting up the point system and laying things out in more detail would help elminiate issues because of people's lack of knowledge. Now, if people are doing it to fulfill a personal agenda, which is what I think you are trying to claim they are, then of course it wouldn't help. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the tier system is ok. But like others pointed out, it would be good to include second-tier bouts on the guideline (WP:NMMA). Because the way it is now, the second-tier organizations (WP:MMATIER) are only symbolic. Poison Whiskey 15:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you feel about allowing X number of second-tier fights count as a first-tier fight? If you like that idea, what would be your preferred value for X? --TreyGeek (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea. About the value for X, i think it could be at least two and at most three. Being three, for example: nine bouts for a second-tier organization should ensure that the fighter is notable. Nine bouts can mean a half of a fighter's career... he was certainly a top contender or maybe has even fought for a title (this could be also included in the guideline). This would be quite flexible too, allowing — for example — fighters that have fought three times for second-tier organization and two for a top-tier to have an article and it would probably pass the 'Significant coverage' and 'Sources' criteria of WP:GNG. It's just what came to my mind now. Poison Whiskey 16:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Trey, just to respond to your point directed towards me, that's exactly what I'm looking to do by entering myself into this conversation/topic. I like the idea of either points, or, more preferably, having X amount of 2nd tier fights being equal to one top tier fight. I think that either 2 or 3 second tier fights should count. I like that proposal very much. I think it's crazy that Antonio McKee is at risk of deletion, after a UFC appearance, a DREAM appearance (tomorrow) and a ton of MFC title fights. Therefore, I like the idea that 2 or 3 2nd tier fights = 1 top tier fight. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, it's too complicated, too gamey and too inconsistent with WP:ATHLETE. Take baseball as an example. At the college level, no notability. At the A, AA or AAA level, not notability. It's not until you play one game for an MLB franchise (and no, spring training doesn't count) that you're notable but all you need is that one inning. Are the minor leagues professional? You bet they are, even if you're making garbage money. And if you can't make it in A ball, there's lots of smaller leagues and semi-pro throughout the country. That seems very similar to the MMA structure and notability should be similar. Something to consider would be to lower the requirement to 1 or 2 events in a top tier league, excluding exhibition style matches. In other words, if you fight in an full event (or two) for a top tier league, notable. If you don't, there should be a good reason otherwise. Another option would be to look at how boxing does it - title fights and rankings only, basically. That's a seriously tight restriction that given the BS I see about event articles I would NOT consider ever adopting here. Ravensfire (talk) 05:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The setup of MMA is nothing like baseball, or any of the other major sports. With baseball, you have 1 primary league and the minor league teams are associated with the top team. MMA has hundreds of independant promoters. Completely different.Willdawg111 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. MLB has the majors and the minors and then you've got a large number of small, regional leagues unaffiliated with any MLB team. Ravensfire (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Playing for a top league is not considered a necessary requirement for notability. For example, in association football (soccer) you only need to play in a fully professional league. It doesn't matter if it's the top league or not.

A three tier system was previously discussed here, but I think it's better to keep the discussion here in WP:MMA.

If we were to use a three tier system, we could keep UFC and Pride as the top tier promotions. The rest of the current top tiers would become second tiers and the remaining wiki-notable promotions would be considered as third tiers. With that system, we would only need to discuss which organizations should be considered as second tiers. One fight in a top tier organization should be enough for an athlete to achieve notability. For the second tier, we could require three fights and for the third tier, nine fights. One fight in a second tier organization would be worth three fights in a third tier league and vice-versa. Evenfiel (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hold it, when you are talking a Tier 3 you are talking Gladiator Challenge and Non-KOTC title fights. These fights mean absolutely nothing and should'bt even be a part of the equation. If you take a look over at WildDawgs Talkpage and see how he has the organizations ranked. At least in that order it is pretty solid, and with some tweaks could be a good base to rank the organizations. As far as the current tiers go I don't see how Shooto could have possibly made it. Same with Rings. I would be shocked if you could find half the refs for those events as UFC/WEC/strikeforce events. And Elite XC should be Top Tier. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I also feel that no amount of tier 2 fights can be enough to gain notability unless the subject can pass the GNG some other way. You have had to fought at least once in a top-flight (Not shooto, and add in Heros and Elite XC) promotion to get mma notability. The rest can be made up by fighting ALOT of second tier fights. If you do have the one tier 1 fight then I think that 4 second tier should equal 1 first tier. UNless you are infamous, like Datsik. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

With a few adjustments I would definitely support Willdawg111's proposition. Evenfiel (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand this idea at all. It's just a list of what one editor thinks are the most notable promotions from lowest to highest. Without a clear and transparent methodology as to how this list was formed and how future MMA promotions might be added to or removed from it, it's essentially useless. We shouldn't be deciding notability via opinion even multiple opinions, we should be deciding methodology via opinion, i.e. I think that promotion A is more notable because it has been around longer than promotion B, or I think promotion X is more notable because it verifiably has more fighters under long term contract than promotion Y. But to just say I think Bellator is more important than M-1 global, so lets decide that's true, and then maybe figure out a way to verify it later, is methodologically suspect. Bellator may very well be (and is) more important than M-1 Global, but unless we can demonstrate that clearly and methodologically it's just a groundless opinion. It may take longer and be more difficult to create a list that has a factual basis, but the end product will be much more stable for it.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up the format

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Several issues I see while putting in event results. 1. Some use flags and some don't. I think it needs to be 1 way or the other. Because so many MMA fighters train and fight out of different countries than where they were born, I think it just isn't as relevant for MMA.
2. Decision scores: some people are putting these in the same column as the result and others into the comment section. The problem I see with putting it into the result column is that is normally a narrow column and when you add more information it makes the table look bad. It looks much better in the comment column.
3. KO & TKO results: Since 95% of KO and TKO fights end as a result of a strike, putting TKO (strikes), KO (punches), etc. seems redundant and a waste of server space/bandwith not to mention the table would look cleaner and easier to read if we just used TKO or KO without all the extras, except if it was a TKO for a more uncommon reason like physician stoppage.
What does everybody else think, do these seem like good ideas to make everything cleaner and easier to follow? Willdawg111 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll put the formats below for a better understanding. The "current format" is being applied on this page (and that's where began the edit war): Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Seven. If there is something wrong, please fix it as you wish. Poison Whiskey 17:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

you had a few small mistakes but it made a big difference on the readability so I updated it with the correct proposed improvements. That was a really good idea though, because I think this makes it very clear how much better the tables look and how much easier it is to follow than what is being used now. Thanks!Willdawg111 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Current format

Card	Weight Class				Round	Time	Method	Notes
Main	Featherweight	Fighter A (c)	def.	Fighter B	3	5:00	Unanimous decision (29–28, 29–28, 29–28)	Non-title bout
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter C	def.	Fighter D	3	5:00	Unanimous decision (30–27, 30–27, 29–28)	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter E	def.	Fighter F	1	2:37	TKO (knees)	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter G	def.	Fighter H	2	1:57	KO (punch)	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter I	def.	Fighter J	3	5:00	Split decision (29–28, 28–29, 29–28)	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Preliminary	Middleweight	Fighter K	def.	Fighter L	3	3:41	Submission (triangle choke)
Preliminary	Bantamweight	Fighter M	def.	Fighter N	3	5:00	Unanimous decision (30–27, 30–27, 30–27)
Preliminary	Lightweight	Fighter O	def.	Fighter P	2	5:00	TKO (doctor stoppage)
Preliminary	Heavyweight	Fighter Q	def.	Fighter R	3	5:00	Unanimous decision (29–28, 30–27, 30–27)
Preliminary	Light Heavyweight	Fighter S	def.	Fighter T	2	2:09	TKO (elbows and punches)
Preliminary	Welterweight	Fighter U	def.	Fighter V	3	4:14	TKO (punches)

Suggested Improvements

Card	Weight Class				Round	Time	Method	Notes
Main	Featherweight	Fighter A (c)	def.	Fighter B	3	5:00	Decision (unanimous)	29–28, 29–28, 29–28 Non-title bout
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter C	def.	Fighter D	3	5:00	Decision (unanimous)	30–27, 30–27, 29–28 Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter E	def.	Fighter F	1	2:37	TKO	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter G	def.	Fighter H	2	1:57	KO	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter I	def.	Fighter J	3	5:00	Decision (split)	29–28, 28–29, 29–28 Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Preliminary	Middleweight	Fighter K	def.	Fighter L	3	3:41	Submission (triangle choke)
Preliminary	Bantamweight	Fighter M	def.	Fighter N	3	5:00	Decision (unanimous)	30–27, 30–27, 30–27
Preliminary	Lightweight	Fighter O	def.	Fighter P	2	5:00	TKO (doctor stoppage)
Preliminary	Heavyweight	Fighter Q	def.	Fighter R	3	5:00	Decision (unanimous)	29–28, 30–27, 30–27
Preliminary	Light Heavyweight	Fighter S	def.	Fighter T	2	2:09	TKO
Preliminary	Welterweight	Fighter U	def.	Fighter V	3	4:14	TKO

Suggested improvement 2

Main Card (ArbCom)
Weight Class				Method	Round	Time	Notes
Middleweight	MBisanz (c)	defeated	Elen of the Roads	KO (front kick)	2	0:01
Light Heavyweight	Dennis Brown	defeated	TheSpecialUser	Submission (flying armbar)	1	0:17
Welterweight	Jimbo Wales	defeated	User:JohnCD	TKO (kick to the body)	2	4:47
Catchweight (187.5 lb)	Mark Arsten	defeated	Mtking	KO (axe kick)	1	0:08
Bantamweight	Hasteur	drew with	TreyGeek	Unanimous draw (28–28, 28–28, 28–28)	3	5:00
Preliminary Card (AN)
Heavyweight	Worm That Turned	defeated	cyberpower678	Unanimous decision (30–27, 30–27, 30–27)	3	5:00
Preliminary Card (MMA)
Lightweight	Willdawg111	defeated	JonnyBonesJones	KO (punches)	1	1:00

please note that there are already two templates that will make implementing this format much easier:

{{MMAevent}}
and
{{MMAevent card|name of card}}

Kevlar (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Vote on Formats

Vote for suggestion #1. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to suggestion #2: I love the fact that Willdawg KO'd JonnyBonesJones, and I like the look of it, however it was a little tough on my eyes. Maybe I'm getting a little old, but have you tried to make the font a little bigger and see how it worked? Oh, and I'm a heavy weight who cuts to 235lb catch weights. At 6'0", I would be a really skinny 155lber. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been up for vote for 2 weeks. Improvement suggestion #1 gets the most votes, therefore the consensus says that will be the new format. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

How does a single vote count as consensus? Especially since that "Vote for suggestion #1" didn't exist as such until you closed the "voting"? --TreyGeek (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Everybody had 2 weeks to discuss it. This is plenty of time for anybody who had an opinion about it to join in.Willdawg111 (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem moving the judges score out of the method column, but "version 3" seemed to already have about the same amount of consensus as this one. Kevlar (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Poison Whiskey 16:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I vote for Suggested improvement 2, but without the win/loss column. Since we can write "defeated" or "drew with", there is no need for these columns. I also don't need any need to automatically use footnotes. Sometimes they can be useful, but other times we can just write on the notes field. Evenfiel (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• I also prefer Suggested improvement 2 without the explicit "win/loss" heading titles. I am fine with notes being footnoted, particularly for longer notes. This option is especially good, IMO, considering there are already templates to handle them. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• I would support either the current format or the suggested improvement 2. Poison Whiskey 20:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• I support Suggested improvements 2 as nominator. --LlamaAl (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• I vote for Suggested improvements 2 as the best format. Udar55 (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Suggested improvements 2 gets my vote. Luchuslu (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Voting was closed up after a couple weeks of discussion and 2 weeks to vote. Feel free to re-open it in another section, and we'll see how things turn out at the end of the month, and go from there, but for now, the format voted on stands. You can't just veto it or decide you don't like the way the voting turned out, you have to do it properly. If there seems to be some issue now, please accept the changes voted on, re-open it for discussion for a couple weeks, and then give a couple weeks for people to vote. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A voting in which only one person voted - incidentally, the same person who started the discussion - does not reflect any sort of consensus. Silence does not reflect a consensus. As it stands, Suggested improvements 2 is the preferred format. Evenfiel (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg111, i would like to suggest you to read the WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY policies. If you look below at the discussion, there were two people disagreeing (Udar55 and me), so it can in no way be considered consesus. I know you don't like to be warned, but i'll do it once again: attempts to circumvent the policies can only lead to problems, so please i ask you to stop these attempts to dictate the rules and i recommend you to accept the community input. Poison Whiskey 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read the guidelines. I'm doing everything correctly, and you might want to take your own advice. You need to accept the groups input and not try to dictate what goes on. Also you might want to read those 3 revert rules you keep quoting and threatening to get me blocked. First of all, you don't have the authority to block anybody from editing, and second of all, I am not violating the rules. Continuing to falsely accuse me or anybody else of violating rules that they aren't can be considered a personal attack, so please stop. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg111, obviously the consensus is not in your favor regardless of your interpretation. If you persist in enforcing "your consensus" you will be reported to WP:ANI and we'll let the admins take care of the situation. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't broken any the rules or guidelines for you to report me on. I have been a team player, just a team player that is not going to have 1 person dictate what is going on. And by the way, do you really want to open up that can of worms. I'm not Bobo the fool, I know whats going on. Willdawg111 (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hey folks - if you don't mind, let's take a deep breath, remember there is no deadline on this and be cool. There's a board called Request for Closure that's a under WP:AN where folks can request an uninvolved admin review a discussion and make a call. I'm going to be a bit bold and post a request there for someone to come and review the entire discussion (I'll point them to the Cleaning up the Format section), noting that there is a difference of opinion. No reason to go crazy on this, let's let someone outside review things, tell us their opinion and suggest what to do next. As part of that, would you both agree to no make further changes related to this, even if it's the WP:WRONGVERSION? Please, for peace's sake? (ahh, the irony of saying that on a topic about fighting!) Ravensfire (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree IF there are no more changes made as of right now until agreed upon. Willdawg111 (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

He is still making changes. You see that I am the one trying to be diplomatic and trying to work with people.Willdawg111 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You should read the entire policy (WP:EDITWAR):

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. (...)

(...) The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."

The discussion is here and it isn't over as everyone can see. Poison Whiskey 21:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How about stop creating an edit war then.Willdawg111 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's up to you. Just don't make any change to WP:MMA or another page related to this discussion without consensus. Poison Whiskey 22:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How about you stop making changes. I'm doing everything by the book, following the rules.Willdawg111 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me which rule are you following? (this discussion is getting too long, better move it to my talk page or yours) Poison Whiskey 22:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg111, this isn't a cage, we prefer to reach a consensus and then improve articles. Just stop making changes to WP:MMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a GROUP project. You do not dictate it, control it, or have veto power over what is decided on by the group.Willdawg111 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct, this is a GROUP project. You don't seem to understand that. At this point, it's obvious that Suggested improvements 2 is going to win, so please don't edit war. Remember that we are under community sanctions. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please remember anytime you start counting up votes, its only 1 vote per person, not 1 vote per account. Not trying to start any conspiracy theories, just want to make sure that everybody understands the rules. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, so? All votes came from established users. You'll have to accept that Suggested improvements 2 is the preferred format. Evenfiel (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Willdawg111, as others have suggested to you before, open a case at WP:SPI, this is not the right place for it. Poison Whiskey 13:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would like the second on if it was more of a grid like the first one. The second ones colors are more appealing, but at this point that is all PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

We're in a bit of a war, and that is part of it, and something I figured would be tackled after the event articles were settled. Look, I am all for flags used in MMA articles the same way they're used in countless other non-team sports articles that are not strictly competitions between nations. The historical major promotions have all gone out of their way to illustrate MMA as a truly international competition where fighting brings nations together in a way that transcends nationalistic differences, and the use of flags to establish that competitors come from a wide variety of nations is not an expression of nationalist supremacy anymore than it would be at the Olympics. In MMA and many other sports it is, and always has been, first and foremost a measure of diversity, and how athletic competitions between people from drastically different backgrounds are a bond and not a barrier. Genki Sudo has amply demonstrated this much more concisely, as a picture says a thousand words. However I would think the best way to address that is a new Request-for-Closure in the Manual of Style Flags section per the recommendation of admin Vanisaac (who would rather not participate btw as he is not involved in the MMA debate and I don't blame him one bit). Vanisaac is a vexillology specialist (study of flags and related symbolism) and made the original ruling in an RfC near the top of this page, one which I do not think included the strongest possible arguments, and it is on strength-of-arguments that these things are based on, not number of votes (afaik number of votes is more like a tie-breaker and even then it has to be an overwhelming majority on one side). I believe it can be overturned if an RfC that included not just MMA, but all non-team sports such as golf or tennis or Formula One Racing were involved. That would not be inappropriate as precedence set against MMA could be extended to those articles too at the moment right now, and I believe a notice could be placed on WP:SPORTS as it would be of the most relevance to them, and they could all give their input. Even if the result is "flags optional," there are already MOS guidelines that give precedence in edit-wars to whoever was the first major contributor to aset of articles (considering that flags have been used in MMA articles for years prior to the recent spate of deletions, the answer to that should be obvious). If someone who is not me, preferably a veteran editor, can launch such a thing, that might be for the best. If an MMA events RfC is imminent though, I might think it best to wait until that concludes however. Beansy (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the format needs to be changed at all. Regarding decision scores, it makes more sense for them to be right after the decision. Regarding TKO/KO stats, you need to include that info regardless if you believe "95% of KO and TKO fights end as a result of a strike." Of course they do. But the additional info helps the reader know more info about the method of victory. An example is "KO (punch)" is quite different than "TKO (knees to the body)." Udar55 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, there is a wide variety of strikes. About the "Method" section, i think it should describe the method accurately (including the judges' scorecards in case of decision). The "Notes" section should be for... notes? makes no sense to me to put the scorecards there. Poison Whiskey 16:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous consensus has been to use whatever Sherdog states (read about it on the MMA project page). I was not part of that discussion but the result makes sense. It's a site that is considered reliable and if we just duplicate what it states and all follow that then this will cut down on arguments about what should be there (with all the original research that entails). I think keeping with Sherdog just makes life easier for everyone. SQGibbon (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Sherdo: What's the reason why Sherdog is being considered for reliability for records. WWW.mixedmartialarts.com is actually the site that is linked up to the Association of Boxing Commission, or ABC which is the federal database for MMA fighters. Their records are more complete and more accurate than Sherdog, especially for more recent events.Willdawg111 (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

When the UFC was choosing the candidates for the second season of The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil, you had to show that you had fought at least three times professionally (I think that was the number), and Sherdog was one of the sites that you could use to prove it. I can't remember what was the other one. Evenfiel (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

MixedMartialArts.com is nowhere close to being as comprehensive as Sherdog. Sorry, but it's not even debatable if you're a hardcore MMA fan. Their historical database of over 100,000 MMA fighters is the platinum standard. Also, per flags, Sherdog allows input from fighters themselves to a degree if they can prove who they are (proving who you are isn't hard in the day and age of twitter and flags are certainly one of those things they allow input into). Also, ABC is a network of state, Canadian provincial, and tribal athletic commissions, it is not "federal" anything (sorry to be anal about that). Beansy (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It is debatable. As far as hardcore fans go, do you realize that when Joe Rogan references "The underground" he is talking about mixedmartialarts.com. Yeah the thing is they show if a fight is santioned or not. For instance, if you were to go to mma.com and look at Soa Polalei you will see he has only 1 sanctioned fight((he has fought since I have last looked so I could be wrong.); and that is with the UFC. Sherdog isn't able to tell you that kind of info because it doesnt have that athletic commission connection. also just an FYI MixedMartialArts.com uses actual weights and the height people submit. For my buddy sherdog added an inch and took off 30 pounds. He was fighting at SHW. But he was a college lineman so you know. Of course thats neither here nor there. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• idea: given that these changes will take a lot of grunt work, and there are other similar changes that could be easily grouped. IF we reach consensus that something needs to be done like switching all MMA events cards to a different format, we could create a friendly competition. perhaps two team captains would be picked for January, the captains would draft teams from the WP:MMA Participants List while someone else divided up all the different pages that will need to be changed. Winning team get's glory and helps the losing team finish their edits. we could call it TUE (The Ultimate Editor) or UEC (Ultimate Editing Challenge) or something cheesy like that. just an idea to make a possibly tedious task more fun. Kevlar (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Or we could have a bot do the base conversion, stick a hidden category on ones that have been converted for verification, and remove the category by a regular editor once they've verified the record. Hasteur (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Kevlar's idea. But first we need to reach consensus. I vote for the current format. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Closure posted

Folks, as there's a bit of an edit war going on, I've posted a request here. No idea how long it will take but I asked for a review, opinion and thoughts about next steps so things can keep going smoothly here. Apologies if anyone thinks this is premature or unwarranted but I don't want to see anyone blocked or warned over this. Ravensfire (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm on it. Let me say, before I try and close this, that this is not a vote with a limited time span--there is no clock that can run out after which the majority (that is, one vote out of one) wins. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some thoughts on Biography results tables

so it's bugged me for a while that the results tables seem to jumble up the columns. Also with the debate on Flags, i thought it might be worth looking at another way of getting the same content into the table without the flag (if it needs to come to that). anyway, i re-ordered the columns and split the nationality into it's own column. i also added the opponent's record, i'm sure that's going to be the least liked part of my suggestion but it is just a suggestion at this point so i thought i would leave it in for feedback. Below are two tables, each shows Georges St-Pierre's most recent 5 fights. One is with flags, one is without. In my opinion, something like this could make the removal of flags almost a moot point as the content is still there in another form.

	Match				Opponent			Event
Record	Result	Method	Round	Time	Name	Nationality	Record	Event	Date	Location	Notes
23–2	Win	Decision (unanimous)	5	5:00	Carlos Condit	American	28–6	UFC 154	November 17, 2012	Montreal, Quebec, Canada	Defended and Unified the UFC Welterweight Championship; Fight of the Night.
22-2	Win	Decision (unanimous)	5	5:00	Jake Shields	American	26–5–1	UFC 129	April 30, 2011	Toronto, Ontario, Canada	Defended the UFC Welterweight Championship.
21-2	Win	Decision (unanimous)	5	5:00	Josh Koscheck	American	15-5	UFC 124	December 11, 2010	Montreal, Quebec, Canada	Defended the UFC Welterweight Championship; Fight of the Night.
20-2	Win	Decision (unanimous)	5	5:00	Dan Hardy	English	23-7 (1)	UFC 111	March 27, 2010	Newark, New Jersey, United States	Defended the UFC Welterweight Championship.
19-2	Win	Decision (unanimous)	5	5:00	Thiago Alves	Brazilian	17–6	UFC 100	July 11, 2009	Las Vegas, Nevada, United States	Defended the UFC Welterweight Championship.

	Match				Opponent			Event
Record	Result	Method	Round	Time	Name	Nationality	Record	Event	Date	Location	Notes
23–2	Win	Decision (unanimous)	5	5:00	Carlos Condit	American	28–6	UFC 154	November 17, 2012	Montreal, Quebec, Canada	Defended and Unified the UFC Welterweight Championship; Fight of the Night.
22-2	Win	Decision (unanimous)	5	5:00	Jake Shields	American	26–5–1	UFC 129	April 30, 2011	Toronto, Ontario, Canada	Defended the UFC Welterweight Championship.
21-2	Win	Decision (unanimous)	5	5:00	Josh Koscheck	American	15-5	UFC 124	December 11, 2010	Montreal, Quebec, Canada	Defended the UFC Welterweight Championship; Fight of the Night.
20-2	Win	Decision (unanimous)	5	5:00	Dan Hardy	English	23-7 (1)	UFC 111	March 27, 2010	Newark, New Jersey, United States	Defended the UFC Welterweight Championship.
19-2	Win	Decision (unanimous)	5	5:00	Thiago Alves	Brazilian	17–6	UFC 100	July 11, 2009	Las Vegas, Nevada, United States	Defended the UFC Welterweight Championship.

Kevlar (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

First as a neutral note, any significant changes to fight record tables on fighter's pages will break MMABot in its current form. It could go a little bonkers if it comes across an article with a table already changed. I would like to urge people not to make changes until after there is a clear consensus, and examples should be placed here or in sandboxes. However, once there is a clear consensus to make changes, if changes are desired, MMABot can be modified (and go through the approval process) to update record tables across all fighter articles for us. Thus eliminating the need to hand modify nearly 2000 articles.

In terms of the proposed formats, here are my thought(s). The opponent should come before the method/round/time of the match. Who the person won/lost to is more important than how, IMO. The opponents record should not be included, IMO, it just clutters up an already cluttered table. I'm not a fan of including nationalities or flags in the table, I'm not sure of the importance of someone's nationality in terms of that particular fight. IOW, what is the significance that Condit is an American in terms of GSP's most recent fight? I don't see it, and I doubt there will be a significance very often. I guess that's all I have for now. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest taking the nationality out of the equation all together. So many of these guys were born one place, grew up another, and train in a different location. Many of them don't consider their birthplace their nationality, so it's best to just leave it out. MMA is an individual sport anyway. No need for the opponents record anyway. If somebody wants to see that, they click on that person's page. I think we want to have less in the table and not more. Make it a quick reference that is easy to follow.Willdawg111 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Siver comes to mind. Why not just put their birthplace rather than nationality? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think these tables are too cluttered as they are. This site is used as a quick reference for when people don't want to do a full search on somebody. Sometimes less is more. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Ravensfire (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I thought there was agreement here (somewhere, in the archives) that WP:MOSFLAG should be applied, which means that flags are out. They are simply not to be used in such tables, per higher-order guideline (unless of course there's some kind of contest with truly national representation). Drmies (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI, The RfC regarding flags in MMA articles is archived here. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • There is also an ongoing RFC on MOS:FLAG here. My intention was not to add new information to the table, only that there seems to be a large amount of debate over the use of flags in MMA tables. My reading of the debate seems to come down to the fact that MMA editors want the nationality represented by a flag, and others do not feel it's appropriate for numerous reasons. if we listed the nationality in a separate column and didn't have the flags everyone would get what they want. furthermore it would be more appropriate under the current wording in MOS:FLAG to have the flag next to the nationality in the separate column. This change doesn't seem to have any traction, no big deal, just wanted to explain my reasoning. Kevlar (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus for WP:NMMA Vote

With all of the arguments about notability, I've come up with a new concept for notability. Please take a look at it and decide if its somethine we would like to proceed with or not. This is a vote just for the concept itself, if you believe an organization should be higher or lower, you can include that but discussion and voting on individual organizations can be done later and be an ongoing change. We are going to open the voting up for 2 weeks. If we decide to go that direction as a group, there needs to be no attempting to veto or edit war because you weren't happy with the results. There is also, only 1 vote per person, not per account.
To obtain Notability as a MMA fighter, the person must accumulate 1,000 points. To get the points, the person doesn't have to win the fight, just participate. For whatever reason, sometime fights do not get recorded into the record books, in which case, all the fighter would need is a reliable source to prove the fight took place. Not having the required points would not negate possible notability for other sports or entertainment.

• 1,000 points

UFC Championship fights

• 750 Points

UFC main card fight (Zuffa era only)

• 500 points

UFC undercard fights (Zuffa era)

UFC (pre-Zuffa era)

Pride FC

• 250 points

Ultimate Fighter contests (does not include finale)

Bellator

Shooto

Strikeforce

Affliction

Dream

WEC

Invicta FC

Elite XC

• 150 Points (ammatuer fights for these organizations do not count)

Fighting Rings

World Victory Road

M-1 Global

King of the Cage

One FC

Pancrase

• 100 points (amatuer fights for these organizations do not count)

BAMMA

Cage Warriors

Deep

Jungle Fight

Bad Breed

Konfrontacja Satuk Walki

Maximum Fighting Championship

Shark Fights

Ultimate Challenge MMA

Universal Reality Compbat Championship

NAAFS

Cage Rage Championships

Palace Fighting Championship

Tachi Palace Fights

WSOF

• 50 Points (ammatuer fights do not count)

All organizations not listed above

Willdawg111 (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

New Point System: I'm going to open up and vote for the new point system because I'm tired of the bickering about notability because the current system is defined so that it is understood by everybody. Willdawg111 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment — Ok. Two advices for you:

1. You can't close discussions in which you are involved. (WP:NPOV)

2. You can't decide the time for the discussion. It will go on until WP:CONSENSUS is reached or until an uninvolved admin close it. Poison Whiskey 15:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is about coming up with a compromise that will partially aatisfy everybody. Obviously there are several editors that have an issue with the current system. One of the big issues is refusing to acknowledge that TUF fights are notable under the guidelines. It isn't about 1 person getting their way. So what do you propose? We are not going to continue the way we are. Everybody is going to have to give in a little bit and find some common ground. That means EVERYBODY. We are not going to continue to have 1 person trying to dictate policy and guidelines for the project. I'm here trying to be diplomatic, trying to come up with a solution that will partially satisfy everybody, but I keep getting met with this drawing a line in the sand BS. If you don't like my idea, then propose a COMPROMISE.Willdawg111 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Read the first lines of WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms."

And i don't have to propose a new compromise. There is a long-standing consensus (edit: not so long actually, but it's still a consensus) for the current WP:NMMA guideline. Poison Whiskey 19:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose — No criteria was given. The categorization and the points required to be notable appears to be entirely a personal opinion. Poison Whiskey 15:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This system appears to be original research in terms of rankings and point assignments. I also fear this type of system would be subject to a high degree of WP:LAWYERING, more so than the current version of WP:NMMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't bring up some original research claim for this. It's a proposal for guideline changes, it isn't an article. If you look at it closely, It's basically the Tier system we already have in place put into a point system, with a few small changes like giving the UFC a little more weight than Bellator or organizations which were around when there wasn't no where near the same fan base.

There is going to have to be a compromise at some point to satsify the active editors, so if you don't like my suggestion, let's here other people's ideas. Let's get together and come up with that common ground that might not make everybody completely happy but will make everybody a little more content. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you want a other idea? Here's mine "Leave well enough alone". The current regime for determining notability of fighters has endured for a non-trivial amount of time, has been reviewed by editors outside the project, and has been upheld by administrators at AfD and DRV. It's a well rounded and community suppored proposal. If you can demonstrate where the current regime has failed in judging the notability of a subject that was not clammored over by hordes of SPAs and illogical reasoning, then we might have a case. All I see is an argument "It should be my way because I think I'm right" arguments to weaken the notability guidelines. Hasteur (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose This is now the 2nd time that you have brought up a point system (29 December 2012). PortlandOregon has also brought up the point schema at WT:MMANOT. Each time it has been met with a resounding NO. The next time you propose this I will go to AN specifically request an administrator review your (Willdawg111) actions to determine if tendentious editing and "I didn't hear that" like editing you are proposing is covered under the discretionary actions authorized by the community. Hasteur (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I brought it up as a discussion and am trying to bring it up to take a vote. If you read the discussion, there are several editors that like it or like it with some sort of modification. Right now I am trying to find a dimplomtic solution to the conflict going on. There is going to have to be a compromise. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The solution is to DROP IT. It's been opposed twice. Also WP:NOTVOTE/WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. It's been explained to you before that we have to work off consensus. The significant problems have beeen explained to you before. Were you unable to understand the 2 previous discussions or are you electing to ignore them? Being that you only recently proposed this again, a 2 week vote on the project page (without any hint to people interested in notability at large) is exceedingly out of order. Hasteur (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It has NOT been opposed twice. When we first discussed it, it was mixed. Go back and look. It's funny that you bring up consensus because you might want to go back and read that also, because it talks about everybody compromising and coming to a decision that might not make anybody happy but it something everybody can live with. Isn't that exactly what I was just saying? Willdawg111 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It is better than the current state of wp:NMMA which is pathetic. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I just want to come up with guidelines that we can all agree on, but I'm not sure what to do. Diplomacy and team work are 2 way streets.Willdawg111 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither is My Way or the Highway proclimations that have already been shot down twice in a recent time frame. Do you really expect your idea to gain acceptance after having been proposed for the first time (and rejected as consensus) on December 29th? Consensus can change, but it doesn't change that fast. Hasteur (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why the others are so quick to dismiss and ignore reasonable starts to a solution I know others agree is needed. The current 2 tier system is ridiculous and I think the short term answer is to come to a consensus on creating a 3 tier system. That will be the skeleton that we can fill out later. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that WP's concept of notability is not inherited notability (just because they have X points doesn't make a fighter notable for example), despite what ppl interested in MMA think - you can't run against wiki-wide notability approaches. It should be based on the likelihood of finding independent reliable secondary sources that cover the topic (Fighter or event) in depth. I would suspect that those fighters that win major international championships would get this, but not every single fighter that gets into the ring. Same with events, even if they all are precursors to championship bouts. This point system above is certainly not in line with other notability subject-specific guidelines. --MASEM (t) 07:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you don't like the suggestion being put in front of the group. That's fine. I can respect that. If that is the case, then what do we do, where do we go with it? What we have isn't working. There is too much conflict over it, so there has to be some sort of change. Compromise and diplomacy don't mean "JUST DROP IT" or ignoring the opinions of newer editors.Willdawg111 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that those interested in MMA cannot create a walled garden where the requirements for inclusion are far less restrictive than any other topic on WP. Inclusion in WP is based on sourcing or the likelihood of finding sourcing, meaning that the merits for inclusion should be based on reaching a critical level of achievement for the sport. the current WP:NMMA criteria capture this appropriately - this not to say there can't be more but they have to be crafted in the same manner. And of course, any person that meets the GNG in general can be included. If this means that only a fraction of MMA fighters that the MMA wants to have in WP can only be supported in this manner, that's consistent with the rest of WP - we are not a data dump or indiscriminate inclusion. I know there's an external wikia or the like that isn't bound by WP's approach that would be better suited for including all details, but for WP we should be looking at only the fighters that we can cover in an encyclopedic manner, and not just those with X points in some tier system. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose on so many levels, Masem sums up the major reason, the second is there has been no attempt to demonstrate that the points system is a good barometer that the subject passes the GNG, the third is that for most it would require issuing a spreadsheet in order to calculate and finally why is the project wasting elections on this when we have to really fix the bigger issue of event reporting. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just because a few editors are complaining about the tier system. Willdawg111 now apparently feels that the system is broken, many editors dislikes it and he wants to fix it all alone. I could argue about amendments to the current WP:NMMA guideline, but for me, this proposal is far from being the right thing to do. However, there is a discussion about the tier system here, and it seems that is going the right way with the participation of those who want. Poison Whiskey 14:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

With all the bickering going on, obviously it's broken and isn't working. Like I keep saying, consensus of the group is about coming together with guidelines that we can all accept, and just because something was the consensus of the group in the past doesn't mean it is currently valid. You have to continually look at who the active editors are and come up with an agreement amongst them. It might mean that you give in on this issue but get your way with another. That is what compromise is about. And we are going to have to do more than have a page where we talk about it. We are going to have to come to a solution and implement it. Moving from section to section is just a way for people who don't want to compromise to stall the situation. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is currently valid. Just check the guideline. And again, consensus here on Wikipedia doesn't mean unanimity. Poison Whiskey 20:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. First of all, per Masem. Second, editors shouldn't mandate the conditions under which a proposal is launched (they may suggest parameters, but this two week, one vote per account stuff, that's not the way we do things here). Third, apparently (speaking as an outsider) apparently the MMA section is pretty functional compared to a year ago; no need to mess with it if it ain't broke. Fourth, the idea of unanimity (and "veto"--veto? come on) is not realistic nor appropriate; in fact, it should go the other way around: your proposal got criticized pretty quickly and almost unanimously, so maybe you should stop if you wish to follow your own rules. Fifth--well, we don't need a fifth, unless it's Jack Daniels. Willdawg, I think a more modest approach is in order here: you've got some edits under your belt, but it seems to me that more better experience with and knowledge of our process of consensus building would be beneficial. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Willdawg, I'm sorry man but this is problematic on a ton of levels. I don't even know where to begin. Hell, any fighter with 20 documented fights in indy Z-leagues could qualify under this schema. Also, among a great many things, any argument for MMA notability by organization (as opposed to alternate criteria not discussed here) should stick to the Tier system (and rate different promotions on the same tier as equal) so as not to be completely arbitrary. Beansy (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposal is too gameable, too complicated and won't give better results than current system. Ravensfire (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose but I agree that there need to be some changes in organization notability with WP:NMMA. This simply isn't the way to solve the problem. Luchuslu (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - My son has a small trophy wall with trophies he has accumulated in "Open Tournaments" (karate tournaments that are open to kung-fu, Hapkido, and other striking styles) he has won money in those tournaments, eliminating the amateur status. By these rules he has accumulated a hefty number of points! I have 50 points myself, for losing a match in which money was awarded. I could concievably lose 19 more matches and get an article! Will that make me a notable fighter or Martial Artist? No. I will still be a karate-mom who works every day at the University. Notability must come from solid sourcing, not "points". --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Technical question in regards to Wikipedia

I know this is off topic, but since this is the only area that I edit in, I'm not sure where to really ask this question.
I know it's not that difficult to set you computer up to use multiple IP addresses from the same connection. (or use a proxy server to block your IP address altogether). My question is, if somebody were to be doing this, is Wikipedia capable of being telling that the IP addresses were all from the same area? Do they have anything in place that if somebody were to be blocking their IP address that it wouldn't let them log in? Willdawg111 (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

In reading between the lines of WP:SPI reports, there is a back-end interface that allows certain admins/checkusers to determine what IPs a logged-in user is editing from. For instance, they'd be able to tell I lately edit from two IPs (depending on whether I'm at home or at work). They can also tell if a single IP is being used for multiple logged-in user (as can be the case with sock-puppets). If two different logged-in users edit from two different IPs (without any overlap) then you can't tell, from a technical perspective, if they are the same person. At that point it comes to behavioral evidence. Not sure if that answers your question or not though. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I've been able to gather, the tools that checkusers can look at all the information that your browser sends when you send an HTTP request. This would include IP, user-agent and a fair amount of additional information (googling should give you more details). Depending on the nature of the proxy, they can also determine if you're using one and if it's deemed an open proxy (think Tor exit node) they'll usually block the proxy IP. There's also something called autoblock where if you're blocked and try to use an IP address that you've used in the past as a logged-in user the system will automatically detect and block you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about Sockpuppets

Once a person is confirmed as a sockpuppet of a banned user, can we close out all of his recomendations for deletion? Willdawg111 (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:G5, my view is if the nomination is the only account calling for the page to be deleted then yes you could tag the page for speedy delete, however I would drop a not to anyone else who has edited the page asking their view. What you could do is strike out any of their contributions by puting <s> before the comment and </s> after the comment and follow it with an explanation and sign it small such as : <small>User is a sock of a blocked user, see users block log for details ~~~~</small>. ✍ Mtking ✉ 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had seen something that said we could close them out, but I'm not sure where I thought I saw it. Unless something can be found that specifically mentiones this situation, I'm going to have to agree with you and it's probably just best to strike out his comments and let the process take its course. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Deletion Delay

Is there anyway we can put a temporary hold on a deletion request? Some of these guys are 1 fight away from notability and are currently signed so they will almost certainly get their notability in the next few months. I know there are processes to get it back later, however it seems pretty silly to go through all of this when we could just put a 3 month hold on it or something to that effect. The easiest way would be for everybody to hold up putting these articles up for deletion, but to get everybody to do this seems unlikely. Willdawg111 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As soon as an article is posted to mainspace there is no stay for it to be nominated for deletion. All articles have to meed the specific and general notability guidelines in addition to the best practices of wikipedia. Want someone to blame? Blame the person who put it in mainspace before being absolutely sure it would pass the bar for inclusion. You can ask the editor who nominated it for deletion to hold the request, however any other editor can request deletion as well. Perhaps copying the article into your userspace and improving it until it's ready for mainspace again would suit the purpose. Hasteur (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Not looking for anybody to blame and the couple I was looking at weren't my articles or anything. I'm not going to try to argue to keep them because technically they don't meet the requirements. I was just hoping we can interject a little common sense into it, but it is what it is. Willdawg111 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:GNG. Instead of speaking of WP:NMMA you should focus your arguments on GNG. If you believe that the article is notable, find reliable sources for the article and demonstrate how these sources cover significantly the subject. Also, even if the outcome is different from your expectations, you will not be condemned for your opinion (unless, of course, it breaks a rule). Poison Whiskey 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's just not how Wikipedia operates, in any sector. Creating an article and then claiming it will become notable in the future will never fly. --SubSeven (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about articles that people created awhile back, probably before they were even close to being notable. We have a person now who is digging through old articles and trying to delete as many as he can. All I was saying is that a couple of them are now will probably be notable in the next couple months. Was just suggesting that if they are a couple months away from getting the last fight they need for notability, then common sense would say just leave it alone and give it a couple months before deciding what to do.Willdawg111 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Request that the article be userfied and if/when they do meet the notability requirements you can easily move the article back into main space. Simple and the common approach to handling this scenario. Ravensfire (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

*cough* making that assertion about the motivations of another editor is not a nice thing to do. More bees with honey than vingegar and all those platitudes. Have you even asked the editor in question what their purpose is? Hasteur (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Strangely I've seen this often from others who are more opposed to MMA articles. Byuusetsu (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how that isn't exactly what I'm talking about.. but.. I'm just trying to say, no admin will ever sign off on waiting for notability. --SubSeven (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

UFC 157 Deletion Review

There is a Deletion Review for UFC 157 at WP:DRV#UFC 157. This notice is for any editor interested in participating in the discussion. Beansy (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that I'll close it early if people keep bringing personal comments to the discussion. Talk about the content/process not the editors please. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

inherited notability

please discuss the issue of mma inherited notability at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inherited Notability in MMA— Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 January 2013‎

Notifying us 2 days after the fact is kida wrong. Especially when the thread gets closed down less than a hour later.

In the future, please try resolving the discussion here (or at least making an attempt at it) before running off to ANI/AN. It's rude to editors who are watching the page and trying to focus effort here. Hasteur (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You have all proven yourselves incapable of compromise, or of even having a discussion that doesn't turn into a longwinded reminder of how there was already a past consensus. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That thread is really confusing. Was it closed because there was an outcome? i feel like i'm missing both the opening and closing of whatever was going on there. Kevlar (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:How can I help with the UFC pages

Your Help Desk gave me your link, I am a UFC fan, have used Wikipedia for a number years for details on events and fights and am finding the removal of pages on UFC very frustrating. This page is a little long and I don’t understand it all but simply how can I help stop this ? Richard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardMDean (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the place here. You can share your thoughts on the top discussion of this talk page (this seems to be what you're looking), but first — if you have not already done — i recommend you to read the Wikipedia's policies, mainly the five pillars of Wikipedia before making your comments. Poison Whiskey 01:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, I and millions of other UFC fans use this site's pages to keep upto date with all the fighters and events, how can we stop this who do I have to DM ? --RichardMDean (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We usually make decisions here through conversation. Poison Whiskey 02:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to discourage you from using or helping with Wikipedia, but since we can only use info that has been previously published by a source, we will always be slightly less up-to-date than those sources. As Wikipedia is not a newspaper, you (and millions of others) would be better off using an MMA news site for breaking news, and Wikipedia for historic research. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Who do I have to have a conversation with ? --RichardMDean (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No one in particular. Just look in the first section of this talk page. There is a proposal for the MMA events in the making, you can leave a comment or even a suggestion there. Poison Whiskey 02:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just list yourself as a member of the project and jump in and help out. If you are looking for something specific to work on there are lists of articles that need to be done, probably over half of the articles done by the project could always use more improvement, more sources, etc., and you can always create articles on something/someone that interests you as long as it meets the notability requirements (check out the links on the project page). There are links to guidelines everywhere, and you'll learn as you go. If you do something wrong, I can almost guarentee that somebody will let you know and link you to guidelines. My suggestion is if they do link guidelines, read through them because some times they apply to the situation and sometimes they don't.Willdawg111 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

But how will that stop the pages just being deleted ? --RichardMDean (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as helping to keep pages from being deleted, there is a list of articles up for deletion on the project page. Familiarize yourself with the guidelines, find a guideline that the article meets, go into the discussion page, vote to keep or delete the page and cite a guideline that supports your decision. The problem is that it isn't a democracy, some admin will come by look at the comments and decide whether or not to keep or delete it. We are still having articles that are being deleted that actually meet the notability requirements but people are saying they don't when in fact they do, and admin are deleting them anyway; so we are still searching for that answer. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What are the rules for having an article ? I just assumed there were no rules --RichardMDean (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a complicated matter. Can we move this conversation to your talk page? Poison Whiskey 02:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• See WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT & WP:NOT. The problem we have is the absence of an agreed standard for inclusion for MMA. That's why there is so much confusion and inconsistency because we don't have a clear redline. I get the impression MMA fans want to include everything and the project generally is a little more discerning. This leads to conflict and disagreements that drives away casual contributors. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Your First Article" gives some wonderful advice on creating an article and what does not meet the requirements. Also, I want to caution you that you seem to think that there is a singular person making the decisions about keeping/deleting articles. Wikipedia is a community and as such the decision is based on a consensus of viewpoints based on policy. I strongly suggest that prior to moving forward you read all the policies and consider discharging your transparent PoV as your statements so far portray a singular purpose in your editing. Hasteur (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have had a look at thoes pages and they don't cover UFC or MMA topics, this may be a dumb question but if there is no agreed article rules for MMA why does not someone create one ? --RichardMDean (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Howabout somthing like if you have fought in any of Bellator, UFC, Shooto, Strikeforce, Pancrase and King of the Cage events you should have a page and each event should also have its own page --RichardMDean (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There are. For example, the fighter page WP:NMMA, but the problem is that we have people that refuse to accept what is there and try to say it means something different than what it does, so it turns into a big argument. And you never know what the admin is going to do. They will point out that it isn't a democracy. The truth is you can have the guidelines on your side and the article will still be deleted or kept. Willdawg111 (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this only happens when the article breaches a policy or policies. Poison Whiskey 11:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

TUF 17

With the announcement of the cast today and the premiere a week or so away, I started the entry for The Ultimate Fighter: Team Jones vs. Team Sonnen. Feel free to look it over and let me know how it looks. Udar55 (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any information on how the fighter's were chosen (the audition process)? Also, adding in the brackets now is dangerous in that people will be wanting to fill that sucker in as soon as possible even though there is no reliable way to know what the bracket will look like until the end of the season. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see the bracketing as something to worry about. That's really no different from any other sort of vandalism and can be handled as such. Beansy (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Properly evaluating articles for deletion

It has become apparent when looking through one of the articles tonight that people aren't looking at notability properly. Notability requirements are reasons to keep an article, not reasons to delete them. Let me explain what I mean.:
Say you have an article for somebody who played 2 sports. That means he doesn't has to pass notability for both sports, just 1. You can't say he fails sport A so delete it. In order to delete it, he would have to fail sport A, fail sport B, and fail all other notabilities as well. So the proper way to look at it is to look through notability and look for a reason to keep the article. If you evaluate all of them and can't find one, then it should be deleted. Willdawg111 (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's true. A guideline should not be played against another. And for those sports with no specific guideline, we need to evaluate with WP:GNG and the basic criteria of WP:NSPORTS. Poison Whiskey 14:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence why you've seem some non-notable MMA fighters kept, because they're non MMA activities warrant inclusion. Ravensfire (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. Take Levan Razmadze for example: some editors say delete because he fails WP:NMMA, but he passes WP:WPMA/N and possibly WP:NOLYMPICS. Very irritating, especially when all some editors give is a two-word reason for deletion, like "Fails X." Luchuslu (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Or "Passes X" without explaining why. Ravensfire (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware it was jump up and down on a WP:SOAPBOX day. Is it my turn? "Just because you think something should be, does not make it so." For every time we have to put out these brushfire proposals that would significantly deviate from the larger consensus in many other articles, it takes away from solving the real issues (of which I notice the Events RFC has started to wither on the vine). So please stop proposing ideas that are not likely to be accepted by the community at large. Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No WP:SOAPBOX, just politely expressing our opinions on an issue. Luchuslu (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again, trying to link a guideline that doesn't even apply. WP:SOAPBOX has nothing to do with this discussion. Also, this isn't an opinion. Saying that a person only has to pass 1 notability ISN'T an opinion, its a FACT. You may not like it, but you need to learn to deal with it. It's not a proposal, it's pointing out policy. How about not being so disruptive. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Folks ... be nice. Here's the problem - it's not always easy for editors to know the notability requirements for everything. It's not easy to be able to find the appropriate notability guidelines for many projects. There's a reason why AFD is a discussion that takes at least 7 days. It gives other editors and other projects time to notice and comment. It's not up to each editor to review their comments on every AFD as other people comment. It's up to the closing admin to review the policy based arguements and make the call. I would hope that if they see an article that covers multiple areas and passes notability on one area that they're going to tend to keep the article. The expectation that editors can somehow be familiar with everything everywhere is ludicrous. On the AFD in question, I don't know if being an alternate meets WP:OLYMPICS. The information added by Luchuslu after the AFD is undoubtably helpful towards keeping the article. Look at the version before the AFD. It's purely MMA stuff. That's the only notability made about the person at that point. Ravensfire (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" No reason to have a wiki-fight over this. Luchuslu (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I'm saying No early is because the last time nobody really commented on a propoasl, the proposer took it to be an endorsement of their position and then went on a spree of editing articles to be in line with their proposal and it took administrators to stop them from implementing the change against the objections of other editors. Change is natural and organic. Change is not a minority claiming something and then running forward with it. Hasteur (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't a PROPOSAL, so your comments and accusations have nothing to do with what is being discussed and are disruptive.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I did say I was gone. But I can't help but put some input. I'd like to say that the problem is not with WP:NMMA it is the fact that the guideline links to MMATIER. Then people start coming up with crazy theories like "well He fought in Shooto Brazil" and Shooto is top tier... MMAtier needs to go. That is the reason you see these non-notable fighters staying. It is also the reason notable fighters like Jamie Yager, Antonio Mckee, and Mike Ricci are having the problems at their afd pages. The worst part is that it is an essay. It is one thing if someone says I don't think Shooto, or KOTC is notable based on whatever opinion/refs that are available. It is completely different to say Shooto, or anything else is top tier because of WP:NMMA and MMATIER. While people don't always reference MMATIER it has definitely poisoned the well around here

• Edit: I forgot to mention that the "3 top tier fights" needs to go too, and just the top title belt stays. That, or a more vague line is introduced in place of the 3 fight rule saying something like "Multiple significant fights" PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with afd for those articles you mentioned is that there are a few editors who only think the guidelines apply when it backs up their point of view. When it doesn't, they try to tell people to ignore it or say that isn't what was meant when it was written. The admins should take the time to really look at the article, look at the guidelines and what people write and only take into consideration legitimate reasonings, but that isn't happening so no matter if an article is notable or not, its a coin toss whether or not it will be deleted. Ever wonder why some people are so quick to re-nominate articles that had just been closed out as a keep, its because they know, the coin flip may go in their favor.Willdawg111 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Go there and propose a change. Just saying that it needs to be discarded because "it's horrible", "i think it's wrong" or "i don't like it" won't work. Start a section on the essay's talk page, bring your arguments and your criteria and if consensus emerges, the changes will surely be made. Poison Whiskey 20:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

response is exactly what i am talking about. Common sense would say that I would start here to try to get changes made. Except when i have done that in the past (and present, as whiskeys response shows) no one wants to play ball, or hold the mits for me ;) PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Changes won't be made because of the way wiki is set up, you can get a consensus in a discussion, and as soon as somebody goes and actually tries to change it, somebody who disagreed with the consensus will come in and keep undoing the changes and create an editing war over it, and it never really gets changed. Unless we can get all of the editors to compromise and work together, nothing will be fixed. It will continue to be battle after battle, and the way things look now, we have a few editors who have no interest in compromise and it has to be their way. Until we can get these cyber bullies out of the project, we won't be able to move forward. Willdawg111 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My bad - there's your WP:SOAPBOX. Please though - stop with the name-calling. Belittling anyone who disagrees with you is a really, really bad to encourage them to work with you. Ravensfire (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Its crystal clear that there are some editors who want to either delete or merge UFC/MMA articles. Hence the constant 'routine coverage' argument that is used for just about every article. Portillo (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NMMA for Female fighters

Invicta FC is already a top-tier promotion per WP:MMATIER. Poison Whiskey 23:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Request for Update - WP:MMATIER states that for women's MMA, "Active organizations with at least three fighters ranked in the top 5 (regardless of weight class) were placed in the top tier. Organizations with two fighters ranked in the top 5 were placed in the second tier." According to the Unified Women's MMA Rankings updated on Jan. 1, Bellator now has three fighters in the top five: Jessica Eye, Jessica Aguilar and Megumi Fujii. My request is to move Bellator to Top Tier status, as well as move Strikeforce to Defunct, as the final fight card for the organization will be held on Jan. 12. FYI this doesn't fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL because the organization has announced the card as such. Luchuslu (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that Fujii's last fight wasn't for Bellator and that's what the criteria is based on--where they're fighting now, not where they used to fight. That's why Invicta zoomed from nowhere to top tier--they got many top fighters to fight for them. Papaursa (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

doesn't that go against the whole notability not being temporary thing? It's like when Fedor KO'd Arlovski, Arlovski was #2. WHen Fedor beat Sylvia, Sylvia was #4. But if you look back at those affliction fights people will look at what they have done lately and say they were garbage then because they are garbage now. That is a flawed way of thinking, and unfair to boot. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Vale Tudo Japan is an event held every few years with fighters from multiple different organizations, including Dream, Shooto, Tachi Palace, Jewels and Zst. Doesn't apply in this case. Luchuslu (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

If she's still under contract with Bellator then she is a Bellator fighter whether her last fight was for them or not is inconsequential.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Please remember that Bellator and Invicta aren't using exclusive contracts. I'm pretty sure she is still under contract with Bellator also so she is fighting for both organizations the same way that Michelle Waterson just signed on with WSOF but is supposed to still be fighting for the title at Invicta FC 5. Willdawg111 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

When deciding which organization each fighter is with, I chose the ones where the fighter has a bio on the official organization website. Fujii's Bellator bio is here. Waterson has a bio on both Invicta and WSOF, so she could be considered with either. Luchuslu (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

She's only fought for Bellator once in the past 2+ years. Hard to claim that she's fighting for Bellator. Papaursa (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read what I just posted. The only organization with a Megumi Fujii bio is Bellator. Not Dream, not Jewels. And Sengoku is defunct. VTJ isn't an organization. Luchuslu (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't, because I was composing my comment when your response was posted. Papaursa (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Request for Update Bellator is picking up the top 125 lb female fighters in attempt to crown a 125lb champion. Bellator is only doing female fights with the top fighters, so would definitely consider Bellator top tier for women's MMA. Willdawg111 (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

As soon as those top fighters fight for Bellator, I have no problem with moving Bellator up. Right now claiming they'll have the top fighters is WP:CRYSTALBALL until they actually fight. Papaursa (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL applies for "unvirified speculation." She has an active bio on Bellator's website. That should be enough verification. Luchuslu (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

To stretch a point--any organization could paste a bio on their site, that doesn't mean they're connected. I could post Presdient Obama's bio on my club's website, but it wouldn't prove he's a member. Having said that, I don't really care whether or not Bellator is considered top tier--I just want to keep the recently agreed to standards intact. Papaursa (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand, I just feel this is a special curcumstance considering the VTJ fight. After a week or so for people to comment I'll ask for a Request for Closure and see what the verdict is after plenty of people have had a cance to voice their opinions. Luchuslu (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Special circumstances shouldn't even come into it. It is common practice for MMA organizations to keep a reasonably up to date list of fighters who are currently under contract with them on their websites. Using this information to make a baseline determination as to whether a fighter is or isn't under contract is perfectly acceptable. Yes technically "Anyone could put a bio on their website." But technically MMA organizations don't so you are giving an example of a problem that does not in fact exist. It is entirely reasonable to say that Megumi Fujii is a Bellator fighter if they have her listed on their website as one of their fighters. I would say it is much more a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume that at some point in the future MMA organizations are going to start lying about the fighters they have under contract.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

They are. Jessica 'Evil' Eye just fought Zoila Gurgel. Some of them were in last years 115 lb tournament that was won by Zoila, but are moving up to 125. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No dispute about Jessice Eye, but Gurgel is not a top 5 fighter. Papaursa (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gurgel is No. 7 among flyweights. Was top five before getting subbed by Eye. Luchuslu (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Gurgel is also the straweight Bellator Champion. Willdawg111 (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Add one more - Michelle Ould is the No. 5 ranked flyweight and fights or Bellator. Must have missed her the first go-round. That makes four top-five fighters. Luchuslu (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
• I moved Bellator to the top tier for women's organizations. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That's only fair, seeing as how its top tier for the men and Bellator is even more top tier for the women than it is for the men. Willdawg111 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a reasonable guy--I just need facts, not opinions or comments telling me I'm ignorant about the topic because I disagree with someone. Papaursa (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mochael Corey

Michael Corey is being marked for speedy deletion. he has also fought 3 times in Bellator. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• You can see a full list on my talk page actually. Guys articles i just created. WP:NMMA PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize what are you doing? WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Poison Whiskey 13:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Question I took the time to go back and read through WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I don't see how anything in that applies to his comment. Why do you insist on going around linking guidelines that don't even apply to discussions. You do it all the time, and it getting disruptive. I suggest you start reading those links before you post them. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It is because User:PortlandOregon97217 is openly opposed to WP:NMMA. I think he tried to show why the guideline is wrong by creating articles with only a single sentence and few sources. Poison Whiskey 16:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You could say I am opposed to only a portion of it. But unlike some people I am able to accept different views for the sake of progress. Openly opposed; what drivel. What rhetoric. God forbid I oppose a GUIDELINE with a trash essay attached. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What happened to assuming good faith? Which is an important thing here at Wikipedia. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an easy fix. Anybody is allowed to contest a speedy deletion by removing it. In which case they would have to put it up for a afd discussion if they insist on deleting it. The article will still need to be worked on and completed if its going to be kept but it gives somebody time to do it. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a few minutes to copy a record table to his article and put in his last 3 Bellator fights. That should be sufficient to hold off a deletion for now, but it will need to be finished. I referenced his record to make it easier. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Would not be better to make these changes (in the sandbox, for example) before submitting the article? articles must establish the context and notability of the subject. Poison Whiskey 16:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, this template can help you if you're really willing to expand these articles: Template:In use. Poison Whiskey 16:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Article already created: I didn't create the article. He pointed out that is was being speedy deleted, so I helped him get the article started. That's the type of stuff that productive members do. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the WP:NMMA criteria do not warrant inclusion. Articles with no context may fall under the A1 criterion of WP:CSD. Poison Whiskey 16:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't I just point out to you that you need to read the links that you are posting. What was up there before we started this conversation may have fell under WP:CSD BUT it DOESN'T NOW!!! There is information in the article and his notability is clearly established in the content. Quit being disruptive by making failed arguments with references that don't apply. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Two of his recent articles were already deleted per WP:CSD. You better be quick about it then. Poison Whiskey 16:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Since I actually read those guidelines, I understand that you can't speedy delete the article if somebody contests it. I've already removed the speedy delete tag, as I am allowed to do, and therefore it would have to go through a full afd. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't WP:NMMA, which this fighter clearly pases. It's that this isn't a completed article. Just like Keith Berry isn't a full article. If you're making a new article but haven't finished it, save it on Notepad (a program on every PC) or in your Sandbox, where unfinished projects are supposed to go. As they sit, they both quality for speedy deletion. Also, I don't see anything stating that one opposing vote means it doesn't quality, just that there has to be "broad consensus." But for the record, I disagree that either Willdawg111 or PortlandOregon97217 are violating WP:POINT, just trying to add pages for fighters that pas WP:NMMA, but doing so the wrong way. Luchuslu (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A clarification would be good: why he created a half-dozen of articles relying solely on WP:NMMA (a guideline that he explicitly disagrees)? he also claims to be good at using search engines and to have a considerable MMA knowledge. With these skills he could certainly create much better articles. Poison Whiskey 22:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My coding skills are lacking, and I don't have the patience to improve them albeit incidentally. Anyway, those are all notable fighters. Oh, and keep an eye out for them in the future because they will be back with maybe another 2 sentences and refs apiece. Even though Wikipedia claims not to be a bureaucraty it is draconian and spiteful. regards PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We have a template which has most of the HTML coding you'll need. If you're not willing to create a full article, please leave that job to another editor. Just add their names to the List of fighters that need full articles. Luchuslu (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I will make a consorted effort as far as the refs go. I'll dig deep I promise , but the tables are up to you guys. I'll just keep a tally on my userspace or something PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds fair enough. I'll keep an eye out for them and add the table information. Luchuslu (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please exercise caution when going around and declaring that a specific article needs to be created for a fighter. An article already existed for the subject that started this entire thread, Mike Corey. Now that we've spun our wheels and expended effort to create/nominate for deletion/speedy the duplicate, I ask that people please be careful. It was only when annother user added a "Not to be confused with" that I made the connection to the other article. I read the essential statistics to verify that the subjects were one in the same (Birth, fight record, events, who fought in the event, etc.) to figure out that it was the same person. Hasteur (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ronald Jhun

Someone may want to look at Ronald Jhun. His list of fights didn't agree with the source. I think I fixed it, but I wasn't sure what to do with amateur vs professional fights. Thanks. Jujutacular (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it. Luchuslu (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned up his page a bit, but I'll add it to the list of fighters that need full articles. It still has just one source. Also, the only place I saw his fights listed as amateur was on Mixedmartialarts.com, most every other site had them as professional. That's the shame about MMA bio pages: they don't communicate with each other to make sure their information is accurate. Luchuslu (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Jujutacular (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mixedmartialarts.com is the most accurate since it syncs up with the ABC. For example; Sherdog has Fight against Guy mezger and whoever else at that early UFC as a pro, yet he really fought as an amatuer. If he was really a pro when that happened then his JUCO record would have to be erased, along with his championships. That is why the fights are on Sherdog, and not mixedmartialarts.com. Sherdog is really foolish IMO for this. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And you've made your opinion heard on several occasions. The whole practice of record-keeping in MMA is substandard as compared to other sports, with one site saying one thing while others say something completely different. But Sherdog has consistently been seen by most editors as a reliable source for fight results. Also I'd like to point out that Jhun's page on mixedmartialarts.com has his record at 22-22-2 on the top of the page, while it says 26-12-2 at the bottom of the page. It's also missing information, namely the times the fight stopped, on several fights which Sherdog has the information. Luchuslu (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Pro and amateur MMA distinction barely exist now, much less in the past. Mainly amateur MMA's a scam for disreputable promoters to avoid compensating fighters or to force them to sell tickets to events to get payed. Also some fighters will go back and forth between pro & amateur bouts. Until there is a some what universal set of rules for amateur MMA the whole things more of a farce than anything. As for the commission results, Sherdog gets the same info Mixedmartialarts.com does. Maybe the International Mixed Martial Arts Federation will finally get ammy MMA sorted, there's also FILA but they haven't gotten to much accomplished on that front.--Phospheros (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't echo that second sentence loud enough(or to avoid commission oversight); for multiple reasons.

If you do one of those archive checks on Titos sherdog page you will see those early fights of his didn;t show up. That is a more recent thing. I think it is the right thing to do, because if the people who make this list wanted I'm sure they could make a big stink about it. Oh, I found some stuff about The Machine Gun. He should be good to go for the moment. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Mixed martial arts competition for children

Just pointing out this orphaned article, which is in need of more citations.--Phospheros (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's illegal for anybody under 18 to compete in MMA competition in most states. Typically, under 18 they just compete in either grappling or traditional striking arts. It's way to controversial of a topic, and my suggestion is to just delete it and not mess with the topic. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Why delete? Only because it is illegal? It is notable. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article. Unless you're Joe Stevenson fighting on the rez at age 17. I have an early KOTC or Gladiator challenge disc with him on it when was 17. Other than him though I can't think of anyone notable off top who fought as a teenager. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Stefan Struve started his professional MMA career when he was 17. Poison Whiskey 13:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds unlikely we'd ever have any fighters from this but I think the concept itself it notable, if only for some of the controversy around it that has garnered some attention from secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can find good, reliable sources to put together something that looks like an article. I really think you are going to end up with a lot of original research and not a lot of information for an article. Let's be honest, since it's illegal, its not going to be in the headlines, what is going on is going on underground in secret. It's illegal and controversial so I'm not going to be contributing to it, but if you can find enough information backed by reliable source to warrant an article, go for it. I'm not going to help you with it but I'm not going to try to stand in your way either. Good Luck!!Willdawg111 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the subject is notable enough for its own article. It could probably be merged into Mixed martial arts as a section there. In all likely-hood there should be a subsection on criticisms. As for sourcing, a quick Google search finds NBC Sports, Esquire, and ABC News which already provides more mainstream and diverse sources that most MMA articles on Wikipedia, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

mtking

Hatting section from sock-puppet as per WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Good news looks like he has gone, hopefully he will leave the project in peace and things can go back to normal, i think we owe a big thank you to Beansy and the admin ErrantX. Time for a RfC to reverse his flag ban and one to clear up the ombinbus question. Mmajim (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC) The RfC was good. Also there is a bigger discussion at WP:MOSICONS. Mtking wasn't the only deletionist. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC) You seem to be another sock of JBJ. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I am not a sock of JBJ and ask you to WP:AGF more than mtking did. Mmajim (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Odd how a "new" user can quote like that. Odder still that someone saying AGF starts a thread to grave-dance. So, what was your prior account, hmm? Ravensfire (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC) If you think I am a sock of anyone then go open a SPI, but since I am not a JBJ or anyone it will come up as no match. no gave-danceing just glad to see that he has finaly gone, he won't be missed here or at the boards. Mmajim (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

MMABot v3: The Events

As is my usual practice, I want to let everyone know that I will begin working on a new version of MMABot, this time focused on event articles. The main purpose of this version of MMABot will be to attempt to restructure events using the new table format that has been decided on (see discussion above). On MMABot's talk page I have started a section on this proposed version including a list of possible tasks. Constructive opinions and suggestions are welcome there. I am not going to guarantee that I will be able to accomplish all of these tasks (some may prove to be an incredibly difficult task to accomplish correctly), but it's a proposal for what I can try to work on.

For those unfamiliar with the bot process (or how I choose to run it), I first post this initial announcement of working on a new version. This allows people a chance to offer their input early on. While I am developing and testing this new version of the bot, it will operate only in its own sandbox. Once I have the tasks developed or almost done, I'll start a new section on this task page. That will serve as a reminder of what I've been doing and to allow any last minute requests or outcries. Based on that response and any needed changes, I'll then go to WP:BRFA to have MMABot's tasks approved to work in mainspace. If/When that approval comes, I sometimes make a final announcement here that MMABot is editing live articles. Then MMABot starts running and I spend a lot of time watching its edits and fixing any mistakes.

Questions or concerns about v3 of MMABot (or any of MMABot's activities) should be raised over on its talk page. Thank you. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete it My vote is for you to not to use a bot to edit the articles in the project. I don't like the idea of you programming something to automatically go through and edit the article. Anybody else think that with all the controversy going on right now and this editors refusing to compromise and work with other editors that its a bad idea to allow him to be the one programming something to edit all the article in the project. I vote NO. I also suggest you don't actually use a bot unless WE as a project give you the go ahead. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• You do realize that a bot has a significantly lesser chance to screw up edits right. Get beyond the operator/programmer of the bot Willdawg and see what benefits having a standardized look/feel to the MMA articles brings. One might say that your only objection is that it's TreyGeek. If the proposal had been written by PortlandOregon would you have agreed? Hasteur (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't like the idea of 1 person programming something that will go through and edit every article in project. I strongly object to somebody who has stirred up so much controversy and refuses to compromose being the one to do it. Willdawg111 (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately is not you that approve this, but people of WP:BAG. The bot will be very useful in the standardization of tables that would require a degrading amount of work by humans. Poison Whiskey 15:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you objecting to what the bot is slated to do, or do you just have an irrational fear of bots? TreyGeek is giving us ample time to discuss exactly what actions the bot will be carrying out, and they look pretty harmless to me-- mundane, repetitive stuff on a large scale which is exactly what a bot should be doing. --SubSeven (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Support the new task for MMAbot. Having a consistent format for event results is a Good Thing(tm). Having a bot update the results for as many articles as possible is an Even More Good Thing(tm). Given the wide disparity of existing result formats, if the bot isn't sure what to do, will it create an exception page and list the events it can't handle there? The new format is pretty simple so I'm hopeful that the bot will be able to parse what's there in most cases. Ravensfire (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The plan will be that any article that MMABot encounters that it cannot convert to the new format, I'll print out a message in the console it runs in as a notice to me. I can then edit those articles myself or copy the list to a page someplace for others to go through. That process is largely unplanned as I need to figure out what I can and can't convert programmatically first. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the number of articles, it might make sense to create some kind of a page under the MMA project where the bot can request manual intervention for an article with what it was trying to do and why it failed. If someone takes it, they can remove it from the list when they are done. That way you don't end up being the only one dealing with the manual problems. Ravensfire (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We can work out the details of this part as we get closer to the bot going live. There are a number of issues to consider and it's a bit early for me to be worrying about this part just yet. I'll put it on the task list and bring it up again later. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No Compromise, no bot Until the project can come up with a compromose that is satisfactory for everybody, then nobody has any business creating a bot to edit all the articles. Willdawg111 (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Stonewalling gets you nowhere. If the community agrees and BAG give MMAbot's new task the thumbs-up, then it will happen. Ishdarian 18:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring a consensus you don't like is not a good thing, Willdawg. Ravensfire (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race, so I add no vote, however, Willdawg111 it is bad form to vote twice in the same discussion. I very strongly suggest that you strike the bold part of one of your comments, lest you be accused of trying to game the system. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Support the new task. This is going to operate across ALL aspects of MMA, not just UFC, correct? Ishdarian 18:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. The bot will attempt to edit any event article that includes the Category:Years in mixed martial arts and its subcategories. If an event article doesn't have a 'year in' category (such as '2013 in mixed martial arts'), the bot won't know the article exists. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Group split At this point there is no agreement and definitely a huge split in the group as to formats and guidelines. Until a compromise and agreement is reached among the active editors, it is inappropriate for anybody to try to use a bot to circumvent the view point of other editors. Trey Geek is deleting the viewpoints of people who don't agree with him, claiming its his talk page. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on, seriously? Read the close note here. I don't see anything about that changing other than you don't like the format. Ravensfire (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That is just the format portion, and if you look at the comments "Minor tweak suggestions notwithstanding, that is the consensus." There are minor tweeks that have not been agreed upon at this point, the same ones that sent TreyGreek running to an admin to try to get them to make me agree to his viewpoint. If we are talking about using the bot just for table formats, I don't care about the major table layout with the blue outlines. There are a few minor tweeks that I want implemented, and if you are willing to compromise then I will drop my objection. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, if you'd actually said something about that and started a discussion about those minor tweaks a tremendous amount of drama might have been spared. You didn't. Instead, you started a drama-fest that absolutely wasn't needed. That's utter crap. You want to bring those "minor tweaks" into the open and talk about them, please do so. Understand you've cost yourself goodwill from other editors by your actions though. Ultimately, if I think the one or more of the tweaks are helpful I'd support them. If I don't think they are helpful, I won't. End of story. Start a new discussion and stop hijacking this one. Ravensfire (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support — the new task for MMAbot. About the flags' issue, i would like to say that someone suggested the ISO country codes as an alternative to the flags (it's being applied on the List of current UFC fighters). I don't know if this suggestion applies to the results' tables, but there's an ongoing thread on ANI about it. Poison Whiskey 20:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - By its very definition, a compromise won't be satisfactory for everyone. If the consensus is for one format, then we should implement that format. Luchuslu (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support new task. --LlamaAl (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I endorse my support for a bot to edit for the purpose of bringing into line the MMA event tables as defined by the community's consensus. I also endorse the suggestion that any page the bot cannot automatically convert be enumerated at a "Log" page for manual intervention/conversion by a community member to be in line with the consensus. I endorse the bot removing flags from event breakdowns (per the consensus both here and at WP:MOSFLAG) and on individual fighter's records. I endorse the bot not removing flags from the fighter's infobox when the flag is used to represent the fighter's nationality as positively confirmed by a reliable source (or even better by the fighter themselves in a BLP-RS). I endorse the removal of said flags/ISO codes when it is not backed up by a RS per WP:BLP Hasteur (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The last few parts (about needing a reliable source) is really problematic for a bot, I would think. What's a RS? What if the lead has "Fighter X is Nationality Y <source>" but not by the infobox? For the fighter pages, I think it's best for the bot to leave them alone. For the results, I think there's a discussion sorely needed on this page that's been taking place on ANI about the ISO codes. Ravensfire (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I support v3 of the bot, on flags I think ISO country codes are a good compromise.--Phospheros (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

To address flags... currently when MMABot edits fighter articles (v1 & v2 of MMABot) all flag icons are removed from the infobox as per WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Removing flags or removing ISO codes or replacing flags with ISO codes on fighter articles will have to wait for another version of MMABot. As for removing flag icons from event article tables, as I mentioned on the bot's talk page, I'll likely program the bot so I can be flexible later in terms or leaving them or removing them. Its final behavior is still up in the air (I'll wait and watch the various discussions) and that'll get specified as we get closer to the bot going live. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

World MMA Awards

I was wondering if other editors consider the "World MMA Awards" sufficiently notable to have a wiki page? The awards show is now in its fifth year, having aired in the U.S. on Versus, Fox Sports, & Fuel TV.--Phospheros (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It passes WP:GNG. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've begun writing a wiki page for it in my sandbox.--Phospheros (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Article created:World MMA Awards.--Phospheros (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well  Done! --LlamaAl (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

List of fighters that need full articles

I noticed there hasn't been much activity on the List of fighters that need full articles page for quite a while. If any editors have any spare time, take a look at the list and add any names of fighters whose articles are stub or start class and meet WP:NMMA, or at least WP:GNG. And if you have a lot of spare time, pick a fighter and work on their page for a little while. Find some reliable, secondary sources that help establish notability and lets work to improve the quality of the articles. Think of it as a fun break from debating AfDs. Luchuslu (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be a huge list, there are a lot of fighters that passes WP:NMMA and don't have an article yet. I'll help adding some names later. Poison Whiskey 19:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

My concern is, if we take the time to write the articles that meet WP:NMMA, will everybody accept the guidelines and leave them alone? We have articles being deleted now that pass WP:NMMA. I worked on an article that was on the list of promotions that needed to be done and it didn't stop a couple people from trying hard to get it deleted. I have no problem helping to get these articles done as I have already done a couple of them, but at this point until everybody can come to an agreement or at minimum accepts the current WP:NMMA as it is writen, I really don't see the point of taking the time and effort to work on them. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

All these lists (fighter, promotions, fight teams...) are only suggestions, i think it's supposed to be discussed. Being on the list does not warrant inclusion. Poison Whiskey 12:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We have fighters being deleted that pass WP:GNG, not WP:NMMA in its current form, which requires three professional fights in "top tier" organizations. Unless I'm wrong, which is more than possible. The only exception I've seen are fighters on TUF whose fights in the house are sactioned fights one could argue do or do not count as official UFC fights. Glad to see people are willing to help though. Luchuslu (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

But the arguments against counting TUF fights fails because they are professional fights and they are put on by the UFC. The rest of it is just a BS smoke screen by people who don't want to count them to try to avoid the facts. Willdawg111 (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am working on a criteria for these lists (to avoid the creation of non-notable articles). Should be ready sometime in the next week, i'll show you soon. Poison Whiskey 22:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

We already have criteria and we already know who is notable and who isn't, thanks anyway. As I get a chance, I'm working on adding fighters to the list, fighters that I have pulled up their records and verified that they meet WP:NMMA. I'm not going to touch the other notability requirements for now. Willdawg111 (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I added a preview of what i was thinking for the list (edit: for the section "List of notable fighters with no article at all") on my sandbox. What do you think? Poison Whiskey 19:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• here is a list of all notable fighters, as per the current standards. as stated above, this is only a list of fighters who are notable for being fighter, clearly there are other people much deserving of articles that do not meet WP:NMMA, think Herschel Walker. that list developed as a spreadsheet, if anyone wants a copy please let me know. i didn't "wikify" it other than putting it in table format, i think it took me about 2 weeks to put together, just changing the raw text names to linked names would probably take that long by itself. figured someone else may have a faster method, if it's even needed. if it's something that should be moved to WP:MMA space feel free, otherwise feel free to edit it. Kevlar (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I was preparing a list of fighters, but nothing compared to this. This is certainly very useful. What do you think about the tables on my sandbox? Poison Whiskey 15:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

i like that a lot actually. i think it goes a step past my flat list in helping people to see what articles will be need more attention in the creation process. i'm going to brainstorm on how to get my list to only fighters that need articles, then it will be more manageable and a system like yours could take over from there. Kevlar (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you allow, i can pass the names to my list later. The problem indeed is that it has many fighters who already have articles. But i can handle this, it will just take a lot of time (edit: thank you for your input, you have done a great job around here lately. I will also wait for the opinion of the others). Poison Whiskey 16:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the list of fighters into my sandbox and am labeling each as no article, needs a full article or has a full article in a similar way to the color scheme suggested for the List of fighters that need full articles. If anyone wants to help out (there's well over a thousand fighters) I would greatly appreciate it. Luchuslu (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I can help you checking from the bottom to top. You also need to be careful because some names are misspelled (e.g.: Genair Da Silva, Germaine De Randamie → Genair da Silva, Germaine de Randamie) and others lead to disambiguation pages (e.g.: Matt Brown → Matt Brown (fighter)). Poison Whiskey 13:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

UFC 145

Just an FYI, UFC 145 is extremely detailed, however the detail (in fact any description) stops two fights into the main card.--Phospheros (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I will finish it after the GA review for UFC 148 is closed. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 8

Please see my close of "Event Notability" in the archives. Good luck with the next one. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Outside perception of WP:MMA

So in my short time of activity in WP:MMA there have been 3 overall "issues" that seem to keep cropping up. in my opinion we are at a point where 2 of the 3 are being addressed, and the third will depend on how we react to the first two.

• Omnibus Articles: I think there are a number of users that are still worried that omnibus articles may get unmanageable. That being said, there seems to be a genuine effort to make them work. 2012 in UFC looks good, and upcoming UFC events are already being placed in 2013 in UFC instead of their own articles.
• Flags: The debate on flags although still heated at times seems to be doing some good. That debate is ongoing Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#RfC_on_MOS:FLAG. Even before consensus has been reached, Beansy and Thaddeus Venture have begun looking at alternatives with the List of current UFC fighters. In my opinion more of this will go a long way to show that the WP:MMA community are able to compromise.
• overall stubbornness: I think we feel like there are a few self appointed sheriffs that do not contribute to MMA articles, and have also not joined WP:MMA who may not like MMA and just want to cause problems for us. Even if this is true i think we should do our best to work with them, and see if there are grains of truth to their overall messages. the sooner we stop using the word "deletionist" the better. If you read through the miles of text on the flag debate, there are some administrators that share our views that flags can be used in MMA articles. Let's not scare them away by being rude.

I guess i feel like we might be on the verge of a fresh start, i'm wondering if other editors agree with me. If so, are there people who have ideas on how we can improve the outside perception of WP:MMA?Kevlar (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Luck The biggest problem is that there are a few editors with good computer skills that thinks it gives them the right to throw their weight around and gives them a right to control the project and bully people around. I have to take a break. We have some great stuff about to happen at our gym but it is going to mean extra work for me to do, so I am going to be taking a break. There are some good editors in this project that want to work together and build a strong project. Don't let the bad apples spoil the project, hold it together. Good Luck.Willdawg111 (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Kevlar, you know WP:MMAtier is a jok,e and doesn't adequately address how a fighter is treated when they have fought on Showtime/CBS/NBC. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• i had nothing to do with creating WP:MMAtier, i just put it in table format and made the shortcut. i'm all for anything that will make MMA articles better on wikipedia. The positive momentum we have could lead to a lot of really good things. maybe we need to come up with a way to prioritize what we want to change? Kevlar (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• About the omnibus articles — IMO 2012 in UFC is too long (seems like 2013 in UFC will be even bigger). What do you think about splitting it into more articles like: "UFC on FX (2012)", "UFC on Fuel TV (2012)", "UFC on Fox (2012)", etc. or something similar? Poison Whiskey 01:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Originally (during the early summer) it was planned for the UFC articles to be split out by broadcast format (2012 in UFC on Fuel TV, 2012 in UFC on FX, 2012 in UFC on Fox, 2012 in UFC). However, there was too much backlash against the omnibus format to actually implement it. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I would Support that proposal being brought up for a vote in a new section. Most editors now understand that without an omnibus, most MMA events will end up deleted. A broken up version of the yearly omnibus would probably be met with support. Luchuslu (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
      • If you got really crazy, have a 2013 in UFC that's a brief overview of the year then a list of events with just date, event name and any significant notes (title bouts mainly). The name would be (obviously) a link to the article. That's the "glue" article to make it easy for readers to find events. The the 2013 in UFC PPV events, 2013 in UFC on Fox and 2013 in UFC on FX. I'd put TUF in the 2013 in UFC article as well with their own section (brief summary with main link to each series, of course). Ravensfire (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think creating articles for each genre of UFC event is not a good idea. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most events are broadcast partially on FX anyway. There will always be some events that will not fit into either category. There's a few TUF finale events every year. Where would they go? UFC's naming is not consistent. UFC calls the 8th Fuel TV event "UFC: Japan 2013". Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of half-yearly or quarterly articles? don't you think that the list is too long? Poison Whiskey 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That'd work. Personally I don't think it's too long right now, not for reading. It's easy to edit individual events just by click 'Edit' to the right of its title. Saving seems a little slower though. But it's nice to see the "continuity" between events in the omnibus. Sooner or later I guess it is going to be too long though. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was about half and half of PPVs to FX events (about 12-16 per year), but I'm just guess at the moment, I haven't looked. As for TUF events, TUF finales should be in that season's TUF article. Dividing it by broadcast is preferable to partial years, IMO. Also keep in mind, that the UFC omnibus is likely to be the only one with this issue. The other promotions and their omnibus articles will be much more managements (short of 2012 in mixed martial arts events including all promotion's events with results tables, which it shouldn't, again IMO). --TreyGeek (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If we follow Ravensfire's suggestion and restructure the omnibus into a table of events, results and infoboxes, it will look much more clear and usable. The current layout is too messy. Check out here how that would look. Evenfiel (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

TreyGeek's comment is dead on - the 900lb gorilla is the only real trouble-maker here. I haven't looked at Evenfiel's suggestion yet - hope to do so later today though. Ideally, the end result is a set of UFC articles that make it easy for anyone to find the information they are looking for and easy for editors to work with. Ravensfire (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Problems gone

Hatting a grave dancing section per WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mtking just retired. PortlandOregon was courtesy vanished and Willdawg is topic banned for three months. I hope we can move on and improve the reputation of this project. --LlamaAl (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC) *cough* Grave dancing is really frowned upon. Hasteur (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC) I've come to agree more and more with Mtking lately. It is a shame to see him leave the project. But I think there has been some progress in the last few months, with more constructive discussion and maybe consensus in certain areas, and I hope we can continue in this direction... Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC) This section is unnecessary. Here we are supposed to comment on the content, not on users. Poison Whiskey 13:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

More fighter articles that need work

Here's a few more fighters that could use more sourcing and/or prose.

• Kazuo Misaki - Pride Grand Prix Champion, has four sources, three from Sherdog. None newer than 2009
• Yoshihiro Nakao - Pride and Sengoku vet, has three sources including his Sherdog bio
• Makoto Takimoto - Judo gold metalist and Pride/Sengoku vet. One source
• Keita Nakamura - Sengoku champ, one source
• Sanae Kikuta - Pride/Sengoku vet, Abu Dhabi champ. No sources
• Hidehiko Yoshida - Judo gold metalist and Pride/Sengoku vet. Three sources, two about his retirement
• Hiroshi Izumi - Judo silver medalist, Sengoku/Dynamite vet. One source.

I'll work on Yoshida and Takimoto. Any help with the others would be greatly appreciated. Luchuslu (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Fighter articles that need more/better references

• So I've been sifting through the list of fighters that pass WP:NMMA to find some articles that need work. Just finished looking at the Bellator fighters and saw a few that we should try to improve. They're too good to be considered stubs, but could use more/better sources or more prose, especially about more recent fights.
  

Patricky Freire - One source
Daniel Straus - Two sources
Pat Curran - Four sources, but none newer than 2011
Rich Hale - Three sources, little prose
Alexandre Bezerra - Two sources
Ed West - Three sources, bare URLs
Luis Nogueira - One source: his Sherdog bio
Rene Nazare - Three sources, one from his personal website
Travis Wiuff - Two sources

• Also added Rudy Bears and Tim Carpenter to the List of notable fighters with only a stub article. I'll be working on Mark Holata for the time being. Again, thank you for any help you can provide. Luchuslu (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Pat Curran now has ten valid and diverse sources. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Travis Wiuff has six sources now from four different websites. I suppose it could still be expanded on but that's certainly an improvement. Beansy (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Letter to Jimbo Wales

WP:DENY someone trying to stir up trouble
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see my letter posted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#View_from_within_Zuffa. --ExUFCStaffer — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExUFCStaffer (talk • contribs) 23:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I see it, now how can I unsee it? --SubSeven (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I didn't know a "letter" could be two sentences. Wonder which banned used that was? Luchuslu (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Laughed at both of these responses. I was expecting some sort of manifesto. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed. Jimmy responded basically saying he doesn't even know what Zuffa is and has better things to do than find out. Chicken Wing (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC) This is just idiotic. I would remind folks that I'm pretty sure it's not just misguided or malicious MMA editors who are creating socks in this idiotic battle, it's people on the other side trying to sabotage them doing it too, and it's no less wrong or stupid when it happens. I wonder whose sock "ExUFCStaffer" is. Beansy (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Either way, it's someone trying to stir the pot. Best WP:DENY it. Ishdarian 13:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Beansy, any chance we could not make any assumptions about which side was responsible for this ill guided attempt to stir the drama pot? If anything I think looking at the preponderance of examples already on the books suggests that it's much more likely that it's someone from the Pro-MMA group. Hasteur (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC) ExUFCStaffer, if you aren't a sock of someone, better read the rules before sending your "letters". Poison Whiskey 13:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Best advise given here is just WP:DENY. Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Demian Maia vs Rick Story & Dong Hyun Kim

An editor on here is consistently reverting my edits back to incorrect information. I have sourced the edits properly and his reasoning is the official result was wrong so it should stay that way... Here Demian Maia states that his submission win over Rick Story was a rear naked choke: and here is a source stating that Dong Hyun Kim suffered a muscle spasm and not a rib injury: . The editor has stated he is aware that it wasn't a rib injury but continues to revert back to the incorrect information. Can someone help me with this? He refuses to talk about the issue and instead accuses me of edit warring when he's the one not sourcing or explaining anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.148.165 (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, according to the WP:Verifiability policy: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." This project uses Sherdog as the main source for the fighters' records, but there may be exceptions with consensus. IMO the interview with Maia is good enough, but i suggest you to find another source for Kim's muscle spasm. Also, take a look at the WP:Edit warring policy. Be careful when reverting other users. Poison Whiskey 23:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

mixedmartialarts.com published the result as rear-naked choke. Poison Whiskey 23:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. IP is wrong, as the articles have been protected and another IP adress doing the same edits has been blocked for edit warring. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

See what I mean? I'm trying to source my edits but this llama guy keeps saying this and not giving reason or listening. Youtube is a very reliable source, I don't see any reason to why it is not considered the most reliable source. There's no third party interpreting Maia's words and spewing them back to us all jumbled up, it's THEE direct source. Can someone change this for me because he will just undo my edit and claim I'm edit warring, even though I keep sourcing my edits. Also, here's several sources saying Dong Hyum Kim's loss was a muscle spasm: bloodyelbow fightersonlymag and mmafighting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.148.165 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is not, and never will be, a reliable source. Please read the reliable sources guideline as to what is and isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Ishdarian 13:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Youtube is generally not considered a reliable source (certainly one of the main reasons is that its primary function is to be a vlog). The video in question shows Ariel Helwani interviewing Demian Maia himself. Although this is a point of view of a fighter on a bout he won, Maia is a BJJ expert and has nothing to lose or gain with this opinion. If the problem is that Sherdog has not published it as the official result, we can use Mixedmartialarts.com to balance the scales. WP:IRS should be treated with common sense, Wikipedia rules aren't carved in stone. (Message directed to the IP now) However, edit warring is not the way to go. I suggest you to move this thread to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and this will be resolved quickly. Poison Whiskey 14:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop this battle. I have changed the result to muscle spasm. --LlamaAl (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

MMA Battlefield all over the place

I was recently contacted outside of Wikipedia specifically in regards to UFC event articles. While I seriously doubt that it's anybody who is actively contributing to reasonable and stable MMA articles, I want to bring it to the attention of the community so that supporters can see the level of harassment that some of us are putting up with. If the supporters wanted to make a difference they might consider engaging with the radical fringe of their group to explain how those types of messages/harassment do not enhance the perception of the MMA project. Hasteur (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also they call for the revealing of my personal information at an associated site. I say now, moderate elements, it's your job to reign in the fringe elements. Hasteur (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Been left, walked away from WP for a few months because of the crap I was getting and finally decided "Fuck 'em. If I do this, it just shows that crap tactics can work and is effective." Not gonna happen. For the folks that support some of the fanatics out there in any way - this is bullshit. Yeah, it's off WP but it pulls people into here and starts the crap all over again. Don't you DARE say it's just from one side. It's been coming from the fanatics for a long time. Ravensfire (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

With every heated argument, there will be a few people who take it way over the edge. Apparently this BJJBJMMA138 guy (who also appears to be the same person who runs the forum where he posted your twitter handle) just wants to pick a fight and harass someone he disagrees with. I'm not sure what we can do about this to be honest if he's not a Wiki editor.Luchuslu (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There isn't anything - call it more awareness than anything. It's also a pretty small site. i've seen similar posts on the largers sites in the past and you don't see folks there protesting. When anyone, from any side, posts something here or on an article talk page that's no constructive it should be hatted under WP:DENY. If it's a named account, give them an MMA warning and log it if they haven't already been warned. If they have and you think further notice is warranted, WP:AE. Ravensfire (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

201x in UFC format

I have reverted edits by User:Evenfiel to 2012 in UFC and 2013 in UFC - edits incorporating results tables from all events with separate articles. It is my opinion that this duplication of information does not improve the omnibus pages. It also makes it a hassle to update the information. Before a change of format is made we should discuss it here and reach a consensus. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I mainly applied Ravensfire suggestion, If you got really crazy, have a 2013 in UFC that's a brief overview of the year then a list of events with just date, event name and any significant notes (title bouts mainly). The name would be (obviously) a link to the article. That's the "glue" article to make it easy for readers to find events. If we are to have yearly UFC articles, then we should make them functional. By having the result tables and infoboxes from these events in the yearly articles, then we'll have an article with all the essential information about all UFC events of the year. If you want to read more about a specific event, you can just click on the event's article. At the moment, these yearly events are a huge mess. Just compare my versions with the current ones, UFC 2012 and UFC 2013. Evenfiel (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Better add a summary (e.g.: a text about the main and co-main events), just like in the Kevlar's proposal. The results can be found in the main articles. Poison Whiskey 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All you have to do is click on the event's article link to find the results table. By copying information from individual articles into the omnibus you give one more reason for deleting individual articles. The way I interpret Ravenfire's suggestion is a complete restructuring of the omnibus article as a table of events rather than text. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's the idea, to restructure the omnibus into a table of events, results and infoboxes. With that layout, the omnibus will have a clean and usable format. If you want to read more about a particular event, you can just click on the main article about said event. Evenfiel (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The omnibus is a place for events that would otherwise be deleted from wikipedia due to their lack of notability. You are trying to change it into some page with aggregated information. Please do not restore the infoboxes and fight cards in events with their own articles. osklil talk 08:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Please look two topics below this one. The discussion continued over there. Evenfiel (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

New results format

With the format discussion above finally closed, I started switching over the Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Eight page to match the consensus. Unfortunately, I ran into a problem when I tried to do Bellator 86 as it carried over the notes from Bellator 85 (despite me changing the notes in Bellator 86). How do I set up multiple notes function on the same page? Thanks in advance. Udar55 (talk) 16:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Udar55, it looks like the fix is pretty easy. Instead of using {{notelist}}, just use {{notelist|close}}. That will close out each notelist section so the next one will start fresh. I did a quick test using the version before your revision and the notelist looked good on the preview (edited the entire article). (Found that on the {{efn}} template documentation but I had remembered seeing it used before) Let me know if that doesn't work and I'll dig deeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravensfire (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks! Got it working perfectly and updated the entire page. Udar55 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You can also try another template. Poison Whiskey 17:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC) it's hard to explain, so i'll just give a base:

Event I

Main Card
Weight Class				Method	Round	Time	Notes
Lightweight	Fighter A (c)	vs.	Fighter B				Note 1
Lightweight	Fighter C	vs.	Fighter D
Preliminary Card
Middleweight	Fighter E	vs.	Fighter F				Note 2
Middleweight	Fighter G	vs.	Fighter H

^1 For the lightweight championship
^2 Middleweight tournament final

Event II

Main Card
Weight Class				Method	Round	Time	Notes
Heavyweight	Fighter I (c)	vs.	Fighter J				Note 1
Heavyweight	Fighter K	vs.	Fighter L
Preliminary Card
Welterweight	Fighter M	vs.	Fighter N				Note 2
Welterweight	Fighter O	vs.	Fighter P

^1 For the heavyweight championship
^2 Welterweight tournament final

Keep in mind there are two templates ({{MMAevent headers}} and {{MMAevent card}}) that can help create the headers without all the mess, and possible error, with doing it the long way. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's to late, but another thing: Would it be possible to create some kind of template for these tables? That way it will be easier to update all tables if we decide for a change in the future. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is some complete template, just not {{MMAevent card}}. (Where's the template for actual result rows?) It would be quite complex, something like this (click to expand):

{{Template:MMAEventCard
|c1title = Main Card

|c1b1wc = Heavyweight
|c1b1name1 = Junior dos Santos
|c1b1attr1 = (c)
|c1b1name2 = Frank Mir
|c1b1method = TKO (punches)
|c1b1round = 2
|c1b1time = 3:04
|c1b1notes = {{note|UFC 146|Note 1|This fight was for the [[UFC Heavyweight Championship]].}}

|c1b2wc = Heavyweight
|c1b2name1 = Cain Velasquez
|c1b2name2 = Antonio Silva
|c1b2method = TKO (punches)
|c1b2round = 1
|c1b2time = 3:36
...

|c2title = Preliminary Card on FX

|c2b1wc = Featherweight
|c2b1name1 = Darren Elkins
|c2b1name2 = Diego Brandao
|c2b1method = Decision (unanimous)
|c2b1score = 29–28, 29–28, 29–28
|c2b1round = 3
|c2b1time = 5:00
...

It would have to be limited to something like 3 cards and 10 bouts per card... Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It might be easier to have different templates rather than a single, massive template. So a header template then 1..many detail templates. Ravensfire (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Did a quick search and I think there's a template (or two) that can be used as headers. {{MMAevent}} is the top line defining the CSS style class, font size and width. {{MMAevent card}} would be used immediately after and serve as the header for each card. What we're missing is a MMAevent bout template with weight class, names and the other details. Got a compile running so give me 5-10 minutes and let me see what I can throw together in my namespace. Ravensfire (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh. After playing around with it for a while, an bout template isn't worth the effort to use (or develop). Now, the MMAevent and MMAevent card template are worthwhile. From what I can tell, those two templates match the adopted format. It may also make sense to have a footer template to close the table and add the notelist|close template, just for convenience. Ravensfire (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Once the results are in structured, table format it shouldn't be difficult for MMABot to be programmed to alter the results table in the future if need be. It does a decent job with the individual fighter history tables, though I do have monitor it for those cases in which it burps. It might even be possible for MMABot to convert the current textual results into a results table, I'm not sure. I haven't looked at it close enough yet to see how much variability there is in the text versions of the results. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

@Ravensfire, what was the issue? Wouldn't something like this work?

{{[[Template:MMAEventBout
|MMAEventBout
]]}}

@TreyGeek, wouldn't it be nice if both the bot and humans could update the templated tables? :) Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 14:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally, you use templates to consolidate formatting or reduce effort. With the event template setting the formatting, the bout is pure information and you're going to be typing more to use the template than just a single line. I did a quick and dirty bout template but in testing realized it was more work to use the template than just to type a single line. Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

New templates to help with format

Folks, I've been playing around some on a sandbox page with the how the existing templates work with the new layout and how easy they are to use. I've been talking a bit with Oskar, TeryGeek and Udar55 (thanks for the help!) about how things look and some ideas on new templates to make creating event results in that format easier. I ended up creating two new templates - one for each bout and one used at the end of the event results. Right now they're in my user space until it's determined that they work, give the right results and should be used. I did some minor tweaking for readability (adding 5 pixels of space to the right of the first 5 columns) - see my test page for an example of why I did this.

Here's an example of a result section using the templates

Using all templates (w/ tweaks) Event with notes Main event Weight Class Method Round Time Notes Heavyweight Junior dos Santos defeated Cain Velasquez(c) KO (punches) 1 1:04 Preliminary (Facebook) Light Heavyweight Aaron Rosa defeated Matt Lucas Majority decision (28-28, 30-26, 30-26) Welterweight Mike Pierce defeated Paul Bradley Split decision (29–28, 28–29, 30-27) Bantamweight Alex Caceres defeated Cole Escovedo Unanimous decision (30–27, 30–27, 30–27) Featherweight Mackens Semerzier vs Robbie Peralta no contest Bantamweight Darren Uyenoyama defeated Norifumi Yamamoto unanimous decision (30–27, 30–26, 30–27) Welterweight DaMarques Johnson defeated Clay Harvison KO (punches) 1 1:34 Featherweight Ricardo Lamas defeated Cub Swanson Submission (arm triangle choke) 2 2:16 Featherweight Dustin Poirier defeated Pablo Garza submission (D'Arce choke) 2 1:32 Some weight Benson Henderson defeated Clay Guida unanimous decision (30–27, 30–27, 29–28) Some weight Max von Maximilliam defeated Joe Snuffitelli KO (boot to the head) 1 :30 Event without notes Preliminary (Facebook) Weight Class Method Round Time Notes Some weight Max von Maximilliam defeated Joe Snuffitelli KO (boot to the head) 1 :30 Another weight 'Ard Enuff defeated Go Fasta Red KO (Ork elbow) 2 2:49 Lots of weight Clumsy Bob defeated Graceful Kelly TKO (Slipped, caught Kelly on the way down) 1 1:05

And here's the actual wiki code to produce those results

Using all templates (w/ tweaks) Event with notes {{MMAevent}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent card|Main event}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Heavyweight|[[Junior dos Santos]]|defeated|[[Cain Velasquez]](c)|KO (punches)|1|1:04|For the [[List of UFC Champions#Heavyweight Championship|Heavyweight Championship]]}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent card|Preliminary (Facebook)|header=no}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Light Heavyweight|[[Aaron Rosa]]|defeated|Matt Lucas|Majority decision (28-28, 30-26, 30-26)|||Lucas was deducted one point in the second round for repeatedly dropping his mouthpiece.}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Welterweight|[[Mike Pierce]]|defeated|Paul Bradley|Split decision (29–28, 28–29, 30-27)|||}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Bantamweight|[[Alex Caceres]]|defeated|[[Cole Escovedo]]|Unanimous decision (30–27, 30–27, 30–27)|||}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Featherweight|[[Mackens Semerzier]]|vs|[[Robbie Peralta]]|no contest|||Bout ruled no contest by [[California State Athletic Commission|CSAC]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Robert Peralta's UFC on FOX 1 victory over Mackens Semerzier officially ruled a no contest.|url=http://www.mmamania.com/2011/12/13/2633644/robert-peraltas-ufc-on-fox-1-victory-over-mackens-semerzier|publisher=MMA Mania|accessdate=December 13, 2011}}</ref> Originally, Peralta defeated Semerzier via TKO (accidental headbutt and punches) at 1:54 of round 3. }} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Bantamweight|[[Darren Uyenoyama]]|defeated|[[Norifumi Yamamoto]]|unanimous decision (30–27, 30–26, 30–27)|||}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Welterweight|[[DaMarques Johnson]]|defeated|[[Clay Harvison]]|KO (punches)|1|align=center|1:34|This bout aired last on the international broadcast following the Velasquez vs. dos Santos fight.}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Featherweight |[[Ricardo Lamas]]|defeated|[[Cub Swanson]]|Submission (arm triangle choke)|2|2:16|}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Featherweight|[[Dustin Poirier]]|defeated|[[Pablo Garza (fighter)|Pablo Garza]]|submission (D'Arce choke)|2|1:32|}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Some weight|[[Benson Henderson]]|defeated|[[Clay Guida]]|unanimous decision (30–27, 30–27, 29–28)|||}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Some weight|Max von Maximilliam|defeated|[[Joe Snuffitelli]]|KO (boot to the head)|1|:30|}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent end}} Event without notes {{MMAevent}} {{MMAevent card|Preliminary (Facebook)}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Some weight|Max von Maximilliam|defeated|[[Joe Snuffitelli]]|KO (boot to the head)|1|:30|}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Another weight|'Ard Enuff|defeated|Go Fasta Red|KO (Ork elbow)|2|2:49|}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent bout|Lots of weight|Clumsy Bob|defeated|Graceful Kelly|TKO (Slipped, caught Kelly on the way down)|1|1:05|}} {{User:Ravensfire/MMAevent end|notes=no}}

Comments on new templates

What do you all think? Ravensfire (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Main Event should come first. Also, you could use "def." instead of "defeated". Evenfiel (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I pulled everything from an existing UFC on Fox article and went with what they had. I switched the card order around as that was easy. Didn't worry about the def vs defeated as that's just text. I'm hoping to get some feedback on the templates - do they look easy to use, seem self-explanatory, etc. I haven't done any docs on the two new templates but will if it's decided to adopt them. Ravensfire (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Should the 'defeated' column be centered? Other than that the bout template looks easy to me. I'll look more this weekend at how much of the heavy lifting MMABot can take care of. It'll still be about a month before it can operate in article space, but it might help still. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Good thought. I tweaked the bout template yesterday to center the outcome column so now the outcome, round and time columns are centered, the rest are left-aligned. Something I noticed comparing this to the format adopted (see Suggested improvement 2 section above) is the header only appears once under the first card while with what I've got it's showing for each card. I think that's an easy tweak by adding a parameter to the event template to hide the header if it's passed. By changing it that way we won't affect any existing uses of the template but it's still easy to hide the header. I'm going to start working on the docs for all three templates. If there aren't any major objections in the next couple of days I'll move the bout template to Template space and tweak the card template. And then it's on to changing articles to use the templates! Ravensfire (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, to throw this out there for feedback. The bout template right now doesn't used named parameters. I can switch it over to use named parameters if folks think that would be easier. Personally, I don't think it's needed here but wanted to ask. Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully last layout tweak to the template. I created a modified version of the card template that accepts a new parameter, header. If you set this to no - {{MMAevent card|Preliminary event|header=no}} the header row (Weight class, method, etc) is skipped. For multi-card events this gives us only the single header row. Example table and example wikicode both updated, note that all changes done to versions in my userspace. Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This question doesn't affect the templates themselves, but how we mark them up when we edit articles. In the example above the 'MMAevent bout' templates include all information on a single line. Is this going to be the preferable way of adding these templates? The alternative would be to have each parameter on a separate line like we do for the individual fighter history tables. This might seem to be an incredibly minor issue, but it could be important for MMABot to understand and work properly. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

To the template, it shouldn't matter either way how you enter the template. Based on my expectations of people, I'd expect that both will be used. If it's easier for the bot to have one parameter per line, I can put that in the doc and hope most people follow through with it.Ravensfire (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

This is probably me being very anal, but here goes. I think the 'MMAevent end' template is adding an extra new line (though I can see it now). I didn't notice it in the examples above, but I did in MMABot's sandbox. There is an extra blank line between the end of the results notes and the next section. Does it bother anyone else? Again, it could be me being very anal, particularly in ensuring MMABot outputs things correctly. If it isn't an issue to anyone else, then just ignore me. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's there. If you look at my test page for the templates you can see a fair amount of space after each result section. I'm not sure where in the end template that's coming from, but it's something I want to make go away. Ravensfire (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I fixed that extra blank line coming from the end template. Blew away everything but the template code so I need to put the documentation stuff back in without adding that extra spacing but the template is working right. Ravensfire (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Giving my 1/50th of a Dollar here. I tend to like templates that are significantly complicated to have their parameters on single lines. Yes it means more newlines in the wikitext, but it means that if someone changes a single value in the middle of the template, it doesn't bring up the entire line where the template was and someone has to scan the entire line to detect the difference. Hasteur (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think there are two things to clear up on the new templates. First, does anyone have any objections to having the docs and project help pages recommend putting the each parameter for the bout template on their own line with the parameters for the other templates put on the same line?

Second, the current templates are set to a font-size of 85% which matches the proposed format that was agreed. Should we stay at that size or raise it to 100% as I've seen done in a few places? Remember that's set in the template so we can also start with 85% and change it later with minimal difficulty. Ravensfire (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

First question - go with one parameter per line as the recommended approach. It shouldn't hurt the template result either way. I will update the section above shortly.

Second question - start with 85% (current template) and change later if needed. Ravensfire (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

85% looks much more elegant. Evenfiel (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think having the bout parameters on separate lines would be preferable to human editors. It'll be more inline with the fight history tables on an individual fighter's article. And MMABot doesn't care one way or another (as long as I tell it which way to look for). As for font sizes, the only issue I can see (and was mentioned by others including Willdawg) is that the font can be a bit small and hard to read at 85%. Thankfully, browsers can increase text size with a mouse scroll-wheel so I'm personally not concerned about it. Might be interesting to see what the differences are with incremental increases in font size. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Any news on this? I think the MMA bot could start replacing the templates. Evenfiel (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on MMABot. I got distracted by other projects in the last couple of weeks. I'm close to having it done though. The tasks I need to complete shouldn't be difficult to accomplish. I then need to get the new tasks approved by the WP:BAG which usually takes a week or two without any issues. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Individual fighter history tables

There is a problem regarding the new format and the use of notes that don't appear in the footnotes. The lack of lines make such notes look horrible (at least to me). Here is an example:

Title fights in 2012
Weight Class	Winner		Loser	Method	Round	Time	Event	Notes
Featherweight	José Aldo (c)	def.	Chad Mendes	KO (knee & punches)	1	4:59	UFC 142	Extended the record for most consecutive UFC Featherweight Championship title defenses (3).
Middleweight	Anderson Silva (c)	def.	Chael Sonnen	TKO (Knee to chest & punches)	2	1:55	UFC 148	Extended the record for most consecutive UFC Championship title defenses (10).
Welterweight	Georges St-Pierre (c)	def.	Carlos Condit (ic)	Unanimous decision (49–46, 50–45, 50–45)	5	5:00	UFC 154	Extended the record for most consecutive UFC Welterweight Championship title defenses (7). Fight of the Night.

Everything becomes much better with the use of footnotes. Here is an example:

Title fights in 2012
Weight Class	Winner		Loser	Method	Round	Time	Event	Notes
Featherweight	José Aldo (c)	def.	Chad Mendes	KO (knee & punches)	1	4:59	UFC 142
Middleweight	Anderson Silva (c)	def.	Chael Sonnen	TKO (Knee to chest & punches)	2	1:55	UFC 148
Welterweight	Georges St-Pierre (c)	def.	Carlos Condit (ic)	Unanimous decision (49–46, 50–45, 50–45)	5	5:00	UFC 154

While this might work in events, what about the individual fighter history tables? Some fighters have too many notes. Should we add lines in individual fighter history tables? Evenfiel (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to hijack this section or anything (I like footnotes and text notes equally), but is a blank column with "def." really necessary, between a Winner and Loser column? In my humble opinion, no. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought the discussion was about event article result tables, not individual fighter history tables. I'm extremely leery of changing individual fighter's tables for the time being since they are in decent shape at the moment, IMO (besides it breaking MMABot). --TreyGeek (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok. No problem then. Evenfiel (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Omnibus discussion

There has been some talk about splitting the UFC year omnibus articles. I had a few ideas i was working on for omnibus articles that i put in a mock up of 2011... User:Kevlar/2011 in UFC the "Event Chronology" get's all of the event result tables in one place and is very dense, i think it's fairly good the way it is. i really don't like what i've done with the "champions" section, i know there's an idea in there somewhere but what i have isn't it. i do really like what other people have been doing with the "Title Fights" sections. lastly i put in a list of people who's first fight in the ufc was that year. Kevlar (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I liked parts of what you'd put together and what Evenfiel had done but I thought both had too much repeated information for an article like this. I was thinking of something that was a really broad overview of the entire year, lots of links to specific articles but not too many details in the article. My idea was to avoid retyping too much information but make it easy for editors to find information. I threw together a really quick outline (please ignore the details!) of what I was thinking at User:Ravensfire/2011 in UFC. I tried to keep the table look and feel the same as the event results. Obviously it's just a sketch - lots missing but I think enough details to give you an idea of what I'm thinking. Ravensfire (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I like Kevlar's idea in the "debutes" section. As for the "Champions" section, it looks a bit awkward, though I like the idea. What about some sort of infobox that would appear right next to the "Title fights" results? My problem with your mock up is that it'll become a huge article.

About Ravensfire's mock up. It looks like it'll basically copy and paste the information found here. I don't think that would be too useful for users looking for information about the UFC in that year.

Again, here is my take on the omnibus User:Evenfiel/sandbox. I'm including the results and the infobox because that's what most people are after when they want information about an UFC event. It'll be easy for them to use the article. If they are interested in more, they can click on the link to the main article. Evenfiel (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the way Evenfiel's mockup is built a bit better than Kevlar's. The results table seems like the key bit of information people would look for; the trivia-type stuff can be viewed at the standalone article, if one exists. If not, then the rest of the info can be put in the omnibus. I do like the idea of a debut section, but I think we should only have blue-linked names. If the fighter doesn't have an article yet, we can hold of dropping them into the list until they meet the notability standards of having their own article. Ishdarian 13:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now we have these versions:

• Kww: Grouping all bouts into a big table does not make sense. Repeating the event name in every row goes against normalization, is bad for small screen devices, and looks generally strange to me. Other than that it's the same as the current format.
• User:Evenfiel/sandbox: Same as now but with fight cards/results for all events. Evenfiel's design seems to assume that all events will be on separate articles. IMHO, unnecessary duplication of information - it's harder to maintain and goes against normalization.
• User:Ravensfire/2011 in UFC: Sections for each type of event (UFC on Fox, ...). This doesn't make sense outside the US where events are broadcast differently anyway. UFC's naming of events isn't entirely consistent. UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald is mostly refered to as UFC London now. How an event was broadcast is irrelevant to grouping on an encyclopedia.
• User:Kevlar/2011_in_UFC: Event chronology at top with fight card/results for each event. Champion list and timeline. Debutes. Also group by event type. IMHO aggregated data is nice but too much of it everywhere doesn't help. I'm not sure the champion timeline helps, because we all know that it's the number of bouts that count, not time in between.

All in all, I don't think any of these versions bring any substantial improvement over the current pages. osklil talk 18:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC) (edited again to fix format, 18:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC))

You're incorrect about my proposal. My version does not has all the trivia / event history that can be found in the current version, only the results and infoboxes. The trivia / history section would go to the standalone article. I don't see any problem with maintaining this format, since once the event is done, the results and infoboxes won't need to be updated again. Evenfiel (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

List of current UFC fighters

• Some of you know me, some of you don't. Either way, I just wanted to say that I am pulling out of my work on this article. In fact, I've just finished moving the whole thing to a new home, that actually associates me with my work, and isn't open to random vandalism. When I began this article 2 1/2 years ago, I knew that wikipedia was not a proper home, but it provided the highest visibility for information I felt people would generally want to know. They article has molded well, and become a good resource, but it changes too rapidly for an environment like wikipedia. Anyway, I'm leaving a notice here in case other editors want to pick up where I left off. Thanks for the time and the trouble, I will still be involved in other articles (at least for the short term) but I can't afford the time for this.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's too bad. Where will you host your work? Evenfiel (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2013/1/29/3928296/ufc-roster-current-list-fighters/in/3714599 very nice, thanks so much for all the hard work you put in, good to see your efforts are being used in another great way! Kevlar (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)