Jump to content

Talk:UFC Fight Night: Woodley vs. Edwards

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oppose - we need to be able to look back in future years and see what events/fights were lost because of the virus

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of the merger discussion was majority oppose, so rough consensus was reached and UFC on ESPN+: Smith vs. Teixeira won't be merged into this article. Albeit the sources in both of the articles need to be ensured to refer the correct events. Ticelon (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge UFC on ESPN+: Smith vs. Teixeira into UFC Fight Night: Woodley vs. Edwards. These articles both refer to UFC on ESPN+ 29 and UFC Fight Night 171. Fbdave (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - UFC 249 was the first time the promotion did not jump a number in an event. Mostly due to the fact that they "postponed" it, though the first event was cancelled just like the other Fight Nights. I see the user that questioned it on the article never updated mma articles before, so he should check previous UFC cancelled events and he'll see what I mean. I say we go by UFN 175 as it has always been. This article and the other one are completely different events. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add that since UFC on ESPN+: Smith vs. Teixeira will be broadcast by ESPN+ (therefore a standard Fight Night event), we should redirect the UFC Fight Night 175 page to it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fbdave: @216.121.234.62: This basically same way they did with the merge of UFC 249 and UFC 249 (Formerly UFC 250). There are reliable sources supporting the merge with no questions asked! Regice2020 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also see no reliable sources supporting that this event was canceled. In fact, Dana White has been adamant that this event was postponed. Fbdave (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fbdave: Yup, its exact same case with the UFC 249 - UFC250 merge. I believe this going one sided despite obvious facts. Whats next? Regice2020 (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Regice2020: I put a note on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts for more input. Fbdave (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fbdave: Since this going be a one-sided failed merge despite the facts. Most event information would be incorrect!Regice2020 (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, the user who closes the request looks at the references. Fbdave (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned below by @Johntp122s:, these are different events. Makes no sense to merge them as they are not numbered events like PPVs (the number we add is just something created to order the events, but the UFC never called them by numbers). When it comes to postpone, it's related to the UFC hosting and event in that location. The UFC 249 was different because they indeed called the new date as the same name previously used. If you guys are creating issue with that, something more logical would be to remove the (also known as UFC Fight Night 171 and UFC on ESPN+ 29) part of the article and leave it as it is. But this is not the same situation as the UFC 249 merge situation. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Other outlets are only reporting what they think the number is because the UFC names every single event that's non PPV a Fight Night and they never number any of them themselves, even the ones that aired on ESPN and Fox. They're just guessing same as us, but Wikipedia's method is more logical. When a card gets cancelled, we leave it alone and jump the number. When a card is postponed like UFC 249, the date eventually moves but the number stays the same. Fight Nights 171 - 174 were all cancelled, and we should leave them alone just like we've always done. Johntp122s (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - For those who oppose pls note the the numbering background and Wikipedia policy here: besides UFC PPV event the numbering is set by UFC (such as UFC 200), the rest of the numbering come from the medias. The reason is that without knowing who are the headliners for the event, the medias need to set up a systematic numbering identify the event (can't use city name as same cities have held UFC event and dates are hard to remember), for such the named UFC Fight Night XXX or UFC on ESPN xxx or UFC on ESPN+ XXX UFC on FOX xxx. When we create an article we need to support the content with sources and if the sources state UFC Fight Night 166 then we state UFC Fight Night 166 and use UFC Fight Night 166 as the article title until the headliners are confirmed close to the event date then we moved the page to the headliners event name and UFC Fight Night 166 or any other names (also known as XXX) will be redirect to the official headliners name. This is important as an unsourced or source doest not support the content article could not meet the notability guidelines for venerability / WP:PROVEIT is the core policies of Wikipedia and without it we cant even create the articles. In short WP:PROVEIT / verifiability triumphs all reasons for it is the core policy. Without the supporting sources no Wikipedia article exists.
UFC Fight Night 171 and UFC on ESPN+ 29 redirect to [[[UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira]] and UFC Fight Night: Woodley vs. Edwards merge to [[[UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira]] same as UFC 249 irregardless if the date and venue has change or the headlines has change as it is normal practice for events to have such incidents in the past and we just add in the text stating why the event info was changed just like UFC 249. This is different from the past cancelled events ( all of them are UFC PPV event except one UFC Fight Night: Lamas vs. Penn / UFC Fight Night 97), all the numbering retired) and event numbering were not use by media for later events. However, the this and the rest of the UFN/UFC on ESPN the media do reuse the numbering for future events for we cant have 2 events using the same UFN numbering for the are the same event just with more changes due to covid-19. For such the current numbering system stays. As for the merging suggestion of COVID-19 effected page that will be merged to the designated planned event numbering by the media. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support merging articles because they are not the same event. If Regice2020's quest works, the redirect articles could be merged indeed. But those events that were cancelled should then be moved to titles like Cancelled UFC event on April 25, 2020 so they can be left as they were originally. It's not the same thing as UFC 249. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsfelipe94: Why you spamming "If Regice2020's quest works". This not even my merge request. This @Fbdave: merge request. I understand you like favoring unsourced content to take it in your own hand. The fact present that that same event was changed and postponed that that. This special is not same as older cancelled events. It only way to fix this issue is to heavily depend on reliable fact. Regice2020 (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just based on the way you approach things since that UFC 249 merge discussion. I don't favor unsourced content, I just followed what many people already did here before. Just pay attention to what I'm saying in new discussions. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was verified that the event was not cancelled and not same as older event that was cancelled. This was affected by a special case (The COVID-19 Pandemic issue). If this request would pass such misinformation then it would be addressed and if not, per WP:RELIABILITY If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.Regice2020 (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UFC has already used the term "postponed" for events that were canceled before (see UFC 233). By postone, they refer to the location hosting an event in the future, not the date. They never said "Hey, were postponing whatever you call UFN XXX and then we'll announce the new date and location for it". They then cancelled events (using that term this time) that were happening after the "postponed" ones. If you want to consider that "UFN 171" was postponed as a matter of naming, then ok. It could be added to "also known" in the following event. But an event in England that features Woodley/Edwards main event was not postponed for a future date or location. That is pretty clear. (Just like the new events with same main events, as they simply chose the same bouts for newly booked cards). Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gsfelipe94 and Regice2020: We are all MMA editors here so pls focus on the matter in hand instead of stating some personal comment of the editors which is not helpful. We solved the issue here as we agreed on (1) redirect UFNXXX/UFC on ESPN+ to the actual "happened event" which is great. On the merging issue (2) All opinions are welcome but it has to based on Wikipedia guidelines after all this is Wikipedia. We cant have same "sourced" on two different event names. This event (this page/title name) did not happened (it was planned) so no such event existed actually. As normal practice/and I have stated, it should be all included (info) in one page in regardless the date/venue/headliners changed as it is the norm in mma events. UFC President Dana White and UFC said many things, not all were happened as was as per what was mentioned. In regardless anyone/editor opinions or favour/not favour "unsourced content", verifiability and WP:PROVEIT is the core Wikipedia policy (WP:LOP) and not only guidlines and that is not negotiable here, for without following it that means is no Wikipedia and no Wikipedia means no articles. If anyone want to change the Wikipedia policy then go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and state your case. Do note this is Wikipedia here and Wikipedia ALL about verifiablility and is not about Wikipedia:But it's true!. And if all covid-19 events pointed to the same source that there should all be merged which I believe we have 4/5 pages/event effected as the as per date.
Note to closing admin/editor on the sourced content. Cassiopeia(talk) 02:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an event was cancelled, it doesn't mean it did not exist or should not be noticed on an article of their own. Sources are clear when it comes to events that were cancelled and events that happened, they do not merge because somebody decided to use the same number for a FN event or something similar. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Makes no sense. These are two different events (and one of them got cancelled). They would be two different events even if the main event was the same. As for numbering, UFN Woodley vs. Edwards was UFN 171 until it got cancelled. It's now a cancelled event with no number and 171 goes to the following UFN (which is UFN Smith vs. Teixeira). That's how the media is doing it so let's stop all this non-sense. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Just because the media reuses the unofficial numbering for a UFC event in the event of a change, doesn't mean that they treat the previously-numbered event as the same subject as the newly-numbered event. Although merges do typically entail redirects, they are not the same thing. Redirects deal with the practicalities of navigation, merges deal with content, and the Wikipedia policies and purposes for them differ. A name alone does not denote identity. For all the emphasis on sourcing and verifiability, to treat two subjects as the same simply because the same name was used for both violates the principle of WP:PROVEIT, which states: "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." No sources have been shown covering news about the May 13 event together with that of the planned March 21 event, referring to or otherwise treating them as the same subject. Presenting them as the same subject based on having been referred to by the same unofficial name at different times is a synthetic claim, "drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position", a form of original research which is "prohibited by the NOR policy" per the verifiability policy which has been repeatedly cited in thread. Dancter (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dancter and Psycho-Krillin: All of us know that bouts/ headliner/date and venues changes is part of the mma event and the final event will be the one headliner the event which the event is finished. Dancter, all sources on the event name point to the same things and not only one and two sources. It is just like UFC 249, we dont keep event that is changed and not happening when it is replace by other. Verifiability is everything in Wikipedia and not opinions or UFC or views that not based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassiopeia: If there was a point in your reply, I'm afraid I missed it. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UFC 249 was the only time that the UFC did cancelled and then postponed an event, making it happen in the future as it was. Clearly the other events were cancelled and the UFC moved on. As mentioned, a cancelled event is not the same one just because part of the media uses the same number for a event that is now expected to take place. Some people in favor say that this is about opinions, yet we see nothing (except for UFC 249) that says that a cancelled event became one of the new ones. We could say something about May 16 that was a Fight Night on ESPN + and became an ESPN event (but guess what, that's on the article's page because that situation fits the "same event" thing). It's pretty obvious. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)have[reply]
Multiple sources been referenced in this discussion linking the "from" article to UFC Fight Night 171. Additionally, no one has challenged that UFC Fight Night: Woodley vs. Edwards is UFC Fight Night 171. Fbdave (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The very practice of disambiguation on Wikipedia puts lie to the notion that a name alone is sufficient to establish identity. MMA math doesn't work. Original research, even if based on synthesis of verifiable claims is still original research, and a violation of core Wikipedia content policy. No source has yet been provided explicitly expressing that the subject referred to in this article, UFC Fight Night: Woodley vs. Edwards, is the same subject referred to in what is now UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira. Dancter (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cassiopeia: Just to make sure we are understanding each others points, I will address each of your points individually as I've identified them, and to demonstrate that we are both discussing in good faith, I expect you do the same for me.
  1. "All of us know that bouts/ headliner/date and venues changes is part of the mma event" — Practically any and all aspects of an event are subject to change. Even the event date—typically the most stable aspect by which to fix the identity of an event—is subject to change. The current circumstances bear that out. If this is what you meant, then I find no dispute with that.
  2. "and the final event will be the one headliner the event which the event is finished." — Having a headline bout as the final bout of an event is commonly the case, particularly for UFC events, but not a given for MMA events. Bellator events often have a postliminary card which follows after the main event. PFL does not really structure its events around singular headline matches by which to close the events out, and does not name its events around such matchups. If your actual point is that UFC Fight Night events are ultimately named according to the headline bout, then I find no dispute with that.
  3. "Dancter, all sources on the event name point to the same things and not only one and two sources." — This claim probably needs some clarification, and definitely requires some actual evidence. What do you mean by "same things"? Do these "same things" establish that the May 16 event and the planned March 21 event are the same subject? If so, please cite specific excerpts from a reliable source that supports your claim here, while refraining from engaging in original research by synthesizing material from multiple sources. For example, this source for UFC 249 establishing that the May 9 event and the planned April 18 event are the same subject states, "After being postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic on the event's original date of April 18, the UFC managed to relocate the event to the VyStar Veterans Memorial Arena in Jacksonville, Fla., for May 9. The previous main event is still intact as Tony Ferguson and Justin Gaethje will battle for the interim lightweight championship" and "UFC 249 was originally schedule[d] to take place April 18 in Brooklyn, then was moved to the Tachi Palace Resort Casino on Lemoore, Calif., before White was finally able to secure a new date and venue in Jacksonville."
  4. "It is just like UFC 249, we dont keep event that is changed and not happening when it is replace by other." — I haven't scrutinized the discourse around these articles too closely (e.g. reviewing revision histories), but it seems that while the most of the active participants in establishing the UFC 249 consensus have chimed in here, there are quite a few opposing voices here that did not actively participate in the consensus around UFC 249. To me that seems to indicate that many editors saw no objection to the course of the discussion in that case, whereas in this case they do. This seems to go against your claim that these cases are similar. Again, if they are indeed similar, you could provide multiple examples for the May 16 event and the planned March 21 event similar to the one I provided for UFC 249.
  5. " Verifiability is everything in Wikipedia and not opinions or UFC or views that not based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies." If that is the case, instead of sloganeering about it, then you can make your case by demonstrating verifiability with concrete examples, quoting direct excerpts from reliable sources in this thread.
Note to closing admin/editor on the sourced content: as of this posting, none of the external references mentioned in the article or talk pages of either UFC Fight Night: Woodley vs. Edwards or UFC on ESPN+: Smith vs. Teixeira explicitly establish that the May 16 event and the planned March 21 event are regarded as the same subject. Dancter (talk)
  • Comment - Should we close this discussion already? It's been very well discussed and there's no official request for an admin, so we could agree that consesus was reached here. Thoughts? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UFC_Fight_Night:_Woodley_vs._Edwards&oldid=1200479671"